City Council - Regular Meeting

2026, a regular meeting at 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 to the republic and which it

Madam Clerk, you call the roll, please?

Council member Friedman?

Here.

Council member Santa Maria, not yet present. Council member Gutierrez?

Present.

Mayor Pretemsen? Here. Council member Harmon? Here. Council member Jordan?

Here.

And mayor Russ?

Here. All right. Very good. You have some, ceremonial items to read.

Item one, water safety month, and then after that we'll have number two, employee recognition service award pins.

It's water safety month, May. Whereas water is central to the identity, culture, and quality of life in the city of Santa Barbara, where pools, beaches, and coastline provide year round opportunities for recreation, fitness, education, and community connection. And whereas the city of Santa Barbara aquatic section operates Los Banos Del Mar pool, neighborhood pools, and a professional beach lifeguard service offering swim instruction, water safety education, junior lifeguard programs, and emergency response that protects residents and visitors. Whereas drowning remains a leading cause of accidental death for children nationwide, and education, swim instruction, lifeguard training, and vigilant supervision significantly reduced preventable incidents. And whereas Santa Barbara's junior lifeguard program saves nearly, 1,100 youth each year promoting ocean awareness, fitness, leadership, and life saving skills that build a generation of safety minded young leaders.

And whereas parks and recreation programs including swim lessons, lifeguard courses, and outreach events, ensure equitable access to life saving skills for residents of all ages and abilities. And whereas the city's lifeguards, instructors, and aquatic professionals uphold the highest standards of safety, risk management, and industry best practices, safeguarding millions of aquatic visits annually. And whereas the National Water Safety Month highlights the shared responsibility of families, agencies, and community partners to promote swim proficiency, active supervision, life jacket use, and awareness of pool and ocean hazards. Now therefore, I, Randy Rouse, by virtue of the authority vested me in as mayor of the city Of Santa Barbara, do hereby proclaim May as National Water Safety Month in the city of Santa Barbara, and urge all residents to recognize the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources. Gentlemen?

Thank you. Thank you. Can you vote? Thank

you, mayor Rouse and council members. My name is Tony Schull. I'm the aquatic supervisor for the city. This is Todd Folstrom. He is the aquatics coordinator for the city, and together we ran the beaches and the pools and the junior guard programs and learn to swim programs for the city and a whole plethora of other things that have to do with the aquatics.

And so on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department Aquatic Section, thank you for declaring May as water safety month in the city of Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara has a strong and storied aquatics community. Our beaches, pools, and coastlines are a defining part of life here, and water plays an important role in protecting and strengthening that connection for residents and visitors alike. This proclamation highlights something bigger than any one program or department. It reinforces that water safety matters to this community.

Whether through swim lessons, public education, recreation or professional life saving services, creating a culture of water safety takes us all working together. We're grateful for the continued support of City Council and proud to play a role in helping ensure that the city of Santa Barbara's aquatic community continues to thrive thrive now and in the future. Thank you again. Thank you

very much. And, madam administrator, I believe this next, item is yours.

Yes.

Did you

want to read that in, madam clerk?

She did. Okay. Yep. Thank you, mayor and council. I am, honored to recognize city employees for, years of service this month.

We don't have anyone with us today, so I'll just go ahead and read all of them, and then we'll give them a big round applause at the end of the list. So we'll start with five years of service. We have Kira Esparza, who's an administrative assistant in the Community Development Department, and Edgar Ramirez, a senior engineering technician in the Public Works Department. With ten years of service, Sandra Vos, senior library technician with the Library Department. Fifteen years of service, Carson Woolert, principal engineer in the Public Works Department, and Madeline Wood, administrative analyst two in the Department of Water Resources.

Celebrating twenty years of service, Johnny Salas, parking coordinator in the city administrator's office, and Justin Berman, also a parking coordinator in the city administrator's office. And lastly, for twenty years of service, Elizabeth Liz Stotts, administrative analyst two in community development. With twenty five years of service, Christina Ortega, police officer. And last but certainly not least, thirty five years of service, Analisa Hood's police services coordinator in the police department. I give all of those in place a round of applause.

Thank you very much. Okay. Are there any changes to the agenda?

Yes, mayor. We have one change, and that is to remove consent calendar items four, which is the master agreement with Santa Barbara MTVD for transportation management and transit services. We had some changes to the agreement we need to make, and so we'd like to move that to May 12.

All right. Thank you. And with that Alright, very good. With that, we'll move the consent calendar. Madam clerk, you have some items to read.

Not today, mister Sorry? No ordinances or resolutions today, so nothing to read into there.

Alright. That was the ordinance. I mean, you're talking about item three?

We can move on. I don't need to read any ordinance or resolution titles because there are none today.

Okay. Mr. Attorney?

No. Ms. City Clerk, Ms. Corman said exactly that. So even with item three there, there's nothing else to read. There's no other items to read on the agenda today.

All right. Very good. Well, with that, are there any items that anyone wishes to pull for discussion or separate vote? Seeing that, we've removed item four from consideration on this particular consent calendar, so I'll entertain a motion on the balance of the consent calendar.

So moved.

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

Yes. This is a motion by Council Member Harmon, seconded by Council Member Gutierrez for consent items three and then five through seven. Please go ahead and vote.

Okay. Pass unanimously. Thank you very much. And with that, we'll get a report from the finance committee. Mister chair.

Thank you, mister mayor. Today, the finance committee heard the initial presentation of the budgets for all the departments, in particular general fund, but also with the various departments. We went through all of them at a higher level. It was just discussion only and that will be coming to the general fund will be coming to the full council next Tuesday. And just some minor feedback from from us some on some of the topics that came up, but nothing that we voted on.

Alright. Thank you very much. And there are no pool concerns. So with that, we'll move to general public comment. Three minutes at the dais, for anything that is not on today's agenda that falls within the purview of this body. And we'll start with Mark Redman.

Hello, your honor. Happy Mother's Day this Sunday to all you mothers who have given the life and breath of all of us. If it wasn't for mothers, we would not be existing. Okay. And my friend, Riley Yost, I've known him for twenty five years in the Kansas City Ski Club, says, you're running for mayor. I said, well, I don't know about that. I might just run for council member. But he composed this, and it's three minutes long. It's kinda to, the same thing as Aerosmith. It's got a rock and roll beat to it. Tells how I love the city. Santa Barbara's my slice of heaven. Sing it, Riley. Are you guys catching this? I don't think the mic's on.

Here. It's on. You're gonna love this. He's one of my best singers. He's been in five of my podcast. Plays the guitar, iconic at the band.

And honorable mayor, I just I think I just wanna take a time to remind everyone that we've been getting a lot of this, where we ask the speakers to focus on matters in

front of I am focusing on the matters. I care about this city. I want it to be the jewel of Southern California. Let Riley sing this song. I only got two minutes left, right? Well, where's the timer? Sorry. I didn't put the timer

in The front of

the council has a very busy workload as you know. Just if you can speak if

you can

speak It's a to really good song. It talks about Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara, the jewel of Southern California. And all the concerns I have with fixing this city. I'm serious. Okay. I'm not going to be mayor now. I'm going to throw my weight to Eric Friedman, but because my ESP tells me he's going to be the next mayor. Randy bowed out, now we got Eric, and I am running for District 6, Megan's district. And how come okay. Do you wanna hear the song or not?

I think, we'd rather not.

We'll just go ahead and Okay.

Make sure we got it, and

It's really good. Hits all the points. When he tells about the teachers leaving for Carpenteria because they're getting 10,000 more a month, I mean a year there on their contracts. We need better teachers. We're losing our teachers. Quality of education is going downhill. So well then, I'll just finish with another minute and sixteen seconds. So come on. I really care about this city deeply. And this is Cinco de Mayo, if you don't know.

And it's, McKenzie Lake told us that there was no chance of rain today, but it's sprinkling now. So mother nature, thank you very much. And I am the lifeguard still. I do a podcast to get kids off of drugs and excessive alcohol. And they all know me, and they, 500 of them said they would vote for me, so at least I got 500, and they all live in my district. City College. Okay? I'm not being a smart aleck, I'm just telling you the truth. The truth sometimes hurts, and sometimes it's good. I want to fix the potholes in this city.

I want the drug runners run out of the back alleys. When I found that drug runner in the back alley of San Andreas when I was coming from the dentist, Doctor. Winn, you know, Eric Winn, I said, thanks for the implant, but there's a drug runner out here, and I yelled, hey, are you selling cocaine? He had white bags in his truck. He got in his truck and left. And my brother Paul says in Kansas City, you keep doing that, you're going to get shot, Mark. I said, don't care. I don't want any more kids dying of fentanyl. It's stuffed in heroin. It's in dirty cocaine. They shoot cocaine, and it's also in mollies. And ecstasy is not ecstasy, it's death. Okay.

Thank you. Steven Delera?

Good afternoon, mayor and members of the city council. I'm Steve Delera, the program director at Communify Over Family and Youth Services, which also contains the South Coast Youth Safety Partnership. And so it's different times. We see different members of the City Council. And so back in 2007, we had a young man killed in front of Saks 5th Avenue. His middle name was Angel, so we just referred to him as as our angel. And 2008, we came together, the three cities in the county, to form something. And the next year, we formed the South Coast Task Force on Gangs, and we started to work that as much as we could. News talk said that we're too good for our own good at one time. So we did a name change.

We called it the South Coast Youth Safety Partnership in 2016. And it was to redirect our energy not just in gangs, but on youth safety overall, which really came to light in the pandemic in terms of youth safety and the needs of our of our community. Part of the South Coast Youth Safety Partnership, what we focus on is prevention and well-being, public safety intervention, services and basic needs, youth empowerment, and community and family engagement. There's a lot going on in the world right now. And so when we meet with the different community based organizations, we talk about whatever they want to talk about.

We do work with the Department of Social Services. We work with Santa Barbara Unified School District. We work with Galita School District. We work with city council members here, city council members in Galita, city council members in Carpinteria. And we're willing to take anybody that wants to come to the group and have a conversation with us to have a conversation to make sure that the welfare, safety, and well-being of all children and families are being met. And then you'll hear from Mike, the program manager in just a minute. Thank you.

Thank you. Michael Hernandez?

Good afternoon, mayor, council members. My name is Michael Hernandez. I am here representing the South Coast Youth Safety Partnership. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you guys today about, our next upcoming event, as well as our framework that we're trying to roll out. It is positive youth development or PYD, the important the importance of continued collaboration throughout South County.

At its core, PYD is shifting how we think about youth instead of focusing on the risk and challenges. It focuses on the strengths, opportunities, and relationships. It's about ensuring that every young people feel safe, valued, connected, and supported. We know that when youth have those protective factors in place they are far more likely to succeed in school, avoid involvement in the justice system, and become leaders in their community. Through the South Coast Youth Safety Partnership, we are bringing together schools, community based organizations, law enforcement, probation, public health, and youth themselves to align our efforts and build a coordinated system to support.

Just this October we convened partners across South County for a collaborative event focused on positive youth development. During this convening we had over 20 agencies make a clear commitment to strengthen how they engage with youth and how to work more intensely together rather than in silos. Since that event, we have been developing tools to measure, impact, and create more consistent approaches on how youth are supported across systems. We are also creating more opportunities for young people to have a voice and help guide this work. We are continuing to build this momentum through efforts like our upcoming youth summit.

The South Coast Youth Safety Partnership has selected 20 students from South County to be trained as facilitators in collaboration with the Santa Barbara Unified School District through a series of interactive training. Students are developing skills for public speaking, active listening, conflict resolution, and group facilitation. This initiative has drawn interest from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which plans to follow-up after the summit to engage directly with the youth facilitators for broader efforts. When we invest in PYD and collaborate through the partnership, we are choosing prevention over reaction.

We're investing in the youth. And lastly, I want to personally invite you guys to our youth summit, May 20 from four to six here at the Santa Barbara Faulkner Gallery to have the youth lead these conversations. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next speaker is MJ.

Mary Jane.

I'd like to thank everybody that's in this room, because we're all here, because we want to make things better, even though they're good. I want to thank whoever was responsible for, having the shuttles that are going on Thursday, Fridays, and Saturdays, up and down State Street. Both the tourists and the locals are using it, and I see that it's bringing community together. So, thank you all who participated in that. I would like to encourage, if this is all possible, to maybe have one run, you know, every other hour or something, all the way to the sorry, I have aphasia where the boats are?

The marina.

The marina, because there's it's a beautiful area, but people who have trouble walking, the elders, the disabled, the little kids who are being dragged by the parents, they don't get to go to that. And they have a beautiful museum where Mario has a wealth of knowledge that he'd like to share. So if you guys could maybe think about doing that. I also want to thank the person and people that are responsible for the state sidewalks being cleaned. And I've noticed that they've expanded out, which is great because the first day I met them was like, woah, you guys are doing a great job.

But over here, over there? And they're like, we're only allowed to do this street. And lately, I've seen them going out. So, thank you so much, because the place is looking better. I would like to encourage, though, for the cigarettes to be like, let the tourists know that this is a smoke free city.

And if you are the local, maybe give a warning, because I will tell you one cigarette can pollute so such a distance. And there are people here, like myself, who've moved here because it was smoke free, because we have health issues, especially since COVID. It's a great way to make money for the city. So, leave the cars, let them park a little longer, let's tax people, because that's something that, like, it affects other people's health, you know, their well-being. So, and then the last one, can we possibly move this meeting on a Wednesday or a Thursday?

You guys come in to work a little later and leave, because unless you're getting paid to come here, most people are at work at this time, and they don't get to participate. And I know that you I hear that you can do it on the computer, but you're not allowed to be on the computer or on the phone, you know, taking care of business when you're at work, because that's not what you're getting paid for. So, if there's any way we could maybe have you guys start later in the day, so you can stay a little longer, that'd be awesome. And I just want to say thank you once again. Merry happy Mother's Day, and Cinco de Mayo. That's it.

Alright. Thank you. We don't Clap, please, afterwards. Madam Clerk, are there any speakers online for general public comment?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. We have one raised hand. Aaron Ashland, please go ahead.

City council members. I'm speaking today because I'm confused concerned about the direction our homeless response downtown, especially regarding the Faro Center. Before Faro opened, I attended a food and beverage meeting where Barbara Anderson and Rich Sander explained why a daytime homeless navigation center downtown was so important. One key point I remember was that many people experienced homelessness do not travel far. For some, even in a few blocks is a real barrier, especially if they are carrying belongings or dealing with mental health, substance use, or mobility challenges.

That made sense. We were told that if we want to reduce the impact of homelessness downtown, we need to meet people where they are. That was the reason the downtown location mattered. But Faro has gone from serving roughly 70 people a day as a drop in center to around 20 people a day by appointment. That means 40 to 50 fewer people each day are getting help. But the city appears to be spending roughly the same amount of money. Those people did not disappear. They are still downtown, still in need, and it still feels like we are seeing more people sleeping and living downtown again. I'm also concerned about how success is being measured. It seems like the city is focused heavily on how many people have been ultimately been housed.

Housing people is obviously important, and I'm glad whenever someone moves inside, but I do not think that is the only metric that matters for downtown. My understanding is that it can take months, sometimes years for someone experiencing homelessness to begin trusting service providers. So if FARO has a similar number of people in the first six months as it has in the last six months, that does not prove the reduced service model is working. It may simply mean people closest to housing are still being helped, while harder to reach people are being left outside. And those harder to reach individuals are often the ones having the greatest daily impact on downtown businesses, visitors, cleanliness, public bathrooms, sidewalks, parks, and the overall feeling of safety and vibrancy.

So I asked council to dig in with the staff. What are the what are we actually trying to measure? If the goal is to house people who are already ready for housing, maybe the current model makes But if the goal is also to reduce the daily impacts of homelessness downtown, then the more important metrics are how many people we are engaging, how many are coming inside, how many are using bathrooms and services instead of sidewalks and storefronts, and how many are are building trust with providers over time. I'm also concerned that Kaseek is being treated like it will replace FARO. Kaseek may be important, but it serves a different purpose.

It does not replace a walk in daytime navigation center in the heart of downtown. If someone is living around State Street and can only realistically move a few blocks with their possessions, how are they expected to make it nine or 10 blocks to Kasik? And even if they do, will they stay there during the day if their survival resources, contacts, and income are still centered around State Street? Kaseq was already open when FARO was operating as a drop in center. If Kaseq solved the same problem, FARO's number should have been close to zero.

They were not. FARO was serving dozens of people every day. That tells us there was a real need. Please do not conclude that the fire was unnecessary just because it became complicated to operate. If there were safety, management, or neighborhood issues, then the city, operator, law enforcement, outreach teams, and surrounding stakeholders should fix those issues together. The answer should not be quietly reduced

to That's risk time.

40 to 50 people a day. A downtown walk in navigation center was presented as necessary to help

people with homelessness. That's time. Thank you. Very good. Any further speakers online?

No, Mr.

Okay. Very good. With that, we'll move on and close the public comment and move on to the next item, item eight.

And item eight is inclusionary housing and in lieu fee study.

Okay. I've got the entire department here,

it looks like.

Alright. Very good.

All right. She had submitted a card, but wanted to do for general public comment and item eight. Can she talk to general

Oh, okay. Norm do you want to do general public comment? Normally, we'd put in two different speaker slips. That's Okay. Would you rather do general or Okay. Please come forward. We'll go ahead and do that, please. Three minutes, Madam Clerk.

Getting better.

Just, give us a minute there, staff, if you would.

Can I get some time on here? Thank you. Hey. Hi. I'm Phaesia Dean. I'm really happy for this opportunity to be here in Santa Barbara. I come from Riverside, and I traveled here about three years ago. My goal was to get into the law school, but so far I've been having some challenges here. So I want to say a happy Cinco de Mayo today. Okay, so the reason I'm saying it because it was a Louisiana victory for my ancestors, my family, You know, and so it has to do with them blocking the Confederate, the French, from establishing their military.

And so it helped us to get the abolished the the slavery that was gonna be imposed here in California. So I wanna say happy single smile for the victory for the Louisiana people. And here today, I want to also talk about, you know, I visit the court, and I go into the law library, and I wish that the, I know it's a county building, but I wish the city could make some funds out of the funds that they're distributing to people, like to the carts. But, we need some funds in there. I believe we need some more books.

Personally, I wish that we can have a public law library outside of the building, and that would be a good help. And I'm willing to help with that. Again, the improper funds, I need to check out books. I'd like for them to have a website where people can have access to the court. The website would be something that would have access to Westlaw for jeopardizing.

A person doesn't have to come into the law library, they can just access the website, and go into LexisNexis and Westlaw, and I believe there's a financial issue. So I am asking the city if they could fund some type of improper fund for the court for the city support. And I wish for a public library, a more extensive subject. 52. But the other thing is very short.

I wish, you know, I'm out here, and my father was a French chef from Louisiana. He worked under Paul Proudhomme. He was trained under a Cajun chef. And I walked down the street and I see Cajun Kitchen and the palace, and I'm almost insulted, you know. But, you know, I wish that the city would allow a business opportunity from people who are qualified, who actually have the skills to make it.

I want to be someone that teaches the community not just how to cook food, or serve food, but how to be successful business person, and how to make it. You know, but this city is very tough for me, as an American descendant of slavery. So I'm asking you to please pay attention to the American descendants of slavery, myself, and give me an opportunity to open a business, and help others. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. With that, minute, clerk or item A, we'll go right ahead, please.

Good afternoon, mayor and city council members. My name is Dana Falk. I'm a long range project planner. With me, I have Aaron Barker, an principal at BAE Urban Economics, and we're here to present the inclusionary housing and in lieu fee study. The recommendation for today on this item is to receive this presentation and then to provide direction to staff to draft amendments to the city's existing inclusionary housing ordinances.

I'm going to start with some background before we dive into the study itself, and lead into guidance. To start, what is inclusionary housing? It's a zoning standard that requires a certain amount of units within affordable or I'm sorry, within a market rate residential development project to be deed restricted as affordable units. We're talking about it specifically because of housing element program H E 13, which is part of our twenty twenty three, two thousand thirty one housing element that directs us to evaluate the inclusionary housing ordinance and then draft any appropriate amendments. We do have existing inclusionary housing ordinances within our current zoning ordinances, both for ownership, which was adopted back in 2004, as well as for rental, which was adopted in 2019.

I'm very briefly going to go over the requirements of these programs. Ownership requires 15% of the total units in a project to be restricted for sale to middle income, or upper middle income households. These inclusionary units are allowed above the density of that site, and these requirements apply to projects of two or more units anywhere in the city. A project can satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements, either by providing on-site inclusionary units, or by paying an in lieu fee, and the option allowed to a project does depend on the total project size. Rental, again adopted much later in 2019, requires that 10% of total units be restricted for moderate income households.

These are 80 to 120 of the area median income, AMI. These inclusionary units for rental are counted within the density allowed on a site, and only apply to projects of five or more units that are using the average unit size density incentive program, AUD program. If you're not using AUD for a rental project, inclusionary does not apply. And similar to ownership, projects can satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements, either by providing on-site units, or by paying an in lieu fee. Again, what you can do is based on the total project size itself.

Looking at what these inclusionary housing ordinances have created or their results, Ownership has created 21 deed restricted units, again, that's for the middle and upper middle income household categories, and collected $930,000 in in lieu fees. Rental has created 13 deed restricted units for moderate income households, and collected almost 400,000 in in lieu fees, since they've been created again by those different years. That's the end of my background, so I'm going to jump right into the study. I'd mentioned the housing element was guiding why we're talking about this today, but the study had more than just the housing element guiding it. We were looking to identify discrepancies, and align the two separate ownership and rental projects into single inclusionary housing program for the city.

That meant we evaluated the existing requirements, including the in lieu fees that are charged, and what possible current or what possible future in lieu fees could be. We looked at some of the administration difficulties that arise under our current two separate programs, and we looked at communicating some alternatives to our existing program as we move forward with the study. With that, I will hand it over to Mr. Brecker.

Great. Thank you, Dana. So, thanks, council members, having me. My name is Aaron Barker with BAE. So, we set out to do this analysis, our financial feasibility followed a pretty standard sequence, which we'll describe here. So, the first step was creating residential development pro formas and prototypes. So, these are prototypes that are basically representative of existing multi unit development in the city of Santa Barbara. And they're really intended to kind of cast a wide net, represent a span, a range of project sizes. So small sizes, larger sizes, as well as ownership types. So we're covering rental and ownership that are consistent with your recent projects that you've had developed in your pipeline.

The second step involved the preparation of static pro formas. So the static pro form a models represent a form of financial feasibility analysis that developers often use as kind of an initial test of viability when exploring a development concept. And the third step that we use is just the sensitivity analysis in the financial feasibility itself. So, this includes testing different affordability percentages, different depths of affordability, different fee rates, and other factors. And we're also acknowledging that there are other paths that developers may choose such as state density bonus.

So, we also run financial feasibility of those models as well. Next slide. So, the key question we're really trying to answer here is do your existing requirements under the existing program, are they financially feasible? And if not, what improvements could be made to enhance participation under the existing program? And so, what we're doing is recalling back to the earlier slide, we're using static pro form a models, and they're structured to calculate what we're calling the residual land value.

The definition for the residual land value is basically after accounting for project costs and revenues, how much can that project afford to pay for the underlying land? Will note here that ROV is not the only metric one can use to assess financial feasibility. You can also use return on cost and yield on cost, which we also sort of had in our back pocket as well, but the feasibility findings really don't change appreciably depending on what metrics we use. So, in terms of the sort of the key findings, what we found is that for prototypes one through five, and so those are called what are our baseline prototypes that avail themselves of, you know, the existing development standards. None of those were financially feasible under current market conditions.

They're, you know, they face a lot of headwinds, high construction cost, increasing cost of debt, and equally as important, sort of the increasing appeal of state density bonus projects would offer a little bit more flexibility with respect to development standards and income requirements. So we're also noting here that condominium products are a little bit at a disadvantage because they can't utilize the same AUD priority densities and they require a sort of a higher return threshold based on their increased liability. Next slide. When it comes to setting an MUFE rate, we're balancing a lot of factors here. We're looking at financial feasibility.

We're looking at, you know, the extent to which the council or, you know, the city may want to prioritize the provision of on-site units, the extent to which you may want to prioritize the the sort of accumulation of of fee revenue. But we are sort of guided by a couple of different factors. The first thing I'd say is that we're bookended by what we're calling our our maximum nexus based fee. So we know here that the in lieu fee can't exceed the legal maximum, and that is what's shown on the far right here. For rental, that was calculated to be approximately $91.41 per net square foot.

And for ownership prototypes, approximately $70.53 per net square foot. Another kind of metric one can use is the fee equivalent. That is the second from the left there. The fee equivalent is basically the in lieu fee rate that would have the same feasibility as the cost of the developer to construct an on-site inclusionary unit. So if the city wants to prioritize the provision of on-site units, the in lieu fee should really, exceed the fee equivalent.

Conversely, if the city wants to prioritize revenue, the fee should be set at or near the or below, I should say, the fee equivalent. So, what we're doing here is we're kind of recommending a a a fee that kind of splits the difference and really sort of complies with all the different parameters that we're forced to look at. I'll turn it back to Dana.

Based on all of this analysis that was conducted, the study is recommending 10 different recommendations. We've grouped them into these three categories. We have program related recommendations. We have policy related recommendations, and we have administration related recommendations. The program related recommendations are the first five that we'll talk about.

They're looking to update the existing program requirements, such as the in lieu fee rates, the citywide applicability of the programs, and to recalibrate some of those requirements, but not structurally change the program. The policy related recommendations, of which there are two, were focused on encouraging the development of housing, and providing some flexibility in how a project can satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements by bringing forward two options to change how in lieu fees are paid or allowed to be paid on projects. And then, the final grouping of recommendations, the final three, are administration related, and these were really geared towards simplifying the administration of the program, and making it a little bit more predictable for somebody who's not familiar with it to approach it and use it. I'll kick us off by talking about recommendation A. This is the first one, and it is a program related recommendation.

I will note, we did take this item to the Planning Commission on April 16. So, for each recommendation that we're going to talk about today, their slides are set up as such. We have what the study is recommending on the left, and then we have Planning Commission's either support or support with revision. They did support all 10 of the recommendations. They did want to revise five of them.

So, as we go through these today, we'll touch upon what the study recommends, which staff supports, and then what Planning Commission recommends as well. So, recommendation A is looking to apply the rental inclusionary housing requirements to all projects. I noted earlier that rental requirements are for five or more units for projects utilizing the AUD program. The study recommends applying the inclusionary for rental to five plus unit projects, even if they're not using the AED program. So, that would mean projects inland, under non AED, as well as any projects in the coastal zone.

When we took this to Planning Commission, they were supportive of this recommendation, but did suggest a revision, and wanted to expand the rental to apply to all two or more unit projects that would align the minimum unit quantity for rental and ownership to be the same. Both two or more, and again, would apply these regulations citywide.

Thanks, Dana. So, moving on to recommendation B, we, in the study, suggested maintaining the existing requirements. So, specifically, for projects with 10 or more units, this maintains the existing requirement that 15% of units in ownership projects be dedicated towards middle income households. And in rental projects, that 10% of units be dedicated for moderate income households. So, I'll note that we did consider a higher percentage requirement.

So, for example, 15% of units set aside for moderate income households. But going back to the slide earlier, where we looked at financial feasibility, this would significantly decrease financial ability and sort of increase the likelihood that an applicant might opt instead to avail themselves of incentives and bonuses associated with state density bonus law.

And I will note Planning Commission, six of them supported this recommendation as it was proposed in the study.

Okay. The next recommendation, recommendation C, this pertains to the in lieu fee rate for rental projects. So we do recommend increasing the in lieu fee rate from the existing $25 a square foot to $50 a square foot to be paid on fractional units. So this would really have a pretty minor feasibility impact on the prototypes that we studied. Prototype four, for example, there would be no impact because the project did not have a fractional fee obligation.

And for prototype five, we saw a pretty minimal decrease in RLV from $82 to $80 per square foot. And so, I'll turn it back over to Dana.

Planning Commission also supported revising the in lieu fee rate for rental projects. They supported the maximum legally defensible value of $91.41 per square foot, and that's from the residential nexus analysis in the appendix of the study.

Thanks. Moving on to recommendation D, this involves setting the in lieu fee rate for ownership projects. So, we, in the spirit of kind of aligning the program requirements and reducing administrative burden, we're recommending that setting the in lieu fee rate at $50 per square foot, similar to the fee rate for rental projects. And this would be paid the applicant would have the ability to pay this on fractional units. This actually had an increase in financial feasibility for our rental prototype two, if they were able to have the option of paying the in lieu fee on the fractional unit.

And similar to the previous recommendation, Planning Commission did support the in lieu fee rate presented in the study, changing it, but did want the highest legally defensible maximum of 72.53.

So, recommendation E, we're moving now from large projects, which are defined as projects with 10 or more units, to small projects. And so, what we're sort of acknowledging here is that small projects face financial feasibility challenges when compared to larger projects. They have reduced economies of scale, for example. And so we really wanted to make a distinction between the fee rate that we were proposing for large and small projects. So in this case, we recommended setting the in lieu fee rate for both ownership and rental projects at $35 per square foot.

Supported by planning commission, again, with a higher fee rate than the study proposed, planning commission was unanimously supportive of $50 per square foot for these small rental and ownership projects.

Thanks. Now, for recommendation F, these are sort of recommendations that are intended to enhance financial feasibility of the existing program in part, and really make it a little bit more of an attractive alternative when compared to state density bonus. So, one of the recommendations here is to treat rental inclusionary units as bonus units similar to how you treat your ownership inclusionary units. And so, we recommend allowing rental inclusionary units, you know, above allowed density, similar to the ownership program. This recommendation, has fairly dramatic impacts on improving financial feasibility.

So, harkening back to that slide where we were showing that we were challenged, our recommendation F is really going to go quite a bit of ways to, evening the playing field a bit.

And Planning Commission was supportive of this recommendation.

Okay. Now, Paul, recommendation G, these are options to, expand the opportunity for applicants to, pay in lieu fees for their inclusionary requirements. So, there's kind of a two pronged approach here. For option G1, we recommended considering allowing in lieu fee payments for all fractional inclusionary requirements. So, not just fraction and fractions, for example, that were from, you know, 0.1 to 0.4, but allowing applicants to pay an in lieu fee on any fraction, irrespective of what the fraction happened to be.

For option G two, we just sort of another sort of prong here was expanding the option to pay the unlufey payment to all inclusionary requirements, irrespective of whether it was an on-site unit and whether it was an ownership or a rental project.

When we took this to Planning Commission, they were supportive of allowing the option for an applicant to fully pay the in lieu fee to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement, meaning not requiring any on-site units. This would not remove the ability for an applicant to provide on-site units to satisfy their requirements, but it would not direct them to provide them, but give them the option or pay the fee. The study was suggesting that this would apply to the larger projects. It's not available to them at present. And it was suggesting a higher in lieu fee rate than the previous study recommended values, dollars 72 a square foot.

And there is also a kind of a wrinkle that could be allowed on this one. It could be utilized and focused on the central business district, for example, to allow more flexibility for housing development downtown to be able to have the option to pay the fee that maybe isn't allowed elsewhere in the city, if you so direct. This was universally supported by Planning Commission. They did support allowing this with the highest legally defensible maximum in lieu fee rates of 91 for rental, and 72 for ownership. And the reason they stated for their support was the flexibility that the applicant could choose which method best suited their project, and gave them the ability to provide, you know, one on-site unit and pay for the remaining three, if that's what the numbers work out to be, rather than having to provide all four on-site.

Okay. Moving on to recommendation H. So, relates to ownership projects, specifically. The existing sort of method for calculating the in lieu fee for an ownership project is extremely complicated. We recommend simplifying that and using the same methodology for ownership projects as is currently used for rental projects.

And this was supported by Planning Commission.

Okay. Recommendation I is implementing an automatic in lieu fee rate adjustment. So, the in lieu fee rate of $25 a square foot for rental projects was last updated in 2019. So I think that just kind of underscores the fact that it is it's really difficult to, update these things, with regularity if you don't have a system in place where you can kind of set it on automatic pilot and and, you know, not think about it six years go by and you haven't caught up with inflation. Think we were the study was pretty agnostic about what index to use.

We, in the study, suggested using the CPI U, which is a readily available free metric that is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And this would be something that would be done once per year.

Planning Commission was supportive of adjusting for inflation, but they did ask staff to evaluate alternative indexes for that inflation rate, which are listed here on the slide. The CPI U value is from the study of $31.72, inflating that $20.19 $25 up to current day pricing. We also looked at the construction, California construction cost index, which is the second here, CCCI. That is publicly available and published by the California Department of General Services. And then, the final kind of cost index that Planning Commission asked us to look into was the engineering news record.

This is a subscription based in lieu fee or not in lieu fee, I'm sorry, inflation value that does require a subscription. It's behind a paywall to access, but we do have access to it through our public works team. And again, same calculation would result in a 32.96 in lieu fee rate. So, we're here today to bring forward which one we should use.

Great. Thank you. And our last recommendation here, Recommendation J, is adjusting the target area median income for moderate income rents. So, this would, in essence, align the calculation that you use currently with what is used by the state and other jurisdictions, and so this would basically be using a 100110% AMI, instead of a 100% AMI.

And Planning Commission supported this recommendation.

Okay. So, this slide here basically describes the impact, feasibility wise, of the revisions that were recommended by Planning Commission. What you'll see here is that not all recommendations necessarily are attributable to an increase or decrease in financial feasibility. So, we're only including those recommendations here that directly impact feasibility. And you can see which prototypes they apply to on those far right columns.

So that first recommendation C, the PC recommended in lieu fee rate for rental projects of $91.41 per square foot. That would sort of reduce the financial feasibility of recommendation five compared to what the study recommended. Similarly, the planning commission recommended option D of $72.53 for ownership would also impact financial feasibility negatively on prototype two when compared to the study recommendations. And finally, the recommended in lieu fee rate of $50 a square foot for small projects instead of the $35 rate would have negative impacts on both prototypes one and three.

And then just the last two slides here. So we've

got Okay. Cumulative feasibility impacts. This is basically what the cumulative feasibility impact would be by adopting the study recommendations for prototype five. And just as a reminder to everybody, prototype five provides four units and pays a fractional fee. So, the existing program, we were challenged at financial feasibility at $82 a square foot.

That middle row there, when we are folding in recommendations F, which is counting rental inclusionary units as bonus density, as well as recommendation J, which is adjusting the target AMI, you can see that we have a pretty dramatic increase in financial feasibility from 82 to 116. If we were to dial that back a bit, or sort of dial it up again, I should say, moving the recommended fee from 50 to 91, you can see that we would have a slight impact on financial feasibility from 01/2016 to 01/2013, I do want to call out that this is only due to the fact that that fee is paid on a fraction and not for the whole project. So the fee impact is pretty minimal in this case. And then for the cumulative feasibility impact for prototype three, the existing program, as we know, small projects are financially feasibility challenged. We wanted to acknowledge this and, at the very least, have a different fee for our small projects of $35 which resulted in a minor reduction in financial feasibility.

If we were to dial that up to 50% or $50 per square foot per the PC recommended fee, we would decrease financial feasibility even further down to $28 a square foot.

And I just want to kind of talk to how the study recommendations were created. Staff, with the help of our consultant, we were really trying to balance some competing interests as we brought forward what the study would recommend. We were looking to our general plan, and the goals and policies that it encompasses, as well as our regional housing needs allocation numbers, how to meet those, but also looking to the creation of inclusionary units, and generating in lieu fee payments for the Local Housing Trust Fund. So, balancing those two with the residential development done by market rate developers. That's why some of our recommendations maybe don't suggest the fully legally defensible maximum that we could charge for something, because we were trying to keep in mind the creation of housing done by market rate.

How do we continue to support some of the other policies in our general plan and calibrating these recommendations with all of those things in mind? With that, I do want to say our next steps on this is after receiving your directions, staff will begin drafting ordinance amendments with the goal to bring those back to Planning Commission. By the end of the year, they would then go on to ordinance committee and city council before they were adopted. And I'm going to end on a recommendation. That is our presentation, and we are here for your direction on what those ordinance amendments should be. I will note staff has a few ideas on maybe how to structure the motion when we get through questions and public comment, if we need any guidance at that time.

And we did actually change our format slightly. We're going to entertain public comment before we go back to counsel for questions and deliberations. One point of clarification though, you mentioned John Balki on one dissenting vote. Does that say that the rest of the votes were unanimous?

Correct. Thank you, mayor. That is what that means. Six of the seven planning commissioners were supportive of that. He was the only dissenting vote. And I will note that's the only recommendation that wasn't a unanimous support.

Actually, I was wondering about that. Is there anyone here from planning commission that's here to represent to speak? Don't see any of the commissioners.

Looks like maybe not.

With that, we will go to the public comments that I've got. Mark?

Oh, sorry.

Clarissa Montenegro.

Good afternoon, Mayor Rouse and council members. My name is Clarissa Montenegro and I am speaking on behalf of the housing authority of the city of Santa Barbara. We did submit a letter for today's items. I will keep my comments brief. First, we want to be very clear.

The housing authority is in full agreement with the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendations. For that one, we believe those recommendations strike the right balance and move the city forward in strengthening its inclusionary housing program. We are here today simply to highlight two additional items that we believe are important to ensuring this policy is as effective as possible over the long term. First, we recommend that all in lieu fees be permanently dedicated to the local housing trust fund. Given how difficult it is to establish and maintain reliable local funding sources for affordable housing, and given that this is identified as a priority in the housing element, we believe these funds should be permanently dedicated to local housing trust fund to ensure they are used for their intended purpose.

Second, we recommend that in lieu fees be collected at the time of building permit issuance. This is a straightforward but important implementation step. Collecting fees at permit issuance ensures that funds are available sooner, which allows the city to more quickly translate those resources into actual affordable housing production. Both of these recommendations are about ensuring that this policy doesn't just look good on paper, but actually delivers results. As our letter notes, Santa Barbara's housing challenges are structural, long term, and severe. With the loss of the redevelopment funds and ongoing fiscal constraints, this policy is one of the city's most important tools to generate affordable housing resources. So the goal here is simple, ensure this tool is set up to work as effectively as possible. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Next speaker is Brian Cornell.

Thank you so much for entertaining questions I mean, comments first. I really, really appreciate it. Brian Cornell, architect and also a board member of SDSB

We know what you're talking about.

And so I am concerned about downtown primarily. You know, we've got a goal of 1,000 or 2,000 units to make the State Street master plan work, and we're not even close. Over the last five years, less than 300 units have been created by private development. And unfortunately, most of those were done prior to the inclusionary. So we've ended up with 13 inclusionary units out of that period, and that's unfortunate.

And I think the reality is we've had a lot of projects that have not been built because of the 10% inclusionary. It's critical that we have affordable housing, but it's more critical that we acknowledge how supply is going to affect the cost of rent in this city. If we do not meet our supply needs, we're not gonna ever get control of our housing costs. So I people can argue about supply and demand, but the reality is that there's proof in the pudding. You look at Austin or Dallas, not that we want to live there, but the reality is their housing costs are going down because they have ultimately dealt with their need for housing.

So I'm here really to argue first we need robust strategies for building housing downtown in large part to create the vital downtown that I know all of you want. So, would like to see that the in lieu fee that is being considered be allowed to apply to all inclusionary units in the downtown, just, I mean, just as we did with the adaptive reuse. I think that's going to spur more housing development downtown, and I think at the end of the day, the supply is going to make a difference. I'm a little baffled, I have to say, when I first read the report where it said not feasible, not feasible, not feasible, I don't understand how then we concluded that we still would impose the restriction. So the key, I can tell you, we do a lot of housing.

Of the almost 500 units that have been built downtown, we've done almost 300. And and almost a third of those, or a little over a third of those, have been housing authority projects. So I'm very proud of the housing authority and the work they're doing, and they're meeting a critical demand. So I'm all for giving the funds to the Housing Trust Fund to make it happen, and I want to see the inclusionary be the option that developers can consider so they aren't burdened by the having to rent these units over a long period of time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are the speakers online, madam clerk?

Yes, mister mayor. We have one raised hand, Rich Applebaum. Richard Applebaum, please go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Rouse, city council members. Once again, I'm speaking on behalf of Clergy and Lady United for Economic Justice. I'll be brief since some more detailed, you might say excessive, rationale for our recommendations are contained in the lengthy letter we submitted, which is part of your packet.

City is once again on its way to falling far short of meeting the screen requirements. It is so far permitted only 38 very low income units, roughly 2% of its Rina goal, and only 93 low income units, roughly 7%. The city has an obligation to collect the highest annual fees it can legally do, which can then be significantly leveraged through the local housing trust fund if it has any hope of making a dent in these numbers. I would also point out that BA's residential nexus analysis, appendix D in their study, shows that for every 100 new rental units, 22 additional affordable homes are needed. Market housing has its own housing multiplier effects.

California's mitigation fee actives the city clear legal authority to charge fees proportionate documented impacts. We therefore support the housing authority and the planning commission's unanimous recommendations. $91 a square foot for larger projects that fully fee out and $73 a square foot for larger projects that combine in lieu fees and on-site affordable units, $50 square foot for the smaller projects. We also support the housing authority's additional recommendations that in lieu fees be permanently allocated to the local housing trust fund to more effectively leverage additional funding and that the in lieu fees be collected at the time of permit issuance to better assure that they're readily available. Thank you for your time.

All right, very much. Thank you very good. Go ahead. Next speaker please.

Next speaker is John Campanella. John Campanella, please go ahead. Campanella:

Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to be clear on a couple of issues, guess. I appreciate the presentation and your alternatives being looked at. Attachment three in the package that you have shows that we're not really on a consistent basis producing multifamily market rental projects, especially over the last couple of years.

These projects supply affordable units in addition to residences that can be used by a large percentage of our households. So I think how do we increase the amount of those projects going to permit over the next couple of years because we're about halfway through our cycle and we need to encourage more of these projects moving forward. The inclusionary moderate units were determined not to be feasible and there's some, I think good ways that they're trying to increase that. But what I might suggest is how do we get closer to the benefits of state density bonus, which by example, for 15% very low produced would get 50% more units in order to make it feasible. Is there a way to look at the inclusionary?

What percentage bonus density besides just one to one would really encourage the production of those units? Is it 15%? Is it 20%? Is it 30%? Something less than 50, but I think maybe we should also look at how do we increase that option of building the units.

Thirdly, yes, fee out is great. It's going to get fees to the housing authority for their projects. I agree. And just to make sure, I think the amount of fees that are being charged, we have to recall there is no bonus density or other ways that could offset those. So we have to be cautious that the fees in total, which amounts to several $100,000 are not precluding the actual building of the project.

But in concept, yes, let's come up with an amount that everybody can live with. The hope here is that maybe there's three ways to get these projects built. One would be with state density bonus. Two would be with an adjusted inclusionary build out, tied similarly to more bonus density similar to the state density bonus. And the third way would be through fees.

If there are three different alternatives to provide the sounds like it gives more opportunity to actually get the projects built. So I suggest that we try to make all three feasible. Perhaps also be a can meet again with the developers as we're trying to finalize this program similarly to what they did before the project actually got started. And just confirm that all three of these options can be devised to make sense more market rate projects on the ground. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers online?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. One more. Buildston Architecture and Planning. Buildston Architecture, please go ahead.

Hello. This is Ellen Bildstone. I'm happy to make some comments today regarding the inclusionary proposals being made. As a local architect working with property owners on mostly small scale multifamily housing projects, feasibility is already a challenge, as the BAE study pointed out. As an advocate involved with AIA advocacy, Coastal Housing Coalition, and the DSBIA, I think that I'm very concerned and sort of picking up on things that Brian Curnell and John Campanella said in their comments about adding more challenges to getting any housing projects moving forward.

As BAE established, we are already in a feasibility crunch with projects, and we're only seemingly making it more difficult for projects to move forward with the newly proposed ideas of what the in lieu fee should be and perhaps increasing the percentage of inclusionary units that projects would trigger. When we look at our RENA numbers,

we

already we're not meeting our RENA goals by far as it currently stands. I think it's interesting that very low and low units are roughly equal to the above moderate units that we're supposed to be creating. So, I'd like to propose something that's maybe a bit of out of the box thinking. I'm thinking that perhaps we could incentivize public private partnerships on these multifamily projects in such a way that we partner private developers and property owners with nonprofit developers like the Housing Authority or Habitat for Humanity to do kind of two part projects where we develop the amount of inclusionary housing that we need, working with the nonprofit developers, and then the above moderates with the private developers, playing to the strengths of each of these groups and recognizing the economic incentives that they each have access to for funding their portion of any of these sorts of projects. So if there's any way we can figure out how that kind of a partnership could work, I think we might actually develop roughly as many affordable and inclusionary units as we do the market rate, which is more in line with what RINA is looking for us to do than what we're currently producing.

10%, 15% still doesn't get us where we need to be on the affordability front. And if we crank those numbers up much higher, we're completely de incentivizing any of these projects to move forward and getting no housing at all. So with that, I would thank you for your time.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, any further speakers online?

No, Mr. Mayor.

Okay. With that, we'll come back to counsel. And once I'd say we get in a round of questions, we'll come back for a round of deliberations thereafter. Mr. Jordan.

Thank you, mister mayor. Just a couple, I think. You flew right by that residual land value again, just like in our briefing. So could somebody just give me a working man's, definition of that again?

Yes.

Okay. So this is the metric that we used to establish whether a project was financially feasible. It's not the only metric one can use. You can use return on cost, for example. This sort of metric provided some continuity with the FAR study that we did in 2021 and was kind of a metric that most applicants that we spoke to were pretty familiar with.

But, yeah, basically, we're solving for the cost of how much an applicant can afford to pay for land after accounting for total development costs, including hard, soft, and assumed profit. So that is essentially what we're solving for there. The thresholds depend on the underlying zoning. So we're acknowledging the fact that because you can build more on an AUD priority parcel, that threshold is set at about $150 per square foot. And for parcels that are allowing for densities that don't quite achieve those, like medium high and high, that threshold is set at $125 a square foot.

And so isn't that like a snapshot up until including you start occupying? It's like to get through purchase the land and purchase construction, right?

Correct. We're it we're running static pro form a, so we're not doing cash flow So

yeah. Help me with this. So if that's true, and you have the choice of either fees or management of units for the lifetime of everybody involved, where does that come when do you account for either one of those affecting that number?

So, we are we're not necessarily, accounting for the are you talking about sort of the administrative requirements associated with a covenanted unit?

Yeah, if you kept the inclusionary unit, if you built your inclusionary units and you had a covenant for whatever the number of years is and and the lower rent and the man and more importantly, I think for Yeah. The management of those. Or you elected to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees. How do either one of those burdens get picked up in your number that ends up at the RLV?

So, in terms of the, the kind of the administrative burden portion, they don't. And so, that is one of the reasons that we're very clear in the study talking about kind of this fee equivalent number, which is basically, you know, the hard coded fee where an applicant would be sort of indifferent to providing the unit or paying the fee. Because of the administrative burden, I think that if you wanted to sort of prioritize the units, you would want to set that fee a little bit higher because that burden is quite intense. I will say that when we spoke with developers, nearly everybody said that if given the choice, they would much rather pay the fee. I will say that the fee at that time was $25 a square foot, and it wasn't $91.43 a square foot.

So I think that that conversation would be quite different if we were to have that now.

But then does the fee option become part of your, the explanation you just gave for the components of the RLV? Is that one of the soft or hard cost?

Yes, yes, it is. Okay. It is. So, it's a tangible.

Correct. You can pick that up then.

Correct.

But the untangible that you can't pick up is the poor guy who elects to actually build the units, and then what those continue to keep giving like a Christmas present every Yes.

Correct.

Okay. Alright. That makes more sense. And then, I had some trouble last week in my briefing with CPI. So, I don't know what I'm talking about.

I'll just use that caveat. But I'm pretty sure that CPI just covers stuff that I go out and buy. Milk, gas, groceries, whatever. And why would, why would you use that number and then a a math function on top of it to get to something that is pretty specific to either construction labor or construction materials. Couldn't you just say, couldn't you just back back, look back over history too and say, instead of CPI, it's the wholesale cost of milk, and put a different multiplier on top of milk, use milk a, as a, a, as a, as a trigger.

I mean, so I just, I don't understand why CPI. And, and so my follow-up question would be, when you tell me why, would be why wouldn't it be something, one of the choices that's even remotely connected to construction CPI? So, one of the middle choices there. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Good We, question. Thanks for asking. I think we're pretty agnostic. Like, there is no one benchmark that is going to accurately and perfectly capture the increase in hard costs and labor costs associated with the city of Santa Barbara specifically.

So we're really trying to, you know, give it our closest approximation with something that is, you know, free, easily accessible, doesn't require a subscription. A lot of cities that we've worked with sort of default to CPI, acknowledging that it's not perfect. But I do think if you want to be, you know, more accurately reflecting those components that do go into the cost of construction, you would be well advised to use the CCCI, which we determined is currently not is available for free.

Okay. And when you've seen these done before, would you agree that this is a way of framing this? That if you have a program that allows in lieu fees, is not the big goal in the sky to collect a fee that is adequate to build that unit that somebody's not having to build, and to build that unit at a time that represents when you historically have to collect all those fees and actually have enough to build the unit. So, if it's x at that time, and it takes the city of Santa Barbara ten years normally to accumulate enough funds in the bucket to build a project that they can build. Would wouldn't a fee's goal be to collecting a fee that represents what that is ten years from now?

If that was, if somebody can actually put their feet, you follow what I'm saying? So wouldn't be a fee in the here and now. Like, instead of building 11, I'm only going to build 10. What's the cost of my project for one more? Because it might take me 10, it might take the city ten years to come accumulate fees from all these projects to have something. So, after the end of ten years, wouldn't we want that fee to have been collected, what it costs to build the unit in ten years' time?

I think, you know, one of the things that you can sort of explore is whether you're charging that fee, you know, at permit issuance or at certificate of occupancy. I think that, you know, CFO is going to be a little bit more kind of immediately representative of your, you know, your materials costs, etcetera. But I'll turn it over to

Yeah. Councilmember Jordan, that would be amazing. But we don't know what the cost of that unit's going to be in ten years. We can't do the resident like, nexus study that's necessary to set a fee rate. Because we have the residential nexus study, that's the highest legally defensible maximum we could charge for a project right now. I might ask if City Attorney Doymus had any thoughts that he could share about setting an in lieu fee rate on a future unknown in lieu fee.

Well, so let me help before John responds, because somebody must have historical data and disallowing for burps of what inflationary rate is for construction. Right? For generic labor, generic building materials associated with residential. It would seem that we would know that, and whatever it is. It might, it might be 5%, it might be 10% a year, I don't know. And so that doesn't give you the tool to be able to say, well x at this time is that, but over a ten year period historically, x has grown to be x times 1.5. And that would be the fee we would be setting. Does that make sense?

That sounds like an attorney question.

Thank you, Honorable Mayor, Councilmember Jordan. I hear what you're saying, and I mean, here's the premise. Premise is you need to have identifiable, clear cut fees of what you're going to assess for the public, the contractors, developers, and put in the code. Mean, that's kind

of what we're doing here.

And I guess you're suggesting, though, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that a mathematical formula in terms of being able to project and assess that. Is that correct, what You you're don't want to project. I mean, you can have a stated fee, and you can have, like, clear increases to it over a period of time, but that has to be a clear number versus a projection, because then we're just opening up a big I'd be correct

in saying, in our lifetime, the annual cost of construction year over year has not gone down, has it?

That would be probably I haven't confirmed that, but that sounds like It sounds pretty unlikely, right? Yes. Yeah.

Okay. And so, since we get you today, and we didn't get you last week, so just the structure of seeing a pathway for accumulating resources to build moderate unit, moderate units. But that choice being the fees collected would go to a housing trust fund that more than likely would be used for capital A low income or very low income units. Where, where do you see other methods in here that if a person chose to not build what is today the, the quote unquote inclusionary moderate unit and wanted to pay a fee. Where where would you see an opportunity to still build resources with those fees to attack moderate units?

And I'll just give you my take on the political, is that once it goes into the housing trust fund, it's not coming up for moderate housing. Okay? That's just probably the political part of that. And so, what other ways would you see, or what other, what, what have other cities done to protect their growth of resources, particularly for moderate units for those who elect to pay in lieu fees, instead of building a moderate unit?

So, I that's a great question. Moderate units are difficult. It's a very difficult category. Moderate units are not on the sort of the first tranche of state density bonus. So, you need to comply with that first 50% before you can start doing moderate income rental units.

And in terms of setting the fee versus, you know, sort of having the inclusionary requirement at 10%, That is very much sort of a policy decision. We are acknowledging that those moderate income units are difficult to produce, and that's why we're really trying to strike a careful balance between making sure that you're setting your sort of fee rate at something that's sort of commensurate with feasibility and that you're doing making these targeted adjustments to your program, allowing that bonus density, for example, and making some of those AMI adjustments. As we sort of showed in the presentation, those can go quite a long way.

And Councilmember Jordan, I just wanted to add something. We recently had a conversation with HCD, and it was to do with the way we account our accessory dwelling units towards RHNA, which we've been counting them all as above moderate units. But they actually encouraged us to start based on some surveys we've done and surveys that SBCAG did. We can start counting accessory dwelling units in different unit categories, very low, low and moderate. And so we're going to probably backtrack and do that and do it moving forward.

And that's maybe an opportunity, maybe citywide we have to use some of these funds to help people build these units or encourage people to build more moderate accessory dwelling units. We get about 200 or so a year. It's about half our housing production. That's another way we can start promoting more moderate income units. Okay. They would be non deed restricted though, is the other thing.

Last question, because you just touched on it already too. That little math gain we're going to make in the density on one of those choices. What else is out there that if you just didn't want to be careful that would even in that situation give more density there? Is there, is there, is there something else that could be leveraged to to to provide a greater return for somebody choosing that pathway that would you know, make more market maybe. But but but more moderate units as a result of that.

And I'm not even remembering what that pathway was, obviously. But, but I, but I know that probably the suggestion is very safe. And I'm just wondering, there other tools out there that we could even bless somebody with more market rate in those situations, if they would agree to build more moderate at that time. We remain convinced sometimes when you talk with people like Peter Lewis that the mod, the high end of the moderate zone, the 120, is very, very, very close in some cases to market rent rates. And it's just a it's just a challenge to find some little tweak that will make them realize that they can they're getting something for what they're giving.

Council Member Jordan, I think that is something that we want to explore when we look at updating our local density bonus ordinance. Right now, our ordinance doesn't allow moderate units at all, and so we think that's something that we could allow. The state changed state density bonus law to allow moderate unit if you max out your low income, but we haven't seen any of those projects come through locally, so.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mister Friedman.

Thank you, mister mayor. Let's see here. Alright. Get right to it. So one of the questions I was trying to understand is if it's not feasible now for a lot of the developments, we're not getting the production, then how is increasing the in lieu fee, how does that make it more economical?

Thanks for the question, councilmember. We are first of all, just to start with the share of inclusionary required, we're keeping we're recommending that that stay similar. Due to the fact that the fee itself at present is really only paid in situations where there's a fractional unit, upping the fee, for example, the recommended $50 per square foot fee really has a pretty minimal impact on financial feasibility for the tested prototypes. In addition, not all prototypes pay a fee due to the fact that the rounding convention has them only providing an on-site unit. So we found that, you know, if sort of you're under the existing regime where the fractional units are allowed to pay a fee, albeit slightly elevated, big picture wise, that really isn't making a huge dent in the overall feasibility.

So that's kind of would be my short answer to that.

Thank you. Because that does come up on even some of the correspondence we've got. And then on top of that, the recommendation to not count or to give the full market rate plus use the affordables if if we stayed in that or the inclusionaries. Does that help the economics as well?

Councilmember Friedman, yes.

Okay. Perfect.

Under scenario g two, and if this gets to council member Jordan's point, under scenario g two, where the option is to allow the the in lieu fees for all prop for all projects. So, 80 to 120 would just so we understand the 80 to 120 would essentially go away the requirements that it would be built.

To clarify, you mean the on-site inclusionary unit that would serve the moderate income?

Yeah, to build those. Yeah. If we allow the in lieu fee for everything so that there is no requirement to build it.

Correct. It would remove the requirement that a project build on-site units, but would not remove the allowance for a project to build on-site units. So, we would no longer say you must build these on-site units, if you're 10 or more, and have a certain requirement. I'm not going go into all the details. But it would basically say an applicant could decide, I want to provide part of my inclusionary via on-site units, and part of it via inclusionary.

Or maybe they decide, I want to fully pay an in lieu fee to satisfy and do no on-site units. Option G2, it is a policy option that we're bringing forward, because these are, these two F to allow the bonus rental as include, or sorry, bonus inclusionary as, I'm going to get these words right. Inclusionary rental as bonus density is differing from previous policy direction that we've received, and it would change the program. And then, this option G, there are two of them in there because again, it's a difference than the previous prioritization of on-site units being created. But, in light of some of the correspondence on previous council comments, specifically the adaptive reuse ordinance, and some of the discussion in public comments, we wanted to explore an option to allow an in lieu fee payment to satisfy all of those units, because it's something we heard interest from the community.

So, what would that do? What are the pros and cons? We wanted to address it and bring it forward, because again, different policy direction than previous.

Yeah, thanks for the clarification. So, if we went down that path, and the most likely, a likely outcome would be that the units in the 80 to one twenty that are currently would currently be required to get built would just they would pay an in lieu fee instead, and those wouldn't get built?

That is a potential outcome. Yes.

And then to, I think with John Campanella's point, and again, following up on the previous, if is there an option against trying to think strategically of how we could address through this program or even another for how we can continue to invest in that moderate income 80 to one twenty. Are there could we have a local bonus density program, through this process or would there have to be another one or is it something that we could move forward where, to incentivize, keeping those 80 to one twenty getting built instead of going to the in lieu fee that we would provide a a bonus density type of incentive for them. So instead of, say, it was a 10 unit project and they had to build the one unit and now they would have 11 units that we could give them, you know, additional market rate units if they built additional 80 to one twenties. So it it effectively acts as a state bonus density, but with our local regulations. Is that something that could be considered part of this process and get vetted through the next steps of the planning commission?

Or would that have to be something we'd have to do in another way?

I'm going to have Director DeBus come up and answer that one. We did try to take strides toward that within the inclusionary realm. We do have a local density bonus program that we are looking at, and there are some other efforts that maybe will address your concerns.

Yeah, Council Member Friedman, really, just comes down to having the staff resources to take on multiple things. But it has been something that we've been considering as we've been doing this inclusionary study, especially given how state density bonus projects, we're seeing those a lot more than we're seeing projects with inclusionary units. And those projects essentially don't need to provide inclusionary units. So we're currently not seeing very many of those moderate units. And so, yes, looking at it through a local density bonus program is the next step.

We'll be working with, housing folks to update our affordable housing policies and procedures. That's where, in addition to the ordinance updates, it would also be in those procedures where that all gets documented. So I think some of it can happen concurrently. I can't say exactly what if the timing would be before or after the inclusionary ordinances, but they are working concurrently

to do that. And I I wouldn't suggest that we try to put that into this ordinance. It would be a separate effort.

Right. Perfect. That's what I wanted to see if there was don't go anywhere because you just went to one of my questions. Bonus density, state bonus density versus our our local programs. What are the projects using? I think you just showed that. And then just a couple questions. And then the key component, is it leading to more units? Because theoretically, they're going towards they're using state bonus density to potentially put in more units, but are they actually putting in those units, or are we just getting the same number of units with fewer affordables, but they're getting waivers like such as reduced parking, reduced open space?

Councilmember Friedman, we've seen both. We've seen projects that have maxed out their density understate density bonus loss. They've gotten the full 50% density increase. We've all see also seen projects where their density is no higher than what they could have gotten under the city zoning. So we've seen both. Sometimes they do it. Yes. Just to get the incentives that come along with it.

Okay. That's good to that's good to know in the background as we're considering enhancing our own locals because the more that we can encourage our own local ordinances to be used, the the more we're gonna get local can keep local control here and achieve what we want, which is projects that have the more affordables, but also keep parking and other aspects of it. Thank you. Just a couple of more questions. With the local housing actually, Mike Mike Jordan answered that one.

On the local housing trust fund, technically, it does do, though. You could use that for 80 to one twenty, but, that would be more of a political question at the time. Is there any data on effect if activity that hovers around the different inclusionary points leads to fewer units being built? For example, right now, if it's if you're less than if you're up to four units, you don't have to do anything. If you're five to nine units, you pay the in lieu fee.

If you're 10 units, then you, have to provide the the inclusionary unit. So say somebody could build 11 units or even 10, Instead, they build nine, or someone could build five or six. They're building four just to stay out of the program. Do we have any data that shows that these points are artificially decreasing the supply?

Yes and no, unfortunately, Councilmember Friedman. We do have the data. We don't have very much of it. We're just not a very prolific community for larger multi unit residential projects. As part of the AED program progress report done back in 2023, we looked at ten years of multiunit residential development, and where projects were in size. Is it, and why were they doing How many units they were doing? Did it correlate to inclusionary? Again, not enough data points to really be able to identify any trend like that. It was honestly our small parcel sizes, and the density that we allow on sites. That was really driving what a project was proposing.

Not to say that there aren't projects maybe making that decision, but we just don't have the data to support any kind of conclusion one way or the other.

So, it

would be anecdotal, but nothing because of the

Yeah.

We don't have enough projects coming in.

Correct.

Ties into the next point is, of the of the permitted units, one of the questions that come up is that, there's plenty of projects being built right now. And if you go into the numbers in there, in 2023, it says there was 89 permitted in 2023, 90 permitted in 2024, and then a 109 permitted in 2025. That's a lot of units, but the the question then becomes, because we're talking about private development. How many of those are private developers versus housing authority projects or other that are de restricted affordable? So I'm trying to understand because those are completely different sets of metrics and sets of financing that we're using.

And is it half the units? So half the units are subsidized in some way right now or are most of the units market rate that are coming in?

I also looked into this one because the data.

I want to know what

the data says. So, this is included as an attachment to your CAR. Just high level, this shows all the multi unit, meaning two or more unit projects that have been issued a building permit in this housing element cycle. So, going back to mid-twenty twenty two to 2025. You can see there's a lot of small bars. Our median project size is six or seven units. When we look at this, that holds true to our AUD progress report, where we were analyzing this ten years of data. So, this is kind of the tail end of the AUD. The last fifteen years, we've been doing about six to seven unit projects as our median. But there are some bars on this graph that are quite a bit taller than that median value.

Most of these bars are orange. And that means those are affordable housing projects done by our amazing housing authority in town. The kind of almost all the bars on there are actually housing authority projects. They've been creating a lot of larger projects more recently, but there's not a lot of blue bars, which are our market rate residential development. So, we're seeing a lot of projects that are coming through and building, building a lot of affordable right now. But when you look kind of back longer, we're just we don't have a lot of large projects generating those units. I think I got off topic from your but I

know this

kind of answered your question.

Yeah. So it gets to the point that yeah, there's units being built. And I think our housing authority do an amazing job. If you look at these in the last like three, three years in particular. But when you were looking at whether the private sector is coming in and building some of our market rate and then some of the inclusionary in there, it has slowed down significantly.

And so this gets to we we need to really put some thought and deliver it into what we put here because it seems like, especially if you're looking last last two years that the market rate units have definitely slowed down compared to the affordables. And and then the lot the other question on this is there's another number that's out there that there are like 2,000 proposed units in the pipeline and I just wanted a clarification on that. Does that include the some of the more well, let me see how I some of the larger projects that we have heard about that are out there?

Yes, Councilmember Friedman. That value is including projects that are in the pipeline as we call it. We, for Rina, we only count projects that have been issued a building permit. We don't count projects that have submitted an application, or maybe are in the planning entitlements, or even in the building permit phase, but are not yet issued a project. That value of 2,000 does accommodate all the projects that have been submitted to the city and are being considered, but not necessarily will go forward.

We don't know, right? They're just somebody had an idea, and they submitted an application on it. So, there are some larger projects that are in the development pipeline and getting reviewed, but they have not yet been issued a building permit. So, the numbers that we presented in the report are based on issued building permits. Those are reported to the state, but that's not to say those numbers might change in the future as projects move forward through planning entitlements, through building permits, and then towards an issued building permit.

So, are good chats. 2,000 a lot of those would not come to fruition. And I'll say one of the ones that comes out there is the projects over by the mission, which is hundreds of units. So, those are not being counted in any of this, and those are ones that are

Correct.

Going through the process, but that's where that 2,000 number comes from, and that's not something that's guaranteed. Correct.

Yes. All those statements are true.

Alright. And then, I think I have one kind of last question and this gets this gets into mister Kurnal's point and just the overall issue about downtown and economic vitality of downtown and needing to have housing constructed downtown to make that to make what we wanna do there economically viable, socially viable, and everything. So is there would there be an option to in the CBD? One of the options is to reduce which slide is that? Sorry.

I don't have it in front of me. Would be to reduce the I think it's, slide 21. So this so this would be if we we still had the requirement to build the units, right? To build the inclusionary, but then we would only do the in lieu in this in the Central Business District or is this saying this would apply for everything?

It could go. However, counsel directs staff to have it move forward, and then ultimately adopted. When the study was considering this, we did not delineate the Central Business District. But in light of recently recent policy conversations, and hearkening back to the adaptive reuse conversation where there is a carve out for the Central Business District projects under 40 units that are adaptive reuse projects, not having to provide inclusionary, we could do you could do something similar to try to prioritize housing creation downtown by giving it slightly different rules to increase the flexibility for an applicant.

Yeah. So, say we went with G2 and allow just anywhere instead of building the

Mhmm.

Inclusionary units

Could do that.

Yes. Then citywide, but in the Central and then there would be an in lieu fee here up to $72 potentially. But in the Central Business District, we could carve out rules to have a lower a lower rate so that because that is where we want to incentivize. So, everywhere else, the rate would be X, but then in Central Business District, the rate could be Y.

That could happen. I don't know if that would be the easiest process to administer, which sometimes, right, a program can be really great on paper, but the administration gets a little bit bogged down. That's not to say we couldn't do that.

It's just What be a

What's it considered?

What would be awaited if we went if we went with the in lieu being available throughout the city? What could we do through this to incentivize development in the Central Business District to differentiate it because of the urgency to build housing in a kind like fatality down there?

Your point exactly, you could change the NLUFI rate for those projects in a certain geographic area in Central Business District, if that's council's will. Okay.

Thank you. Those are my questions for now. Thank you.

John Ms. Snead?

Thank you, Mayor Rouse. First, I just want to say thank you for the consistency. We talked about this in briefing between the slides, the wording on the slides, and the wording in the staff report, and the recommendations all being so consistent. I just wanted to really thank you for that. Some questions starting some things I just want to confirm.

In attachment three of the report, and in table one, where it talks about in progress and the percentage of units, that are in progress, I just want to make sure. So, above moderate, that's, you know, 21.9% that's in progress? And does it include already it's on the slide two. Does that include already completed and in progress? Like, is there a change in the rate of in progress?

A real quick clarification on what this data means. So, annually, we have to report to the state how many units get issued a building permit. All units. This is all units that have been issued a building permit in their current housing element cycles. So, 06/30/2022 up to the end of the year twelvethirty onetwenty five, this is every unit that's been issued a building permit in the city broken out by these different area median income categories. Progress means how many units have you permitted in comparison to how many units you've been allocated in the RHNA process.

Thank you. And so, that's since 2023 then? 06/30/2022.

Yeah, it's I know they use fund dates.

Okay. Okay. I just I guess this was my question because table one says twenty twenty three to 2031, and then the table here in the slide says

Council Member, just a quick clarification on that. The HCD allows us to count what they call a projection period. So, that starts at the June 2022. So even the housing element is that eight year period, we always go back about six months and we can count those units towards our six cycle arena.

Okay. So we can do it just from this one then. So this is sort of as of today?

As of well, 2025. Okay. Katherine That's how much progress we've made towards our RENA numbers.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And so, when I look at this, I mean, where should we be at this point in our cycle? So say that, you know, the cycle goes to 2031. So, we wouldn't expect to be at 100%.

Correct. Where would we sort of expect to be?

Just as a reminder, the arena is just a goal and we need to show we have the zoning to accommodate all these units. So the numbers we're at, you know, they ideally we'd be halfway through or close to that. But we're our rate of construction has been pretty steady for quite

a while.

That's thank you so much for that. And so like when I look at this, the very low, low and even the moderate are not great in comparison. Okay. I just want to make sure. And then, so then on figure three in appendix I mean, attachment three, and it's the one that has the sort of decreasing line on the duration between building permit issued and construction start date.

And I was just wondering, it's great that that's decreasing, that that rate, is going down. What impact does that have on, say, development costs? Like, or, you know, what impact would process improvements in terms of, you know, how much quicker that permit could be issued? Would that make a difference in the calculations?

I don't know if I quite understand your question, Councilman Stanton. So, let me or Councilman Stanton, I'm sorry. Let me rephrase it back and see If if I heard the figure three shows the duration between getting a planning approval and getting your issued building permit, it the trend line you're mentioning is showing that the duration between those two entitlement phases has been decreasing. That's really good. That means you have a project that's spending less time in the entitlements phase, which costs less because time is money.

Ultimately, that should be reflected in benefits to the project financially. How to calculate those, I could not speak to. But, I mean, just the added time and money, it's a good thing the trend's going down.

Okay. Thank you. So, that would mean that that could be some type of incentive that would help is if we could continue to close that gap decrease Correct. That further. Okay.

Thanks. And then, on oh, well, again, yeah, I want to make sure I understand this one. So, in Appendix A and my questions are just going to be in the appendices mainly. So, I'm going to go A, B, and D, just like two questions in each one. So, A, again, just want to make sure when it's at table 13, it says average asking rent for a studio is $3,559 which is like, that's an eye popping number.

Is that would we call that market rate? Would we call that just above moderate? Like, where you know, a number like that for a studio, how are we sort of generally describing that?

So, and we're looking at table 13?

Female Table 13.

Okay.

Female And also, guess I might as well compare it to, also, on the next page, where it's low income and moderate, a studio is like 1,700.

So good question. So the first question that you asked about the studio, asking rent, those are based on, new newly constructed projects dating back to 2017. And and they're not covenanted. So those are fully market rate. And and so those that that is definitely gonna be higher than the covenant than a covenant at market rate studio would be. I I don't I think we can I can pull that up, but there is a table at the beginning of the report that quantifies the delta between the market rate, rent

Got it?

And the, and the cost. So, for this, for the studio specifically, there is a $2,000 per month difference in Okay. What you're covenanting and what you're building.

Right. Yeah, I just want to make sure, like, terminology, because sometimes we've gone back and forth between what we call affordable or moderate, above moderate market rates.

And, Councilman Stedna, I would recommend looking at table three in the study itself, which maybe will have a little bit more detailed information to your point. The stuff in the appendix was really intended to give the whole Female piece of information, and the analysis, and kind of the highlighted portions are

in the study

Thank you. Okay. So, I'm just going to sort of highlight that also since it is in the highlights section that the difference that we're talking about is like twice as much for a studio when we're talking about market rate versus the other. Okay. And then in Appendix B, I guess just in a general question, are there communities that don't allow feeing out at all? Like, don't allow the option of an in lieu fee versus building on-site?

It's fairly rare. I mean, it's fairly rare to offer the ability to pay a fee without sort of some either counsel approval claiming what, you know, would be called maybe extreme hardship. Most jurisdictions that we've worked with tend to want to prioritize the provision of on-site units over fee revenue. Again, that's a policy decision. And as state density bonus law becomes more popular, you know, you are sort of reducing the likelihood that you could potentially generate fee revenue because there is no fee option for So it really kind of is a balancing act between sort of how you all want to prioritize your, you know, fee revenue versus your provision of on-site units.

Thank you. I'm so glad I asked because I was sort of under the impression that this was sort of common. And I'm just wondering, from my talking with people who are doing developments, I'm not seeing that this is really being perceived as a concession. And this to me seems sort of like an extraordinary concession. And it's sort of responding to what we've heard from developers, like, oh, we wish we could do this. So, I guess I really want to confirm that this is a concession to aid development. Yes? Or to aid the developers in being able to have flexibility with what they're developing, or or maybe I'll let you describe it.

I would

just call it the flexibility for an applicant to decide how they want to satisfy the inclusionary hazard requirements. Policy direction, as I mentioned, has been prioritization of on-site units and creating them. We have heard from the community that they would prefer not to have an on-site unit. Council Member Jordan alluded to that relationship with the administration of having an on-site unit, maybe is a little bit onerous for an applicant, a developer to maintain over the duration of that covenant. So, we wanted to look into it as part of our research into peer jurisdictions, and speaking with staff who do inclusionary administration at other places, allowing the fully to fully satisfy with an in lieu fee payment was an outlier.

It was allowed in a lot of the places we looked, but again, it did require approval from, you know, a higher decision making body for an applicant to be able to go down that route. So, it wouldn't necessarily call it a concession. It would just be the flexibility for an applicant to satisfy their requirements in a different manner that is within a parameter we've set, be it the in lieu fee rate, or allowing on-site units, if that's what we want to diverge from.

And I

want to acknowledge it's been counsel direction to look at this to and in response to and when you say the community, it's the developer community is requesting this. I just want to be really clear on that.

That would be a pretty accurate summary, yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So, it's in response it's a response to what we're hearing from the developer community that would make this more flexible, more profitable, easier, whatever it is. It's for the benefit of the developer. I'll just make that a statement.

It's Okay.

Because I was

going be I don't need you to yeah, sorry. And it matches things that I've heard even recently. So, like you mentioned, this is from a long time ago when the in lieu was a different number, but I heard this a couple months ago from an actually pretty major developer that and, you know, they said that they would pay a substantial in lieu fee to just not have to deal with, you know, the puzzle pieces of which units fit where in a certain envelope, one, and also the covenant and those agreements, two. And I think I just want to confirm that, that we've, I mean, we've heard that many times. Okay.

And so, guess my question here, I mean, I'm just kind of highlighted, is given the strong preference for paying the in lieu fee off-site. And so, this is really interesting that it's sort of an outlier, which I thought it was not that common, but I didn't realize it was an outlier. And I have my own ideas of why I think it's a good idea to have everything on-site. But what are the reasons? What the reasons and the benefits of having it on-site if you're not just looking from the developer perspective, but if you're looking at the community perspective? What are benefits of them being on-site?

I think the biggest one answer to that question is those units are getting created at the same time as those market rate units are getting created. We're all aware, and Councilmember Jordan alluded to this when he was asking about setting a fee rate for when those units actually get constructed, that collecting an in lieu fee payment today doesn't mean that that unit is online tomorrow. It means that there needs to be enough collected fees, and then the project developed, and the funding secured. That the creation of that inclusionary unit that the fee is supporting is many years down the line. How long that is?

Yeah. It's anybody's guess at this point, except for maybe housing authority, right? So, the biggest pro to having the on-site unit be required is that unit gets created in the same timeframe as that development comes online. The biggest con is for you know, the creation of affordable units, that there is quite a delay in when that unit gets created. And also, again, to Councilmember Jordan's point, those the in lieu fees that are collected, many times are not used to support a moderate income unit, once it is turned into an actual physical unit.

A lot of times, those funds are utilized just because of the financing that's available, and kind of the subsidies and the grants out there for LITEC, right? That's low income or very low income units a lot of times. So, on-site units would create on-site units for the household category incomes that we've identified here as middle, right, for our ownership, and then moderate for our rental. And then, the con would be that the units are created down the line much later, and at different AMI categories, different household income categories, and have been identified as the focus of the inclusionary housing ordinance.

And is there a community benefit to sort of not bifurcating neighborhoods into?

I was going to add that as Yeah. A you have more diverse people living in your units and they're brand new units. They're nice units. You get a little more diversity.

Female Thank you. And then to Council Member Jordans, I actually really appreciate the question about the timing of that in LUFI. Could there be something like it's one amount if you're collecting it upfront in full, and another amount if it's not amount, but you do whatever that calculation is, the CPI or whatever we settle on, that you do it at time of occupancy. So, you're either doing it upfront at that CPI, or doing it at the time of actually developed and about to give the final

First pass, that sounds like a great idea, but I am going to defer to the city attorney over there, since that is probably an attorney question.

Can

you repeat the question in terms

of exactly the fee you were looking for?

It's looking at to Council Member Jordan's sort of questions about the change in the value of that dollar when more time passes. So, could there be some kind of structure where you're paying the current day's CPI or whatever that metric is in full upfront? Or if your development happens ten years, fifteen years down the line, if you could say, well, you can pay it later, but you'll be paying that current day's CPI.

Honorable Mayor Pro Tempsen, yes, as I mentioned with Councilmember Jordan, you can have hard costs. You could have cost based on a formula that will create a projection. You just can't leave something so open ended where no one can figure out what that cost is. So by having a form a written formula or having caveats like that, you can work with that as long as you're under, like, the recommended, like, potential caps. And it gives the option for the developer to consider what they would rather do as well and elect that.

So, there is some flexibility as to that. As long as whatever formula or whatever basis we're looking at can be determined, right? So, it's not left up as a guesstimate. So,

Right. So it would be instead of a projection, it would be what is that actual number today? Or at the time when you're, you know, actually building it, what is that number in that year?

In that year tied to a certain formula. So at least someone could point to whatever the

certificate of occupancy or something.

Okay, Council Member Snead and just did want to add. It does make things a little bit more difficult to administer when you've got those multiple options, so I would just be a little bit cautious on that end.

Sure. I would actually concur with that point as well. Thank

you. No, and I don't want to make it too complicated either. And then just one more question. This is from Appendix D. And again, I know that big picture is in the report itself, too.

But it sort of seems like I guess I'm going bring the question back to what is the goal of the in lieu fees? Because I think I've heard it described as the amount of fees we might be collecting and going into local housing trust fund. And also, I've heard, you know, it's so that developers can actually develop things without it being too onerous. But what about the, like, cost of actually meeting the need that's induced by creating market rate units? Like, making those units?

And I guess to answer that question, like framed around Appendix D, and I just want to make sure, again, that I'm reading this all right, but the way that I read this is, and you can confirm for me or help me, that for every 100 market rate units, so those are those ones that are 3,500 for a studio, right? So, there's a profit happening there. So, for every one of those market rate units, it creates 72 jobs needed of support work in the community, which is awesome. Job creation is really good. But then, I'm reading this, and this number is really different than numbers we've seen in the past, past studies.

I'm reading this that then for every 100, that it creates a need for 21% or 21 units below AMI, and that's a higher number than we've seen in previous studies.

I so, and you're adding you're sort of adding the discrete categories of acutely, extremely low, very low, and excluding the

I did. I added them up because it's 18% over AMI. And I'm just looking at the rental ones. I think. And then I added up those other numbers together. And just because we've been lumping things into above moderate or So I did that too.

I mean, that is pretty consistent with what we see, across jurisdictions. Okay. So I think that is is certainly, an observation that is that is not, that's sort of broadly characteristic of of market rate multifamily development in California.

So then just confirm this for me. So that means to me, and this is what I really want to check-in with, that if we're not producing 21.8, not market rate units, then we're not even breaking even with the demand that's being created by those new market rate units.

That that is correct. Most I mean, most jurisdictions inclusionary isn't the only sort of source of affordable units. Okay. You have, like, you know, a great housing authority, for example, that will do entire projects that are dedicated to low and very low, and that will, you know, oftentimes help

Okay.

Catch up with that.

That's very helpful. So, that delta is made up by something like housing authority or projects with the local housing trust fund. Correct. Or section eight. Eight. Yeah. And making up that number. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Very good. We are going to pause there because we have some scheduled applicants for our various commissions and committees. So I'm going to start off with that and we'll come back, after that and finish up with deliberations and comments for for staff. We'll start off with Steve Winterhalter.

And this is for the Sister Cities Board, and we're gonna try to keep the interviews right at three minutes end or less.

Good afternoon, Mayor Rouse and fellow council members. My name is Steve Winterhalter, and I'm here to apply an interview for the Sister Cities Board. I've reviewed a few of the questions that pertain to this position and would answer them by saying my some of my qualifications are, first of all, a deep interest in international affairs. Second, have a successful business record. I operate a digital agency here in Santa Barbara that's been going for almost twenty years now.

Third is I have a deep recognition that the sister cities are no longer just about symbolism and goodwill between cities, but they actually do solve important issues that Santa Barbara and all cities around the world face. They might be development issues. They might be financing, environmental issues, human justice issues. And I think more than ever before, the city councils and the sister city boards are in a very strong place to help work in conjunction with other cities towards resolving and solving many of these issues. I have a particular interest in, South America and, some of the cities that are down there.

I was in fact, recently, before I even knew about our sister city, Miraflores in Peru, I was there just about three or four months ago. So I have a natural affinity for, international relations and empathy for the types of issues that all cities go through. That's my statement. If you have some questions, I'd be happy Oh, to okay.

Does anybody have a question for this applicant? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. You. Joseph Navarro. And this is for the Rental Housing Mediation Task Force Board. I'm sorry?

I'm gonna make a brief statement before the next person starts. I just wanted to say to the applicants, you can grab one of the business cards there at the podium when you leave and use that for parking validation on your way out.

Oh, okay.

Thank you for that housekeeping detail. Okay, Mr. Navarro.

Good afternoon. My name is Joseph Navarro. I'm applying for this, position on the Rental Housing Mediation Board. I've only been this is for the landlord position. I've been a landlord for six years in the city of Santa Barbara, but have lived here for, gosh, over forty years.

So most of the time, I have been a renter. And I think that being on this board as a landlord might offer me a unique perspective having been a renter for most of the time. I've had no formal training in mediation, but in my prior position at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Associate Dean of Students, was involved in a lot of conflict resolution, which is similar to mediation. And I think together with the experience I've had as a tenant and a landlord and mediation conflict resolution, might make me a good candidate for this position. I've also been a property manager.

While I was a tenant, or a renter, I was also a property manager for twenty five, thirty years and had to go through a couple of evictions, which is really an unfortunate thing to have to experience. So I've seen that part of it. I've never been evicted myself, although some of the properties that I've lived in have been sold and have had to find another place to live. So I know what it's like to be a tenant, and I know what it's like to be a landlord. And, I think I can bring something, a different perspective to this advisory committee.

I've also served on other advisory committees. Most of them were through the county. I was on the Human Services Commission for the County Of Santa Barbara in the nineteen eighties. And, right after I retired from UCSB, I served a couple of terms on the Santa Barbara, County, civil grand jury, which was very interesting and very educational.

Alright. Very good. Are there any questions for this applicant? Thank you so much for applying. Appreciate next person up is Lisa Carlos, And this is for the housing authority.

Good afternoon, mayor Rousen council members. I'm Lisa Carlos. I'm asking for your support to reappoint me for a second term in the housing authority commission where I currently serve as chair. As you know, my values align deeply with the housing authority's mission. Affordable housing is both a moral imperative and essential to a just resilient community where everyone can prosper.

As a commissioner, I've learned housing development is a difficult, highly technical task requiring us to balance many complex factors. We serve more than 3,500 households, no small feat, and decades in the making. But the sad truth is that 10,000 more remain on the waiting list. So we constantly weigh two questions: How do we maximize the number of people we serve while also building homes that are safe, durable, livable, with open space, good air circulation, storage, natural light, and other things. Our goal isn't simply to increase supply or put a roof over someone's head.

What we're building is a robust city infrastructure, a permanently affordable, high quality housing that will stand the test of time. These aren't stack and pack projects for a transitory population. Each is intentionally designed to fit the site and the neighborhood safe, dignified housing, where residents plant roots, thrive, and continue to contribute to our community. Ambitious, perhaps, especially given today's political reality and unpredictable state and federal funding. Pandemic era housing vouchers are being eliminated.

Mixed status families and others may also lose HUD assistance. Difficult choices lie ahead for all of us about where to prioritize precious public dollars. Do we ensure those with subsidies stay housed? And does that mean we scale back on our investment in new housing? There aren't easy answers, but as a commissioner, you have my promise.

I'm going to lean into these challenges with the due diligence of our agency and consult with you, the city, and stakeholders. And you know that I'm always willing to roll up my sleeves with the city to find a viable solution, like a ballot initiative, a bond, or another path. Needless to say, city dollars remain the linchpin to bringing to fruition so many recent successful projects like Jacaranda Court, Della Vina, La Cumbra, and South Hope. Let's work together to continue this momentum to deliver our Palmer our Parma School Project plus Presidio Springs and Monteria Village, where we will rehabilitate and more than double the density of units on housing authority owned land. Santa Barbara is fortunate to have award winning nationally recognized housing authority professionals.

I would like to continue to work alongside them. I hope you give me that opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you much. Any questions for miss Colonels? All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'll bring up Lisa Sands, also for the Housing Authority.

First of all, thank you for this opportunity to talk to you all today. I don't have a big list of dissertation to tell you. All I can say is that my heart is dedicated to supporting a solution oriented conversation with housing that is low income. We sling around the word affordable all over, and I don't think we really understand what that is. Some people can afford $10,000 a month in rent.

I can't. I want to work with the city housing with solutions that we can work together and actually have them manifest. I am on a housing voucher, have been for several years. I'm 72 years old, and I want to give back. And I can.

I've been in business for myself for over forty five years, and I want to engage with solutions that are for now, not ten years, fifty years, etcetera. So my commitment is personal, because I want to help this community, and I think I'm a viable candidate for that. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions for this applicant? Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Randy Cohen?

Mr. Cohen here. Come back to him. Nicholas Gaston. And this is for the Santa Barbara Youth Council. Mr. Gaston, go right ahead.

Thank you. Good evening City Council. My name is Nick Gaston and I'm committed to continue dedicating my time to the Santa Barbara Youth Council. I currently serve as vice chair of the Youth Council and it's been an incredible experience. Understanding how the youth council operates was a learning curve for me, but while serving on the council I've gained a strong understanding of how it functions and how we can be more effective.

And this experience has prepared me to help lead our efforts into a more focused and strategic way. I bring leadership and collaboration skills to this role. I'm actively involved in campus clubs and have participated in a leadership training through the bucket brigade with, which has helped me grow as a team leader. Additionally, as a student in the MAD Academy at Santa Barbara High School, I've contributed creative skills by designing flyers, canvas bags, and upcoming ideas to promote youth council initiatives. I would like to be reappointed so I can complete my term as vice chair and continue building on the progress we've made so far.

I'm especially focused on improving outreach for our youth speak out event by assigning one council member per school to connect with adults at each school site who have the authority to send out communications and promote the event more effectively. For example, some ideas include announcements in each homeroom and PA, parent squares reaching out to other organizations, and other communication methods I've yet to mention. I'm especially interested in strengthening youth engagement and participation in our youth speak out. In addition to improving outreach, I plan to help organize a clear timeline for social media promotion and flyer distribution. I also have proposed adding dedicated brainstorming time to our upcoming meetings so we can develop new larger scale projects beyond the youth speak out.

I feel as though I now have a grasp of how the council runs and I'm ready to help brainstorm and lead a new initiative for our youth council to work on. Before I conclude, I just want to express how grateful I am for the opportunity to serve on the youth council. It's something I truly care about, and I would be honored to continue in this role that I started serving this school year. Thank you.

Very good. Any questions for next? Mr. Gaston. Ms. Snead.

Thank you, Mr. Rouse. Mayor Rouse. Actually, not for the applicant, but for the way that this is organized. I just want to make sure. So, it says up to three new appointees, the Santa Barbara High School says only one new appointee. And Mr. Gaston, you're incumbent appointee, right? So, is that counted as new, or is it is it additional to?

Go ahead.

No, no, you

go ahead.

I was just going we're gonna ask There she is. Deputy city clerk normal issues coming in. Was

well sure

and we can answer this person on these

later too. I just wanted to make sure we're counting the categories right now.

And, Mr. Mayor and Mayor Potemacin, if you could repeat the question for

Yes. Hello, Ms. Welch. So, when it says under the applicant, it says up to three new appointees, but for Santa Barbara High School, says only one new appointee. If an applicant is an incumbent, is that, would that count as a new appointee when reappointed, or would that be in addition to all the incumbents, there's a space for one new appointee?

Mayor Perthem Sneaden, members of the council. So, the one new appointee for Santa Barbara High School, that is the incumbent's position.

That is the incumbent's position. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Gaston for your

Mr Gutierrez.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Gus Gaston, since you've already been on the Youth Council for a while, can you just let us know what the youth council has done to address the e bike safety issue in our community?

I would have to speak to my council about that one. It's we're still figuring it out. It's a very pressing issue right now. So that's something I would have to talk to my counsel about.

So you'd be open to have it be a key issue for the council to consider in future? Yes. Alright. Thank you. This council is

still trying to figure it out too, mister Guerzon. So anyway, well done. Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Michael McGuire.

Good afternoon, counsel. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak with you. I'm Mike Maguire. I am fully committed to serving on the Building and Fire Code Board of Appeals and have the time and availability to do so. I live and work locally, and my professional focus keeps me closely connected to the types of projects and challenges that regularly come before that board.

Professionally, my background's in architecture and urban design, and I've worked on a wide range of project types. Today, I run my own project management firm focused on permitting and expediting, where I apply both creative thinking and analytical problem solving to help projects move forward. I've taken the time to understand the role of this advisory group by reviewing meeting minutes, watching past hearings, and working directly with the city's process, particularly around access compliance, fire safety, and building code requirements. In my day to day work, I navigate these systems on behalf of both homeowners and developers from small residential projects to large commercial and housing developments. This experience has given me a practical understanding of how projects move through the system and where they can struggle.

I'm familiar with concepts like technical and feasibility, code alternates, and equivalent facilitation, and I understand how rarely exceptions are granted. That perspective has helped me develop a balanced, thoughtful approach to interpreting complex codes while respecting their intent. What draws me most to this role is Santa Barbara itself. It's a city that doesn't always fit neatly into standardized regulations. We face big city challenges and uniquely local small city challenges, especially with older buildings and growing importance of adaptive reuse.

I believe this board plays a critical role in finding reasonable, fair solutions using the flexibility within the code to support projects that might not otherwise succeed while still protecting public safety. Above all, I can be objective, fair, and thoughtful in hearing appeals. I care deeply about this community and plan to be here long term as my family grows. It'd be an honor to contribute to thoughtful case by case decision making that defines this board. Thanks for your consideration.

Thank you. Are there questions for Mr. Maguire? Thank you so much for applying. Appreciate that. Thank you. Amelia Leonardi. And that would be for Santa Barbara Youth Council.

Good afternoon, mayor. Good afternoon, city council members. My name is Emilia Leonardi. I am 15 years old and a freshman at San Marcos High School. I'm here to reapply for my position on the Santa Barbara Youth Council.

I have served on the Youth Council for over two years now, first as a junior high representative, and most recently, as a voting member and as secretary. Through this experience, I developed a strong understanding of what Youth Council does. One of our main goals is to share youth perspectives with different city groups and lead initiatives such as youth counts youth speak out. I believe that my experience as both a voting and nonvoting member, as well as my roles as secretary and chair of the youth making change grant subcommittee will help me to continue to serve effectively. I'd like to be appointed to this to city to Samaritan Youth Council so I can continue making a positive impact for youth in our community and keep learning about how local government works.

In my experience, youth leadership isn't isn't just important to prepare young people for the future. It's important because adults are often too comfortable in the present. Too many of the solutions we create are built off of what has been done before, but teenagers haven't had time to accept this as the norm. We also haven't had the time to be okay with things that are unfair, outdated, or ineffective. I think youth leadership is important to focus on improving our community right now.

I think that we can all agree one of Santa Barbara's biggest challenges is the socioeconomic divide, specifically in the availability of extracurricular opportunities for youth of all backgrounds. It seems to me like the same people get all the recommendations, all the connections, and all of the support. This is not a problem that will have one solution or one that can be solved by ChatGPT, but I do think the youth council has unique ability to address this issue. This year, as part of our annual youth speak out, I led a resource fair inviting local organizations and nonprofits to table and answer questions. In the coming years, I think that this program can be expanded to leadership groups and even job opportunities for all youth.

I think that one of my biggest strengths on youth council is effective communication. Communication is as important in every situation I've ever been in. Whether this looks like delivering updates to parks and rec committee, emailing potential panelists, or taking notes in a commit in a meeting. I think the communication is a foundation for change. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you. Are there any questions for this applicant, mister Gutierrez?

Thank you, mister mayor. Emilia, since you've been on the council already, what would you say is the overall consensus of the youth council's opinion on State Street being open or closed to cars? Mhmm.

This is an exciting topic because we just got a presentation on this exact topic yesterday evening. There were a lot of opinions there. I think that to speak for everyone, our general consensus is that we support State Street being closed. It's an amazing place for youth in Santa Barbara. I think that Santa Barbara has a lack of third spaces, and that's another thing that I hope that youth council can focus on addressing more, because third spaces are important to everyone, but especially teenagers, as you know. And that's currently one of our only third spaces that is accessible and that is free to everyone in Santa Barbara. And opening that back up to cars will pretty much effectively take that away.

Thank you. Alright. Very good. Thank you. Thomas Keeler.

Thank you.

Thomas Keeler. Alrighty. Maya Lewellen. And this is also for the Santa Barbara Youth Council.

Good afternoon. My name is Maya Lewellen and I'm 15 and I go to San Marcus High School. I'm interviewing for youth council. I'd like to start by saying I'm able to devote the time and commitment needed to apply for this role. I'm responsible.

I am good with my time. And from what I know, Youth Council represents the voices of young people and directly empowers them to serve the community in a way that is meaningful to others. It turns real, ideas into true change, and I believe my communication skills and leadership advice and working well with others will help me succeed in this role. I'm someone who listens, speaks up, and I wanna be appointed because I care about making a positive impact and being a part of something bigger than myself. One issue I think is important to address is the lack of spaces for teens to safely gather.

A solution to this could be like rec centers. Not having these spaces is causing kids to feel disconnected from their community, leading to mental health struggles, e bike use, substance abuse, which could all be fixed by having places that teens can hang out together. There could be sports areas, study areas for kids who are struggling in school but may not have the financial means to have a tutor. All of this is an overarching problem to many different problems. Like e biking is a small problem, but having these big, recreation centers could easily solve that by giving kids the areas to gather safely and have fun.

I think it's important for kids to be involved in leadership because it teaches them to be a part of something bigger than themselves. It gives you a sense of purpose and and gives you the ability to provide input on that affect, the youth voices. The talent I would most likely share is my ability to connect with others and represent different viewpoints, making sure everyone feels heard. Lastly, I do not foresee any conflicts I would interfere with attending meetings or events. I am fully committed if appointed this position.

Alright. Thank you very much. Any questions for this applicant? Alright. Nice job. Thank you. Thank you. Oliver Nevius.

Hello City Council. My name is Oliver Nieves. Currently I'm just finishing up my seventh grade year at Crane Country Day School. I'm 13 years old and I'm looking to apply for this position on the youth council. Council.

My former my experiences include I've been elected to two years in a row as class president. And truly, I think that on this council, I could do something that's true that's bigger than myself and can make a difference in my community. These past five years after moving down here, I've been living in my own personal bubble, but I think that it's important to go outside of that and work on something bigger than myself. I think that in that in popping this bubble, I could go out and chain and makes and change something for the better. And and one of those ways that I could do that is by joining the Santa Barbara Youth Council.

I've heard about I heard about the council from my teacher, Michelle Holmes. She's been a leader in my in my education and has been there and has always been there for me. And when I heard about this, I knew that I wanted to join or apply. I I truly hope that the city the council considers my application because I think that that the that that joining with the council that that if I was able to join with this with the youth council, the sorry. One second.

The possibilities will be endless. Thank you.

Thank you. That was pretty impressive, actually. Any questions for this applicant? Mister Gutierrez.

Thank you, mister mayor. So what would you say one of the biggest issues for the students at Crane School is currently?

Really, I think it's our, currently what I see is our mental health. Normally, we don't want to branch out and talk to people about it. We normally wanna stay and think that we can handle it ourselves. And I think that dealing with this is making it more, accessible for everybody, making it more cheap, and making it truly seem more welcoming and, like, they can go to it whenever they need to fix problems that they have.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Will Rivera. This is for HLC.

Good afternoon, mayor, members of the city council. My name is Will Rivera. I've been practicing architecture for over forty years. I've worked for a lot of, great architects in Santa Barbara. My career started in my senior year in high school in 1978 and where I worked with Ken Minor was a mentor of mine and since then I've worked with other really great architects, Henry Lenny, Bill Mahan, Barry Burkus, Robin Donaldson, Mark Eppleton to name a few.

I served as the in the ABR in '92 to September. I've also served on the BAR salute Carbajal appointed me to represent his district in 2006 and chaired. I was on it for eight years and I charted it for the last three years ending in 2012. I've been very active in the community in various different fields, including a board member of the Habitat for Humanity. I am, very passionate about this city.

I love this city, and I feel like architects should even though they're always so busy, take time and give back a little to the city and I feel like I have the time to do that as I am working on my own for the last eight years and the last three projects, four four projects that I've done are hotels for the city. I'm very well aware of the the struggle it is to develop and create, you know, beautiful architecture, but I'm really all about creating beautiful architectures in Santa Barbara and including, you know, mentoring people and advocating for architecture because I really believe that if we wanna make Santa Barbara a place where people can continue to come, architecture is really one of the main things that I feel like I I can help in that respect. There's also a lot of other points, but I feel like making Santa Barbara's beautiful is a very, very strong passion of mine. I have the time to do that, and I want to give back to the community. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Rivera? Alright. Thank you. Tamara Sack? And this is for the Neighborhood Advisory Council. Good

afternoon Honorable Mayor Rouse and Honorable members of City Council. I know some of you and some not, that said I, have been living here in Santa Barbara since August 2022. Prior to that I lived here from '89 to '91 and then I returned briefly from '93 to, well actually, yeah, '94 to a little '95, where I left to go to law school in Cincinnati, Ohio. When I was living here from '89, to '92, I, attended Santa Barbara City College, and I, worked as a research assistant for Santa Barbara City Council, and I was, charged with researching, various services by the city and county providing services for unhoused persons. At issue was money and resources.

So, Excel wasn't, even around then, so I had to use my MacBook and come up with this report, which I brought with me, and it was presented on 04/14/1994 to the, board of super, to the Santa Barbara City County Advisory Committee for homeless services steering committee. And what I did was instrumental in some policy changes, really, made me so happy because I love Santa Barbara, and I always intended to return here, notwithstanding the fact that I was twenty seven years in Ohio. I went there for law school. I worked as a public defender. I, represented various cross sections of different communities.

Wherever I lived, in Cincinnati, in Dayton, in, Fairfield, Ohio, which is Butler County, I always volunteered and involved myself in the community. I tutored high school students. When I was living here, in 1993, you may or may not recall a judge by the name of Denise Belfway. Well, she had asked the community. It was a some incidents with youth violence happened, and there was a meeting at the church, that's right by Crush Cakes and I went to that meeting and I was so moved by what Judge Denise DeBelfway said that I immediately volunteered and tutored high school students at Westside at the library, the Franklin Center and sometimes I even met some of the students in their own homes.

And I helped them with reading, with, math, with writing, and I definitely, it just instilled and with just great love for the city, for the community, and that everybody deserves what the city has, and we need to work towards that, towards unifying, towards cross sections. I was very moved by the young ladies and gentlemen who spoke to you some moments ago about the youth council. Some of them mentioned mental health. Yeah, that's very important. That's my priority, especially for the youth.

I would like to focus on, safe spaces for youths in the neighborhoods, even if inclusive of e bikes and the like. As well, I want to identify vulnerable persons, elderly people, aging in space, in in place, and any needs they may have. I don't want to go too far over my time. I'm more than happy to answer any of your questions.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions for this applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Carter Saunders. This is, for youth council.

Good afternoon. My name is Carter Saunders. I'm an eighth grader at La Galena Junior High, and I'm going to Santa Barbara High School next year. I've grown up in this city my entire life, and Santa Barbara isn't just a home for me. It's a place I genuinely believe in, and that belief is a big part of why I'm here today asking to continue serving on the Santa Barbara Youth Council. My involvement with this council didn't start last year. It started before that as a junior high nonvoting representative, watching, learning, and understanding how the council actually works from the inside. That experience gave me something I think is rare. I didn't walk into my role as member at large with assumptions. I walked in with context.

I already knew the people, the process, and the purpose. And even before I was a voting member, I got to see what this council had already proven it could do. The council before me listened to young people's concerns about gun safety or gun violence at the you speak out, took those concerns seriously and turned them into a real piece of city law, a safe firearm storage ordinance that went all the way up to City Council and passed in 2024. That's not just having a voice. That's real power used responsibly by teenagers.

Knowing that history shaped what I believe this council can accomplish and what I want to be a part of. Last year, as a member at large, I had the opportunity to be part of the youth making change work, which showed me that when young people are trusted to lead, they rise to it. Competing for and receiving that grant and using it to fund events that bring teens directly into conversations with city leaders is exactly the kind of meaningful action I want to keep building on. This year, my focus is on teens who aren't already in the room. The ones who don't know the youth council exists.

The ones who have opinions and ideas and frustrations, but don't think anyone in the city government is listening to them. Because if this council has the power to change city law, it absolutely has the power to reach students who've never felt included in civic life, and that has to be a priority. The way I want to do that is simple. Show up, listen well, and keep showing up. When I commit to something, I follow through.

That's not a trait I'm claiming. It's something that people around me would back up. I want the teenagers who who come after me in Santa Barbara to look at this city and see proof that their generation shaped it. That when young people had something to say, there was a council that amplified those voices and turned them into something lasting. I want to help build that legacy, and I'm ready to do the work, and I've no conflictions that would keep me from fully participating. Thank you for your time and your consideration. I'm honored to be here.

Thank you. Are there questions for this applicant? Mister Gutierrez.

Thank you, mister mayor. Carter, since you've been on the council for a bit, what would you say can be done to address the ebike safety issue?

I think something that can address the ebike safety issue is having more clear set laws that people like know about or at least like they used to know about because I know a lot of people that have like the the sirons or the stuff like that and think that they're legal to be able to ride on street. And I think that if if there was clear cut laws and then people were actually educated on them, that it would go a long way and reducing the the I guess dangerousness or improving safety of the bikes.

What do you think the Youth Council can do to address it?

I think the Youth Council can address it by with events like the You Speak Out, try to educate people more on the laws and by hosting even more events on just education of of these laws and stuff, which is actually something I've brought in up in past meetings just about trying to just have the hosting more events that are more like informative events that can just help bring knowledge to the community.

Alright. Thank you. Mister Friedman.

Thank you. Great. Great job. No. No follow-up question. I But do wanna say thank you for solving the ebike quest for all of us so we can do it. But, it's more of, for the clerk because it's not a it's for the clerk, so, you're not not a follow-up question. He's a he's Carter's listed as a public at large. There's three applicants. Is there one vacancy for the public at large, or is there multiple? Because the issue is we have two incumbents. So I just want to clarify how many vacancies there are for the public at large.

Councilmember Friedman, for the Santa Barbara Youth Council, there are currently four vacancies for the public at large category.

Okay. So there wouldn't be they wouldn't be competing against each other?

That is correct.

Perfect. That clarifies it based on the last question was a little more unclear.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. With that, we'll go to Jamie Ross. And this is for the Community Development and Human Services Committee.

Good afternoon. My name is Jamie Ross, and I'm applying for the East Side seat on the Community Development and Human Resources Committee. I'm applying for this position because I both live and work on the East Side. I'm currently a staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Defense Center, based out of the Franklin Neighborhood center and my wife and I recently relocated back to Santa Barbara, and live just a few blocks away. So I am primarily looking for an opportunity to support and raise up our local community.

As a non profit immigration attorney I think I'm uniquely familiar with some of the needs and services that are present in the area that I would be representing particularly with respect to mixed status, and newcomer families. In terms of skills, and experience, I'm bilingual, I specialize in working with unaccompanied youth and survivors of violence and persecution. I have many years of experience in grant writing and reporting, including state and local funding models and CDBG block grants. Given my background, I think one of the strengths that I would bring to the committee would be the ability to think creatively and strategically about how we can continue to ensure that emergency services are accessible to people with language, mental health, and status barriers. With respect to time commitments, I acknowledge this is not a small undertaking and I do have a very full time job.

However, the majority of my professional commitments happen during court hours and should not interfere with meetings or site visits. That's all I've prepared, I'm welcome. Any questions?

Very good. Are there any questions for this applicant? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Joseph Samora, and this is for the housing authority.

Hello, mayor and city council members. My name is Joey Samora. I have had the honor and privilege to serve as a tenant housing commissioner over the past year and, am here to apply for the next term. I have been a recipient of housing for about seven years, and it has been a lifeline for me and my family. Allowed me to stay here in Santa Barbara, go back to school, and, yeah, I'm soon to be graduating with a master's degree at Antioch.

I've learned a lot. I went to Washington DC with Rob Fredericks, and we learned about advocating for affordable housing and mixed status housing. And, yeah, I just want to continue to learn and help serve this community. Thank you.