[0:00] Heat
[0:05] [music]
[0:14] up
[0:52] Heat.
[1:14] Heat. N.
[1:24] Heat.
[2:10] That's what I think.
[2:14] >> [music]
[2:29] » Good luck.
[2:31] [music]
[2:53] or something
[2:56] you
[3:03] wait on
[3:11] it.
[3:12] Oh my goodness.
[3:28] All right.
[3:34] So, welcome to the Lump City Council
[3:36] meeting,
[3:39] Tuesday, July 21st, 2026.
[3:42] Roll call, please.
[3:46] » Council member Ball,
[3:48] >> present.
[3:49] >> Council member Bridge,
[3:51] >> present. Council member Vega
[3:53] >> here.
[3:55] >> Mayor Prom Starbucks
[3:57] >> present.
[3:58] >> Mayor Mosby
[3:59] >> present.
[4:01] >> City attorney reported any action in
[4:02] close session.
[4:04] >> Thank you, mayor, for the special
[4:06] meeting tonight that started at 5:15.
[4:08] The city council met in close session to
[4:10] discuss the one labor negotiation item
[4:13] on the agenda uh regarding
[4:16] the international association of
[4:18] firefighters, the international
[4:20] brotherhood of electrical workers,
[4:22] management, supervisory and confidential
[4:25] employees and the unrepresented
[4:26] employees. City council gave direction
[4:29] to staff on that item but no reportable
[4:32] action was taken.
[4:35] I get
[4:40] please join me in invocation.
[4:43] Are you up? Come on down. Followed by
[4:46] the pledge of allegiance. Please stand.
[4:59] Mayor, council members,
[5:02] city clerk,
[5:05] our first responders and citizens of
[5:07] LMPO.
[5:09] I'm glad that you're here to join with
[5:11] me in prayer. But I don't know how I could live life
[5:17] without it, tell you the truth, because
[5:18] I'm just not that smart.
[5:22] And there is a higher power
[5:25] for me.
[5:27] And uh
[5:30] I don't just come here on Tuesdays to
[5:33] pray. I I pray every day for Lump Poke
[5:37] because I love LM Poke
[5:39] and I love the citizens of LM Poke and I
[5:42] love this council and I want to thank
[5:43] you for your servthood.
[5:45] uh to be a servant doesn't mean you know
[5:48] everything and you do everything right
[5:50] because you'll never be able to please
[5:52] everybody but if you do it with your
[5:55] heart intent to make a better lump a
[6:00] better city I mean that's the whole
[6:02] objective if you're going to be a
[6:03] servant and there's you know I see young
[6:07] people that come in here and I want to
[6:08] let you know that if you're coming to be
[6:11] a servant you'll be a great servant but
[6:13] if you're coming to be a leader you'll
[6:14] be a poor leader.
[6:17] It's a servant that makes a better
[6:19] leader.
[6:20] And it's a it's a a servant that comes
[6:22] up here and take the hard hits.
[6:26] If you can take a hard hit, you can take
[6:29] somebody talking about you
[6:32] and you're still going to do the right
[6:33] thing.
[6:35] You're a servant. You're the greatest
[6:37] servant there ever be. And I I applaud
[6:39] you young people. Be a servant.
[6:43] It's easy to It's easy to
[6:46] rock the boat if you're not in it. But
[6:49] when you get in the boat, you try to
[6:51] steady it a little better.
[6:53] Are you with me? You ready to pray with
[6:56] me? I appreciate you. I love you, too.
[6:59] Father, I want to thank you for this
[7:01] time uh for City of Lamp, our first
[7:04] responders, our city manager. Uh thank
[7:08] you uh for our city attorney and for all
[7:11] the staff that comes here every uh twice
[7:15] uh a month to to to work out the the
[7:19] issues, the challenges,
[7:22] Lord, that we have in our city. And I
[7:24] want to thank you, Father. Um you know,
[7:27] you remind us that we live in such a
[7:29] great place that we don't need air
[7:31] conditioner today. reminded us it can
[7:33] get pretty hot and we need we need air
[7:35] and we know that it won't last long. We
[7:38] hope not.
[7:40] The best place on the central coast.
[7:41] Don't tell everybody about it. Father,
[7:45] bless the meeting tonight.
[7:48] Bless our leaders.
[7:50] Bless our servant leaders, Lord. that
[7:53] the that the best possible outcome uh
[7:56] for our city and for the citizens
[8:01] Lord that we you know the you know the
[8:03] needs that we have
[8:05] you see the struggles that we get
[8:09] and Lord often times it's not the
[8:11] individual it's the process
[8:15] sometimes it's other people and other
[8:17] government agencies that we have to deal
[8:20] with to get our city in alignment
[8:23] for the betterment of this of the of the
[8:26] citizens. So we ask for your wisdom. We
[8:30] ask for your presence. We want to say
[8:33] thank you so much
[8:35] for all that you do for us. And I call
[8:38] you father God for that very purpose. We
[8:43] are your children. And in your name I
[8:45] pray.
[8:49] Please show me the pledge of allegiance.
[8:51] Ready? Begin.
[8:54] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[8:56] United States of America and to the
[8:59] republic for which it stands. One nation
[9:02] under God, indivisible, liberty and
[9:05] justice for all.
[9:17] » City manager reports.
[9:21] Thank you, mayor. I want to take a
[9:23] minute and remind everybody that uh July
[9:25] is the National Park and Rex month. Um
[9:29] we have a lot of fun stuff on our
[9:31] calendar and you guys can participate
[9:33] in. The theme this year is the power of
[9:35] the parks and recreation. Just wanted to
[9:37] let everybody know that we will be
[9:38] having a free public swim next Tuesday,
[9:42] July 28th from 1 to 3.
[9:45] Also,
[9:47] I'm excited to announce that the
[9:48] registration for the library's third
[9:51] annual edible book contest is now open.
[9:54] This creates hands-on event that you can
[9:57] lovers uh books can chefs and from age 7
[10:01] to 14 can put their literature worked in some delicious looking edible
[10:07] masterpieces. Um I have to go check this
[10:09] out. Entries will be judged strictly on
[10:12] creativity, visual presentation, not
[10:15] tastes. And the contest will be at Ryan
[10:17] Park at 10:30. Uh what's the date?
[10:23] What?
[10:25] >> July 31st. Sorry, I missed it somewhere.
[10:28] And the judging will be at uh 11:30.
[10:31] Also want to announce that we're doing
[10:33] our book challenge or our summer reading
[10:36] program. [snorts] And uh we've got
[10:38] 360,000 minutes read and our goal is
[10:41] 400,000.
[10:43] Also wanted to share that the community
[10:45] input for survey on the general fund
[10:46] update will again be open for the month
[10:49] of August. This is an opportunity for
[10:51] residents to share their input regarding
[10:53] what they love about LMP, things that
[10:55] can be improved, what they believe the
[10:57] future can look like. Um this 20 this
[11:00] will be for the 2050 general plan and
[11:02] it'll be going out in the August utility
[11:04] bills for a survey link. And that's all
[11:07] I have sir.
[11:09] >> Any quick questions? Like when you say
[11:11] it's park month, can you explain to us
[11:15] what's going on? I get a lot of calls
[11:16] about Batty Park, River Park. Uh what's
[11:19] going on? The grass is all dying.
[11:20] >> Yeah, we've we've had a lot of uh
[11:22] problems with our older system. Um me
[11:25] and Mario sat down and got to be a
[11:27] pretty lengthy conversation. So maybe
[11:29] I'm happy I'm give you an update on
[11:30] that.
[11:32] Yeah. I mean, we're rolling into the
[11:34] next season that's going on and
[11:36] everything's dead. Doesn't make sense.
[11:39] >> Yeah. So, we've been having obviously
[11:41] this some irrigation problems. Um, our
[11:43] systems and our parks are decades old.
[11:46] Um, a lot of our our wiring from valve
[11:49] to valve is is buried deep and it's not
[11:52] in the the conduit. So, it's been like
[11:54] that for decades. So, a lot of the the
[11:56] gophers are eating our wires. So, we're
[11:59] in the process that the past week our
[12:01] park staff that met with a couple reps
[12:03] and we're looking at wireless valve that
[12:07] transmitters that that will be hooked up
[12:08] to our um irrigation clocks. So, it
[12:13] would avoid some of those problems that we're having as well. So, we're
[12:17] getting proposals on that as well as the
[12:21] clock on the bottom part of 80 that will be replaced tomorrow. And so the
[12:27] bottom half will be working and we'll be
[12:30] evaluating those bell boxes as well. And
[12:34] until we get this figured out, staff
[12:36] will be going around and um watering
[12:40] those parks by um hand through the
[12:42] valves and turning those on as well.
[12:45] Good deal. Hopefully we can get them
[12:46] greened up here. I know a lot of sports
[12:49] seasons are starting and
[12:51] heck, it's fire season out here. Some of
[12:53] these parks would catch on vote if not
[12:55] careful. Right. Anybody else see any
[12:56] other questions for city manager?
[13:03] All right. Moving on.
[13:07] So, this is for public comment on
[13:09] consent calendar.
[13:13] >> Before we get to the
[13:16] >> uh consent calendar items, there are a
[13:18] number of recusals for the consent
[13:20] calendar items. So bear with me while I
[13:23] list them here. I'm going to go in order
[13:25] of the items on the consent calendar. Um
[13:28] item number two is the approval and
[13:30] ratification of expenditures. Uh Council
[13:34] Member Starbucks has uh is going to
[13:37] recuse himself with respect to check
[13:39] number 6640
[13:41] on item number two. That's a check to
[13:43] the LMPoke Valley Chamber of Commerce,
[13:45] which is a source of income to council
[13:48] member Starbucks. on on uh consent
[13:51] calendar item number three. Council
[13:54] member Ball uh is going to recuse
[13:55] himself from that item because the
[13:58] LMPoke Unified School District is a
[14:00] source of income to council member Ball
[14:03] within the last 12 months.
[14:06] Um consent calendar item number four
[14:11] uh involves 112 North H Street, which is
[14:14] LMPoke Theater. Uh, Council Member
[14:16] Starbucks owns property within 500 ft of
[14:19] the theater and he therefore will recuse
[14:21] himself from item number four.
[14:26] Item number six involves 101 South B
[14:29] Street. Mayor Mosby owns property within
[14:32] 500 ft of 101 South B Street and he will
[14:35] therefore recuse himself from that item.
[14:37] Now, item number seven involves an
[14:40] opportunity zone within the city and
[14:42] Mayor Mosby owns property within that
[14:45] opportunity zone. He will therefore
[14:47] recuse himself from that item as well.
[14:51] And I believe those are all the
[14:52] recusals.
[14:54] All right. So, I'll just read them into
[14:57] the record. Number one is the approval
[14:58] of minutes for April 21st, 2026. Number
[15:02] two is approval and ratification of
[15:04] expenditures for payroll June 19th, 2026
[15:07] at 2.184 million. Another voucher from
[15:10] June 15th to 18th, 2026 of 1.683
[15:13] million. Another voucher register for
[15:15] June 22nd through 26 of 2026 of 1.714
[15:21] million. Number three is approval of
[15:22] independent contractor service agreement
[15:24] with Lumbok Unified School District for
[15:26] the school resource officer program.
[15:29] Number four is the approval of an
[15:30] encroachment license agreement with
[15:32] [clears throat] maintenance and removal
[15:33] covenant for the Lomboke theater project
[15:36] at 112 North H Street. Number five is
[15:39] approval of change order request to
[15:40] purchase order with WSPUSA Incorporated
[15:43] for landfill gas compliance and air
[15:46] toxic hotspots act.
[15:49] Number six is the adoption of resolution
[15:51] number 6835
[15:53] 26 repealing resolution number 459097
[15:57] and removing a passenger loading zone
[15:58] and a 20minut restricted parking zone at
[16:01] 101 South B Street. Number seven is
[16:03] adoption of resolution number 6836
[16:05] Princy 26 expressing support for the
[16:08] submitt of an opportunity zone 2.0 local
[16:10] authority recommendation form.
[16:14] Anybody have any oral communications on
[16:16] those seven items?
[16:21] See nobody rise for those be able to
[16:23] close. Anybody on phone or teams over
[16:26] here? Emily,
[16:27] >> there's no public comment via teams or
[16:29] audio.
[16:30] >> Okay,
[16:32] very good. See that? We'll close oral
[16:34] communications. Bring back the council
[16:37] for vote, motion, vote, comment,
[16:39] discussion, deliberation.
[16:41] What do you guys got?
[16:44] Don't jump on it at once.
[16:46] Got a motion. What's your motion,
[16:48] Council Member Ball?
[16:49] >> I'll make a motion to accept consent
[16:51] calendar with um all 700 of the
[16:53] recusals.
[16:55] >> Okay, we got a first. You got a second
[16:57] on that one.
[17:00] The motion on the table is to accept
[17:02] less the recused items. Second by
[17:05] council member ve let's go ahead and
[17:07] move
[17:16] everybody vote.
[17:19] Yes. No.
[17:23] And that passes 5.
[17:25] All right. Moving on to staff
[17:27] presentation announcements and requests.
[17:28] Do we have any of those? City manager.
[17:32] None. Okay.
[17:34] Which brings us to the basic oral
[17:36] communications. This is uh three minutes
[17:38] oral communications.
[17:57] Good evening, mayor, city council. Joyce
[17:59] Howton.
[18:01] I thought I'd come tonight and take you
[18:03] to the woodshed. You know, I was at a
[18:06] city council meeting a couple weeks ago
[18:08] and I can't tell you how appalled I was.
[18:12] Appalled, embarrassed,
[18:15] angry. We had visitors from solving
[18:19] sitting here and we saw you, Mayor
[18:22] Mosby, berating staff.
[18:26] your staff that are trained, responsible
[18:30] people that were hired because they can
[18:32] do the job and in front of a room full
[18:35] of people, you just went off and it was
[18:40] so embarrassing. I happen to have gone
[18:44] to um the solving city council a number
[18:46] of times and I would encourage you to go
[18:49] and watch because they're very civil.
[18:53] They're very respectful to everyone.
[18:57] I would like to see civility and respect
[19:00] brought back to your interactions, not
[19:02] just with staff, but with people in the
[19:05] community, with people that come to
[19:07] speak to you. I'd also like to ask you
[19:11] to stop making your snide little
[19:13] comments about the board of supervisors.
[19:16] You may not like them, but guess what?
[19:18] We need them. They can do a lot for the
[19:21] city of Lomboke. and every time you take
[19:23] a shot at them, somebody's paying
[19:25] attention. So, you know, rudeness isn't
[19:29] a friend maker. Um, please consider the
[19:34] example you're setting. I can guarantee
[19:36] there's at least one young person at
[19:38] home that's on a work project or is um
[19:42] doing an assignment and they're watching
[19:44] this council meeting tonight. There's a
[19:48] lot of young people sitting here. You
[19:50] should be their role models. You should
[19:53] be the ones to show them how to do it.
[19:56] That's our future. Do you want our
[19:59] future to see a bunch of elderly men
[20:04] sitting up there just muttering away?
[20:07] No. We want to put examples that we can
[20:11] be proud of. Um,
[20:14] anger, disrespect is not the image our
[20:18] community wants from you. The tone of
[20:21] recent city council meetings feels
[20:24] outdated and unprofessional.
[20:28] Guys, it's not 1950 anymore. You got to
[20:32] up your game.
[20:35] You can and you should do better for
[20:38] LMPoke.
[20:40] Oh, and I I heard about the me
[20:44] everywhere I go in town. That's all
[20:46] anybody's talking about are these
[20:47] council meetings. They finally made
[20:49] prime time.
[20:52] >> So,
[20:53] I guess we have a new photographer on
[20:55] the council. Apparently, Mayor Mosby,
[20:58] you came into the meeting and took
[21:01] pictures of the people that had
[21:03] attended. That's really a great way to
[21:06] get more people to come to a council
[21:08] member to think the mayor is going to be
[21:10] taking their picture. So I was seeking
[21:12] to counter that. Maybe everybody in the
[21:15] audience should take your picture and
[21:18] then finally what you would have
[21:20] something in common with the community.
[21:22] Thank you.
[21:30] » Uh good evening mayor and council
[21:31] members. Uh my name is Renee and I'm a
[21:33] volunteer um organizer with 805 undocu.
[21:38] I want to remind everyone on in this
[21:41] room of something that happened just
[21:42] recently when our committee learned that
[21:45] there was a proposal to remove city
[21:47] council city uh mayor manager. People
[21:50] showed up. Residents fill this chamber
[21:52] because they believe such an important
[21:55] decision deserves transparency and
[21:57] public accountability. Whether people
[21:59] agreed or disagree with the city manager
[22:01] isn't the point. The point is that the
[22:03] people of Longpoke made it clear that
[22:05] decisions affecting the future of our
[22:07] city should never happen without the
[22:09] public paying attention.
[22:12] That meeting sent a message not just to
[22:14] this council but to our entire
[22:16] community. The people of Loke are
[22:19] engaged, organized, and watching. For
[22:22] years, too many residents felt their
[22:24] voices didn't matter. Today, that's
[22:27] changing. At 805 on DoyFund, our mission
[22:30] is to support immigrant families, but
[22:32] our work has always been about something
[22:34] bigger. Building civic participation, we
[22:37] encourage people to to know their
[22:39] rights, to know how local government
[22:41] works, and to understand that democracy
[22:43] doesn't end at on election day. It
[22:46] continues every time someone attends a
[22:49] council meeting, speaks during public
[22:51] comment, volunteers in their
[22:53] neighborhood, or holds elected officials
[22:55] accountable. Our coalition includes
[22:57] people from many different backgrounds
[22:59] and organizations. We don't agree on
[23:01] everything, but we agree on this. Public
[23:03] office is a public trust. We're not here
[23:06] because we want conflict. We're here
[23:08] because we love LMPoke. We want a city
[23:10] where decisions are made openly, where
[23:13] every resident feels represented, and
[23:15] where elected officials remember that
[23:17] they serve the people,
[23:20] not the other way around. So, let's be
[23:23] clear. We're not going anywhere. We will
[23:25] continue attending meetings. We will
[23:27] continue asking questions. We will
[23:29] continue organizing our neighbors. We
[23:31] will continue encouraging people to
[23:33] vote, to participate, and to speak up
[23:35] respectfully when they believe something
[23:38] isn't right. This isn't about one
[23:41] meeting or one issue. It's about
[23:43] building culture accountability that
[23:46] lasts long after today's headlines are
[23:48] forgotten. The people of Lok have found
[23:51] their voice and that voice deserves to
[23:53] be heard. Thank you.
[24:05] We aren't going anywhere. Indeed. Uh,
[24:07] good evening. I only have a few words
[24:09] tonight, but I'd like to begin with some
[24:11] good news. Finally, for the first time
[24:14] in quite a while, I want to recognize
[24:17] our mayor. Mayor, after months of public
[24:20] pressure, multiple controversies,
[24:22] reduction in public services, and more
[24:25] than seven community organizations
[24:28] calling for accountability, it appears
[24:30] progress has finally been made towards
[24:33] cleaning up your properties. This is a
[24:35] picture that I got the other day. Now,
[24:38] don't worry, I'm not a stalker. I just
[24:40] happen to be driving by. Now, while I'm
[24:42] glad to see progress, accountability
[24:44] shouldn't only come after public
[24:46] pressure. Leadership means setting the
[24:49] example before someone has to ask. If we
[24:52] expect residents to follow city
[24:54] standards, those standards should apply
[24:56] equally to everyone,
[24:58] especially those elected to lead our
[25:01] city. I also recently learned that there
[25:04] are 36 flock safety cameras operating
[25:06] throughout our city. Public safety is
[25:09] incredibly important, and I support
[25:11] efforts to reduce crime and keep our
[25:12] neighborhoods safe. But public safety
[25:15] should never come at the expense of
[25:17] people who live in our community.
[25:20] Residents deserve to know how these
[25:23] technologies are being used, how long
[25:25] information is retained, and why there
[25:27] is a meaningful need for mass
[25:29] surveillance in Lomboke. Every meeting
[25:31] we hear about another challenge facing
[25:33] our city. Too often it feels like we are
[25:36] moving backwards instead of forwards.
[25:38] LMPO deserves leadership that is
[25:40] proactive instead of reactive.
[25:43] Leadership that solves problems before
[25:45] they become headlines and leadership
[25:47] that is willing to hold itself to the
[25:49] same standards it expects from the
[25:51] people who they represent. Our community
[25:54] deserves better and I hope we continue
[25:56] moving in that direction. Thank you.
[26:05] » Hi surprise. I'm Diana Diaz. I live up
[26:09] the hill and I'm here to talk about
[26:12] Chick-fil-A.
[26:14] And I heard that we are having a
[26:15] Chick-fil-A coming here. And I'm very
[26:17] concerned about how they love to have
[26:22] people wait on the street to eat at
[26:25] Chick-fil-A. You go and you want to
[26:28] drive down the street and no, you can't.
[26:31] you have to change lanes because
[26:33] Chick-fil-A
[26:34] has cars so lined up that it's been an
[26:40] inconvenience in Santa Barbara. They had
[26:43] to have um two drive-through lanes and
[26:46] they still end up with people out on the
[26:48] street waiting to go into Chick-fil-A.
[26:51] So, it's a chronic problem wherever
[26:52] there's a Chick-fil-A. And I guess
[26:55] people really love Chick-fil-A. I mean,
[26:57] it's delicious, but I can't stomach it
[26:59] because they're anti-LGBTQ+
[27:02] and I just can't. So, I won't be eating
[27:05] there. But I'm very concerned that they
[27:07] have not purchased enough property to
[27:10] manage their traffic flow and that is
[27:13] not acceptable. If they want the people
[27:16] to come in, they need or just order and
[27:19] not come in, then they need the property
[27:22] to do it on. And I'm not sure that they
[27:26] bought enough or have enough. And I
[27:30] apparently in Santa Maria it's a
[27:31] problem. We have problems with our
[27:33] drive-throughs that we already have
[27:35] here. People line up on the street for
[27:37] McDonald's sometimes. So there's a
[27:39] traffic flow problem there. In um the
[27:43] Albertson's parking lot, there's two
[27:46] drive-throughs that are a chronic
[27:47] problem and that they they back up
[27:50] traffic within it. I mean, it is private
[27:53] property, so it's not really the city's
[27:55] problem, but just observing historically
[27:58] speaking, they have traffic lined up in
[28:01] where people are trying to park, trying
[28:03] to drive through to get to parking or
[28:06] Taco Bell. I want to go to yogurt and I
[28:09] can't go through a certain way. I have
[28:10] to go a different way because I don't
[28:13] want to deal with the traffic. So, what
[28:16] are we going to do? Are we just going to
[28:18] let them come here and then our streets
[28:22] are their parking lot? That should be a
[28:24] no. So, we should look at their plans
[28:28] more carefully and make sure that we're
[28:30] going in the right direction so people
[28:33] can get their Chick-fil-A and not annoy
[28:36] the rest of us that want to just drive
[28:38] on the street. So, thank you
[28:44] Anybody
[28:48] else?
[28:52] Anything on phone or teams?
[28:55] >> There is one public comment via teams.
[28:58] Um speaker with the last four of 8110.
[29:05] You may speak. Your time is 3 minutes
[29:08] just as if you were in person. There may
[29:10] be a little bit of a lag.
[29:17] Okay, I'm no longer muted. I hope you
[29:20] can hear me. This is Karen Howenstein.
[29:24] I am calling in today
[29:27] because the chief of police and the
[29:31] police captain have decided
[29:34] to violate my civil rights in a variety
[29:38] of ways because I am so effective as an
[29:42] investigator and also an official
[29:45] complaint reporter about the death of
[29:47] Liliana Zuniga. I know that if anybody's
[29:51] been paying attention, they've heard me
[29:54] complain
[29:56] about the lack of transparency
[29:58] surrounding the death of Liliana Zuniga
[30:02] inside our police station
[30:05] in March of 2023.
[30:09] that's apparently coming to a head
[30:10] because they're now attacking me, having
[30:14] me arrested actually for violating a
[30:17] restraining order that they'd husted
[30:19] upon me. Now, I'm not not going to talk
[30:21] about that anymore because I had to sit
[30:24] through
[30:25] Joyce Howard.
[30:28] Joyce, I've known you for 30 years.
[30:32] Honestly, honey, when I was so young and
[30:35] I looked up to you, I had absolutely no
[30:39] idea what you were really doing behind
[30:42] the scene to stifle
[30:46] the building of homes in our community.
[30:49] >> Excuse me. Direct your stuff to the city
[30:51] council, not to speakers. Okay.
[30:52] >> Oh, sorry about that. Okay. Sorry about
[30:55] that. City council, I've got a complaint
[30:57] about Joyce Howard because she sucked as
[30:59] a mayor. She sucked as a mayor so bad
[31:03] that she shoved Lomboke back about 20
[31:06] years. And her friends are the ones who
[31:11] own the surf development corporation
[31:15] which I have now done a lot of
[31:17] investigation about and it is not
[31:20] transparent
[31:21] and it's keeping a lid on our town.
[31:28] And I'm probably preaching to the choir
[31:30] because I know that our city council and
[31:33] our mayor have been around for a long
[31:35] time like I have, like Joyce has. She's
[31:39] taking this opportunity, the fact that
[31:42] I'm being my civil rights are being
[31:45] violated
[31:46] to keep me out of that meeting and it
[31:50] won't happen forever.
[31:54] God bless you all. Thank you for being
[31:56] there doing the good work. See you soon.
[32:07] » There's no more public comment via Teams
[32:09] or audio.
[32:10] >> Right. Come on down.
[32:14] >> Howdy, Carl Jones. Uh update. Uh
[32:18] the cars over there on on Laurel, they
[32:20] actually belong to somebody. you know,
[32:21] they lease the property, but
[32:25] there's a lot of people going around
[32:26] stealing from the people. I got the
[32:29] numbers for the guys. I try to get a
[32:31] hold of them when I can, but you know,
[32:32] when I'm going to work at 3 in the
[32:33] morning, I see guys out there with
[32:34] toolbox. One thing I do, yell at them.
[32:37] You know, just, you know, we do have a
[32:40] lot of crime. We got a lot of people
[32:41] just go around this this city and they
[32:43] just think they can get away with
[32:44] anything because nothing's really being
[32:46] done against them. You know, it's it's
[32:48] the truth, you know. uh you call this
[32:51] type of stuff in. Are you the land
[32:52] owner? No, I'm not. Okay. Well, the land
[32:54] owner is calling. This is this these are
[32:57] the type of responses you get. You know,
[32:59] uh this guy's uh stoned out of his gard
[33:02] sitting in the freaking damn parking
[33:03] lot. Why are you calling the police?
[33:05] Who am I supposed to call?
[33:08] You know that this these are the type
[33:11] things that are happening within this
[33:13] city. You know, I you know, we do need
[33:16] to do a little more concentration on the
[33:19] public safety.
[33:21] You know, this stuff's blatantly
[33:22] happening. I mean, just uh last month,
[33:26] I'm sitting over there in the shopping
[33:28] center. I got kids running up and down
[33:29] the sidewalk on these ding electric
[33:31] bicycles that go 45 miles an hour.
[33:34] People are, you know, trying to dodge,
[33:36] get out of their way. Well, not myself.
[33:38] I just stand in their way because I let
[33:40] them hit me, you know, but
[33:44] can't, you know, what's going on? We we
[33:46] don't have the officers available.
[33:47] What's or we're not patrolling well
[33:48] enough? Do we need more officers? You
[33:51] know, all this stuff comes to light that
[33:53] needs to happen because public safety is
[33:56] really failing.
[33:58] That's the only way I can say it. It's
[33:59] really failing. And I know we need to
[34:01] figure this out, you know, come together
[34:03] as a council, as a community, what have
[34:04] you, you know. Uh but yeah, there's a lot of issues that really
[34:09] still need to be addressed. Thank you.
[34:12] Anybody
[34:15] else?
[34:21] Seeing nobody else will close public
[34:23] oral communications appointment council
[34:26] appointment to Santa Barbber continue of
[34:28] care coc board
[34:36] counc.
[34:39] Uh, I'm happy to take that one if no one
[34:41] else is interested.
[34:42] >> All right. Anybody have discussion on
[34:44] that? Well, before we take a motion, are
[34:46] you guys okay with all that
[34:48] >> discussion?
[34:49] >> All right. Let's go and make a motion up
[34:52] for the motion. Motion.
[34:58] » Motion by Vegas, second by Starbucks to
[35:01] put Council Member Bowl on the COC.
[35:03] Right. I just have one question. Yes.
[35:05] The continuum of practice
[35:20] zero. You made it. It's a battle, but
[35:23] you got it. You won.
[35:27] Number nine,
[35:30] uh, public hearing on zone code text
[35:32] amendment 80.
[35:34] >> I I need to, uh, on number 80, we had
[35:36] these, uh, external agencies.
[35:40] Um, and I asked if we were approving
[35:42] that, we said no. So, I'd like to talk
[35:45] on that briefly if I can.
[35:47] >> Yeah, we did all these appointments a
[35:49] while ago, but
[35:51] >> Yeah. Well, I could I since this was on
[35:52] the
[35:53] >> You got a suggestion? Yeah. What do you
[35:54] want to talk about?
[35:55] >> I do. Um so item three and item 10, the
[35:59] electrical
[36:01] utility joint powers agency
[36:04] and the uh
[36:08] California tank
[36:11] um and the associated m municipal
[36:15] utilities association.
[36:17] um these agencies have significant
[36:21] discussion about financial decisions and
[36:24] these decisions don't have the same
[36:25] transparency as discussions on the DS.
[36:29] So out of respect for Councilman Ball
[36:32] and his minions representing concerns
[36:35] regarding my um involvement,
[36:37] I'm going to step down from this
[36:39] external agency representation.
[36:42] the backup is Councilman Ball who can
[36:44] fill the primary role at least in this
[36:47] area to address his concerns. So, um in
[36:51] respect for those who are concerned
[36:53] about me making uh financial decisions
[36:56] that are not transparent,
[36:59] those two agencies do that. So, I'll be
[37:01] stepping down from those.
[37:03] It's for the city attorney. Is that
[37:05] something we could do at this time or do
[37:06] you want to agendaize it better? A
[37:08] council member can resign from one of
[37:10] those boards at any time. And so the
[37:12] city clerk should mark that in our
[37:14] records. What we So in the interim,
[37:17] council member Ball, if he's listed as
[37:19] the backup, he would serve uh in the
[37:21] interim until we appoint a new main
[37:25] representative if you wanted to
[37:27] agendaize that.
[37:30] Okay. Council B, you got two more it
[37:33] looks like. And then it'll be agendaized
[37:34] in the future for the alternate. Is that
[37:36] what you're saying?
[37:38] I think agendaized in the future for the main seat because council member
[37:43] Ball right Oh,
[37:43] >> he's already filling in anyways. All
[37:45] right. I guess
[37:46] >> whatever the vacant one is, you can
[37:47] agendaize it and you can move them
[37:49] around as you
[37:52] » it is. Yes, Council B.
[37:54] >> So clarity, I'm not necessarily taking
[37:56] the lead role. We're going to come back
[37:57] and
[37:58] >> do it again.
[37:59] >> But you're filling in because you're
[38:01] already signed up to fill in.
[38:02] >> Sounds great.
[38:03] >> Got it.
[38:05] >> Correct. City attorney. All right.
[38:08] >> Yes, that's correct.
[38:10] >> Now, Mr. Stones,
[38:16] » adus. Good evening, mayor, members of
[38:20] the council.
[38:22] Last time the city of Luke amended the
[38:23] language to uh the city code pertaining
[38:26] to accessory dwelling units, abbreviated
[38:28] as ADUs, and junior accessory dwelling
[38:30] units, JADUs, was in 2023.
[38:34] Since then, the state has amended the
[38:35] government code regulations for ADUs
[38:37] multiple times. In 2024, the city
[38:41] received communication for California
[38:42] Department of Housing and Community
[38:45] Development, HCD, indicating that our
[38:47] ADU ordinance is not in compliance with
[38:49] the state regulations.
[38:52] Therefore, staff um has referred to
[38:55] state regulations um when reviewing the
[38:57] proposed ADUs. The purpose of these
[39:00] amendments is to update the city's ADO
[39:02] ordinance to be compliant with the state
[39:04] code.
[39:14] Just to summarize some of the amendments
[39:16] as outlined in your packet.
[39:20] Uh the amendments uh are changing the
[39:22] number of ADUs allowed per state code,
[39:24] clarification regarding ADUs and JADUS,
[39:27] strikeouts that are not needed any
[39:30] longer, uh adding a new section
[39:32] regarding the starter home
[39:33] revitalization act, and updating code
[39:36] references.
[39:39] Uh this action is exempt from
[39:40] environmental review pursuant to public
[39:43] resources code 211080.17
[39:47] and that uh concludes oh well the
[39:50] recommendation would be to introduce uh
[39:53] by first reading with further reading wave the ordinance that
[39:57] concludes my presentation. Thank you.
[40:03] guys have any questions for him as
[40:05] progresses?
[40:07] Councelor Bridge,
[40:11] » my reading on this was that we are
[40:14] taking issue with the
[40:16] uh state on the parking requirements.
[40:21] >> Yes, that that is yeah one of the items.
[40:24] Yeah.
[40:25] >> Has the city attorney weighed in on
[40:27] taking that position?
[40:33] » Yes. My office has been heavily involved
[40:36] in this.
[40:37] >> And you feel we can we have a defensible
[40:40] position?
[40:41] >> Yes. And um there are other cities as
[40:46] well that have taken issue with HCD's
[40:48] interpretation um on this parking issue
[40:52] and other issues that HCD did not raise
[40:54] with LMPOK and they are doing the same
[40:57] and making findings disagreeing with HCD
[40:59] on certain things.
[41:01] So just so I have kind of a complete
[41:04] understanding,
[41:06] we are basically saying that yes, we
[41:09] understand an ADU doesn't have to have
[41:11] parking, but if you take the parking out
[41:15] of service from the primary residence,
[41:20] that parking requirement still exists.
[41:22] Is that
[41:23] >> Well, it it's specific to a JADU. So if
[41:25] you have an existing garage and they
[41:27] convert it to a J AU then you have to
[41:30] replace the parking uh so that the
[41:33] primary residence still has the parking
[41:35] or the the application doesn't apply to
[41:38] regular ADUs. So just JDUs you have
[41:41] parking. Yeah.
[41:42] >> Okay. Thank you.
[41:46] » So I'm just curious with the city
[41:48] attorney. I mean I I'm hearing some
[41:49] confidence about our standing with this
[41:51] issue.
[41:53] Obviously things might not go our way.
[41:55] at some court juncture. I'm not sure how
[41:57] all that works, but is there a fall
[41:58] blback back contingency compliance thing
[42:02] that we need to be concerned with in
[42:04] terms of if HCD says, "Nope, the rules
[42:06] are the rules."
[42:09] >> Yes. Um it is po it's always possible
[42:12] for any issue for HCD to recommend to
[42:15] the attorney general that they
[42:18] come after the city of LMPoke in court
[42:20] if uh the attorney general believes that
[42:23] we're doing something that's in
[42:25] violation of state law. But um HCD wrote
[42:29] us a letter, I think it was in July
[42:31] 2024, and there were multiple things
[42:33] that they said our code needed to be
[42:35] updated on with respect to ADUs.
[42:38] And [snorts] we agreed with them on
[42:40] pretty much all of them except for this
[42:42] one about the parking. And we are
[42:45] confident that state law is on our side
[42:47] on this and that HCD is reaching a
[42:50] little bit too much with respect to the
[42:52] their reading of state law on this one
[42:55] parking ADU issue.
[42:57] >> Thank you for that clarity. And then it
[42:59] how soon might we know
[43:02] which way it goes?
[43:03] >> Well, assuming it gets adopted, I'm
[43:05] going to contact HCD uh pretty much
[43:08] immediately and provide it to them. And
[43:10] they have a I believe a 60-day review
[43:12] period.
[43:12] >> Okay. So in the event that something
[43:14] doesn't go our way, we have time to make
[43:16] amendments and come into compliance and
[43:19] >> Yes, they they give us time to fix
[43:22] things. Yes,
[43:23] >> appreciate that. Thank you.
[43:27] Any other questions?
[43:29] Did you want to carry on presentation or
[43:32] >> wrapped up?
[43:34] Okay,
[43:36] let me open up to public comment and
[43:37] we'll see what's got.
[43:40] Anybody want to comment on this item?
[43:44] number nine,
[43:48] adus.
[43:51] Anybody on telephone teams?
[43:55] >> There's no public comment via teams or
[43:57] audio.
[43:59] >> All right,
[44:02] we got somebody awake here. come on
[44:03] down.
[44:06] >> So, I know several of you and some of
[44:08] you on here are not in favor of the ADUs
[44:09] because of parking. Um, but that is one
[44:13] of the key components that make the ADU
[44:15] and the junior ADUs more affordable is
[44:17] not having to replace the parking. So,
[44:20] you are going to impact the
[44:22] affordability of the ADUs when you
[44:24] remove um the ability to have a junior
[44:27] ADU without having to replace the
[44:29] parking. you in essence will in some
[44:32] instances
[44:34] um structurally prevent an a junior ADU.
[44:38] Um so those are generally done on a
[44:41] case-by case basis. There is precedent
[44:43] though I I agree with the attorneys that
[44:45] some cities have implemented more
[44:48] restrictive uh uh items within the
[44:52] ordinance and but ultimately HCD has I
[44:56] guess the final authority to to
[44:58] determine that. But they but there are
[45:00] areas I've seen in Santa Barbara they
[45:02] have some issues for high fire areas
[45:05] where there are certain parking
[45:07] requirements um in in high fire areas.
[45:10] Uh I just just realize that you're
[45:12] taking the affordability out of out of
[45:15] providing a junior ADU when you have to
[45:17] replace the parking or you're completely
[45:20] going to restrict it from happening.
[45:22] Thank you.
[45:24] Anybody who's adus
[45:31] anybody else rise with close public
[45:32] comment. Anybody got a motion,
[45:35] questions, statements? What do you got?
[45:36] Council ball.
[45:37] >> So, uh, just real quick, I kind of want
[45:38] to bring this back just for maybe a
[45:40] little perspective on the big picture of
[45:42] things. The the state at some point is
[45:44] asking us to imagine building a lot of
[45:47] housing. uh our arena numbers are
[45:49] somewhat they're not all ADUs for sure,
[45:51] but that plays a component in our
[45:55] pursuit of more housing. How are we
[45:57] doing with ADUs up to this point in
[46:00] terms of
[46:02] >> um
[46:02] >> both of them, but standalones and the
[46:04] J80?
[46:06] >> Um ADUs, I I can't remember off the top
[46:08] of my head how many we had last year. Um
[46:12] I know it's in the general plan annual
[46:13] report. Um I don't remember the num
[46:16] number. I
[46:17] >> like hundreds or tens or fives.
[46:19] >> Well, in terms of approval, no, not that
[46:21] high.
[46:21] >> Um I mean, um I want to in terms of
[46:26] approvals, probably last year was
[46:28] probably less than 15.
[46:30] >> Okay.
[46:30] >> Yeah.
[46:32] >> Thank you for that. I guess just my own
[46:33] perspective is um I no one's going to
[46:37] appreciate not having enough parking. I
[46:40] get that that's an issue, but there's a
[46:41] lot of people struggling to figure out
[46:43] how to deal with housing. Um, and again,
[46:46] just putting it out there, if we're
[46:47] getting 10 or 15 or five or seven ADUs
[46:50] built every single year, the amount of
[46:52] people impacted by this parking issue is
[46:55] pretty small, at least at the moment.
[46:57] So, again, I I I I think there's uh I
[47:00] mean, let's wait and see what they say,
[47:01] but I guess from my perspective, I
[47:03] might, you know, whatever we can do to
[47:05] make it affordable and actually make it
[47:07] happen seems to make more sense for the
[47:08] bigger picture of housing and arena
[47:10] numbers, all that pursuit.
[47:13] you. We're way behind Santa Maria. Santa
[47:15] Maria has about 600 or so last year, I
[47:18] believe.
[47:18] >> Yeah, they have a lot.
[47:19] >> Yeah, they're they're way ahead of us.
[47:20] But I think the plan is still by your
[47:21] office, right? That has the ADU map
[47:24] across.
[47:24] >> Yeah, that is still being reviewed by
[47:26] the building division. I know they have
[47:28] some final cleanup items, but we're
[47:31] really hoping that can go out.
[47:33] >> I meant the map of the city. The ADU
[47:35] maps of the city is by your office,
[47:37] right across from your office. There's
[47:40] one on the wall there, so
[47:41] >> Oh, yes. people can go by the GIS team
[47:43] created that. Yeah,
[47:44] >> go by. You can see right across from me.
[47:45] It'll show you the addresses what's
[47:47] going on.
[47:47] >> And I know a lot of people are waiting
[47:49] for the pre-approved plans to come up.
[47:51] So,
[47:52] >> people are on hold waiting for that one.
[47:55] All right. Anybody else? Any other
[47:56] questions? Anybody want to make a
[47:58] motion?
[48:00] >> Council Vega, you got a motion?
[48:05] » I'll make the motion.
[48:06] to accept.
[48:08] >> Introduce the first reading with further
[48:10] reading waved. Correct.
[48:12] >> Yes.
[48:14] >> Number one, two, and three.
[48:16] Is that good enough? City attorney.
[48:18] >> Yes.
[48:19] >> All right. We got a first and a second.
[48:21] Who made the second on that one?
[48:23] >> Starbucks made a second. Let's go ahead
[48:24] and vote.
[48:35] And that passes 41. Council me voting
[48:38] no. Doesn't like ADUs. Come on. Come on.
[48:43] All right. Next item.
[48:48] Number 10. Public hearing amendments to
[48:50] general plan circulation element. Adopts
[48:52] a resolution 6837 26 approving the
[48:55] general plan circulation element.
[48:58] Contract planner. Lori Tamura. Come on
[49:00] down.
[49:01] >> Good evening. Thank you, Mayor Lori
[49:04] Tamura. Uh with the planning department.
[49:06] Uh we are presenting tonight uh the
[49:10] circulation element update. Uh this
[49:13] document has been uh in the planning
[49:16] department now for about two years. Uh
[49:19] it actually was handed off when uh Brian
[49:22] Halverson left or took it over. Uh this
[49:25] uh housing ele or the circulation
[49:28] element if we can go to the next slide
[49:30] please. Um,
[49:33] sorry.
[49:39] Tonight we're going to just review the
[49:41] uh requirements for the general plan,
[49:44] present the circulation element update,
[49:46] have city council discussion, public
[49:48] comment, and adopt the resolution.
[49:54] Uh, you've seen this presentation a
[49:56] couple of times in regards to the
[49:58] general plan. It is a guiding uh
[50:00] document for the future of the city. It
[50:03] addresses physical development such as
[50:05] uh general location, appropriate mix,
[50:08] timing and extent of land uses and
[50:10] infrastructure needed to support such
[50:12] development. Updates to the general plan
[50:14] elements require community engagement
[50:16] and review by state and local agencies.
[50:19] Uh this is the uh current work program
[50:23] for the general plan. Uh we have a
[50:26] number of uh items that are being
[50:28] updated right now. Uh the circulation
[50:31] element which you'll be discussing
[50:33] tonight is the last of the elements in
[50:35] what we're calling phase one updates to
[50:38] the general plan. Those um elements
[50:41] included the housing element uh
[50:44] environmental justice safety element and
[50:46] the circulation element.
[50:50] Um, the city did a update to the
[50:54] environmental document and it included
[50:57] an addendum from the 2010 EIR and it
[51:02] analyzed all of those four elements and
[51:04] that will be the uh document that we'll
[51:07] refer to as your you make your motion to
[51:10] allow for that document to be certified
[51:13] and um included in the resolution.
[51:22] So the circulation element was
[51:24] originally adopted in 2010 as part of
[51:27] the 2030 general plan. uh the element
[51:30] was required to be updated because of uh
[51:34] some changes to state law and adoption
[51:37] of the multimodal plan which uh was
[51:40] adopted originally in 2022
[51:44] and was recently amended in March of uh
[51:47] 17 uh 2026.
[51:51] Additionally, uh the city is working on
[51:54] an update to the uh safety system
[51:58] approach plan and uh that will be coming
[52:01] before your city council in the near
[52:03] future.
[52:07] The circulation element also includes
[52:09] updates to the new state laws, updates
[52:12] to roadway classifications,
[52:15] uh additional new information on transit
[52:18] programs that are part of the city. uh
[52:21] updated goals, policies, and programs
[52:24] and uh the new reference to the amended
[52:28] uh streetscape multimodal improvement
[52:31] plan.
[52:33] [clears throat]
[52:35] Uh we went through a number of uh
[52:38] reviews by the planning commission. Uh
[52:41] in July of 2025, the city uh planning
[52:44] commission met and had comments. Uh we
[52:48] also had uh comments later on in the
[52:51] year to the point that uh it was
[52:54] recommended that we recirculate the
[52:56] environmental document and the the uh
[52:59] general plan. So it went through a hear
[53:03] public comment period from September
[53:05] 17th to October 17th. Uh no additional
[53:08] comments were received uh during
[53:10] [clears throat] that review period.
[53:15] Uh in November of 25 uh we had a
[53:18] planning commission meeting. We reviewed
[53:21] a number of el uh edits and comments. um
[53:25] the uh staff uh brought forward a matrix
[53:29] that looked at how each one of the
[53:31] changes to the element was addressed and
[53:35] who made those uh recommended changes.
[53:38] There's also redline version of the
[53:40] document along with the clean copy
[53:42] provided.
[53:45] [clears throat]
[53:45] Uh that um the planning commission had
[53:49] some additional comments. So we uh went
[53:51] through another review and in May of 25
[53:55] or 2006, sorry the slide is wrong. Um we
[54:01] um oh I'm sorry, the city council
[54:03] decided to remove uh the payment of
[54:06] traffic fees and that actually ended up
[54:09] implementing or impacting some of the
[54:11] other policies within the document. So,
[54:14] we made the appropriate changes
[54:15] throughout the document in regards to
[54:18] the fee um amendments that were made.
[54:21] There were some other items that uh we
[54:24] looked at including funding for um road
[54:27] projects uh and we talked at the
[54:30] planning commission about measure a
[54:31] funds, the stip funds, uh CALR funding
[54:35] for uh the main roads going through the
[54:38] city and potential improvements that
[54:41] would be based on future development
[54:43] projects in and of themselves.
[54:47] Uh we are um the planning commission
[54:51] made a recommendation to approve the
[54:53] circulation element at the last meeting.
[54:57] Uh there we did comb through all of the
[55:00] comments. There were still some
[55:01] additional edits that were provided. So
[55:04] in your packet you have two versions of
[55:07] the uh circulation element. One of them
[55:11] includes uh highlighted
[55:14] uh areas that um were the changes that
[55:17] the city the planning commission
[55:18] provided and then there's a clean copy
[55:21] uh and that would be part of the
[55:23] resolution would be the clean copy. If
[55:26] there are any additional changes, those
[55:28] can be added by your city council at
[55:32] this time. And um we look forward to uh
[55:36] working with you and um we recommend
[55:40] approval of the circulation element as
[55:42] presented by the planning commission.
[55:47] That's it.
[55:50] Any questions?
[55:54] Councelor Bridge,
[55:56] >> you you guys have done a great job on
[55:58] this and I'm going to feel real guilty
[56:00] about what I'm going to say next, but
[56:03] I'd like to suggest a couple minor
[56:05] changes
[56:07] um on CIRC 116,
[56:11] which is on page
[56:17] 11.
[56:19] Um
[56:24] I I right now it uh reads uh while
[56:27] accommodating the quality of life for
[56:29] motorists, the city shall prioritize
[56:32] pedestrian
[56:33] and I'd like to change that to the city
[56:36] shall balance pedestrian and bicycle
[56:38] access with safety and quality of
[56:40] service for motorists on minor artif. So
[56:45] I'd like to see it. I told you last time
[56:47] we were up here, shells get me real
[56:49] nervous. So, um I'd like to see the word
[56:53] balanced added to that if possible and
[56:55] if everybody agrees. And then the other
[56:58] one is CIRC 35
[57:03] which is on the
[57:07] page 16 I believe.
[57:10] Um, and I'd like to add the words at the
[57:13] end of that one that say where feasible
[57:16] and after consideration the the impact
[57:18] on adjacent commercial uses and the
[57:21] availability of alternative parking. So
[57:24] right now it says the city shall reserve
[57:26] the right to limit on street parking on
[57:29] certain roadways to proide pursue
[57:33] we use the word complete
[57:35] streets which has I'm understanding a
[57:38] unique interpretation
[57:40] which most people might not know but
[57:42] projects are to create new bicycle lanes
[57:44] and encourage bicycle travel. So I'd
[57:47] like to include the feasibility and what
[57:50] it does to the adjacent properties. So,
[57:52] I I would like those two changes to be
[57:54] implemented. Otherwise, you guys have
[57:56] done a great job and I I'm sorry that I
[57:59] waited so long.
[58:04] » Councelor Bridge, I mean Mo,
[58:08] um kind of a big general question. You
[58:11] know, we did make big amendments to the
[58:14] multimotal plan back in March. So,
[58:15] obviously that changes things at the
[58:18] state level. Uh can you just walk me
[58:20] through what you don't have to explain
[58:22] what those changes are? I get that. But
[58:24] how did that impact this circulation
[58:26] element and did it take us closer to an
[58:28] edge or it's just fine or it's maybe
[58:31] just walk me through some of the impacts
[58:32] or um
[58:34] >> positive or negative?
[58:35] >> Thank you. uh through the uh document
[58:38] there were several uh policies that
[58:42] referred to all of um highway one each
[58:46] street being improved to follow the uh
[58:50] multimotal plan. So we changed some of
[58:53] that wording to note that it's only up
[58:56] to uh North Street as you adopted in the
[59:01] changes to the multimmoal plant. So,
[59:04] wherever there was a reference to all of
[59:06] H Street being improved um per the
[59:09] multimmoal plan, it now says up to H uh
[59:12] up to um North Street.
[59:15] >> So, and just forgive my ignorance. So,
[59:17] the circulation plan does that do we
[59:19] enter does that entertain the idea of
[59:21] not just cars but obviously bicycles and
[59:23] pedestrians? Did we change the equation
[59:26] of pedestrian safety at all in the
[59:28] context of circulation? because I felt
[59:30] like some of the arguments for parts of
[59:32] the multimodal was really addressing uh
[59:35] some of the pedestrian issues that
[59:36] existed on H Street specifically. There
[59:40] are a number of policies in here that
[59:42] talk about all modes of transportation
[59:45] uh cars, buses, bikes and pedestrian and
[59:50] um also connectivity between
[59:53] neighborhoods so that uh wherever
[59:56] there's an opportunity for a pathway to
[59:59] be provided from a proposed neighborhood
[1:00:02] that it um allows for both bike and
[1:00:05] pedestrians to make it to the main
[1:00:07] corridors. Uh so there there is a number
[1:00:10] of policies in the document that talk
[1:00:12] about pedestrian uh as um part of the
[1:00:16] equation for transportation.
[1:00:17] >> So do you feel pretty confident from the
[1:00:19] state's perspective that we've covered?
[1:00:21] >> Yeah. Okay. Perfect. Um just one quick
[1:00:23] question and again I don't think there's
[1:00:24] an issue. I just was curious why the the
[1:00:27] red line but um 3.7 says the city shall
[1:00:30] require safe and effective connectivity
[1:00:32] for new development projects. Include at
[1:00:34] least two access points for fire safety
[1:00:36] access. that's been redlined, replaced
[1:00:39] with when opportunity and funding become
[1:00:41] available, the city should provide safe
[1:00:43] connectivity for existing neighborhoods.
[1:00:46] It sounds like two completely different
[1:00:47] things or a little bit different. What
[1:00:49] does that mean?
[1:00:50] >> That was probably what that particular
[1:00:54] provision was also discussed in the
[1:00:57] safety element previously. Uh it is
[1:01:00] about how to mandate secondary access
[1:01:05] and how that would be applied to new
[1:01:08] projects and there might be a case
[1:01:11] [clears throat] where there would not be
[1:01:14] uh the ability for a second access but
[1:01:16] they could still have the ability to
[1:01:19] provide an escape route.
[1:01:21] >> Okay.
[1:01:22] >> Um but it may not be fully a developed
[1:01:25] road. So the way the policy is written
[1:01:28] gives a little bit more flexibility.
[1:01:30] Even though uh you know fire department
[1:01:33] and other agencies would love to have
[1:01:35] the two access points, there may be a
[1:01:37] case where other options need to be
[1:01:40] looked at.
[1:01:41] >> Okay. So in so it's not necessarily
[1:01:43] lowering our standard for safety and
[1:01:45] terms of developments. this is for those
[1:01:47] one or two offs that it doesn't really
[1:01:51] >> you know doesn't really provide that
[1:01:52] type of access and that that's
[1:01:54] >> it's a little bit more flexibility okay
[1:01:56] >> to on a case-byase basis the priority
[1:01:59] the provision the preference is to have
[1:02:02] two access points
[1:02:03] >> in different directions
[1:02:05] >> okay
[1:02:05] >> and I think as um projects come forward
[1:02:09] particularly with insurance
[1:02:12] possible issues you're probably going to
[1:02:15] see more and more projects having the
[1:02:16] two access points, but it was the way it
[1:02:20] was written previously was more of a
[1:02:21] mandate and we left it a little um open
[1:02:24] for flexibility.
[1:02:25] >> Okay. Thank you for that clarity. I
[1:02:27] appreciate it.
[1:02:28] >> Thank you.
[1:02:30] >> I think your discussion was the willows.
[1:02:31] That's one project that has one way in
[1:02:33] and out. Correct.
[1:02:34] >> Right.
[1:02:34] >> That was your big what do you do?
[1:02:38] Anybody else see other questions before
[1:02:40] we come up to public comment?
[1:02:44] See none of the others, we will open
[1:02:47] this up
[1:02:49] to public comment.
[1:02:52] General plan circulation element.
[1:02:54] >> Uh Brandon Rich, planning commissioner.
[1:02:57] Um thank you to Greg Lori. The document
[1:03:01] has not been easy to work through. Um
[1:03:04] the changes the council made in regards
[1:03:06] to the developer improvements. Um I
[1:03:09] would like to comment on that primarily.
[1:03:11] Um, in the last
[1:03:13] month, I think it's at least a month,
[1:03:15] I've had about three developers call
[1:03:20] inquiring about our opportunities
[1:03:23] um, in regards to comparison Santa
[1:03:25] Maria. Um, currently they're looking
[1:03:29] comparative in the uh, industrial zone
[1:03:31] primarily. Um, so they're very happy
[1:03:33] that law folks removed those. Um, in
[1:03:36] regards to
[1:03:38] uh uh Council Member Bridge, the pro
[1:03:42] first comment, not to knock on either of
[1:03:44] you, I believe in one of our primary
[1:03:46] meetings in the count uh planning
[1:03:48] commission, we asked for that item to be
[1:03:50] removed. Um I forget now, but I do
[1:03:53] remember uh as you were discussing
[1:03:56] again, not to throw anybody under the
[1:03:58] bus here. Um and Mr. Ball. Um, council
[1:04:02] member Ball, one of the primary issues
[1:04:05] with the exiting is we had twofold um,
[1:04:09] and it overlaps safety circulation is
[1:04:12] that the county and state have now moved
[1:04:14] in larger flood zones and earthquake
[1:04:17] zones, but the council has also
[1:04:19] increased development uh, zones so we
[1:04:23] can develop up onto the hill, which
[1:04:26] requires um some additional structural
[1:04:29] engineering, But as a result of those
[1:04:32] potential developments and current um
[1:04:35] development, we don't have um tertiary
[1:04:39] exits and so we'll never be able to do
[1:04:41] that. And so putting these asterisks so
[1:04:44] to say in these elements are critical so
[1:04:46] we can continue to develop up the hill
[1:04:49] as science and technology
[1:04:51] um develops for construction um while
[1:04:55] maintaining our
[1:04:58] community
[1:05:01] um blanket so to say. Um we can't stop
[1:05:05] growing. We can't remove houses. But if
[1:05:07] you look at the current safety elements,
[1:05:09] the fire departments and whatnot in the
[1:05:11] county has improved our flood zones
[1:05:13] almost all the way to Megalo school. And
[1:05:16] that would essentially say all new
[1:05:18] development stops, all new safety zone
[1:05:20] stops, all aggieve
[1:05:25] safety elements. And so we have to have
[1:05:27] a balance here between what we do to
[1:05:31] develop and what we attack to develop.
[1:05:34] And um in that there's a lot of cycle
[1:05:38] that goes through as Lori can attest to
[1:05:41] that um sometimes mandated 10 years
[1:05:44] back, 20, 15 years back. And most of
[1:05:46] those studies as we're developing them
[1:05:48] are absolutely
[1:05:51] um uncredible. They're not accurate. So
[1:05:56] we had our previous mayor here um
[1:06:00] complain to all of our council members.
[1:06:02] Most of the votes she made in the 90s
[1:06:04] don't hold any water today.
[1:06:07] They're false. They're inaccurate and
[1:06:09] they stop a thousand% development or
[1:06:12] lack of. So, we have to look at history
[1:06:15] and how it repeats ourselves in through
[1:06:18] this process of a 2030 to 2050 cycle
[1:06:22] because the council members have done
[1:06:24] something that no other council has
[1:06:26] done, no other person in this city has
[1:06:28] done. They look further out than anybody
[1:06:33] has even designed to look.
[1:06:34] >> You're you're three minute You're three
[1:06:36] minutes up, my friend. Okay.
[1:06:45] » Nick Gonzalez, resident lump. Yeah, I
[1:06:47] attended many of the meetings. It was a
[1:06:49] grueling task. I have to commend staff
[1:06:52] for being patient with all those
[1:06:53] community members that were just on
[1:06:56] them, writing them. Um, and as I've
[1:06:59] always stated, I'm going to sing the
[1:07:01] same song. As much as you can change
[1:07:04] shalls to shoulds, you should. And the
[1:07:08] reason is that those are the basis in
[1:07:11] the past for litigation.
[1:07:14] We've been litigated in the past because
[1:07:17] that hard shell was not met. And you'll
[1:07:22] see that with in circulation as it rolls
[1:07:24] over to green gas emissions, you'll see
[1:07:28] that and when you're developing your
[1:07:31] other um expansions, if we eventually
[1:07:34] get the expansions and so I I believe it
[1:07:38] was really important. Now, forgive me
[1:07:39] because I didn't look at the latest
[1:07:41] draft, but I've also been speaking
[1:07:44] significantly about the um expansion for
[1:07:48] the base. And so my concern, I've heard
[1:07:50] several of you talk about interacting
[1:07:53] with SB KAG. I've heard that that
[1:07:56] message has now resonated on a county
[1:07:59] level where we need to be. So I just
[1:08:02] want to be assured as a resident that we
[1:08:04] are taking those impacts
[1:08:08] into consideration for our our
[1:08:10] circulation element and if not if that's
[1:08:12] something that will be re-evaluated and
[1:08:15] included because that is something I
[1:08:17] could see as a potential you know bump
[1:08:19] in the road down the line when suddenly
[1:08:21] we want to
[1:08:24] maybe annex or do a project and that
[1:08:27] circulation element those numbers are
[1:08:29] not going to be there. they're going to
[1:08:30] go over thresholds of significance and
[1:08:33] trigger something else. So again, we
[1:08:36] really need to take in consideration
[1:08:39] those potential impacts, but staff in in
[1:08:42] my opinion and our consultant did a
[1:08:44] really good job of listening to the
[1:08:45] public and going through changes and it
[1:08:48] was page by page by page by page. And so
[1:08:52] uh I'm very happy with what I see here
[1:08:54] today. Thank you.
[1:09:04] Carl Jones. Um, question.
[1:09:08] The older communities within this city,
[1:09:11] do we have any plans of looking at
[1:09:13] upgrading,
[1:09:15] you know, bringing the roads and lack
[1:09:18] thereof, sidewalks,
[1:09:20] you know,
[1:09:22] into these plans in the future? I mean,
[1:09:25] everybody talks about new construction.
[1:09:27] What about the old construction? What
[1:09:28] about these homes that were built in
[1:09:29] 1958 that have no sidewalks in front of
[1:09:32] them? Then you get a bunch of cars
[1:09:33] parked on there and you got no choice
[1:09:34] but your kids are running down the
[1:09:36] middle of the street cuz the city didn't
[1:09:38] put sidewalks in. At what point do we
[1:09:41] put into the plan go ahead and upgrade
[1:09:43] too for the the safety of the public? I could think of multiple
[1:09:48] roads within this city that leads to the
[1:09:51] main thorough ways. Yeah, there's a
[1:09:54] sidewalk on the main ones, but to get to
[1:09:56] them, you got to go through multiple
[1:09:58] blocks where there's no choice but to
[1:10:00] walk in the middle of the road. And some
[1:10:02] of them roads have got speed limits of
[1:10:04] past 35 mph,
[1:10:07] 40 mph, people speeding, and you have no
[1:10:10] choice but to walk down the middle of
[1:10:11] the road because the cars are parked on
[1:10:13] the side of the road. So, you either
[1:10:15] have to walk in somebody's uneven grass
[1:10:18] or middle of the road. So in all these
[1:10:22] plans, do we also think about the
[1:10:24] upgrade of the infrastructure of the
[1:10:27] older homes? Just curious, has anybody
[1:10:30] even thought about that? Thank you.
[1:10:35] Anybody else?
[1:10:38] So quick answer, safe routes to schools
[1:10:40] that every two years, Mr. Jilling.
[1:10:44] >> Generally, the active transportation
[1:10:46] program has a cycle every couple years.
[1:10:48] Yeah, we we have for the last 20 years
[1:10:50] gotten quite a few sidewalk infill
[1:10:53] grants through those programs. We've put
[1:10:54] in a lot of miles of sidewalk so far and
[1:10:57] we're we'll continue to work on that.
[1:10:59] So, every two years they keep doing what
[1:11:00] they can do with the money we got coming
[1:11:02] through. So, it does does happen.
[1:11:05] Anybody else? Anybody on delaying a
[1:11:07] little bit while we see what's going on
[1:11:09] with our phone and our teams thing here?
[1:11:14] >> There's no public comment via Teams or
[1:11:16] audio. Okay, there we go. Anybody else
[1:11:20] rising for this item? Seeing nobody else
[1:11:22] want to comment on circulation element.
[1:11:25] Bring back to the council.
[1:11:29] Cer Bridge. I make a motion we approve
[1:11:32] staff's recommendation with the two
[1:11:34] changes that I recommended.
[1:11:41] » Motion by Bridge, second by Starbucks.
[1:11:44] Any deliberations? You guys go ahead and
[1:11:46] vote.
[1:11:47] Vote it away.
[1:11:55] Passes 5.
[1:11:58] You guys got those corrections? Yep.
[1:12:00] We're good.
[1:12:01] >> Yes.
[1:12:02] >> Everybody's good.
[1:12:03] >> All right. Thank you.
[1:12:05] >> A long one for that one. Yeah.
[1:12:10] Could you have something to say here?
[1:12:12] I'm sorry.
[1:12:16] Public hearing on a proposed adoption of
[1:12:18] resolution number 683826 modifying
[1:12:21] wastewater winter averaging circulation
[1:12:23] method for calculating wastewater
[1:12:25] charges in accordance with prop 218.
[1:12:42] Good evening, m mayor, council members.
[1:12:44] I'm Bob Cross bringing back this item
[1:12:46] back. It was originally presented on
[1:12:49] April 21st, 2026.
[1:12:52] >> Mic up just a little bit.
[1:12:53] >> Yeah. Raise the raise the thing. The
[1:12:55] podium will better.
[1:13:06] » That's down.
[1:13:07] >> Yeah, it was.
[1:13:09] >> Thank you.
[1:13:09] >> All right. That better. Okay. Thank you.
[1:13:12] So, this was originally presented on
[1:13:15] April 21st, 2026.
[1:13:18] Staff was directed to bring it back,
[1:13:20] send out notices for a public hearing to
[1:13:23] dated July 21st. So, I'll give some
[1:13:26] background.
[1:13:28] So with winter averaging for wastewater
[1:13:30] usage, we use the city used to calculate
[1:13:33] a six-year winter average dropping the
[1:13:36] highest and lowest years with the
[1:13:39] conversion to our new finance system.
[1:13:42] The system does not allow for that. So
[1:13:46] we switched to a 4-year average but have
[1:13:48] been doing it manually since 2021.
[1:13:54] So we're presenting a new method this
[1:13:57] year which which the system allows
[1:14:01] to um use the current year average only.
[1:14:08] So if we read the meter between for we
[1:14:12] either use January, February, March or
[1:14:14] March, February, April depending on what
[1:14:18] part of the month we read it. But the
[1:14:20] goal is to get the water usage for the
[1:14:23] winter months which because with no with
[1:14:27] less irrigation going on during those
[1:14:29] months most of the water's going through
[1:14:32] the sewer system. So it's a way of
[1:14:35] determining again the the the impact on
[1:14:39] the sewer for each customer.
[1:14:42] So
[1:14:46] um we do have a number of fixed costs in
[1:14:49] the system. So we've had we've
[1:14:52] maintained a minimum of five units that
[1:14:54] applies to all customers and that would
[1:14:57] be maintained. And for customers that
[1:15:00] don't have a three-month winter average,
[1:15:02] if they weren't don't move in until
[1:15:05] March, for instance, we would use the
[1:15:09] current average for like for
[1:15:11] residential, the current residential
[1:15:13] average is seven units. So we for new customers, they would be built at
[1:15:18] seven units their first year and then
[1:15:21] the following year, we would look at
[1:15:22] their winter average. If there are leaks
[1:15:25] during those months, if they report them
[1:15:28] to the city, we will adjust their water
[1:15:30] usage for those months down to their
[1:15:34] anticipated usage, so they're not
[1:15:36] penalized for leaks for the full year.
[1:15:40] Good. Um, so this isn't changing the
[1:15:44] rates per unit charge. We're still those
[1:15:48] have stayed in place since 2017. It's
[1:15:51] still $9.28 28 for residential, $1245
[1:15:56] for commercial, and 1309 for industrial.
[1:15:59] And industrial customers have always bu
[1:16:02] been build based on their 12-month
[1:16:04] average as opposed to the winter
[1:16:05] average. And that will continue.
[1:16:09] So in this example, and the first line
[1:16:12] is a typo. changed this a few times, but
[1:16:15] if the customer is currently being built
[1:16:16] for nine units, not 16, their sewer bill
[1:16:20] would be 9* 928, which is 8352 per
[1:16:25] month. If their winter reads for
[1:16:27] January, February, March for 5, 7, and
[1:16:30] six units, their winter average would
[1:16:32] drop to six units. So, their sewer
[1:16:34] charge for the next month from July
[1:16:37] through the following June would be 5568
[1:16:41] per month. That's how we calculate those averages.
[1:16:46] So the recommendation here tonight is to adopt the resolution to begin
[1:16:56] calculating the winter average based on
[1:16:58] the new method or alternatively to
[1:17:02] continue with the current. A few notes
[1:17:04] we re there out of 11,12
[1:17:08] parcels we just received tonight. we
[1:17:11] received the 18th protest.
[1:17:13] Um, so if there were more than 50% of
[1:17:16] parcels protesting, we you must deny any
[1:17:20] change because of Prop 218.
[1:17:23] Um, I want to say a couple um benefits
[1:17:25] to the customers. We've done some
[1:17:27] sampling, some studies found 63% of
[1:17:31] customers, residential customers would
[1:17:33] either have no change or their usage
[1:17:36] would decrease. About 40% would be about
[1:17:39] the same. 23% would decrease and about
[1:17:43] 27 well I think 10% go up one unit and
[1:17:48] 27% go up by more than one unit but um
[1:17:53] again those are customers they h it they
[1:17:56] haven't been changed in in a couple
[1:17:58] years they have lower years dropping off
[1:18:01] um so benefits to the other benefits to
[1:18:04] customers is it's easier to understand
[1:18:08] for customers instead of having to
[1:18:09] four-year average, they're just looking
[1:18:11] at their one-year average and changes in
[1:18:14] their usage are reflected sooner.
[1:18:16] Essentially, if they have a lower
[1:18:18] winter, they don't have to wait four
[1:18:20] years to realize that um benefits to the
[1:18:24] city. It's easier method to explain to
[1:18:26] customers. It is an automated process as
[1:18:30] opposed to the current manual process
[1:18:32] and it's less chance for errors in
[1:18:34] making calculations and bill
[1:18:36] adjustments.
[1:18:37] Um, so anyway, that's that's the
[1:18:41] recommendation and I'm available for
[1:18:42] questions.
[1:18:44] >> So simple clarification, it's not a
[1:18:46] increase. It's more of an accurate
[1:18:49] reading of what's going on.
[1:18:52] >> Correct. It's a it's a different way of
[1:18:54] cons calculating the consumption. The
[1:18:56] rates are staying the same.
[1:18:58] >> So if you had uh
[1:19:00] say a a roommate that was using a lot of
[1:19:03] water, then it it would reflect. though
[1:19:05] when your new uh when the person moved
[1:19:08] out as opposed to waiting for multiple
[1:19:10] years for it to to even out and likewise
[1:19:13] the other way if you're actually using
[1:19:14] more it'll reflect it more
[1:19:17] faster. So
[1:19:18] >> y
[1:19:19] >> uh council member ball
[1:19:22] >> yeah I just had a couple quick questions
[1:19:24] and um let me know uh if you can help me
[1:19:27] with this. So uh I think on the fiscal
[1:19:30] impact on the staff report said uh 40%
[1:19:33] will see an increase uh 24% will see a
[1:19:36] decrease and 36% see no charge. I think
[1:19:39] you gave us more detail into that
[1:19:41] >> but out of that 100% who's is going up
[1:19:44] and who's going down.
[1:19:45] >> So
[1:19:46] >> demographically speaking
[1:19:47] >> the average I I looked at the mediums
[1:19:50] because the averages are a little
[1:19:51] misleading. Um we have a lot of well not
[1:19:54] a lot. We have apartment complexes who
[1:19:56] count as one customer even though they
[1:19:59] may have 200 apartments in those. So we
[1:20:02] were finding that that skewed the
[1:20:04] averages. Um so we we look at just the
[1:20:07] you sorting them lowest to highest
[1:20:09] changes. The median zero and we've got
[1:20:13] 21% decrease and 42% are no change. So
[1:20:17] six again 63% are not increasing.
[1:20:21] Essentially the one a lot of you 10% are
[1:20:24] going up one unit and then you customers
[1:20:28] some of them newer c newer customers
[1:20:31] last year started at seven but now they
[1:20:33] have a winter average where they've been
[1:20:35] using 10 to 15 units a month. So those
[1:20:37] will be increasing to reflect their
[1:20:40] actual usage.
[1:20:42] >> So again I'm not just devil's in the
[1:20:44] details. So for that 25% 23% that's
[1:20:47] going up
[1:20:49] does is that apartment complexes or
[1:20:51] individuals? Is that lower income? Is
[1:20:53] that median? Do we have any idea about
[1:20:55] that? We just
[1:20:56] >> we don't it could be it could be both.
[1:20:59] It could be apartment complexes. It
[1:21:00] could be um low income. We don't we
[1:21:03] don't track you you customers based on
[1:21:07] you know seniors or low income or Okay.
[1:21:10] So I'm not I don't have that data. So
[1:21:12] most most people aren't going to see a
[1:21:13] change, but some somebody will,
[1:21:15] >> right?
[1:21:15] >> About 27%.
[1:21:17] >> And then the last one, it's uh the
[1:21:20] question I had was just on the
[1:21:21] commercial. So it says the average, you
[1:21:23] know, go up for those that residential
[1:21:25] counts, they're going to see an increase
[1:21:27] in about 10 bucks for those that go up,
[1:21:29] but on commercial, it says that's going
[1:21:31] to be an additional $102 a month. Can
[1:21:34] you talk to me about maybe scared
[1:21:37] commercial businesses? Is it if they're
[1:21:39] renting? Who's getting that bill? Cuz
[1:21:41] that's another hundred bucks a month in
[1:21:43] cost or overhead for what what uh what
[1:21:47] makes up commercial. Here
[1:21:49] >> there are a lot of different I mean
[1:21:51] types of commercial. Hotels are
[1:21:52] commercial. Um laundroies are goingies
[1:21:56] they're already high but some if they
[1:21:58] have you know lower months during there
[1:22:00] that they'll go down. They're they have
[1:22:03] wider swings.
[1:22:04] do typically. Um, a lot but a lot of the
[1:22:08] commercials are smaller smaller
[1:22:12] increases. They're just a few that pull
[1:22:13] it up and down.
[1:22:15] >> So, a lot of the smaller businesses if
[1:22:17] they're not necessarily going to see the
[1:22:18] 100 to a month, that might be a bigger
[1:22:20] operation, hotel or laundry or
[1:22:22] something,
[1:22:23] >> right? Those are typically seeing, you
[1:22:25] know, a few units increase possibly. Um,
[1:22:29] >> thank you for clarifying. I didn't want
[1:22:30] to go out there and tell everyone their
[1:22:32] bill's going to go through the roof if
[1:22:33] it's only going to apply to a few
[1:22:35] people. So, thank you for clarifying
[1:22:37] that.
[1:22:39] >> I think it was also because in the
[1:22:40] commercial component, you're averaging
[1:22:42] vacancies because in many cases, you
[1:22:44] have the vacancy component that's in
[1:22:46] there over the six years. If a
[1:22:48] building's been empty for a couple
[1:22:49] years, then it completely skewed it
[1:22:51] where now you're lining up more
[1:22:53] directly. So, that was kind of one of
[1:22:54] the discussions we had earlier about
[1:22:56] that. Right.
[1:22:57] >> Right. So by doing this you take out of
[1:22:59] that variable of vacancy
[1:23:02] bridge
[1:23:05] could you go back to the slide that has
[1:23:07] the multiple units no minimum seven or
[1:23:10] five I believe it was
[1:23:16] » I think it might be before that
[1:23:20] » this one
[1:23:21] >> yeah I'm a dummy I don't get that first
[1:23:24] bullet what what does that mean
[1:23:26] >> so We everyone is built a minimum of
[1:23:30] five units um regardless of what their
[1:23:33] water usage is. That it that goes to
[1:23:36] cover the infrastructure of the system
[1:23:39] being connected to the system you know
[1:23:42] um the billing process. There's a lot of
[1:23:45] there not a lot but there are fixed
[1:23:47] costs that go into providing the first
[1:23:49] unit essentially. So that five unit is
[1:23:54] covers those fixed costs
[1:23:55] >> and is that a change?
[1:23:57] >> No, that has been in place.
[1:24:00] >> Thank you very much.
[1:24:02] >> Casan
[1:24:05] Bob, what can you tell us? Um
[1:24:09] the you said you don't track it by lower
[1:24:12] income or fixed income. So, what do we
[1:24:15] tell our constituents
[1:24:18] um what to expect people on fixed income
[1:24:21] that you guys don't have them in as a
[1:24:23] factor or how how would we respond to
[1:24:26] someone like that? Because uh your your numbers are based on something else
[1:24:34] other than people. So, maybe you could
[1:24:36] tell us how we can tell them what the
[1:24:38] benefit is to them.
[1:24:41] Well, I think um they they need to look
[1:24:44] at their water usage. If their water use
[1:24:47] if their water portion of their bill is
[1:24:50] not high, they should be fine. If their
[1:24:52] water usage is significant,
[1:24:55] then they're they could see an increase.
[1:24:57] But a lot of you fixed income people,
[1:24:59] they don't have kids living in the
[1:25:00] house. Hope possibly they use less
[1:25:04] water. So, I would I would think they're
[1:25:08] probably not going to see as high of an
[1:25:11] increase, but again, they need to look
[1:25:13] at their water bill.
[1:25:14] >> But, you know, if you were selling this
[1:25:15] to someone, that presentation is kind of
[1:25:18] poor. Okay? If I had to sell it to my
[1:25:20] constituents, so that's why I'm asking
[1:25:22] that question. I understand you're in
[1:25:23] the finance area. But if I had to tell
[1:25:25] someone, hey, the reason we did this was
[1:25:27] because they told us it was better or
[1:25:29] worse or it covers vacancies or it's
[1:25:32] easier or it's an upgrade or more
[1:25:35] modernized. I' I'd like a better answer.
[1:25:37] You know what I mean? It'd be uh why
[1:25:39] would we tell them the reason we voted
[1:25:42] for it? Because you recommend it or
[1:25:45] maybe you can give me a better answer. I
[1:25:47] don't know.
[1:25:48] Well, I think that they are able to
[1:25:52] impact their rate faster.
[1:25:56] I think if they they use less water as
[1:26:00] it is now, it's going to be four years
[1:26:03] before they see a change. So now if they
[1:26:06] use less water, they're going to see
[1:26:07] that change, you know, than the
[1:26:09] following year. So, it it's I think that
[1:26:14] doing a one-year average, it's a lot
[1:26:16] easier to make an impact on your bill
[1:26:20] faster.
[1:26:22] I got you. And I appreciate your
[1:26:23] answers. I'm just uh if someone asks me,
[1:26:27] I'd like to have a better answer to tell
[1:26:28] them why I went and voted for it or not.
[1:26:32] But thank you,
[1:26:34] >> Council Member B.
[1:26:35] >> So, just throwing it out there. Forgive
[1:26:38] my ignorance on any of this, but um so
[1:26:40] last time we did any sort of rate
[1:26:41] adjustments was in 2017.
[1:26:44] This is obviously going to make up some
[1:26:46] gap that you see that we need to make
[1:26:48] sure that we're covering. It sounds like
[1:26:50] there's a rate study coming back next
[1:26:52] year.
[1:26:54] Why wouldn't we look at this issue under
[1:26:57] that umbrella and maybe find a more
[1:26:59] equitable way to spread this cost? So
[1:27:02] we'll be able to have more data using
[1:27:05] this method if we when we bring that
[1:27:07] back in in this winter for next year.
[1:27:11] We'll have more data. We'll be able to
[1:27:13] look at whether we need to make
[1:27:14] adjustments or not. uh we'll be able to
[1:27:17] have a better idea of better predicting
[1:27:20] what our revenue is going to be under
[1:27:23] this method as opposed to looking at
[1:27:25] what year is going to drop off, what
[1:27:27] year, you know, what um how many
[1:27:30] customers there were four years ago
[1:27:31] compared to now. It's going to be give
[1:27:34] us more reliable information for when we
[1:27:36] bring that rate study back. and maybe we
[1:27:39] will need to do um format them a little
[1:27:42] differently, but it'll give us better
[1:27:45] information for when we do.
[1:27:47] >> So, and again, just playing devil's
[1:27:48] advocate, the cost of that extra data,
[1:27:51] that additional information is three4s
[1:27:54] of folks aren't going to see any change,
[1:27:55] but a quarter of folks commercial or
[1:27:57] residential are going to have to pay
[1:27:59] more before we get a rate study to see
[1:28:02] like how much we actually have to
[1:28:03] adjust. Just throwing it out there.
[1:28:07] Councor Bridge.
[1:28:11] » Well, I would just like to comment
[1:28:13] because it gets lost in the noise.
[1:28:16] Um, the easiest way to impact this is to
[1:28:22] turn your sprinklers off in the winter.
[1:28:24] It's what it's designed for. That's why
[1:28:27] you pick those dates because that's
[1:28:28] non-conumptive.
[1:28:30] And um so I know I've talked to lots of
[1:28:33] people in the city and
[1:28:36] even though it's been known forever that
[1:28:38] that's where it's coming from, uh it
[1:28:39] gets lost. So I just would say one more
[1:28:42] time, turn your sprinklers off in the
[1:28:44] winter and you will lower your sewer
[1:28:45] bill next year.
[1:28:48] >> And I would like to add back to your
[1:28:50] comment um for customers, the 27% who
[1:28:53] are seeing an increase would have seen
[1:28:55] an increase under the old method also.
[1:28:57] It just may have been a smaller
[1:28:59] increase, but they would have seen an
[1:29:01] increase because probably if the
[1:29:03] four-year average number dropped off,
[1:29:05] their in higher number came on, they
[1:29:08] would have seen an increase. But
[1:29:13] » yeah, councel,
[1:29:14] >> so you make a great point and that's why
[1:29:15] we pay you the big bucks to be the smart
[1:29:17] math guy. So, thank you. I think that's
[1:29:19] very clear. Um, I I just found it
[1:29:21] somewhat comical because I I'm I mean it
[1:29:24] makes sense, you know, turn off your
[1:29:25] sprinklers, use less water, bill goes
[1:29:28] down and and then mayor has been telling
[1:29:30] us to flush the toilet as often as we
[1:29:33] can and take more showers. I guess what
[1:29:35] I'm getting to is pushing for less water
[1:29:38] usage to see people's bill stay stable,
[1:29:42] but we're facing issues of not having
[1:29:44] enough revenue coming in for this
[1:29:46] utility. And that's why I keep going
[1:29:47] back to this rate study and what we
[1:29:49] probably have to do next year.
[1:29:50] >> Yeah, this is just for the winter
[1:29:52] months, but yes. But yeah,
[1:29:55] >> thank you.
[1:29:57] >> Yeah, you're right. I am trying to sell
[1:29:58] more water because we need more money at
[1:30:00] the plant. We're either going to make
[1:30:02] more money by selling more water or
[1:30:04] raise the rates. So, take your pick, get
[1:30:07] something out of it because it costs a
[1:30:09] certain amount of money to run the
[1:30:10] facility. So, people have been
[1:30:12] conserving so much actually getting
[1:30:15] short money. So
[1:30:18] correct. Anybody else? We'll go to
[1:30:21] public comment on this item.
[1:30:24] Somebody else go public comment item
[1:30:26] number 11.
[1:30:29] So
[1:30:30] I was not going to speak on this, but
[1:30:32] listening to these conversations, it's
[1:30:34] kind of disgusting. And I cannot say I
[1:30:36] can't believe that I'm going to agree
[1:30:37] with Vega. Like great job, Vega. Like
[1:30:40] you are thinking of the people. Mr. Do
[1:30:42] you know what type of people live here
[1:30:44] in the city?
[1:30:46] Do you know like it's not
[1:30:49] so multifamily like homes, right?
[1:30:53] Immigrants, farm workers, low income.
[1:30:57] Those are the people that are going to
[1:30:58] be affected. So, thank you Vega for
[1:31:01] bringing that up. But you know that is
[1:31:05] save water, turn off your sprinklers.
[1:31:07] What the are you serious? We're talking
[1:31:10] about people money like food is
[1:31:16] the cost of food is higher. People are
[1:31:18] paying more. Your president is putting
[1:31:21] tariffs on everything. Like let's come
[1:31:24] on. Let's think about this. We're
[1:31:25] talking about people. You're going to
[1:31:27] charge more for water when they are
[1:31:30] already paying more for everything.
[1:31:34] Let's think about it. Come up with a
[1:31:36] different type of like I don't know. But
[1:31:39] uh thank you Vega.
[1:31:45] Again, this isn't raising the rate. This
[1:31:47] is modifying the way they calculate it.
[1:31:51] Instead of a five-year averaging,
[1:31:53] there's a one-year averaging. Rate is
[1:31:55] not being raised.
[1:31:58] >> It's too tall. Now, um Diana Diaz again.
[1:32:02] Hi. I'm not sure I understand this plan
[1:32:07] as a water consumer and I'm a very low
[1:32:11] water consumer. If I'm understanding
[1:32:14] correctly, it seems like the base
[1:32:17] minimum
[1:32:19] water that I'm going to be charged
[1:32:22] is five units whether or not I use them.
[1:32:28] So then I should use more
[1:32:32] or something crazy like that. That's
[1:32:34] like punishing
[1:32:37] people who took to heart our drought
[1:32:41] issues and use less and as less as
[1:32:44] possible. I planted a native California
[1:32:48] plant garden that we barely water and
[1:32:51] barely have to water so that we can
[1:32:53] conserve for the greater good. And now
[1:32:57] I'm hearing basically we're going to be
[1:33:00] punished for that.
[1:33:03] Is that what I'm hearing right? Like is
[1:33:08] it's really confusing and it doesn't
[1:33:11] sound good.
[1:33:20] » Carl Jones. I actually remember this
[1:33:23] way back in April. the whole
[1:33:25] conversation about it, the five units,
[1:33:27] this that and the other thing. So, yeah.
[1:33:29] Um,
[1:33:30] I want some clarification on the
[1:33:32] customer class. Is that based on house
[1:33:35] size, bedrooms,
[1:33:38] or is this based off the number of
[1:33:40] people inside of a house? Because if I'm
[1:33:42] a single guy that moves into a 2500 foot
[1:33:45] home has got five bedrooms in it, and
[1:33:48] you're going to base me off a house, a
[1:33:50] class size, but I use less water than if
[1:33:53] it's a full house.
[1:33:55] So that one there is just a little
[1:33:56] confused. I like a little clarification
[1:33:57] on on the customer class size is what's
[1:34:00] this based the customer class? I
[1:34:02] understand you said it was going to be a
[1:34:04] minimum of seven units, you know, and
[1:34:07] but that one there just kind of confused
[1:34:08] me. It's like it was multiple two
[1:34:10] different types of information there.
[1:34:13] What is a what is a customer class? Is
[1:34:14] it a one-bedroom apartment compared to a
[1:34:17] five-bedroom home? And was that
[1:34:19] five-bedroom home full of people? and I
[1:34:21] happen to be just to decide I want to
[1:34:23] have a big giant house. I move in and
[1:34:25] then I'm going to get charged for the
[1:34:26] same amount as a full house or
[1:34:29] that that got me. So now I got to wait
[1:34:31] till January through March to prove that
[1:34:34] I only use a tiny bit of water and then
[1:34:36] they average out. I understand that
[1:34:38] portion is actually pretty cool because
[1:34:40] winter time you do use less less water
[1:34:42] and that three-month average over time
[1:34:45] is better than running through, you
[1:34:48] know, a real hot year and you're
[1:34:50] drinking water every time you turn
[1:34:51] around. Then then that's based in your
[1:34:53] average. But I would really like some
[1:34:55] clarification. What is the customer
[1:34:56] class size? What's this? What does that
[1:34:58] particularly mean? Thank you.
[1:35:08] Gonzalez resolo, you're getting more and
[1:35:11] more creative on how to get a minimum
[1:35:12] amount of money out of the people. So,
[1:35:16] you know, you had the the trash and you
[1:35:19] took it from the tenants and you gave it
[1:35:21] to the landlords and you had an
[1:35:22] increase. And so then most landlords
[1:35:26] just passed that to the people. You used
[1:35:30] to not have a meter fixed meter charge.
[1:35:32] Now you have a fixed meter charge. Now
[1:35:34] you're having a fixed unit charge. I
[1:35:37] used to joke
[1:35:39] 5 6 7 8 9 years ago that eventually that
[1:35:43] for many of our seniors that their
[1:35:46] utilities would eventually be almost as
[1:35:48] much as their mortgage.
[1:35:51] And uh we slowly but surely are moving
[1:35:54] that direction. Um
[1:35:59] it's it's a challenge for a lot of
[1:36:01] people. You're all aware well aware of
[1:36:04] our social e economic makeup in this
[1:36:07] community. Um,
[1:36:11] so we we I am more in favor of a more
[1:36:14] equitable of of actually paying for how
[1:36:17] you use
[1:36:19] and I as an individual and also as
[1:36:23] someone who has lots of of of tenants
[1:36:26] and who speak with the tenants. I think
[1:36:28] it would be a more equitable situation
[1:36:31] where you actually pay for you use and
[1:36:33] you find a payment system across all
[1:36:35] your utilities, not this just particular
[1:36:37] utility that actually charges you for
[1:36:40] what you use. Um, I can tell you there's
[1:36:45] places where we have one person in a
[1:36:48] onebedroom and there's places where
[1:36:49] there's five people in a onebedroom.
[1:36:51] That's just the facts of the economics
[1:36:53] of some people. Um, but to be charged
[1:36:57] the same for different usages
[1:37:02] [clears throat] doesn't seem quite
[1:37:03] right. So, I will say again, the people
[1:37:05] will allow this, but eventually the
[1:37:09] people will not. Thank you.
[1:37:15] Anybody else?
[1:37:20] This was something that I wasn't going
[1:37:22] to speak on because I don't really know
[1:37:23] much about the issue, but it really
[1:37:26] seems like we're missing the mark here.
[1:37:28] I don't understand it. This is one of
[1:37:30] the things that our community agrees
[1:37:32] upon is that we have people in our
[1:37:36] community that don't have socioeconomic
[1:37:40] means to be able to afford uh higher
[1:37:44] cost for things. I think that we need to
[1:37:46] recalculate. is just not a good plan,
[1:37:48] right? We can't treat this city like a
[1:37:52] business because that's not going to
[1:37:53] work when we have people from all
[1:37:56] different social backgrounds. I think we
[1:37:57] really need to reexamine.
[1:38:02] Anybody else?
[1:38:05] Anybody on the phone? Teams,
[1:38:09] >> there's nobody
[1:38:11] >> there is no public comment via teams or
[1:38:13] audio. Right.
[1:38:15] Seeing that we will close public
[1:38:17] comment. Council member Bull.
[1:38:19] >> No, I was just going to say that the um
[1:38:21] and again, Bob, I apologize because I
[1:38:24] think there's a lot of intelligent uh
[1:38:27] things in this move can set us up, give
[1:38:29] us a lot of data, help us, some people
[1:38:31] are going to save. I guess the thing
[1:38:33] that I'm missing and I'm sorry to put it
[1:38:36] back on this but when we say fiscal
[1:38:38] impact we usually think about like are
[1:38:40] we going to break even or how's it going
[1:38:41] to shake out but even though it's a
[1:38:44] small cost potentially I don't get a
[1:38:47] sense of is that 23% made up of fixed
[1:38:52] income people and you know seniors or
[1:38:55] people you know that just don't have the
[1:38:57] means or that becomes a very big
[1:38:59] challenge for them when you and I might
[1:39:01] look at that is negligible.
[1:39:04] Not knowing that type of fiscal impact
[1:39:06] does make me hesitant on this. I hope
[1:39:09] that makes sense. Is there anything you
[1:39:10] want to add to this where there's just
[1:39:13] no way to really do that or define that?
[1:39:19] Yeah, we don't have the the ability to
[1:39:21] pull pull that out as far as on the
[1:39:24] reports we get as far as you I mean I
[1:39:27] know the the users the ones who are
[1:39:30] seeing increase are typically not near
[1:39:33] the minimum they're using you know more
[1:39:36] than the minimum already but I mean it
[1:39:39] it's it's a variety of I don't know you
[1:39:43] the housing structure the residents you
[1:39:46] know who lives where or where the
[1:39:49] lowincome
[1:39:51] customers are. But I'm again I would say
[1:39:54] that people who are you they're paying
[1:39:57] for their water by the number of units.
[1:39:59] So if they're using a lot, you know, a
[1:40:02] fair amount of water, they're seeing,
[1:40:04] you know, they're using, you know,
[1:40:07] they're pay they're they're paying for
[1:40:09] what they're using. And this is a way of
[1:40:11] measuring what they're using as far as
[1:40:14] the sewer system and so that they're
[1:40:17] paying what they're using on that.
[1:40:21] >> And I I appreciate all that. I guess the the unknowns for me and I don't know
[1:40:25] all of the details but you had mentioned
[1:40:26] that somebody could be um uh labeled as
[1:40:30] a single customer but maybe have 200
[1:40:32] units. I guess in my mind I play it
[1:40:34] forward where well maybe there was you
[1:40:36] know somebody that was really conserving
[1:40:38] next door to them. Somebody was just
[1:40:39] like leaving the water on all the time
[1:40:41] and it shook out a year or two later
[1:40:44] that the owners were paying more in
[1:40:46] their bill and they wound up passing
[1:40:47] that cost on to their tenants. So again,
[1:40:50] that's where I think about, well, what
[1:40:51] if somebody's on a fixed income and they
[1:40:53] did everything they were supposed to do,
[1:40:54] but they have the limitations of being a
[1:40:56] renter in a multi-unit place? Could they
[1:40:59] face fiscal impact from this?
[1:41:02] Potentially,
[1:41:03] >> possibly. A lot of our our larger
[1:41:06] customers do have a flat rate where they
[1:41:08] pay a certain amount per unit and that
[1:41:11] doesn't change. So those um may not be
[1:41:15] affected, but um yeah, I understand.
[1:41:20] >> Yeah, thank you for filling me in as
[1:41:23] much as you could. Appreciate it.
[1:41:26] >> So we got to pay off this $105 million
[1:41:29] sewer plant, correct? I mean, that's the bottom line, too, is $105
[1:41:33] million plus plus. So, um I think that
[1:41:40] people are getting a little confused
[1:41:41] that we're not
[1:41:43] changing the charge and it's based on
[1:41:46] per unit. You have a five unit minimum.
[1:41:51] You don't have a sewer meter. So, you
[1:41:53] don't have a flow meter sitting on the sewer. You're using that number
[1:41:57] to be as fair as you can and limiting
[1:41:59] it. It's was five units before. It's
[1:42:03] going to be five units now. So, that's
[1:42:04] not going to be changed. Um, where it
[1:42:07] does align, some people I've talked to
[1:42:09] is where they they had a long water leak
[1:42:12] and you threw out one high, but because
[1:42:14] it was high on year four, three, and
[1:42:16] two, now it's more accurate because it's
[1:42:19] following the water that's using. And in
[1:42:21] some people's cases with water going up,
[1:42:23] you have another member of the family
[1:42:26] happens. So, people are taking more
[1:42:28] baths. There's more people there. And
[1:42:31] that's why you're talking about some
[1:42:33] numbers going up and likewise some are
[1:42:35] going down because somebody's moving on
[1:42:36] to college or something, but you're not
[1:42:39] charging individually more. It's the
[1:42:43] same as it's been since 2017. Correct.
[1:42:46] >> Correct.
[1:42:46] >> So the rates are not going up on this.
[1:42:48] The amount of charging, it was five
[1:42:51] units before was the minimum. Correct.
[1:42:52] >> Yes.
[1:42:53] >> Five units of charge before. It's five
[1:42:55] units now. So there's no no change on
[1:42:58] that. What they're talking about is in
[1:43:01] order because there isn't a sewer meter,
[1:43:04] you use the water meter to calculate.
[1:43:06] And the reason why they use January,
[1:43:07] February, March is generally when it's
[1:43:09] raining and people aren't using water to
[1:43:11] landscape. So that's the best way they
[1:43:13] can calculate because most that water
[1:43:15] then is used in the house, showers,
[1:43:17] toilets, whatever. That's how they come
[1:43:20] up with that calculation using the
[1:43:21] winter rates for the calculation. The
[1:43:24] reason why I'm saying right now, because
[1:43:26] we're not in a drought, the river's
[1:43:27] running for almost three years in times
[1:43:30] of plenty, go ahead and use a little
[1:43:31] more water. Enjoy a little bit of that
[1:43:33] renewable resource that's out there. Um,
[1:43:36] if you if you're not doing it during the
[1:43:37] calculation time of January, February,
[1:43:39] March, it won't affect your your sewer
[1:43:41] bill. But it's a methodology that's used
[1:43:44] throughout California. Correct.
[1:43:46] >> A lot of California's gone to fixed
[1:43:48] rates, but a lot of them still use based
[1:43:50] on winter averages. Yeah.
[1:43:52] >> Right. I mean it's it's because people
[1:43:54] don't put sewer meters on houses.
[1:43:56] Correct.
[1:43:56] >> Correct.
[1:43:57] >> And it's just one of those things you
[1:43:58] can't really do. So that's why they have
[1:44:00] to use it to do the calculation and the
[1:44:02] rates have to be adjusted. The reason
[1:44:03] why we haven't had to raise the rates is
[1:44:05] because
[1:44:06] until recently the the sewer uh
[1:44:09] enterprise has been pretty good shape.
[1:44:10] In fact, I think April of last year they
[1:44:12] had 100% reserve. They had $13 million
[1:44:15] in the bank, but they had a lot of
[1:44:17] projects and deferred maintenance that
[1:44:18] they were going to be using that money
[1:44:20] up on. So that's why rates hadn't been
[1:44:22] had to raised for many years is it was
[1:44:24] covering its debt. So with more growth
[1:44:27] that we have our water plants running
[1:44:29] our wastewater I think it's at 60%
[1:44:32] capacity
[1:44:33] >> correct. So we have room for growth more
[1:44:36] people hook up on it. We won't have to
[1:44:39] raise the rates for a while too. So we
[1:44:40] need to get more people hooked up using
[1:44:42] that resource that's out there. I mean
[1:44:44] if you've I don't know if they do tours
[1:44:46] at the wastewater plant but it's a
[1:44:47] pretty phenomenal facility. needs. One
[1:44:49] of the most expensive facilities the
[1:44:51] city of LMPoke has is the sewer plant.
[1:44:54] It's very expensive to take care of and
[1:44:55] process what happens when they flush
[1:44:57] that toilet. They got a great group of
[1:44:59] people out there that that keep the
[1:45:00] water running clean all the way to the
[1:45:02] UV sterilizers all the way out. So,
[1:45:06] Council Member Vega
[1:45:10] Bob, I thank you for the presentation. I
[1:45:11] understand what's going on here, but I
[1:45:14] can't support it because I can't explain
[1:45:16] it to my constituents. or the people of
[1:45:19] the residents. Uh in days of
[1:45:21] conservation,
[1:45:23] I don't know what the benefit was to
[1:45:25] people to be honest with you. You
[1:45:26] conserve water and then you get another
[1:45:28] fee study where the rates are raised.
[1:45:30] The infrastructure cost are the
[1:45:32] infrastructure cost. As we all know,
[1:45:34] this is an election year and people that
[1:45:37] have no problem paying their utility
[1:45:39] bills
[1:45:41] will embrace any kind of change that
[1:45:43] benefits the city. Okay. So basically
[1:45:46] what we have to do is look at our in
[1:45:48] ourselves and see what was the reason I
[1:45:51] would vote for a change
[1:45:54] when they can't explain who's going to
[1:45:58] benefit from it. And why would I put
[1:46:00] somebody's fixed income in jeopardy and
[1:46:03] have to explain afterwards when they're
[1:46:05] only getting $700, maybe $1,500 a month
[1:46:09] to their family? I just don't agree with
[1:46:10] it. So basically, I can't explain it.
[1:46:13] You guys can't explain it. You guys can
[1:46:15] only try and sell it because it's
[1:46:18] enterprise. It's bank. It's it's
[1:46:20] banking. It's we have money we have to
[1:46:23] spend. We conserve. You sell more water.
[1:46:25] None of that makes sense.
[1:46:27] All I know is when we get our bill,
[1:46:29] there's people stressing out with the
[1:46:31] utility bill. And right now with
[1:46:33] economics, everything is going up. And
[1:46:37] all we do is we present things that seem
[1:46:39] to have frosting on it, but then what
[1:46:42] comes in right after it is another fee
[1:46:44] study, which means when's the last time
[1:46:47] utilities went down, guys? Everything is
[1:46:49] a at a cost. But right, think the timing
[1:46:51] of it right now is not good.
[1:46:55] Council bridge.
[1:47:02] So I just want to be very clear in my
[1:47:04] mind.
[1:47:06] You're not increasing the rates.
[1:47:10] >> Correct.
[1:47:10] >> You're not increasing the minimum.
[1:47:12] >> Correct.
[1:47:14] >> The only change we're making tonight
[1:47:16] that I can understand.
[1:47:19] Instead of averaging the use over five
[1:47:22] years,
[1:47:24] we're putting under one year.
[1:47:26] >> That's correct.
[1:47:27] >> I am a proponent for that. And the
[1:47:29] reason I am a proponent for that
[1:47:32] is I can change what my bill is quickly.
[1:47:38] I've had many conversations with folks
[1:47:40] who go, "How do I get my bill so sewer
[1:47:44] bill lower?" And I have to go, "Well,
[1:47:47] it'll take you five years to get it
[1:47:48] lower."
[1:47:50] with this change. If someone makes wants
[1:47:52] to make a change in their behavior
[1:47:54] because their bill's too high,
[1:47:57] they can make that change within a year,
[1:47:59] not five years.
[1:48:00] >> That's correct.
[1:48:01] >> That's the only change we're making
[1:48:02] here, right? Putting the power back in
[1:48:04] the people's hands to change their rate,
[1:48:07] what they're having to pay. They don't
[1:48:09] have to wait five years to lower their
[1:48:11] bill. They can change it this year.
[1:48:15] And I don't mean to be faciticious and
[1:48:16] if I'm sorry if I hurt anybody's
[1:48:18] feelings, but the quickest way to do
[1:48:21] that, and I've seen them around town, is
[1:48:23] turn off your sprinklers in the winter.
[1:48:26] You will use less water during that
[1:48:28] period when the averages are computed.
[1:48:30] They're computed, I believe, then
[1:48:33] December, January, February or
[1:48:35] >> Yeah, we use both. We try to capture
[1:48:38] January, February, March usage.
[1:48:41] >> Okay. January, February, March. Turn
[1:48:43] your sprinklers off that if they're
[1:48:44] going, it rains during that period. Most
[1:48:47] lawns don't require it. I forget
[1:48:50] sometimes, but I try to turn it off in
[1:48:52] the winter. And it will make that change
[1:48:55] this year. I don't have to wait five
[1:48:57] years because I'm trying to conserve.
[1:49:00] This change has nothing to do with how
[1:49:02] much you pay on water.
[1:49:05] >> Correct.
[1:49:05] >> There's no All this is is our sewer
[1:49:07] bill.
[1:49:08] >> Yes. and we're trying to give a way for
[1:49:10] people to impact and lower their sewer
[1:49:12] bill. I'm going to be in support of
[1:49:15] that.
[1:49:16] Council,
[1:49:18] >> so I definitely hear that, I guess. But
[1:49:20] a little push back that I would have is
[1:49:22] that oh my gosh, how lucky it is for
[1:49:24] someone to have sprinklers.
[1:49:26] What about all the people that are in
[1:49:28] denser housing don't have the option to
[1:49:31] turn off their sprinklers or lower their
[1:49:33] consumption? They've already done that,
[1:49:36] but they are just at the receiving end
[1:49:37] of that. So, one might
[1:49:40] imagine that somebody that has
[1:49:42] sprinklers has the ability to really
[1:49:45] lower their bill because of consumption,
[1:49:47] but somebody that's on a fixed income
[1:49:49] and has no options of lowering their
[1:49:51] consumption might not. They actually
[1:49:53] might pay more. So, that's again where I
[1:49:55] have a little bit of hesitation on this.
[1:49:56] And then, I mean, I guess it's how you
[1:49:59] say it. Um, but if the staff report said
[1:50:03] 23% of people are going to pay more,
[1:50:07] you're changing the way that you charge.
[1:50:09] So, it's not accurate to say no one's
[1:50:11] bill is going to change.
[1:50:13] >> I I would say
[1:50:15] >> you didn't say that, someone else did.
[1:50:16] No.
[1:50:16] >> So, that's that's just something I want
[1:50:18] to be very clear of is that somebody is
[1:50:20] going to see the change and we have not
[1:50:22] been able to say who might benefit and
[1:50:25] who might not. Um,
[1:50:28] just so I don't get this wrong, mayor,
[1:50:30] you said something about $105 million.
[1:50:32] What is that? The sewer. Tell me about
[1:50:35] that.
[1:50:36] >> That was the bond debts to build the
[1:50:38] sewer plant.
[1:50:38] >> Yeah. So,
[1:50:41] and again, I may be a little bit
[1:50:43] ignorant, but I guess his eyes zoom out
[1:50:45] and I and again, no blame because the
[1:50:47] utility was in good shape and there's no
[1:50:49] need for uh any of these rate increases.
[1:50:52] But then we use the justification to
[1:50:55] say, "Well, we need to do this thing
[1:50:57] because we still have this $ 105 thou $
[1:50:59] 105 million thing that we still haven't
[1:51:01] figured out how to pay for." It makes me
[1:51:03] go back and think like, "Well,
[1:51:05] well, gosh, here we are again in the
[1:51:07] city of LMPO having something that needs
[1:51:09] to be fixed. Capital improvement. We
[1:51:11] have no money ever put aside."
[1:51:15] Just one other example. Hear me out at
[1:51:18] my little PE brain sometimes just thinks
[1:51:20] like, "Well, gosh, man. we would have
[1:51:21] just had a 3% 4% some uh moderate sort
[1:51:26] of rate increase over that time. We
[1:51:28] haven't increased any rate since 2017.
[1:51:31] I'm like, isn't that how other cities
[1:51:32] kind of do it? They It's not as
[1:51:34] controversial. They don't wait a decade
[1:51:36] to make a change that has so much
[1:51:37] impact. They just have incremental
[1:51:39] change and then they put money aside and
[1:51:41] then they fix their things. I don't
[1:51:43] know, maybe I'm ignorant, but
[1:51:46] >> um no, back to your first point though,
[1:51:48] I will say again, the people who are
[1:51:50] seeing increases would have likely seen
[1:51:53] an increase anyway because their winter
[1:51:56] usage was higher. So under either
[1:51:58] method, they're going to they're seeing
[1:52:01] a increase because they use more water
[1:52:04] and that's how we measure it. So,
[1:52:09] but as to the segway, the the the
[1:52:11] primary reason for doing this is not to
[1:52:15] pay for the plant essentially, but it's
[1:52:18] but yeah, but the minimum sorry the
[1:52:21] minimum cost again that does go towards
[1:52:24] the infrastructure which is part of the
[1:52:27] plan and that's been in place ever since I've been here. The minimum
[1:52:32] of five units that's been in place. So
[1:52:36] >> playing devil's advocate, those five
[1:52:37] unit charges that we give, whether
[1:52:39] somebody turns the water on or off, is
[1:52:41] that helping us pay for $105 million
[1:52:44] sewer plant and how quickly might we be
[1:52:46] able to do that and pay it off?
[1:52:49] >> It goes towards the fixed cost of the
[1:52:51] system essentially. There's the using
[1:52:54] the first unit is the most expensive
[1:52:56] because to have one unit, you have to
[1:52:58] have all the infrastructure in place. So
[1:53:02] as far I mean we mix the revenue the
[1:53:04] revenue all goes we don't count how much
[1:53:07] is paid by the minimum how much is you
[1:53:10] know above that but the it's getting
[1:53:14] paid off. It'll be paid off I think by
[1:53:17] 2029.
[1:53:20] So
[1:53:22] >> then we might be able to lower rates
[1:53:23] right?
[1:53:24] >> It's you know we again that's part of
[1:53:26] the study. We'll see how the numbers
[1:53:28] look after this and we'll see.
[1:53:31] >> Council,
[1:53:33] >> hey Bob, when's the next rate study?
[1:53:36] >> So, we we brought a rate study back in
[1:53:39] um last January, February, and we didn't
[1:53:43] continue it. There were some questions
[1:53:44] with it. So, we're going to be um
[1:53:47] bringing that back with the water study
[1:53:50] probably hopefully
[1:53:53] February time frame. We're we're going
[1:53:55] to be starting up again with the end of
[1:53:57] this fiscal last past fiscal year. So we
[1:54:00] have finance numbers. So we'll be
[1:54:01] looking at that.
[1:54:02] >> So the rates won't stay the same for
[1:54:04] five years as stated. Correct. Because
[1:54:07] subject to the rate study other choices
[1:54:10] and in votes could take the place. It's
[1:54:12] possible we could um implement a type of
[1:54:16] fixed cost and lower variable cost be to
[1:54:20] reduce the volatility, but we'll we'll
[1:54:22] be working with our rate consultants on
[1:54:25] different ways of structuring the rates.
[1:54:28] >> And I'm not against the averaging.
[1:54:31] Most people don't understand it or they
[1:54:33] do understand that if you average it
[1:54:35] goes lower. What I'm against is
[1:54:38] the cell here. Okay? You have people
[1:54:41] that say turn off your sprinklers, flush
[1:54:43] the toilets. It's covering the vacancy
[1:54:45] rate. Let's let's let's not make uh
[1:54:48] let's be clear here. The city is making
[1:54:50] money on this change that they should be
[1:54:52] making money on certain things, but you
[1:54:54] guys need to be transparent and say,
[1:54:55] "Oh, there's no change to them." And you
[1:54:58] got to turn off your sprinklers. I don't
[1:54:59] have sprinklers.
[1:55:01] So, that doesn't fly for a lot of
[1:55:03] people. The conservation was just a big
[1:55:06] smoke and mirror thing, too. You have
[1:55:08] people here trying to restrict
[1:55:10] themselves and tell them to save water.
[1:55:11] What did they get for that? They got a
[1:55:13] rate increase. You guys are talking
[1:55:15] about the sewer plant infrastructure.
[1:55:17] That's an old bill that's being paid
[1:55:19] with enterprise. So basically, the
[1:55:21] enterprise is making more money as it
[1:55:23] should so that other people could spend
[1:55:25] the money somewhere else. It's not going
[1:55:27] directly toward that sewer plant. So
[1:55:29] that's a myth. All I'm saying is we just
[1:55:32] need to know why we're selling it, why
[1:55:34] we're doing it, and and to say that
[1:55:36] we're not going to get a rate increase
[1:55:38] in 5 years, that's bologoney. That's not
[1:55:40] true. We get a rate increase every year
[1:55:42] just about if it's voted in. So, I just
[1:55:45] want to be honest with the people.
[1:55:46] That's all
[1:55:47] >> I will say. For me, the main reason for
[1:55:50] doing it is it's simpler to build, it's
[1:55:53] simpler to calculate, it's simpler to
[1:55:56] implement.
[1:55:57] >> And see, those are the answers that I
[1:55:59] wanted to hear. Not the smoking mirrors
[1:56:01] about flushing toilets and turning off
[1:56:03] sprinklers and all that. That's all
[1:56:04] baloney. That doesn't even make sense.
[1:56:06] And that is being repeated to me as if I
[1:56:08] didn't understand what that meant.
[1:56:12] And I understood it perfectly. It's just
[1:56:15] that I can't tell my constituents and
[1:56:16] the residents who's going to get this
[1:56:18] increase, and you can't tell me, and
[1:56:20] none of you can tell me. You guys just
[1:56:22] say it's okay. It's going to go down.
[1:56:27] I just don't think it's it's been
[1:56:29] explained or it's clarified because in
[1:56:31] general you have the apartments, you
[1:56:32] have all the single family homes, you
[1:56:34] have everybody in one big bulk group and
[1:56:37] how you guys calculated the 27%
[1:56:40] increase. Um I'm not sure if you were
[1:56:42] real clear about that. If you know who's
[1:56:44] going to get the increase or not, Bob,
[1:56:47] or if you know, okay, some of that
[1:56:49] question mark stuff is kind of what
[1:56:51] people should know before we vote into
[1:56:53] another process. You know, people
[1:56:55] understand averaging means, okay, if you
[1:56:58] average it out for a certain amount of
[1:56:59] time, maybe we'll stabilize the rate the
[1:57:01] rates for the month or the billing.
[1:57:04] That's pretty clear. I get it. But to
[1:57:06] say for 5 years, it's not going to
[1:57:08] change. That's not true.
[1:57:10] So, if you guys could tell me who who's
[1:57:12] going to get the increase,
[1:57:15] [snorts] that would be a different
[1:57:16] story. But it's not it's not structured
[1:57:18] like that. So, thank you,
[1:57:23] Council Member Bridge.
[1:57:30] So, the people that are getting the
[1:57:31] increase are the people that are using
[1:57:33] the water and have somehow been
[1:57:36] over the averaging of five years, taken
[1:57:38] advantage of earlier years, and use less
[1:57:41] water.
[1:57:42] Um, so that's pretty easy to understand.
[1:57:46] >> Tell me exactly, Mr. Bridge. Who is it?
[1:57:49] There's no way to tell that because
[1:57:50] everybody uses a different
[1:57:52] >> You're exactly right. You just answered
[1:57:53] it. Okay. So, when you come back at me
[1:57:54] with something vague,
[1:57:56] >> come back with me with for something
[1:57:58] that I can understand.
[1:57:59] >> Nothing vague, but based on what you're
[1:58:02] stating and what I'm hearing
[1:58:06] perhaps Councilman Ball worrying um
[1:58:10] and what I heard the angst,
[1:58:14] um my understanding was the average is
[1:58:16] seven units. That's what I think I
[1:58:18] heard.
[1:58:18] >> Yes,
[1:58:19] >> we have a base of five. You want
[1:58:21] something to campaign on? Let's make it
[1:58:24] a base of two units. It won't make a
[1:58:27] difference, but you'll have a something
[1:58:29] to go tell your constituents.
[1:58:31] >> I don't need anything to campaign on,
[1:58:33] sir.
[1:58:38] So if I understand it's the the current
[1:58:43] Greg Stones would know this when the
[1:58:44] current rules for apartment complexes in
[1:58:47] other commercial components you have
[1:58:49] separate meters one for landscaping
[1:58:50] meter and his apartment right so there's
[1:58:55] a housing meter in a lot of these big
[1:58:56] developments already have isolated
[1:58:59] landscape meters right so they're
[1:59:01] already those those guys don't matter
[1:59:04] what he's talking about is a single
[1:59:05] family residents in the water usage
[1:59:08] lines. Most of the people in apartments
[1:59:09] are already on the five unit minimum.
[1:59:12] >> Yeah.
[1:59:13] >> So, a lot of them and I I
[1:59:15] >> I just said most. I mean, if they're
[1:59:16] larger units, they're already on the
[1:59:19] five minimums. So, they're already not
[1:59:22] going to see a change. So, and the the
[1:59:24] complexity of this is is they can't
[1:59:27] share with us because it's confidential.
[1:59:29] People's utility bills are confidential.
[1:59:32] So, they're not going to go share with
[1:59:33] us. and they and they don't we don't
[1:59:36] isolate out whether somebody's
[1:59:39] um their their class in society. We
[1:59:43] treat everybody equally the same with
[1:59:44] their bills. Correct,
[1:59:46] >> city attorney. We don't have isolation,
[1:59:49] right? It and it's based on usage.
[1:59:53] Correct.
[1:59:53] >> Yeah, it's based on usage.
[1:59:55] >> Yeah. So it's not
[1:59:57] >> and the part about the customer class
[1:59:59] that the person asked about that goes
[2:00:01] the classes are residential, commercial,
[2:00:04] industrial but that only comes into play
[2:00:07] if the they weren't in the residence for
[2:00:10] January, February and March they the
[2:00:13] first year essentially they get build
[2:00:15] the average after that we establish
[2:00:18] their winter average. And the customers
[2:00:20] who are going up, they're people who
[2:00:22] used more water this past winter than
[2:00:27] they have in the past.
[2:00:29] >> Or
[2:00:29] >> I I have the names at my desk, but I
[2:00:32] >> or or it was a property that was
[2:00:34] actually vacant and is now occupied. I
[2:00:36] mean, there's that rotational aspect
[2:00:38] that comes through as well. So, it's not
[2:00:40] the rates are not increasing per unit.
[2:00:43] If you're using the minimum of five,
[2:00:47] you'll still be five. It's based on how
[2:00:49] many units you're using on a one-year
[2:00:51] averaging instead of the five-year
[2:00:52] averaging. So, Council Member Ball,
[2:00:55] >> I it sounds so simple. Um, so I guess
[2:00:59] just uh just kick it on through, I
[2:01:02] guess, but um correct me if I'm wrong.
[2:01:04] So, over So, I guess this from your
[2:01:07] staff report. So, over 2,000 households,
[2:01:11] and again, we could argue like, oh,
[2:01:12] well, they're using more water and
[2:01:13] they've been getting a break up until
[2:01:15] this point. No one knows that they're
[2:01:16] paying their water bill. They're paying
[2:01:17] all their bills. They're using their
[2:01:19] water. So, over 2,000 households are
[2:01:22] going to see their bill go up.
[2:01:25] >> Yeah.
[2:01:26] >> Based on what we think. Yes.
[2:01:27] >> Okay. And we don't know who because
[2:01:30] that's that's cloudy. Although I would
[2:01:31] say sometimes like LMPO benefits from uh
[2:01:35] in terms of our electric bill and the
[2:01:37] rates that we pay to bring power on. You
[2:01:39] know, some of that is tied to median
[2:01:42] income and some of those things, but
[2:01:43] that's another story. Um, also, is this
[2:01:46] true or false? We are also removing
[2:01:50] a previous cap of $281 on how much a
[2:01:54] wastewater bill can increase in a single
[2:01:57] year.
[2:01:58] >> Are we removing?
[2:02:00] >> The cap was four units. Okay.
[2:02:02] >> So, it was about $36
[2:02:06] was the cap before. And yes, that's
[2:02:08] correct.
[2:02:08] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:02:14] So the people's bills that will be going
[2:02:16] up are people who are using more sewage.
[2:02:18] Correct?
[2:02:19] >> Yes. [clears throat]
[2:02:22] » All right. Anybody else? I see nobody
[2:02:24] else's thing. Anybody mayor?
[2:02:25] >> Yes.
[2:02:26] >> We do have a housekeeping item on this
[2:02:28] we have to take care of before there's a
[2:02:29] motion and that's pursuant to Prop 218.
[2:02:33] This was a public hearing to take
[2:02:35] written protests of this proposed change
[2:02:39] and uh there's 11,12
[2:02:42] parcels in the city. If 50% plus one of
[2:02:45] those 11,12 parcels protested,
[2:02:49] then city council would be prohibited
[2:02:51] from making this change. If there are
[2:02:54] less than 50 50% protests, then the
[2:02:57] council can choose whether or not to
[2:02:58] make the change. So, I want to confirm
[2:03:01] with the city clerk that uh city has
[2:03:04] received
[2:03:06] um first of all that all the notices
[2:03:09] were mailed to the property owners and
[2:03:10] the utility customers and that the city
[2:03:13] received 18 written protests.
[2:03:16] >> That is correct.
[2:03:18] >> And we received zero tonight.
[2:03:21] So, uh the total of 18 does not reach
[2:03:23] the 50% threshold though.
[2:03:25] >> We actually received the 18th tonight.
[2:03:27] We had 17 before tonight and I was
[2:03:30] handed one tonight.
[2:03:32] >> Understood. Technically I meant at the
[2:03:35] public hearing. So 18 before the public
[2:03:37] hearing, zero at the public hearing.
[2:03:41] >> Correct.
[2:03:46] » Okay.
[2:03:49] Housekeeping is taken care of. Any more
[2:03:51] questions?
[2:03:54] We're looking for a motion.
[2:04:03] Starbucks, what's your motion?
[2:04:05] >> I'll go ahead and make the motion we
[2:04:06] accept resolution 6836 parentheses 26.
[2:04:12] >> Is that all you need along with
[2:04:13] everything else or what else? City
[2:04:14] attorney,
[2:04:16] >> that is sufficient. Yes.
[2:04:18] >> Okay, we got a first by Starbucks,
[2:04:20] second by bridge. Let's go ahead and
[2:04:21] vote.
[2:04:29] That passes 32.
[2:04:41] Up next,
[2:04:43] discussion and direction regarding
[2:04:44] adopting housing element sites inventory
[2:04:47] lists.
[2:04:53] Planning manager Greg Stones,
[2:04:56] you had a busy time this time, didn't
[2:04:58] you?
[2:04:58] >> Yep.
[2:05:01] >> One moment.
[2:05:03] All right.
[2:05:05] So at the uh June 2nd 2026, city council
[2:05:10] requested a discussion regarding this
[2:05:11] item item specifically the inventory and
[2:05:14] map in our general plan housing element.
[2:05:23] So a few things here in terms of I'll
[2:05:25] discuss the process and the benefits of
[2:05:28] modifying the list and map. So the
[2:05:30] process would be to essentially come up
[2:05:33] with which items or which properties you
[2:05:35] want off the list. Uh we would staff
[2:05:38] would have to work with the consultant
[2:05:39] to do an analysis to see if it's a
[2:05:42] appropriate fit in terms of if there's
[2:05:45] any additional ones that would be put on
[2:05:47] the list versus ones being taken off the
[2:05:49] list. Contact the HCD which is the
[2:05:52] housing of uh department of housing and
[2:05:54] community development to see if they
[2:05:56] agree. Uh then return to planning
[2:05:58] commission. then it would go to city
[2:06:00] council and if city council agrees then
[2:06:03] we would submit back to HCD. They would
[2:06:06] have 60-day review time and then after
[2:06:08] HCD approves it then it would come back
[2:06:10] to planning commission and city council
[2:06:13] for adoption and then resubmit it to HCD
[2:06:17] and consultant mentioned it this could
[2:06:19] potentially take up to six months. Now
[2:06:22] some of the benefits uh would be uh
[2:06:25] regarding the no net loss excuse me no
[2:06:27] net loss law. If the city approves a
[2:06:30] project at a lower density or for
[2:06:32] different income level than what was
[2:06:34] what the inventory assumed the city must
[2:06:36] replace the capacity elsewhere. Keeping
[2:06:39] the inventory updated can prevent uh
[2:06:41] deficits and adding extra sites to the
[2:06:43] inventory creates a safety net to
[2:06:46] prevent failing falling out of
[2:06:48] compliance if the developer builds fewer
[2:06:51] units than expected. Well, that's one.
[2:06:54] Second benefit could be swapping uh
[2:06:57] swapping it constrained sites for more
[2:07:00] viable sites increases the likelihood
[2:07:01] that housing actually gets built in the
[2:07:03] community. And the third point would be
[2:07:06] to uh removing a parcel from the
[2:07:08] inventory can protect the city against
[2:07:10] by right statutory triggers created by
[2:07:13] assembly bill uh 1397. Uh under
[2:07:16] California law if a site is um relisted
[2:07:20] or reused across multiple housing
[2:07:21] element cycles without being developed,
[2:07:24] the city faces loss of local zoning
[2:07:26] control. In other words, the city must
[2:07:28] allow any future housing development on
[2:07:30] that site to be approved by Wright. Um,
[2:07:33] assuming they also have at least 20% for
[2:07:35] low-income housing.
[2:07:37] And oh, if you could go to the map
[2:07:40] quickly and here's the map from our
[2:07:43] adopted housing element showing the
[2:07:45] vacant and underutilized sites. Uh, that
[2:07:48] concludes my presentation. Thank you.
[2:07:50] [clears throat]
[2:07:53] Counselor Bridge question. Sorry.
[2:07:57] >> Leftovers.
[2:08:00] Counc
[2:08:03] >> just generally speaking, uh, has HCD had
[2:08:07] some concerns about what we've done in
[2:08:09] the past?
[2:08:10] >> No, I I haven't heard anything right
[2:08:12] now. We're good.
[2:08:13] >> So, as is, do we feel pretty comfortable
[2:08:16] that we're doing the right thing by the
[2:08:18] state or HDD will approach?
[2:08:22] >> Sure. I mean, since I haven't heard
[2:08:23] anything, I'm thinking we're good.
[2:08:26] >> So, in terms of potential arena numbers
[2:08:29] and
[2:08:31] letting them know that we're open to
[2:08:32] housing, we're doing a pretty good job
[2:08:34] with that.
[2:08:35] >> That I'm aware of.
[2:08:36] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:08:41] » One of the reasons for I would Do you
[2:08:44] have anything else, Bill?
[2:08:45] >> No. Oh, said is that we did do some zone
[2:08:49] changes which can help our numbers and
[2:08:52] the last thing you want to do is you
[2:08:53] have the state saying you're in
[2:08:54] violation and we're quite confident that
[2:08:58] at least I am some of these things are
[2:08:59] not going to happen. Um I don't think
[2:09:02] anybody's tearing down the Graange Hall,
[2:09:04] the Half Century Club, the Elks Lodge.
[2:09:07] There's a couple other churches on this
[2:09:09] list. Might happen, might not. But in
[2:09:12] other words, to protect us, we have two
[2:09:15] other parcels, as you've mentioned here,
[2:09:17] that potentially would bring um another
[2:09:20] 114 dwelling units to town. So, I think
[2:09:24] it's important that we add those on. I
[2:09:27] mean, that would be logical, correct?
[2:09:29] >> Yeah, that could that could help. Yes.
[2:09:31] Especially if um you know if one of the
[2:09:34] other sites gets developed with less
[2:09:36] than what was expected then we can point
[2:09:38] to hey we added these two and the in the
[2:09:41] old cycles before
[2:09:43] the other arena cycles they were pretty
[2:09:47] laxidasical about it and people were
[2:09:49] putting plans together nothing was
[2:09:50] happening but I think the state has got
[2:09:52] a little more teeth in it now and they
[2:09:54] want to see people produce
[2:09:56] um and how often you have to give an
[2:09:58] annual update correct
[2:10:00] >> um
[2:10:01] >> production Well, I mean the the update
[2:10:04] in terms of the how many homes are
[2:10:05] building is in the general plan annual
[2:10:07] report. That's where we kind of indicate
[2:10:09] the progress of actually items that
[2:10:12] actually received a um certificate of um
[2:10:16] I'm sorry not certificate occup issued a
[2:10:19] building permit
[2:10:20] >> and year before last we had two single
[2:10:22] family residents. Last year we had zero.
[2:10:25] This year we're slated for a lot more.
[2:10:27] So I'm just
[2:10:28] >> correct.
[2:10:28] >> And just for clarification also the last
[2:10:31] two years when we reported that we used
[2:10:35] certificate of occupancy where we found
[2:10:38] out ju just recently after the last one
[2:10:40] that was updated in this past February
[2:10:43] that we can actually use a building
[2:10:44] permit issuance. So next year the how we
[2:10:48] do that calculate that will be a little
[2:10:50] bit different and it'll actually show
[2:10:51] more because more items get uh
[2:10:55] approved by building division as opposed
[2:10:57] to a certificate of occupants we which
[2:10:59] is you know it's actually built and we
[2:11:02] actually have the arena is about 2400
[2:11:05] housing units the state is and we're two
[2:11:08] years into the cycle. This is the third
[2:11:09] year correct
[2:11:10] >> third or fourth.
[2:11:11] >> Yeah. So we're we're getting down the
[2:11:13] pipe. So, we've got a lot a lot of
[2:11:15] makeup work to do. But, um, another
[2:11:20] question why I brought this on was um,
[2:11:23] in going to the LAFCO meetings and see
[2:11:26] how the county and city of Galita were
[2:11:29] able to
[2:11:31] put u lands.
[2:11:34] Um, it made it more favorable for
[2:11:36] annexation if they were in their arena
[2:11:38] plan.
[2:11:40] um I believe it was Galita's annexation
[2:11:43] and then also the overriding
[2:11:45] consideration of prime agriculture was
[2:11:48] looked the other way when it was in the
[2:11:50] arena plan in the over uh writing
[2:11:53] consideration in need of development. So
[2:11:57] I have some suggestions on some of the
[2:11:59] properties that we've been looking at.
[2:12:01] We know one's moving through under
[2:12:02] builder's remedy and we probably need to
[2:12:05] get that looked at as lining up for
[2:12:08] a project of the city and not one that
[2:12:11] lays a limbo with the county. So, um
[2:12:16] if anybody else has you know the did you
[2:12:18] get the the answer
[2:12:20] >> on that question?
[2:12:20] >> Yeah. So, for the for the street Yeah.
[2:12:23] for the 109 South 3rd Street. Uh I did
[2:12:27] talk with the consultant today and he
[2:12:28] said it it is that site is counted
[2:12:30] towards arena. It's just that it's not
[2:12:33] on the vacant and unear sales inventory
[2:12:35] but it was it's in the housing element
[2:12:38] under the um entitlement entitled
[2:12:40] project. So it is counted. It's just not
[2:12:42] on that that particular Yeah. Not on the
[2:12:45] map,
[2:12:45] >> but we have the V Street one. That's
[2:12:48] that one's entitled, isn't it?
[2:12:50] >> Um North V.
[2:12:52] >> Yeah. The number 83 or something.
[2:12:53] >> Well, now now it's entitled. I mean, it
[2:12:56] was
[2:12:56] >> 84.
[2:12:58] >> Number 84.
[2:12:59] >> Um,
[2:13:02] >> the left long corner up there.
[2:13:15] » The 1275.
[2:13:16] >> I might be confusing my site. So,
[2:13:18] >> what's that?
[2:13:19] >> Oh, 84. That had an entitlement, but
[2:13:22] it's no longer valid.
[2:13:24] There was an entitlement on it, but now
[2:13:26] it's it's not valid anymore.
[2:13:27] >> That's why it's on the map. Okay. All
[2:13:29] right.
[2:13:33] Very good. Anybody else? Council member
[2:13:35] B.
[2:13:35] >> Just silly question. Forgive my
[2:13:37] ignorance. Um, do city properties ever
[2:13:40] wind up in this context or is that a
[2:13:42] >> Yeah, I I believe there are some that
[2:13:44] are in if you could
[2:13:46] >> on L Street there and stuff.
[2:13:49] Yeah.
[2:13:49] >> You also have the old
[2:13:51] >> I think there's some in the downtown
[2:13:52] area and then the L street one I believe
[2:13:55] >> you have one behind Baskin Robbins too.
[2:13:57] The old yard there.
[2:14:00] >> Yeah, I think so.
[2:14:01] >> On the 4 400 block of I Street. That
[2:14:04] one's on there.
[2:14:05] >> Yeah, I don't remember off the top of my
[2:14:07] head the addresses, but
[2:14:08] >> they go on there.
[2:14:09] >> Yeah, I'm And again, I don't want to
[2:14:11] mess with this map. I think that's fine.
[2:14:13] But I am curious about you know every
[2:14:15] time I drive past D Street and you know
[2:14:19] uh Chestnut I think that the whole city
[2:14:21] where they park the buses used to have a
[2:14:23] lot of stuff happening and it's just
[2:14:24] sitting open land with some solar panels
[2:14:26] and bus parking now. So just curious
[2:14:29] about that. Um maybe I'll follow up with
[2:14:31] you so I can learn a little bit more
[2:14:32] about that. But for those city
[2:14:34] properties that are on this list again
[2:14:37] the whole goal is to get some sort of
[2:14:38] housing and to move towards something.
[2:14:40] I'm curious how the city how do they get
[2:14:43] city properties included if there's not
[2:14:45] necessar if that might be a harder
[2:14:47] pathway to develop or offload or
[2:14:51] >> yeah that that particular question I I
[2:14:53] don't know off the top of my head I
[2:14:55] think our consultant would probably know
[2:14:56] and I can shoot him an email and ask
[2:14:58] them that.
[2:14:59] >> I'll follow up. Okay.
[2:15:00] >> Thank you.
[2:15:05] » No other questions right now. Let me
[2:15:06] bring that to public comment.
[2:15:14] So, I want to speak on item 12 because
[2:15:16] while this isn't a vote on a specific
[2:15:18] housing project, it is a discussion that
[2:15:20] will shape Lok's future. The direction
[2:15:23] you give staff tonight will influence
[2:15:25] where housing can be built. What kinds
[2:15:28] of housing become possible and
[2:15:30] ultimately who gets to continue calling
[2:15:31] Wpoke home. As a community organizer, I
[2:15:34] meet families every day who are
[2:15:36] struggling with the raising uh rising
[2:15:38] cost of housing. Working families,
[2:15:40] seniors, young adults, and immigrant
[2:15:42] families are all facing the same
[2:15:44] reality. Finding stable, affordable
[2:15:47] housing in LMPoke is becoming more
[2:15:49] difficult. Housing isn't just about
[2:15:51] buildings. It's about keeping families
[2:15:53] together. It's about allowing children
[2:15:54] to stay in their schools, workers to
[2:15:57] live in community they serve, and giving
[2:16:00] people the opportunity to build a future
[2:16:02] here. As you discuss the housing element
[2:16:05] sites inventory, I ask that you remember
[2:16:07] the people behind every decision, every
[2:16:09] parcel, and that list represents
[2:16:11] potential opportunities or missed
[2:16:13] opportunities for families who simply
[2:16:15] want a safe and affordable place to
[2:16:18] live. I also encourage you to keep this
[2:16:20] process transparent, communitydriven.
[2:16:23] Um, the people of Lampo deserve to
[2:16:25] understand how these decisions are made
[2:16:27] and have a meaningful voice in shaping
[2:16:29] the our city's future. The choices you
[2:16:32] make tonight may not seem dramatic, but
[2:16:34] they will influence the Lok we leave to
[2:16:37] the next generation. Let's plan for uh a
[2:16:40] city that is thoughtful, inclusive,
[2:16:42] prepared for the future or ensuring that
[2:16:44] working families have the opportunity to
[2:16:46] become to continue living in the
[2:16:49] community they love. Thank you.
[2:16:53] >> Anybody else?
[2:16:56] » Maybe on phones or your teams or
[2:17:00] >> There's no public comment via teams or
[2:17:02] audio.
[2:17:04] >> Right. Seeing nobody else rise, we'll
[2:17:05] close public comment. And
[2:17:11] if I can, I mean, I think
[2:17:15] it's been a four-year project.
[2:17:16] Unfortunately, these guys left already.
[2:17:18] But understanding how much public
[2:17:20] engagement you've had over at least
[2:17:22] four, if not five years on this,
[2:17:23] correct?
[2:17:24] >> It's been a long process. This is
[2:17:26] >> process.
[2:17:27] >> Tonight is an update that we're doing.
[2:17:29] This has been a long, lengthy process to
[2:17:31] get where we need to go. Um without carrying it on much further, um
[2:17:37] my suggestion is that we add on
[2:17:40] >> the two parcels that we reszoned onto
[2:17:42] the list.
[2:17:44] >> Excuse me. The two parcels or the three
[2:17:46] >> three parcels, you know, the two areas,
[2:17:48] the one on both on Ocean Avenue, but one
[2:17:50] on east,
[2:17:51] >> the set on East and the set on West
[2:17:54] Ocean. That's 114 more units. That
[2:17:57] should give us some breathing room on
[2:17:58] some of those other, you know, maybe
[2:18:00] questionable projects. The other thing
[2:18:01] is strategically
[2:18:04] um aligning the Bodger property may be
[2:18:07] the recommendation in two approaches.
[2:18:09] One is the whole set of parcels and the
[2:18:12] other approach is those that are aligned
[2:18:14] under the builder's remedy aspect. I
[2:18:17] mean if they're going to be built there
[2:18:19] are going to be our homes. It gives us
[2:18:21] some leverage on argument about who
[2:18:23] would be qualified for the arena who who
[2:18:26] would get the the housing units. We know
[2:18:27] the project's really not a project
[2:18:29] without aligned with the city. They need
[2:18:31] our utilities, our public service,
[2:18:33] police, fire, and everything on that.
[2:18:35] So, they should be our projects, but if
[2:18:36] we don't have them in the plan, I can
[2:18:38] see what's going to happen. They're
[2:18:39] going to say, "Well, you guys weren't
[2:18:40] even thinking about this." So,
[2:18:42] strategically, these are the things that I I was thinking that we needed to
[2:18:46] do. Um, so with that, I would make a
[2:18:51] motion to to align it that way. So those
[2:18:55] three basic items and item number three
[2:18:58] divided in two portions.
[2:19:00] Does that make sense?
[2:19:02] >> East Ocean, West Ocean and Bodger
[2:19:05] divided in two different bites of the
[2:19:07] apple
[2:19:14] cas. So, I don't necessarily disagree
[2:19:17] with this [snorts] at all, but doesn't
[2:19:20] this get into the bigger long-term
[2:19:22] argument of who's who's getting credit
[2:19:24] for the arena numbers, the county versus
[2:19:25] us, and is that
[2:19:26] >> Yeah, I mean, that I would have to look
[2:19:28] into. I I I don't know what's involved
[2:19:30] with that portion of it. Uh,
[2:19:34] yeah, that that I would have to look
[2:19:36] into, but I mean
[2:19:37] >> I mean, if that's possible in all
[2:19:39] practical means, I think that totally
[2:19:41] makes sense. We're going to be
[2:19:43] responding to that. we're going to be
[2:19:44] putting utilities to that etc. So, um,
[2:19:47] >> we can we can always say no, we just get
[2:19:49] we get to the table. Just trying to put
[2:19:51] ourselves at the table like should have
[2:19:54] been our project 70 years ago. But
[2:19:56] anyhow, if we don't do it in watching
[2:19:59] what's going on at LAFCO attend
[2:20:01] attending the last year and a half of
[2:20:03] LAFCO meetings, I'm thinking that and I
[2:20:06] could talked with the city attorney
[2:20:07] about this so well as well in lining us
[2:20:10] up and making sure instead of being last
[2:20:12] at the trough like we've been so many
[2:20:14] times that we try to get maybe in front
[2:20:16] of the trough this time. So that would
[2:20:18] be my motion if I could make one here.
[2:20:22] Huh? Do we need a motion for this
[2:20:23] recommendations?
[2:20:26] Yeah, if you're going to direct staff to
[2:20:28] get the process started to add these
[2:20:30] sites, then yes,
[2:20:32] >> I didn't get to. There we go.
[2:20:34] There was no pretty buttons.
[2:20:37] >> So, motion by myself and seconded by
[2:20:39] Starbucks. Let's go ahead and vote.
[2:20:51] When I pass 5 Z.
[2:20:57] Thank you, Mr. Stones.
[2:21:04] You get another one, Ben. Oh, no. This
[2:21:05] is the city attorney.
[2:21:08] >> Well, I was going to do the
[2:21:11] >> presentation for him and then he can
[2:21:12] check.
[2:21:13] >> Okay. It's called the Stone Show, huh?
[2:21:17] >> All right.
[2:21:18] >> Rolling Stone. So this is regarding a a
[2:21:21] short presentation regarding the Santa
[2:21:22] Barbara County associate association
[2:21:24] government's SPAG the 20 25 to 26
[2:21:28] regional growth forecast. Uh
[2:21:31] on June 25th, 2026, SPAG approved the
[2:21:35] 2520 through 2060 regional growth
[2:21:39] forecast estimates. And as indicated,
[2:21:42] the attached report from SPAG. The
[2:21:44] regional growth forecast provides long
[2:21:46] range estimates of population,
[2:21:48] households, and employment through60.
[2:21:50] And these forecasts serve as technical
[2:21:53] input to inform support future long
[2:21:55] range transportation planning, land use
[2:21:57] modeling, future housing related
[2:21:59] planning such as regional housing needs
[2:22:01] assessment arena process, California
[2:22:04] equality act analysis and the
[2:22:06] development of the regional
[2:22:08] transportation plan slash sustainable
[2:22:11] community strategy uh document as
[2:22:14] required by Senate Bill SB 375.
[2:22:19] So if uh you could go to PDF page two on
[2:22:23] there. So I'll kind of show some of the
[2:22:25] graphs that they provided in this
[2:22:27] document from SPAG
[2:22:31] uh specifically with LMPoke. You can see
[2:22:33] there, this is um showing that the um
[2:22:38] that the estimates forecast that Santa
[2:22:40] Barbara County will add approximately
[2:22:42] 75,460
[2:22:44] residents
[2:22:47] between 25 and uh 20 uh 2060
[2:22:52] and that uh the population forecast also
[2:22:55] shows that for LMPoke it's increasing by
[2:22:58] 11,790
[2:23:00] about 27% and the households by 4,640
[2:23:04] about 33% in that range.
[2:23:08] And
[2:23:13] may I borrow the better laser pointer,
[2:23:16] please?
[2:23:26] So, right in there is where where it
[2:23:28] shows for long poke.
[2:23:31] And if you could go to page 10.
[2:23:37] So this is also showing the various
[2:23:41] yeah right there. Uh the various growths
[2:23:44] between 25 and 60 for city of law poke
[2:23:47] right here. So in 25 they're projecting
[2:23:50] this population. So these are population
[2:23:52] increases all the way up to60.
[2:23:56] The household data can be found on page
[2:23:58] 11.
[2:24:05] So this is the household data. Here's
[2:24:06] LMPoke.
[2:24:10] The employment data is from page 12.
[2:24:20] Yeah, a little further down.
[2:24:23] About right there. So right here, this
[2:24:26] is the employment data increases.
[2:24:34] And then as noted by SB KAG, uh the
[2:24:37] regional growth forecast document is a
[2:24:39] planning tool that reflects information
[2:24:41] at time time of preparation rather than
[2:24:44] a precise prediction of future
[2:24:46] conditions and it uh and that the
[2:24:48] forecast is monitored for consistency
[2:24:51] with other forecasts and updated as
[2:24:52] necessary to ensure it provides the most
[2:24:54] accurate assessment of future growth.
[2:24:56] that was indicated in the report. And of
[2:24:58] course, piggybacking for us, we have our
[2:25:01] upcoming general plan 2050. And as a
[2:25:04] part of that environmental document when
[2:25:06] it eventually comes out, um I'll make
[2:25:09] sure we share share it with them because
[2:25:11] we may come up with different law
[2:25:15] specific um um stats. So that that
[2:25:20] concludes my presentation. Thanks.
[2:25:23] >> Yeah. So Greg, thank you for this. I
[2:25:25] mean, as the rep to SPAG, I thought it
[2:25:27] was important that the whole council
[2:25:31] see these numbers that are out there and
[2:25:34] my area of concern
[2:25:36] is that they're not recognizing what's
[2:25:38] going on at the base. And we hear that
[2:25:40] there's 10,000 jobs coming seven, eight
[2:25:43] miles away from us. And even even with
[2:25:45] the jobs that are in here, that's not
[2:25:47] even showing that. Likewise, if you if
[2:25:50] you look at the um the um household
[2:25:54] projection graph and you see where we
[2:25:55] are,
[2:25:58] if if we accomplish what are supposed to
[2:25:59] accomplish in Arena in the next 5 years,
[2:26:03] we're going to be at 2050 numbers
[2:26:05] already,
[2:26:06] right? Adding 2400 homes on there, a
[2:26:09] little bit under there, somewhere
[2:26:10] between 45 and 50. So, it's not really
[2:26:14] recognizing even what we're trying to
[2:26:17] move forward with,
[2:26:19] nor the potential demand that's well,
[2:26:21] the demand that's happening at the base.
[2:26:24] And I brought that up to them and for
[2:26:27] some reason they don't want to hear it.
[2:26:30] But if people think there's a rental
[2:26:32] shortage right now, if there's 10,000
[2:26:34] jobs sitting out there, where do you
[2:26:36] think those people are going to want to
[2:26:37] live? Is it going to put so much
[2:26:39] pressure on us that if we're not allowed
[2:26:43] to plan for this?
[2:26:46] You know, Santa Maria says, "Hey, we
[2:26:48] can't take them. They need to annex
[2:26:49] another thousand acres just to meet the
[2:26:51] arena." Let alone with that Orcut's, you
[2:26:54] know, kind of in a quagmire of what
[2:26:56] they're going to do, where they're going
[2:26:57] to get more water from. You know, the
[2:26:59] Richard's Ranch
[2:27:01] battle that's been going on. I don't
[2:27:02] know if how many people have been
[2:27:03] watching that one, but that's a big
[2:27:05] battle that's been going on there. and
[2:27:07] now it's not a project because the
[2:27:08] county and the developer couldn't decide
[2:27:10] on tax sharing agreements.
[2:27:13] So that means the pressure is going to
[2:27:15] be put on us.
[2:27:18] What are we going to do? But if my
[2:27:19] concern is because they're not
[2:27:20] recognizing what even we know what we
[2:27:24] know what's going to happen.
[2:27:27] Some people think don't think the base
[2:27:28] is going to happen.
[2:27:30] The people at the base say it's going to
[2:27:32] happen. So
[2:27:35] that's that's my big concern is that we
[2:27:39] need to address this.
[2:27:41] Not only I think the document needs to
[2:27:44] be corrected and people say well what's
[2:27:45] it matter what they say what's it matter
[2:27:47] is when you go to try to do the growth
[2:27:49] they look at the SPAG document the SPG
[2:27:51] says well you're not growing it says so
[2:27:52] in the document even though the demand
[2:27:54] to move and these documents become
[2:27:56] circular what I found out SPAG uses your
[2:27:59] document you might use their document
[2:28:02] and we kind of go around and around I
[2:28:04] know you were fighting for more numbers
[2:28:06] with them with the 2050 plan and they
[2:28:09] were kind of ignoring [clears throat]
[2:28:10] what you were
[2:28:12] So, I'm very frustrated what they're
[2:28:14] telling you and what they're even
[2:28:16] telling me and they're telling everybody
[2:28:18] else. So,
[2:28:21] that's why I'm trying to get some
[2:28:22] momentum here to help support what we
[2:28:24] know is happening in our valley.
[2:28:29] Council member Bridge,
[2:28:34] I think you and I have opposite concerns
[2:28:36] on this. So the base is listed as a
[2:28:39] separate number, right?
[2:28:42] For the population, I think when we were
[2:28:44] looking at jobs, for example,
[2:28:50] page 12. Thought I saw some element of
[2:28:53] they called it the Loke Valley or
[2:28:55] something.
[2:28:58] Yeah, there you go. So the base is
[2:29:00] there.
[2:29:02] I agree with the mayor that that's
[2:29:04] significantly under scoped based on what
[2:29:07] the base is saying.
[2:29:10] Um
[2:29:12] my concern is
[2:29:15] these numbers are going to roll roll
[2:29:16] right into the next arena cycle
[2:29:20] and
[2:29:23] we have one of the highest gross rates
[2:29:27] planned. I I I think uh Santaia might be
[2:29:31] higher in number but not in percentage.
[2:29:35] [snorts] Um
[2:29:37] we're going to add 11,790
[2:29:41] citizens. That would be a fourth of our
[2:29:45] town. That would be the equivalent of I
[2:29:48] don't know 25 30
[2:29:51] maybe longer. Um
[2:29:52] >> that's 35 years.
[2:29:54] >> Yeah. Um, I just don't believe these
[2:29:57] numbers. Um, and I'm [snorts] concerned
[2:30:00] they're going to roll into Rena and
[2:30:02] we'll we'll just they'll be wanting
[2:30:04] highrises in here cuz you're right,
[2:30:06] they're coming.
[2:30:08] But we're that infill map that you just
[2:30:12] had up here a moment ago is a direct
[2:30:15] result of us trying to meet Rena
[2:30:17] numbers. And that's why they put the
[2:30:20] Elks in and put Cher parking lots. and I
[2:30:23] agree with everything you said there.
[2:30:25] Um,
[2:30:28] so I don't want to oppose what you're
[2:30:30] trying to do.
[2:30:32] I think perhaps what we ought to do is
[2:30:34] put in a public request for information
[2:30:37] through the attorney and uh find out
[2:30:40] what the hell they built these on.
[2:30:43] Um, and there we could challenge the
[2:30:45] base assumptions.
[2:30:47] We could express serious concerns about
[2:30:50] the numbers without having to argue
[2:30:52] about whether we think they're too high
[2:30:54] or too low. We can just say we have
[2:30:56] serious concern that the numbers are
[2:30:58] valid and shouldn't be used as a basis
[2:31:01] in LFCO's assessments. I think that
[2:31:05] would accomplish what you're trying to
[2:31:07] achieve. And then we ask for the models
[2:31:10] and we go look at what the models say. I
[2:31:13] know when I went through the last brea
[2:31:15] cycle and looked at the models, I found
[2:31:18] what I considered fatal flaws for uh
[2:31:22] Lombpoke and I was able to use that
[2:31:24] justification
[2:31:26] to uh change the assigned numbers and
[2:31:28] the spread.
[2:31:30] Um
[2:31:32] so I really don't want to fight you on
[2:31:34] what you're trying to do because I agree
[2:31:35] with what you're trying to do. I just
[2:31:37] have a little different
[2:31:39] I've probably been burned by these kinds
[2:31:41] of things in a different manner than you have. So perhaps we express
[2:31:47] concern. We have a letter go out and
[2:31:49] that says we don't agree with these
[2:31:51] numbers. we don't have to specify that
[2:31:54] you think they should be higher and I
[2:31:55] think they're maybe lower and ask for
[2:31:58] the models and then we have some when we
[2:32:01] go to laugh go we can we can uh
[2:32:04] criticize the models if they were flawed
[2:32:07] so that that's where I'm at on that
[2:32:11] counc
[2:32:13] I don't necessarily disagree with some
[2:32:15] of this I think again a lot of this is
[2:32:18] hopefully smart speculation to a point
[2:32:20] but again I'm Somebody's probably got
[2:32:22] their interest in things. Can you go
[2:32:24] back? There was like one of the first
[2:32:25] slides that had numbers on it. Bunch of
[2:32:27] black and white stuff. It had
[2:32:29] >> page two.
[2:32:30] >> Sorry.
[2:32:32] Uh let's see.
[2:32:35] Maybe one before that.
[2:32:37] >> Oh no, that that's the one right there.
[2:32:39] So uh when I look at again just here and
[2:32:43] Dean, I'm going to ask you a question on
[2:32:44] this. So when you're looking at numbers,
[2:32:47] so for me, I'm going to compare LMPoke
[2:32:49] and Santa Barbara City. So it looks it
[2:32:52] in layman's terms it looks like they're
[2:32:54] projecting that Santa Barbara is barely
[2:32:56] going to grow, right? 6% versus 27%
[2:32:59] growth. And then when I get over to
[2:33:02] employment I see that Santa Barbara City
[2:33:05] is they're going to grow by roughly
[2:33:08] 17,000 jobs and Lombok's going to grow
[2:33:11] by 2,350.
[2:33:14] So I guess again that maybe that just
[2:33:16] goes back into that discussion like are
[2:33:18] we going to become by those numbers
[2:33:21] we're going to become even more of a
[2:33:23] bedroom community where everyone has to
[2:33:25] live here and we don't have enough room
[2:33:28] for them but they do get to work in
[2:33:29] Santa Barbara. Dean, would you agree
[2:33:32] with that? Right. So again I
[2:33:36] no one knows the exact answer here. It
[2:33:39] just frustrates me looking at this
[2:33:40] saying we're going to basically have
[2:33:44] compared to the amount of people that
[2:33:46] are going to move in over time, there's
[2:33:48] they're already locking in that we just
[2:33:50] won't have many jobs. Um that we will be
[2:33:53] a commuter town. So again, however you
[2:33:55] guys want to push back on that, I think
[2:33:57] it's fair. Um and again, that's just one
[2:34:00] little area where I'm drawing the
[2:34:03] contrast between a couple places. I
[2:34:05] think we're all saying relatively the
[2:34:06] same thing that
[2:34:08] It seems uh seems a little skewed
[2:34:11] against us as far as the the growth here
[2:34:14] considering that if we're pushed to have
[2:34:17] this be the final number, we will have
[2:34:19] that amount of growth. Again, I agree
[2:34:21] that the state might come back and say,
[2:34:23] "Well, your numbers, you're supposed to
[2:34:25] have reo numbers that catch up with
[2:34:26] these projections." And that's where I I
[2:34:29] don't know. I I feel like there's a if
[2:34:31] we could gain a little bit of clarity or
[2:34:33] get some of the source um reasoning for
[2:34:36] some of this, I don't know. I'd be
[2:34:37] curious. Uh it frustrates me that Santa
[2:34:39] Barbara City, yes, they're hemmed in.
[2:34:41] They don't have a lot of room for
[2:34:42] growth, but welcome to LMPO. That's
[2:34:43] we're they don't let us grow either, but
[2:34:46] they're saying we're going to grow that
[2:34:47] much. So, I don't know. Just bugs me a
[2:34:49] little bit.
[2:34:53] Well, in conversation with county
[2:34:54] supervisors, they would support us to
[2:34:56] have workforce housing
[2:34:59] for commuters to go down there, work in
[2:35:01] their jobs. They actually wanted to put
[2:35:03] a high-speed train out here so the
[2:35:05] people in Monpo could get down there
[2:35:06] faster to go to work. My push back is if
[2:35:09] we harvest the jobs that are in our
[2:35:11] valley, meaning those at the base, yeah,
[2:35:14] sure, they're commuting seven miles, but
[2:35:17] growing up here that was we were
[2:35:19] connected. So, my objective is to
[2:35:22] connect us with them. um when you when
[2:35:25] you do the math and see what we should
[2:35:26] have been like the Bailey corridor and
[2:35:28] other arguments that we have um and
[2:35:32] other expansion areas where we've tried
[2:35:33] to go,
[2:35:35] we would have been at these numbers a
[2:35:36] long time ago. Um but we've been said no
[2:35:40] and 26 years we've had a negative
[2:35:43] population growth. According to the GAN
[2:35:45] report that we just recently filed, we
[2:35:47] had a negative population growth in 26
[2:35:49] years. And a lot of this is because how
[2:35:52] they're aligning these documents up and
[2:35:54] how they're attacking us, not allowing
[2:35:57] us to go and expand. And and what I'm
[2:36:00] trying to do is I'm forecasting what I
[2:36:03] see and they hold against us. And if
[2:36:05] it's not in there, they go, "Well, you
[2:36:07] weren't planning on this, so therefore
[2:36:10] you can't have this." So that's what I'm
[2:36:12] trying to say. So, you know, maybe
[2:36:16] um let me take public comment. Do you
[2:36:17] guys any more questions for Greg? get
[2:36:19] public comment and see Victor's already
[2:36:21] ready to go. So, we'll try to roll this
[2:36:23] up fast, buddy. We'll get you. We'll get
[2:36:25] you home before you turn into a pumpkin.
[2:36:27] Okay.
[2:36:27] >> It's not all you.
[2:36:28] >> We'll get you there, buddy. Any know any
[2:36:31] other questions for Greg? Let me open
[2:36:32] for public comment on this.
[2:36:35] Do we have him lining up on the phone
[2:36:36] over there for us yet? No. In the
[2:36:40] We need the Jerry Lewis teleathon going
[2:36:41] on here or something, right?
[2:36:45] the Gonzalez resident lumpo that 2300
[2:36:48] number. I don't know where they pulled
[2:36:50] that out. I sat in a meeting. Council
[2:36:54] member Ball was present. Supervisor
[2:36:56] Harmon was present. The colonel stood up
[2:36:59] in the room and he didn't say if. He
[2:37:01] said it was happening.
[2:37:04] And point blank, we're getting 10,000
[2:37:09] plus jobs by 2030.
[2:37:13] And so for the system of government to
[2:37:16] put out a number like that, I'm just
[2:37:18] baffled. I'm taken back. I'm like, whoa,
[2:37:20] how we talk about needing to fulfill the
[2:37:23] needs of the community and being able to
[2:37:28] support our city and our city staff.
[2:37:32] This needs to be fixed.
[2:37:34] If you fail to fix this,
[2:37:38] there's no way we can fix this.
[2:37:41] You cannot do one without the other.
[2:37:45] This should be priority number one is to
[2:37:48] get all the legal documents
[2:37:50] from Reno to the SPAG documents to align
[2:37:55] with what we're being told is going to
[2:37:57] happen.
[2:37:58] I bet you a million dollars right now on
[2:38:02] the spot that if you allow this to go
[2:38:04] down the pipe
[2:38:07] three, four, five years from now, this
[2:38:10] is going to be the basis for the
[2:38:11] litigation or the turndown or the denial
[2:38:15] of annexations
[2:38:16] of growth of additional transportation
[2:38:20] fund. You name it, this is going to be
[2:38:22] the guiding document because that's how
[2:38:25] the system works. And so I think that
[2:38:28] you all have to get together and whether
[2:38:31] it's writing a letter of protest,
[2:38:33] demanding complete evaluation of the
[2:38:36] model, whatever it is that you need to
[2:38:39] do, we absolutely need to ensure that
[2:38:44] the changes at Vandenberg are not only
[2:38:47] impacted
[2:38:48] there and you know, think about the
[2:38:52] money multi the money multiplier impact
[2:38:54] that it's going to
[2:38:56] You're going to have the impact even at
[2:38:58] Vandenberg, Council Member Bridge. But
[2:39:00] what's that overlap? 10,000 jobs at
[2:39:02] Vandenberg. How many more jobs are they
[2:39:03] going to make within this community? You
[2:39:05] know, a typical money multiplier is five
[2:39:07] times, fivefold as a dollar goes through
[2:39:10] the economy.
[2:39:13] We can't even begin to fathom what
[2:39:16] potential impact this can be. So, let's
[2:39:18] get this right and not let them do what
[2:39:21] they've done to us for the last 25
[2:39:22] years. Thank you. Anybody
[2:39:27] else? [snorts]
[2:39:33] Still nobody on teams or phones or
[2:39:38] >> There's no public comment via teams or
[2:39:40] audio. All
[2:39:41] >> right. See, nobody else rise for public
[2:39:43] comment. Close public comment. Bring it
[2:39:45] back to the council. Councilor Bridge.
[2:39:49] » Um I'm in violent agreement with what
[2:39:52] you said there. um we have a large
[2:39:56] government agency saying that's going to
[2:39:58] happen.
[2:40:00] There is a contingency in the community
[2:40:02] that say we've been through this before.
[2:40:05] Um
[2:40:07] but my experience through the last arena
[2:40:10] process which is limited there's no
[2:40:13] question about that. But I don't have
[2:40:14] the depth of some of the other folks.
[2:40:17] But
[2:40:18] until I could get the models
[2:40:21] and show the flaws,
[2:40:25] SPAG was not listening.
[2:40:29] The the groups would meet and they had
[2:40:32] their consultants and their consultants
[2:40:34] had their ideas and they were right.
[2:40:38] Um, so I am all for sending a letter of
[2:40:43] formal protest that this document is
[2:40:46] invalid. It isn't appropriate and I
[2:40:49] don't need to specify why I think that
[2:40:52] or what numbers I think are bad. Um, and
[2:40:56] I think we should do a public request
[2:40:58] and get the models.
[2:41:00] Then we could immediately attack the
[2:41:02] base numbers and we'd have some validity
[2:41:04] from the base. And I think that feeds
[2:41:07] into where you're trying to go. Um, and
[2:41:11] we can put aside whether I agree there's
[2:41:14] going to be 4,000 new houses or not. I I
[2:41:17] think
[2:41:19] um we need to set the stage for the
[2:41:21] laughco battle and not have a battle up
[2:41:23] here. Um so that would be my
[2:41:26] recommendation.
[2:41:28] >> Yeah. So just remember we built out this
[2:41:31] wastewater plant anticipating this as
[2:41:33] well. Y.
[2:41:34] >> So that that was a plan. That's why we
[2:41:37] are where we are with 60% capacity.
[2:41:39] That's including Vanderberg and the
[2:41:41] village and we're only at 60%. So we
[2:41:44] built a wastewater plant that could
[2:41:45] probably take at least 40,000 more
[2:41:47] people. We're anticipating this a long
[2:41:50] time ago.
[2:41:50] >> I'm all for that. I'm all for annexation
[2:41:52] and um
[2:41:53] >> anyhow,
[2:41:54] >> and I'm willing to volunteer time to
[2:41:55] work on those models, but I don't think
[2:41:57] you're going to you're going to be
[2:41:58] hollering at a hole if
[2:42:00] >> there's a reason why I feel there's a
[2:42:01] significant flaw. That's why I brought
[2:42:03] this back.
[2:42:04] >> Yeah.
[2:42:05] >> Council member B.
[2:42:06] >> Yeah. So, I don't necessarily disagree.
[2:42:08] I I'm okay with us as a city sending
[2:42:11] some sort of protest uh letter, but I
[2:42:14] guess my request, and you guys can
[2:42:16] motion towards it however you want. Um,
[2:42:20] we can be right and get nothing. I would
[2:42:23] like to include some very general like,
[2:42:26] hey, here's why your speculative numbers
[2:42:28] are so far off. We're not trying to pick
[2:42:31] a fight. We're just saying here's what
[2:42:32] we're hearing on the ground. This is the
[2:42:34] practical way it's shaking out on our
[2:42:36] side. Um and then I don't mind you want
[2:42:39] to get the studies or get some more
[2:42:40] information. Um but I think ultimately
[2:42:43] we're looking for SPAG to just treat us
[2:42:45] equitably um based upon the set of
[2:42:48] circumstances that we all know are
[2:42:49] happening um in proximity to LMPoke. So
[2:42:52] again, I would just ask for us to kind
[2:42:54] of help them understand where we're
[2:42:55] coming from and then say how did you
[2:42:58] come up with these numbers would be my
[2:43:00] hope. So the
[2:43:01] >> well we could certainly start with the
[2:43:02] base numbers.
[2:43:03] >> So let me let me um
[2:43:05] >> and we just let me finish there for a
[2:43:07] second and we could certainly uh strike
[2:43:10] blow on the workforce force housing
[2:43:12] imbalance. So we do have even if we want
[2:43:16] to stay benign.
[2:43:18] >> So let me let me make this uh request
[2:43:21] and strategically to go by uh with this
[2:43:25] as as a motion. I think you can send
[2:43:27] down any question for Mr. Stones.
[2:43:29] Anybody? Thank you for Courtney. I know
[2:43:31] it's a lot of good stuff to sit down and
[2:43:32] read, huh? Thank you. Um, so making a a
[2:43:37] motion that aligns with this. First, we
[2:43:39] gather information from the base where
[2:43:40] they're recognizing their numbers that
[2:43:43] they have. supply this information with
[2:43:45] SPAG, asking him directly about this
[2:43:49] document and other documents relating to
[2:43:52] the population and housing and jobs
[2:43:55] growth
[2:43:57] and how they came up with the model and
[2:43:59] the numbers they did as maybe why they
[2:44:02] don't recognize
[2:44:05] what the base is saying.
[2:44:07] So with multiple
[2:44:10] I I don't think it'd be difficult to get
[2:44:12] something from the base. they've been
[2:44:14] singing the song pretty heavy. So maybe that we could recognize that again
[2:44:19] and asking
[2:44:20] maybe they have a justification saying
[2:44:22] we're not going to get hardly any
[2:44:24] growth. But um as as first steps and
[2:44:27] then we can bring it back to us and make
[2:44:30] a decision if there's more that we want
[2:44:31] to do to try to get them to make a
[2:44:34] change. But they kept telling me. So
[2:44:38] anyhow, they kept telling me that they were getting what
[2:44:42] Mr. Stones was sending them and and
[2:44:45] that's why they said they weren't
[2:44:46] growth. Then he showed me that email
[2:44:47] saying, "No, this is what I showed them
[2:44:49] and they didn't want to recognize what
[2:44:51] he was saying. So I don't get it. If
[2:44:54] we're not going to listen to they're not
[2:44:55] going to listen to our plan, who are
[2:44:56] they listening to?"
[2:44:58] So anyhow, that's my deal. So you follow
[2:45:02] the multiple steps that I'm looking for.
[2:45:05] I follow. Yes.
[2:45:06] >> Okay. I know it's long and lengthy what
[2:45:08] I'm asking for and I again I appreciate
[2:45:10] I know Mr. Stone I first I thought they
[2:45:12] were blaming him and I said what what
[2:45:15] did you do? Then he shows me an email
[2:45:16] goes no I was looking for 8,000. I told
[2:45:19] him what was going on and anyhow well
[2:45:22] let's help you fight a little bit. I
[2:45:25] maybe I shouldn't say the word fight.
[2:45:26] Some people get sensitive about that.
[2:45:28] Anyhow, so there's my motion.
[2:45:31] I would I would
[2:45:33] >> second by bridge.
[2:45:34] >> One modification that we
[2:45:37] >> I would second.
[2:45:39] >> You didn't try to turn it on.
[2:45:40] >> There you go.
[2:45:41] >> I would second the motion with uh one
[2:45:44] addition
[2:45:45] that it includes a formal request for
[2:45:48] the electronic models.
[2:45:51] Um so that would be a public request for
[2:45:54] information.
[2:45:56] >> I see we can get that. See if they have
[2:45:57] something. I don't know. Maybe it's
[2:45:59] >> all right. We good. It's a motion to
[2:46:01] second. Let's go ahead and vote.
[2:46:09] It passes 5-0.
[2:46:12] All right.
[2:46:14] You have something else, Mr. Bridge.
[2:46:15] Council Bridge.
[2:46:19] Okay.
[2:46:21] All right.
[2:46:23] Brings us on to written communications.
[2:46:28] Any written communications? We received
[2:46:31] no written re written communications.
[2:46:34] >> Very good. Oral communications is your
[2:46:38] last two minute. Yell scream at us as
[2:46:40] much as you want.
[2:46:42] No. Okay. Anybody on
[2:46:46] phone or teams or whatever?
[2:46:49] >> No additional public comment on teams or
[2:46:51] audio.
[2:46:51] >> All right. See nobody else there. We'll
[2:46:53] close oral communication. Bring on to
[2:46:54] council comments and meeting reports,
[2:46:59] etc., etc.
[2:47:02] >> Councor,
[2:47:05] » nothing to report other than I'm just uh
[2:47:07] really impressed with Oldtown Market. Uh
[2:47:09] seen the mayor there. Um several friends
[2:47:11] and neighbors. It's uh I think it's the
[2:47:13] biggest and best it's been so far. So,
[2:47:16] uh big props to the chamber for, uh
[2:47:18] making such a fun event for families
[2:47:20] here in town.
[2:47:22] >> Yeah, you kept going getting pictures
[2:47:23] with me. I don't know what's going on
[2:47:24] with that, huh?
[2:47:26] >> Be there next Friday.
[2:47:27] >> Next time.
[2:47:27] >> Next Friday. Heck yeah.
[2:47:31] Council member Starbucks.
[2:47:33] >> No reports.
[2:47:35] >> Council,
[2:47:38] nothing to report. Council member
[2:47:40] Bridge.
[2:47:42] I just have one item for the city
[2:47:44] manager. Um
[2:47:47] a general reminder that we were promised
[2:47:49] a schedule for the municipal update and
[2:47:52] uh perhaps we could get that in the next
[2:47:54] session.
[2:47:56] Otherwise, no report for what was that?
[2:47:59] >> I know what he wants. He wants a
[2:48:00] timeline on on the media code update
[2:48:05] visible update on the schedule for 4.
[2:48:07] >> Oh, I got you.
[2:48:08] >> I thought we cried, but I'll make sure
[2:48:09] we get that to take care of.
[2:48:11] >> Okay. So, my concern was we didn't get
[2:48:14] our uh I don't know, maybe everybody
[2:48:15] else did and I didn't. The future city
[2:48:17] council agenda items
[2:48:20] this time.
[2:48:22] Are we just not Have you thrown them out
[2:48:23] already or what?
[2:48:25] I don't know. Maybe.
[2:48:28] No, it was just a slip up.
[2:48:31] >> Yeah, I think it was.
[2:48:33] >> Okay. So, I'm going to make a because we got 24 items on here and
[2:48:41] I'm going to start doing this so that we
[2:48:42] can get through some of these.
[2:48:45] >> Great. Um, but I'm going to ask that we
[2:48:48] bring it back for um the council to
[2:48:52] bring back
[2:48:54] at the next meeting. If you guys want to
[2:48:56] put it together, a staff report or not,
[2:48:57] whatever. But we're going to, if I can
[2:49:00] get two other people to support me,
[2:49:01] we're going to bring back a a review and
[2:49:04] discussion of Riverbin Park uh master
[2:49:07] plan and the soccer fields, and we're
[2:49:10] bring it back to the council to bring
[2:49:11] that. So, put that on the uh the list if
[2:49:15] you guys want to partake with us.
[2:49:17] That'll be great, too. Um because that
[2:49:20] was going to be on July 21st. Didn't
[2:49:22] happen. Just saying. That was as a June
[2:49:26] 17th.
[2:49:27] So, um
[2:49:31] I'm also Do you guys think at the next
[2:49:33] meeting you can do the landfill fees?
[2:49:37] If not, I'll just bring it back. But I'd
[2:49:39] like to see those two things come back
[2:49:41] at the next meeting and that one should
[2:49:43] be relatively easy. You guys already
[2:49:46] have the stuff. We can go forward. Could
[2:49:48] Can you do those things? Do I need to
[2:49:50] get two other Can I get two other head
[2:49:52] nods?
[2:49:52] >> I I think we can get both those on the
[2:49:54] next next meeting.
[2:49:55] >> So, I got two other head nods that even
[2:49:57] if you're not bringing them back, we're
[2:49:59] going to talk about them.
[2:50:01] >> All right.
[2:50:04] » Starbucks, I have you twice.
[2:50:07] >> All right. Starbucks and I got bridged
[2:50:08] twice. So I got correct. All right. So
[2:50:12] that and then and then there's one other
[2:50:13] thing that I wanted to provide to the
[2:50:15] council and it was something presented
[2:50:17] to me uh way back when and it's
[2:50:20] something that is a hot hot topic and I
[2:50:24] unfortunately I I don't have any ink and
[2:50:26] I this I'm only allowed little minimal
[2:50:28] ink in my printer. So, I only printed
[2:50:30] one copy of this and um I just it's
[2:50:34] something that's been rumbling around a
[2:50:36] little bit and I just wanted to get it
[2:50:38] out there and make it so it's public and
[2:50:40] I make it so the council can all get a
[2:50:42] copy of it as well. And it's actually a
[2:50:44] May 5th, 2023 document. And this is um
[2:50:49] shows plans that the uh county has on a
[2:50:54] masterful
[2:50:56] um homeless shelter that they want to
[2:50:58] put in our property. So, and it has a
[2:51:01] letter as well from
[2:51:03] the community service department and I
[2:51:07] just think that it should be put out in
[2:51:08] the public and you guys should all see
[2:51:10] what else is also going on out there.
[2:51:12] So, I will provide that with the clerk
[2:51:13] and she can get copies to all of us and put it out there so the people can
[2:51:18] see this document.
[2:51:20] And with that, anybody got anything
[2:51:22] else? We're going to adjourn to and
[2:51:25] thank you to our uh fill in Shannon Mars
[2:51:28] for the clerk tonight. Appreciate you
[2:51:31] stepping up. And uh we'll adjourn to
[2:51:33] 6:30 uh August 4th, 2026.
[2:51:50] Hey,
[2:51:57] sure.