Heat.
[music]
Heat.
[music]
Hey, Heat. [music]
Heat. Heat. [music]
» [music]
>> Hey. Hey. Hey.
[music]
» [music]
>> This is the regular meeting of the Santa
Barbara City Council, August 11th, 2026.
Would you please join me in the pledge
of allegiance?
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America, to the
republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, indivisible,
liberty and justice for all. Amen.
>> Madam clerk, would you call the role,
please?
Certainly. Council member Friedman here.
>> Council member Santa Maria
>> here.
>> Council member Gutierrez
>> present.
>> Mayor Rouse
>> here.
>> Mayor PMston
>> here.
>> Uh, council member Harmon not yet
present. Council member Harmon present.
>> Kind of present.
>> And council member Jordan not present.
>> I present.
>> Okay. Very good. Uh, madam
administrator, are there any changes to
the agenda?
>> Yes, mayor. A couple changes on the
consent calendar. Uh, staff has
requested to remove items two and three.
Um there's still some changes being
negotiated with the lease holders. So we
wanted to remove those for a future
date. Um and then again, as we've done
in prior meetings, we will do pulled
consent items before general public
comment.
>> All right. Thank you very much. And with
that, uh we will move to the consent
calendar. Do you have some items to
read, Madam Clerk?
>> Obviously not two or three.
>> Uh no, Mr. Mayor.
>> You don't? Okay, that's a new one. Uh so
um I will uh then uh if are there any
comments or um things that need to be
pulled for separate vote or comment?
Are there any uh online speakers for
consent items?
» Uh no raised hands for consent. Mr.
Mayor,
>> thank you very much. With that, I'll
entertain a motion on items one, four,
and one, and four.
>> So move.
>> Moved by Freriedman, second by Snedden.
>> We have the vote, please.
>> Very good. This is a motion for the
recommended items, recommended actions
for items one and four. U motion by
council member Friedman, seconded by
Mayor Prom Snedden. Please go ahead and
vote.
Thank you. Passes unanimously with 620
with Mr. Jordan absent and of course
without the items two and three which
have been moved by the administration.
Very good. Okay. With that uh we will go
to general public comment
since our no poll consent items. has
three minutes at the dis for anything
that is not on today's agenda but within
the purview of this body and we'll start
out with Mark Redmond.
» Hey, I hope everybody had a great
fiesta. I sure did. I went all the
nights and it was fantastic at St.
Barber's Church. Oh, you need to turn
the volume down. Sorry, I'm a little
loud. lost a little hearing being a
railroad engineer.
Two longs, a short and a long crossing,
you're fired and wave that flag. That's
Union Pacific symbol. Ours was Chico
when it was Santa Fe. And then when it
was Burlington Northern, I called it the
brand new the brand new Santa Fe. They
gave me notebooks to write down. My
train manifest to make sure I didn't
have hazardous nicks to those dangerous
and blow the town up if I did derailed.
This was on the side of the bus in June.
Woo! The college kids paid for $375.
Could not be political, but I do have a
podcast to get kids off of.
>> Yeah.
And other drugs off cotton, all those
barbituates,
telling you. And I tell them, don't you
dare get off your program. Be committed.
And if I see you in the papers, you're
dead. That's cuz you got weak and you
went back to those stupid drugs. And I'm
wanting to give the police $100 for
everybody they find on Santa Barbara
streets selling those dirty cocaines,
heroins, and those pills that look like
candy. And it's ecstasy, and it's death,
not ecstasy. Those mollies, forget it.
Now, I got some things to say. I got to
collect some more signatures. Some
college kids gave me fake names and
addresses. And Sarah says I got to go
out and get about I don't know, maybe 60
more to make sure I got a hundred good
ones. So, I've been going door to door.
I got 50 yesterday. And um my girlfriend
gave me this stud muffin. I don't know
why what that means.
Maybe maybe Joanne does stud muffin.
Okay. No donate no donations to Mark
Redmond. I'm running a uh campaign on
next to nothing door hangers. I got
Jonathan Thompson, political science
major, UC Santa Barbara Gauchos. He's my
campaign manager. And I ran into one of
Wendy Santa Maria's uh supporters
yesterday when I was out on the street
and she said, "I'm not voting for you,
Mark. I'm not writing my name down and
my address cuz I'm voting for Wendy cuz
she's black like me." I said, "Wait a
minute. I think Wendy's is kind of like
me. Hines's 57. I'm mostly Irish, 69%.
The rest is German, a little bit
English, a little bit of Scottish."
Anyway, so all I know is there's been
over 500,000 deaths in the last five
years in America alone. You can't count
it in the world, it's probably about 5
million. And so I went out last night.
Look at this. I'm telling you, Sarah,
I'll turn in names tomorrow night before
5 and I'll get on the ballot. I'll be a
candidate just like Wendy, Kristen, and
Ry's not running. So, um, it'll be Eric
Freriedman and he's probably in the lead
right now because we took a straw poll a
couple months ago and he had 42%. I only
had 28%. We went I had the college kids
go up on the hill city college the
gauchos out at Isa Vista and in word in
downtown and I am hoping I will be the
best mayor ever.
>> I will bring
>> happiness and and you know what I didn't
even get to do my flamingo.
>> Okay. Thanks thanks for the dance. Okay.
Uh next speaker is Aaron Duffy.
>> Come in here. Aaron call in all errands.
» I'm sorry I'm a little
>> Thank you Mark. I got this one. Thank
you.
>> I don't think I'm obnoxious, though. Am
I?
>> I'm a Spider-Man to pray over here.
>> Hi.
>> Good evening, mayor and city council. My
name is Aaron Duffy. I'm back here
again. This time with body cam evidence
of a chronic systemic violation of
federal ADA laws by city staff at the
Santa Barbara Solstice Festival. This
mismanagement has been ongoing since
2021 when the parade moved to Santa
Barbara Street. For years, the city has
allowed a block required for ADA parking
to be double used for float
deconstruction, prioritizing trash over
civil rights of disabled residents and
visitors. This year, recovering from my
ninth surgery and focusing on recovery
from severe mobility issues, I was
illegally evicted from this section 5
minutes before the parade by parking
enforcement officer Randall Strom. He
ordered me to move five blocks away and
didn't understand the big deal, what the
big deal was about a grueling 10b block
roundtrip walk. By that time of day,
parking there or anywhere close was
non-existent. Staff also turned away
multiple other valid placard holders.
When I objected in tears, parks and
wreck worker Sarah Nolles stated on
camera that she only put up the ADA
signs to quote appease some people.
Quote, I and coldly added that my crying
wouldn't change the laws while she was
breaking the laws intended to protect
disabled people. Meanwhile, Officer
Strom dismissed my crisis while offering
up unwanted comments about him liking my
outfit and that I looked nice before
ordering me to drive into traffic while
weeping in pain and anxiety. Santa
Barbara Police Department Commander
Beltran, who's investigating my
complaint, commented that Officer Stro
sounded nice to me and there's nothing
nice nor kind about harassment,
exclusion, or violating my civil rights
and endangering my life and the public.
Worse, our ADA coordinator, Brian
Darmore, is also the full-time city
engineer, the very department head
responsible for these failed street
layouts. Due to this conflict of
interest, I demand an independent
investigation by the city administration
into this six-year operational failure
and the conduct of Officer Stro and
Sarah Nolles. My tears do matter and
they will change things and I need your
help to fix this or I'll be back again
and state my public comment every chance
that I get so this doesn't happen to
anyone else. I look forward to your
public response. Thank you so much.
>> You um Bartell's
>> hope they don't mess with you next time.
Dear mayor and city council members, I'm
here to um ask you for a favor to keep
our east side clean and professional. We
have had multiple issues at our address.
So our parcel faces two parking lots
from commercial parking I mean to
commercial uh [snorts] lots and um well
it's about two years ago since um the
owner Bob Ludvvic decided to uh divide
his parking lot into several parcels
um with ugly marbok fencing and there
are holes in some of these um there is
dirt everywhere. He doesn't seem to
manage that place properly. He hired now
a new management company, Miramar.
They're located at 701 Nakappa Street,
Unit D. And they were not supposedly
very familiar with the nuisance that has
been going on now for over two years
because they just took over. They are
just there, I guess, to collect the
rents and send letters out, but we um we
did some major investigations on this
property. And it's just coming to the
point that we're losing faith in our
city government allowing this to happen
for that long. I spoke with several of
you guys and um I feel like it's very
stagnantly moving forward. We don't need
dumpsters, tents, and um trash contain.
I mean, they probably put trash because
we don't know what's in these
containers, but they're all rusty, ugly,
standing up. Several of them, I think,
are stacked up with two of on top of
each other. Um yeah, I I sent about 20
pictures to you to show you what we're
facing. Um yesterday we spoke with the
owner of the baiting place who rents one
of the tents where the ex um the back
door of Rusty's is and he um he said he
has a license and he's cutting up fish
for bait right there. So, about a little
bit over two years ago, our tenant
complained about the smell of fish, and
that was the last time we saw her
because she moved out. And um I don't
want to be on the list for vacancies
because nobody wants to live in our unit
since we have this parcel looking like
this next door with the fish smell.
recently um the um the landscaping
services owner I don't want to say
contractor because he doesn't have a
license who rents from Bob Ludvik um he
placed a 12ft tall tent against our
property wall which is only 6t tall so
it doesn't make you feel like you want
to be on a patio or terrace if you would
be a tenant which we don't have
unfortunately and um I was looking
yesterday they're dumping their
leftovers of mango whatever because it's
actually a food processing business I
should say that. And they're dumping it
against our wall. It smells like rotten
fruit or something with ice cubes mixed
up. And I feel like there is some time
that we really need to clean up this
place. I don't care if it stays empty,
but what we're looking at is nasty.
Thank you so much for your time.
>> Thank you, Joanna Ol.
» Hi. Good afternoon, honorable mayor and
council members. My name is Joanne Olen.
Let's call Measure A exactly what it
was, a slick trick.
Back in June, you sold Measure A under
the guise of modernizing municipal
property leases. But the second had
passed, you used those new powers to
hand over seven prime downtown parcels
for 0 in land purchase price in the PO
Noeo deal.
Now, under item five today, you are
pulling the exact same move. Letting an
unelected administrator like Kelly
McAdoo
run ruin this city with sloppy staff
reports you swallow without question.
You are being handed a blanket citywide
environmental report, a massive shortcut
designed by staff that gives corporate
mega developers an automatic pass to
skip neighborhood reviews on traffic,
water, and parking.
Instead of holding staff accountable and
forcing speculative real estate
interests to pay for the massive water
and sewer pipe upgrades 8,000 new units
will actually need, you are rubber
stamping these staff proposals and
kicking these costs down the road for
taxpayers to fix when the system breaks.
You feign surprise at our falling city
failing city reserves while approving
every proposal that drains our public
assets.
We are heading down a point of no
return.
Once you surrender environmental
oversight
and liquidate public property on the
advice of staff, we can never get them
back.
You are making the wrong kind of
history. People won't remember you for
the times you stood up for us.
They will remember what that when it
mattered most, you failed us.
Stop letting city management steer you
off a cliff.
Stop overriding environmental safeguards
and start doing the oversight job you
were elected to do.
taxpayers are watching and we won't
forget. Thank you. Thank
>> you. Uh Daniel Zimmerman.
» Hi. It's a wonderful uh opportunity to
speak with all of you today. Uh my name
is Daniel. I am a PhD candidate at UCSB.
Uh like many Americans, I'm deeply
concerned with the installation of flock
cameras in our community. For those who
do not know, Flock Group Incorporated,
also known as Flock Safety, is a private
corporation that sells automatic
automated license plate recognition or
ALPR cameras to municipalities, law
enforcement, and private communities.
These cameras, known colloially as Flock
cameras, although there's a couple other
companies, uh, are nominally to reduce
crime. However, as is becoming apparent
to more and more Americans every day,
these cameras represent a threat to our
constitutional rights to privacy and our
encroachment of state surveillance on
the lives of lawabiding Americans.
Flock cameras scan every car that drives
by and using an AI algorithm, Flock
maintains a database record of every
car's make, model, color, license plate
number, bumper stickers, and even
scratches.
While less than 1% of cars scanned by
ALPRs are connected to any crime or
wrongdoing, the mass installation of
flock cameras and the collection of
Americans data by a private corporation
treats every citizen as a criminal. I
appreciate all that our local law
enforcement does every day to keep our
community safe, but ALPRs are not
keeping us safe as opposed to providing
safety. Flock cameras have been misused
throughout the country to stalk women,
provide aid to kidnappings by ICE, and
wrongfully convict innocent citizens of
crime. This has been well reported in
the Post, the Times, many papers.
As your constituent, I urge you to pass
local legislation that reigns in the use
of ALPRs.
Um, in Santa Barbara proper, there are
19 of these cameras and 38 in the
greater Santa Barbara metro. These
cameras track the thousands of cars,
track thousands of cars that drive by
every day. It's far too easy for this
data to be abused and misused.
You have the power to protect us from
this big brother surveillance. And that
starts with passing legislation to
either ban ALPRs or create strict
regulations that include the following
guard rails. Limiting data retention to
hours or days, not the weeks and months
that they're kept by a private company.
uh limiting the amount of information
that the federal government can use,
specifically when it's targeting
immigrants and the most vulnerable in
our community
and requiring annual usage reporting and
placing limits on the availability of
ALPRs to those in private corporations.
This is not a Democrat or Republican
issue. This is a bipartisan issue that
affects all Americans. Uh many
localities over the country have already
introduced these bans. I urge you to
please follow their example and to
protect the people of Santa Barbara.
Thank you.
>> Okay, that's enough. Fiser Dean,
» you go girl.
>> Anyways,
uh yeah, my time.
Yeah. Hi. Um my name is Fasia Fasia Dean
and um I'm still in litigation.
have some challenges. Uh would love to
be a part of the team but uh I face
adversity all the time. If it's not a
gender issue, it's some other
perspective. Okay. So um I roll with the
punches but I always remember uh I never give up and uh I usually
prevail somewhere.
Okay. So uh I want to talk about
incentivizing.
Uh what it is is I'm a I've had a city
license. I'm constantly going through
things and I see constant barriers. Um
there shouldn't be. And so I wanted to
talk about incentivizing. Last time I
spoke about um the carpenter hot dog
man. And so when I talk about
incentivizing, I want to say I want the
city to respond to me. I have lots of
paperwork to send to you, but I think we
should move toward incentivizing
uh people, businesses who are following
the law. We have a a disproportionate
expression. I talked about honoring the
carpentry man Bill uh for his efforts
and all his work, which also represents
the city of Santa Barbara by putting a
hot dog stand here. But when I go down
State Street and I'm constantly working
toward meeting all the legal standards
and regulations and I see people
violating the regulations and it's okay.
Um it's not about what someone does,
it's about all the homeless I see and uh
people who are the government, federal
government constantly putting programs
together to reach people. And you know,
I believe in self-reliance. And so what
I'm trying to say is for example um the
city can um assign
peddlers to particular positions on
State Street and only people assigned to
that position can be there. And what
that does is that eliminate undocumented
people and people who are evading the
law where you have to come pick up their
cart. We're trying to incentivize
positive behavior to eliminate the
negative behavior of under the table
transactions,
>> okay? And unfair distribution of the
revenue. We want more participation,
eliminate some of the homelessness, make
people more self-reliant and confident
on themselves. And so I can continue
this the next meeting, but I would like
for the city to look into that. and I
have some more ideas on uh what we can
do to continue that effort. Uh thank you
today.
>> Thank you. Madam clerk, you have
speakers online.
>> Yes, Mr. Mayor.
» We have two speakers. We have Anna
Garcia, then Aaron Ashland. Anna Garcia,
please go ahead.
Hello. Um, first I'm here to ask that
the flop camera item be moved to 5:00
p.m. on August 25th to allow for a true
community participation.
A 2 p.m. meeting time is prohibitive for
the majority of working residents in
this city. If you won't do this, it
sends a clear message that you do not
intend to serve the public who pays your
salaries and who will be impacted by
this decision.
Second, instead of searching for
alternative surveillance tools that
infringe on our right to privacy under
the guise of safety, pass an ordinance
that bans or significantly restricts
their use. As the previous speaker
mentioned, they have been abused across
the country to uh harm people. So, let's
not continue down that path. However, if
council uh if council, city
administrators, or SBPD intend to
continue pushing forward to find an
alternative to replace flock against the
community's explicit will, I will
personally commit to fundraising to
purchase the exact surveillance devices
selected to replace flock. We will place
them where we can monitor the people we
pay. At sheriff's facilities, at SBPD
stations, and at the offices and homes
of elected officials and city
administrators. If you truly believe
this level of technology is safe for
public oversight, you shouldn't have any
issue with it outside your own doors.
Finally, the Supreme Court decision in
Carpenter versus United States in 2018
and United States versus Shatry this
year are likely to lead to similar
outcomes regarding continuous automated
surveillance and how it infringes on our
constitutional rights. moving forward
with this plan to find alternatives uh
particularly Axon which has been uh
covered much in the news stating how
much worse it is than Flock actually um
will definitely put the city at risk of
serious consequences
and to be completely clear I'm not
talking about actual guillotines as I
read many of you allegedly felt scared
by a sign that I had embarrassing I'm
talking about civil rights lawsuits. So,
make your choice.
>> Okay, very good. Next speaker, please.
» Final speaker is Aaron Ashland. Aaron
Ashland, please go ahead.
» Uh, thank you. Uh, I think the timer
said two minutes, but I think I get
three. But, uh, good afternoon, mayor
and council. My main point today is
simple. Downtown's challenges are not
primarily caused by the State Street
prominade and we should focus less on
reversing it and more on testing
practical pedestrian focused solutions
to the real issues people are
experiencing. I want to make three quick
points. First on downtown tax revenue. A
couple weeks ago at a downtown economic
forum I heard the tax revenues I heard
that tax revenues still haven't
recovered to pre-COVID levels. I think
that misses some important context. Many
of our major downtown tenants were were
leaving or had already closed before
State Street became a prominade. Those
businesses were significant sales tax
generators. In many cases, those spaces
are now being converted to housing,
which simply doesn't produce the same
retail tax revenue. So, I don't think
it's fair to treat today's revenue as a
clean measure of whether the prominade
is successful. It reflects much larger
long-term changes in retail that were
already happening before CO and before
the street was closed to cars. Second,
on the actual problem or what the actual
problem is and what to do about it. When
this has come before council, there is
at least some agreement from both sides
that one of the biggest problems
downtown isn't the absence of cars. It's
the unsafe behavior of high-speed ebikes
and other motorized devices. If that's
the issue we agree on, let's test a
solution that actually addresses it. One
option would be a weekend pilot on
Saturdays and Sundays for a month or
two. Make State Street pedestrian first
by restricting motorized vehicles except
those specifically authorized by the
city. You could test the whole prominade
or even just one or two blocks. Weekends
are a good testing window because we
wouldn't significantly disrupt people
commuting to work and potentially make
them late. It gives us the freedom to
test the theory in a real but controlled
way. Pair it with programming, family
activities, youth sports, performances,
face painting, and let's see what state
feels like when people can walk around
without an ebike flying past them at 30
mph. M
>> third, every time the prominade comes
up, we hear from the ArtWalk vendors
about how much they're struggling. I
believe them. I think their experience
raises an important question. They've
always had cars driving directly in
front of them, and unlike a traditional
storefront, their merchandise is
literally displayed outside, completely
visible to every car passing by or
parking in front of them, in some ways
to have the best possible version of
window shopping from your car argument.
So, if the cars really were the key to
bringing customers and retail sales
downtown, wouldn't the ArtW Walk be
thriving, Mr. Mayor?
the fact that it suggests we're dealing
with something much bigger than whether
cars are on State Street. Maybe we
should bring the art walk on State
Street on Saturday mornings,
particularly in the upper, more retail
oriented blocks. That could help the
artist while creating another reason for
people to walk, explore, linger, and
shop in an area that could use activity.
And finally, I encourage council to pay
attention to which organizations are
bringing forward ideas to make the
prominade work. Groups like Friends of
State have focused on programming,
activation, and practical ways to
support existing businesses. At the same
time, I think we need to start asking a
difficult question about DSBIA. If an
organization is responsible for
promoting downtown while also advocating
to fund fundamentally change the
prominade, there's at least an
appearance of conflict. Its success in
promoting State Street as it exists
today could undermine its own argument
for bringing back.
>> Thank you. That's that's time
>> deserves a closer look. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Further speakers? Madam uh clerk?
>> No, Mr.
>> All right. Very good. With that, we'll
close public comment and uh move on to
the administrative items. If you read
that item in the record, please madam
clerk.
>> Yes. Item five, certification of the
final housing plan program environmental
impact report. A recommendation of the
council a adopt by reading of title only
a resolution of the council of the city
of Santa Barbara certifying the final
housing plan program environmental
impact report SC number 202204209
and adopting findings of fact and the
mitigation monitoring and reporting
program.
>> All right, thank you very much and
please do the presentation.
Good afternoon, Mayor Rouse and council
members. My name is Julia Pujo,
environmental analyst. Here with me
today is Rosie Dy, principal planner.
Today, staff are requesting that council
adopt a resolution to certify the final
housing plan program, EIR, adopt SQA
findings of fact, and adopt the
mitigation monitoring and reporting
program.
These actions will complete the SQA
process for the final housing plan
program EIR and these actions also
support program H9 of the housing
element.
The city prepared a housing plan program
EIR that evaluates the impacts of
implementing the 32 housing programs
within the sixth cycle housing element.
This includes ongoing current programs
as well as future housing programs. A
key assumption is the development of 801
housing units which is the city's
regional housing need or reena. The EIR
analyzes the effects of construction
growth and operational impacts.
This is a program EIR which is which
includes a city-wide environmental
analysis of the housing programs and
future housing development. Notably, it
does not evaluate or approve any
particular development project in any
particular project site.
Uh the EIR identifies feasible
mitigation measures and evaluates two
alternatives uh in compliance with SQA.
A key benefit of the housing plan EIR is
that it supports program H9 resource
protection and development certainty
within the six cycle housing element.
Uh, program H9 calls for resource
protection, recognizes the need to plan
for housing in a way that protects
natural and cultural resources, that
responds to the climate crisis, and
provides certainty for developers.
The EIR also identifies mitigation
strategies that can be applied to future
housing developments.
And the EIR provides a streamlining
potential for future SQA reviews for
housing programs and for future housing
development projects.
To briefly clarify the difference
between the housing element and the
housing plan because these terms are
sometimes used interchangeably.
The housing element refers to the state
required policy document that was
adopted by the city.
Whereas the housing plan is what the EIR
refers to which is the collective set of
actions required to implement the
housing element. This includes municipal
code amendments, resolutions, permit
streamlining processes
and other actions to fully implement the
programs in the housing element. the the
set of actions is what the EIR
evaluates.
This slide shows the SQA process. Uh
this has been a multi-year process
starting with a scoping period where the
city notified the public and agencies
following an ER analysis was was
developed uh with the help of technical
consultants and in coordination with
multiple city departments as well as
other public uh local and regional
agencies.
Uh earlier this year, the city released
the draft uh EIR for a public review
period of 45 days between January and
March and held a meeting before the
planning commission. During the public
review period, the city received
comments from members of the public,
local and state agencies, and from the
planning commission, and those comments
are within chapter 8 of the EIR. We are
currently in the final stages of the EIR
process and staff has prepared draft
findings and staff is now seeking city
council action on the EIR. Uh following
city council action, staff will file the
appropriate SQA notices.
The EIR includes uh the full range of
environmental topics required by SQA.
Many environmental resource topic areas
were found to result in less than
significant impacts.
Uh six topic areas were found to have
impacts that are potentially significant
and requiring mitigation. That includes
air quality, biological resources,
cultural and tribal resources, hazardous
materials, noise and utilities and
service systems.
For all environmental impacts,
mitigation was identified that would
reduce impacts to a less than
significant level and the ER did not
identify any significant or unavoidable
impacts.
SQUA requires that the city make
findings for each potentially
significant impact and there are three
options. The first is that mitigation is
feasible and will be adopted.
The second option is that another agency
is responsible for implementing
mitigation. And the third option is that
mitigation is not feasible uh
potentially for legal, technological
uh or economic reasons. If it is found
that mitigation is not feasible, a
statement of overriding considerations
would be required.
Uh the staff recommendation is that
council finds for each impact that
mitigation is feasible and will be
adopted.
Therefore, no statement of overriding
considerations would be required. And
these findings are within attachment two
of the council agenda report packet.
A mitigation monitoring and reporting
program also known as a MMRP was
prepared consistent with SQA.
Uh because this is a program EIR
implementation of the MMRP would occur
through future city actions including
amendments to the municipal code,
updates to city environmental guidelines
and procedures and standard conditions
of approval that would be applied to
future development projects.
The MMRP identifies the actions required
to implement the mitigation measure, the
responsible city department timing and
monitoring.
I want to note that currently many of
the mitigation measures in the EIR are
being implemented to individual
development projects on a case-bycase
basis and adoption of the MMRP and
implementation will provide uh clear
consistent and transparent standards
that will help streamline the
development process, provide clear
direction to developers and continue to
protect environmental resources.
And once implemented, those requirements
will apply to qualifying development
projects.
Uh I'll briefly
provide a highlevel overview of the
impacts requiring findings and
associated mitigation measures.
The ER found that uh potential a
potential impact related to construction
air quality emissions uh for larger
projects and perhaps in the case where
multiple projects are in the same area.
Uh the analysis was developed in
coordination with the air pollution
control district and mitigation is was
identified that would stand would
establish standard construction
practices to reduce construction
emissions.
The ER identified potential impacts to
biological resources if housing
development were to occur on a site that
contained natural habitat, wildlife
movement corridors, and sensitive
species. This analysis was developed in
coordination with California Fish and
Wildlife and mitigation was identified
that include creek protections, riparian
protections, nesting bird surveys, and
oak woodland protection.
Uh these mitigation would establish
requirements
uh that would be applied to applicable
housing developments.
Impacts uh were or potential impacts
were identified to historical,
archaeological and tribal resources if
development were to occur on a site that
contained those resources. Mitigation was identified in the EIR
that includes historical resource
protections, archaeological resource
protections, and tribal cultural
resource protections. I will also note
that this mitigation was largely
implemented with the adoption of updated
city guidelines for archaeological,
tribal, and historic resources and
updates to the historic preservation
ordinance in 2025.
uh impacts related to potential site
contamination, groundwater and um soil
contamination on sites throughout the
city. uh and mitigation was identified
that included um environmental site
assessments and investigations,
remediation measures and risk management
measures that would be implemented
consistent with the appropriate
regulatory agency.
This analysis was developed uh with
coordination from county environmental
health services which is the designated
regulatory oversight agency for site
contamination in our area.
Noise impacts were identified related to
construction noise uh in mitigation
includes a construction noise management
plan and vibration control plan which
would be applied to qualifying
development projects.
Additionally, an impact was identified
related to uh projects that could occur
in areas where ambient noise levels
exceed residential standards. for
example, along the highway 101 corridor
and uh a mitigation was identified that
would include a noise study and site uh
based attenuation features that would be
incorporated to in the design of
development projects in that area.
The project or the EIR evaluated impacts
to utilities and service systems. The
EIR found that existing utility services
and infrastructure can accommodate the
anticipated increases in demand for
water, wastewater, electricity, solid
waste and other utilities. However,
individual development projects may
require new utility connections,
upsizing or the replacement of aging
infrastructure.
Uh mitigation would apply to those
scenarios and would include the same
measures that were identified for air
quality, biological resources, cultural
hazardous materials and noise.
Two alternatives were analyzed in the ER
consistent with the SQA guidelines. This
includes a no project alternative. The
no project alternative assumes that no
action is taken. This would result in
less housing being built and would not
meet the city's obligation under state
housing law.
Another alternative was analyzed called
the additional housing alternative which
assumes a scenario where housing is
developed that exceeds the city arena.
The alternative does not specify how
programs are expanded. It only analyzes
the resulting consequences
and the alternatives analysis helps
demonstrate the relative environmental
effects of the housing plan in
comparison to the other scenarios.
Council's action today requires several
SQA findings. And to highlight the key
findings,
uh, council must find that the EIR is
completed in compliance with SQUA, that
the EIR reflects the city's independent
judgment,
that city council has reviewed and
considered the information in the final
EIR.
And also, as a reminder, no significant
and unavoidable impacts are identified
in the EIR. and staff recommends the
finding that for each significant impact
feasible mitigation will avoid or reduce
the impact
and SQA also requires the adoption of a
mitigation monitoring and reporting
program.
Uh to summarize the final EIR provides a
citywide environmental framework for
implementing program H9 resource
protection and develop development
certainty. It identifies feasible
mitigation for potentially significant
impacts and no significant and
unavoidable impacts are identified. Uh
the staff recommendation is that staff
is that council adopt a resolution to
certify the final housing plan program
EIR adopt SQA findings of fact and adopt
the MMRP.
That concludes staff's presentation and
we are available for questions. Thank
you.
>> Thank you very much. Um I have no
speaker slips to this item. Madam clerk,
are there any raised hands online?
» No, Mr. May.
>> Okay, very good. So with that, we will
then go we'll close public comment and
go to council for questions and
comments. Miss Snen,
>> thank you. Mayor Rose,
>> round of questions first, I should say,
then we'll do deliberations.
>> Okay, questions. Thank you. Um, so and
thank you for the pre-briefings on this
as well. Appreciate that. So I I have
some I guess my questions are series of
questions that can all be handled
together but it's more about um the
holistic larger scale
uh picture um and how this impacts so
specific things
um wastewater evacuation routes I mean I
know these aren't individual projects
that are being um approved but the the
larger picture traffic water needs needs
um particularly
fire response in say um the upper state
area if that gets redeveloped as it's
planning to be with a very large project
will we have the funds necessary or the
development fees high enough to be able
to build a new fire station there to
meet those needs that kind of thing. Um,
another question about um biodiversity
mitigations if if that could be built
into this and um you know busing needs,
things like that. things that uh on
larger scales might have impacts that my
concern is that if we approve this then
we're saying that that large scale need
is met and that there if we're just
looking at individual projects past that
we'll have missed our opportunity to to
weigh in on some of those um
particularly development fees and a fire
station. And then it was noted in the
planning commission to um to heagis you
know when it when it closes which it's
you know scheduled to close ahead of
when we had hoped um are we prepared for
the environmental impacts of whatever
that next part of the plan is. So I
guess my question is with with large
holistic picture things like that if we
do a blanket and maybe that's not the
right term but if we do a um approval of
this now for implementing our whole plan
does that take away our ability in the
big picture to be able to mitigate for
those in the future
» council member Snetted and I'll uh I'll
try too. It's a multi-art question. Um,
regarding impacts to
wastewater evacuation, things like that.
The EIR is at a citywide level and it
assumes that projects are consistent
with the general plan, that they're
consistent with the housing programs,
consistent with the zoning. um it
doesn't necessarily exempt them from
further screening. Uh and so if there is
a project that say is not consistent
with those items, um then they'll be
continued they'll continue to be subject
to further squa review.
Uh the house the housing plan EI found
that fire services were acceptable or
are acceptable with the amount of
growth. It does not analyze developers
fees specifically. That's an economic
consideration that is outside of the
scope of the EIR and SQUA.
Um it is mainly looking at the physical
impacts of do we need to identify a new
site for a fire station. Um that type of
thing but not necessarily how to fund
it. But um the ER did find that fire ser
the existing level of fire service could
accommodate the growth um as currently
planned in the housing plans.
Uh,
regarding Tahiguas, uh, we've been in
contact with county staff who are
managing um, that project. And so, as I
understand, the the county is looking at
several alternatives on Tiguis, but they
have not yet released what those
alternatives are and what the plan is.
Uh, but we'll stay in close coordination
with that.
Um, and if I could just add something to
some of the things you mentioned,
specifically evacuation um, planning, we
are um, you actually um, authorized an
update to our safety element. And so
that's a great place to look at these
things holistically. Um, and we are
actually by state law need to look at
our evacuation routes and locations and
planning.
>> So that's that's coming up. So, so I
guess as a followup, like if I if I
didn't believe that the existing fire
services could accommodate 8,000 more
units,
um, would it be appropriate then for me
to not be able to find these findings
hypothetically?
Are we clear?
» Uh, Council Member Snettin, uh, the the
finding would need to be supported by
substantial evidence such as an expert
opinion or a technical report. Uh, and
if you if there was that that finding or
evidence within substantial evidence,
then you would be able to make that
finding if you chose.
>> Okay. And if those reports are being
developed now and we haven't seen them
yet, um,
>> well, I'll leave I'll leave it at that.
Thank Thank you.
>> Further questions?
I had one kind of a follow up on Miss
one of Miss Netton's comments about the
EI and you mentioned of course schools
as part of the SQL process. It brings to
mind uh what we've already was approved
on cycle which was the 1900 units in
Lumbra Plaza property and I noticed that
the uh some from well I'll say feedback
be polite about it from the hope school
district because obviously they'd be
overwhelmed by that. So, how does that
square? How do we place that much
population out there? Not knowing what
the percent of school age children are
going to be, of course. How does that
square with this process and do we have
to revisit that when it comes to this
element?
>> Mayor Rouse, good question. Uh, so
unfortunately the the scope of SQA is
quite narrow in that regard. The impact
is focused more on is there appropriate
school sighting and then would the
construction of a new school uh result
in physical impacts as opposed to more
administrative or economic impacts of
increased enrollment.
Uh the the analysis in the EIR found
that across the city individual schools
have individual capacity.
uh when we look at it holistically
and so uh that found that no uh
alternative school site would be needed
and um no construction in that in terms
of resulting in environmental
[clears throat] impacts. Um
the economic side of it is not covered
in the scope of SQUA. Um and so that is
outside the purview of the EI. No, thank
No, I mean I I I get that part, but as
you look at the number one, there's
obviously no suitable site for a new
school to be built, nor would there be
foreseeable funding to build a brand new
school. But the other side of the coin
is if you look at the the enrollment of
Hope School District now and the
anticipated extra population, it doesn't really match up without some
kind of strange interd district, you
know, transit system or doing whatever
we would have to do. So it just it just
seems anothetical to the idea of sequent
trying to not have people transit as far
to go to their shopping work schools
that kind of thing. So I don't know just
I know that you don't have that answer
but I'm just kind of curious about the
whole process itself.
Mr. Freriedman.
>> Thank you Mr. Mayor. Just kind of a
followup. I appreciate my colleagues
questions but so first I want to ask
what happens if we don't pass this
today?
Uh, council member Freeman, I believe
the options are to continue or to deny
the not certify the EIR. So, I believe
that means nothing happens. The the
mitigation measures would not be
adopted. We would not move forward with
those um conditions or programs in the
MMRP. And I I believe and staff can
correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that
then each individual program would have
to go through comprehensive
environmental review uh which would
result in great expense and some of
those are city initiated programs. So
the city would then have to take on uh
additional expense to do that individual
environmental review for each program or
um element of the housing plan.
>> And and that's for each one of those. So
we would have a using our current staff.
So we would on top of everything else
we're doing and this would streamline
some of these projects so that
the so when these projects come forward
they don't have to come back through it.
So the question I have is if we didn't
approve this today, so there was a
majority that based on the issues that
were raised today didn't go forward with
it.
Then how would that in terms of trying
to meet our housing production numbers?
If we now have to have our staff, we
would then have to have our staff go
through and do each one of these
programs. Would that potentially delay
new housing development because they
would want to wait until we've done all
this or what would happen because that
could take a number of years, right, to go through all these individually and
then if in that time what happens to
projects that want to go through but we
haven't done the work yet because we
have to sign staff or get consultants to
come out and and do all that.
Um, Council Member Freriedman, I'll I'll
try to address at least the programs
part of it. So, so far we've done um a
couple of programs already like adaptive
reuse and most of them have been
ordinance amendments and because this
wasn't completed yet. Uh, we had to do a
sequ. Luckily, those have been um
qualified for a notice for exemption.
So, it hasn't been too ownorous to do
that. There's upcoming programs. I can't
guarantee they would all be exempt from
SQA. They'd probably have. So that's
it's hard to know ahead of time um for
the future ordinance amendments or other
program implementation
how much extra time it would add.
Housing production is kind of since this
new housing element was adopted has been
pretty steady. Um but we're just, you
know, we there's always a lag because we
have all these programs. It takes us a
while to adopt each one and we're hoping
the production numbers will go up, but
for now they've been about, you know,
200 or so building permits a year. Um,
that's been pretty steady. Um, the
second part was about the actual housing
itself. So, a lot of housing projects
are exempt from SQA. Julia can probably
address this better than me. So, some of
them will keep going. Um, but I think
there are projects that do trigger squa
where they could get caught up and it'll
take longer. Does that sound
Uh, council member Freeman, that's
correct. There are a number of
applications in the process where SQA is
already underway for those particular
applications.
Uh there's a number of concern is
there's a number of sites especially in
the downtown and the waterfront area
that have site contamination
where the SQA guidelines specify that an
exemption cannot be used. And so an
option for those sites would be to tier
off of the housing plan EI if it were
certified
otherwise they would need to go through
their own individual SQL process. So
help me understand that that point. A
site with contaminated
with some type of contamination
would have I want to word this correctly
would be able to use this but at the
same time how would we get the level of
certainty that we're remediating and
addressing those types of impacts?
>> Uh Council Member Frerieden. Uh, so the red dots on this map, and I
understand it's kind of small and hard
to see, but those are Cortezy list
sites. There's about there's over 400 of
them in the city of Santa Barbara. And
the squa guidelines specify that an
exemption cannot be used on a parcel
that contains um one of these red dots.
Uh, the procedures are already in place.
Those sites are regulated by state
agencies, by the water board, by the
county environmental health services and
staff rely staff rely on those agencies
pretty heavily to tell them uh for them
to tell us rather what measures they
need to take to remediate their site.
And so during the application review
process, there's ongoing coordination.
This is something that staff regularly
screen for during the development
process. And so if a state agency
contacts us and recommends a particular
investigation or if they recommend
particular site measures um or remedial
actions then the city in turn makes
those conditions of approval for that
project. And I'll just also add that um
one of the requirements is that each one
of the programs or projects that comes
through has to go through the the MMRP
which is and so for here you can see for
example the mitigation is they have to
do a phase one and phase two
environmental site assessment which
would require them to do a survey like
are there any former gas stations on the
site and if so then they would have
potentially have to um do soil sampling
and so so each so there's the mitigate
they have to still follow all of the
mitigations. They don't just get
exempted from doing anything to
remediate the site. The EIR actually
lays out those mitigations that are
required for each, you know, when these
things come up.
>> And so staff staff will review it at the front end of an application and
say, "Oh, yeah, this is subject to the hazard and hazardous material
mitigation remediation program." And so
they need to follow these steps. So, so
the the program that we're discussing
today would still have the protections
in place for those sites. It's not like
it would it would reduce it. Okay. And then there would also be the that
impacts. Thank you. I just wanted the
clarification of if we decided not to go
forward with it, uh what the impacts
would be on our staffing levels, housing
production, and that. And just a couple
more followups and it it gets to some of
the points on
especially in upper state street where
so in here we we you discussed earlier
that it does show that there is adequate
level of service from fire for fire but
one of the things that has come up in
that that neighborhood is there's a fundamental change that could
take place and it is going citywide too
but that's going to be one of the first
areas and downtown as well is as we get
larger or taller buildings above three
stories going up five or six or however
tall they go up in that area
that it changes how the level of service
responding for fires is on those types
of buildings because we have people
would be living in them that's
fundamentally different than we are now.
So if we were to say need another ladder
truck in that area
to be able to adequately respond we
don't have that now. We don't have a
place to park it up there because the
only ladder truck is downtown.
Does this impact and it gets the earlier
questions, does it impact our ability to
uh respond? Um do we still have the
ability to
are we giving away basically are we
giving any anything away in terms of
having a requirement that we that we
upgrade fire services up there?
>> Uh council member Freeman, no. the the
if there is a particular project that
would require that there's not only SQL
findings but health and safety findings
and so uh if there's a project that
requires that then that project would
need to address that uh this this
process allows for streamlining but if
there are those outlier projects that uh
do need further types of review or there
there's considerations that don't line
up with the assumptions in the EIR then
those would be addressed um by those
individual projects.
>> Okay, perfect. That I just wanted to
clarify based on some of the earlier
questions, comments, and then again
water, wastewater, adequate park, open
space,
those still have a path that we can work
to address those within this. This is
just having the EIR for these projects
so that there's a a way for it to go
forward so it reduces the staff time of
having to go in and do one of these
anyways on their own, the programs on
that. So, okay. Thank you.
All right. Very good. Further questions
from council.
Okay. With that, we'll come back for
deliberation
comments. Uh, Miss Sn.
>> Thank you, Mayor Rouse. I'll just um
make the comments that I I I I do
understand and appreciate um how this
could streamline housing production and appreciate the work on it. And it um
just for myself I have concerns that in
the holistic picture
um there are studies we've not heard
back yet um the the findings so things
on fire stations to what the plan is for
that schools um wastewater mitigations
and then looking at that map that you
showed with the green dots and the red
dots you know all of the mesa was an
active oil field and that's not flagged
on there as a large area. So, I'm um
hesitant to have a a overarching
holistic um EIR
um that that exempts things first and
then goes back to projects. So, um, even
though I can I can see what the
streamlining um ability would be, I just
am hesitant to streamline too far. So,
um, I'll be voting no on it, but with
very much appreciation for the work
that's gone into it and hoping that, um,
that work would help towards any future
individual ERS that might make those
faster.
>> Miss Herman,
>> thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, yeah, I
appreciate those comments. I think I
have um similar concerns. I just come
down I think on the other side and and
for me I I I definitely agree there's um
some things about a programmatic
approach just in general I would say
particularly
um when we're talking about development
just with all of the things that we have
to deal with that seem to be sort of
taking away our local control any
programmatic approach um I just have
this gut reaction that feels like we're
just continuing in that direction.
However, um and I know that wasn't that
wasn't the criticism, but I that was my
own tangent just there. Um I I think
there are real questions that we'll need
to keep our eye on, but generally
speaking, um you know, we spend so much
time talking about how we have to
facilitate housing production and to
find ways to do that. And one of the
long-standing concerns is the
environmental impacts of that housing
production. And how can we thread the
needle and do multiple things at once?
How do we sort of walk and chew gum,
produce housing, and um do it in a way
that's reflective of uh the other values
that we hold so dear. And I think this
is a step in that direction. So I will
be supporting it today. I do acknowledge
um as council member Snedden did there
are there are real concerns and those
concerns I think are something that are
wellounded. I know that you all are
watching those very closely as well. Um
but in general I just think this slide
17 which is not up but I'm looking at
it. Sorry. Um, this is where I I think
it just for us um this makes this plan
is is the direction that we need to go
and it's the best of of the alternative.
So, I'll be supporting it today. Thank
you,
>> Mr. Freriedman.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you uh to my
colleagues with robust discussion.
I I follow where Council Member Harmon
is is.
It's important that we do protect
neighborhoods and we address the issues
of water, schools, fire safety,
evacuations
and there are other means that we need
to do that other other opportunities
through there. what this does that that
doesn't change this by approving it and in fact one of the concerns I have
is and many people in the community have
is we keep saying we want to meet our
housing production numbers and one of
the reasons is for communities that
aren't the state has already shown that
they are being heavy-handed in taking
away local control and to have the
ability to analyze these projects
still have mitigation measures, still
make sure they're going through the
process, but at least demonstrate that
we are doing a good faith effort to
produce housing.
That enables us in the long run to to
show how we've done that to produce the
housing, not just plan to produce it.
Those that's the old days. And I would
have strong concerns if we didn't move
forward with this today based on what uh
staff said earlier that our own staff
would then have to go through and do
these on an individual basis. A huge
staff burden that were not budgeted for
that might actually come out to the
similar results that we have here. We
would basically be spending a lot of
time to get to right where we are here
today.
and it's the same staff that's working
on a lot of other major projects. So,
um, in terms of moving it forward, we do
need to keep the eye on on a lot of
these issues that development is
causing,
but uh, at the same time, we're either
going to move forward with housing
production where we need it and in
strategic areas and facilitate that or
we're not. So, uh, that goes in into
that, uh, housing production, but also
the oversight to make sure we're not
putting, you know, u in areas that we
don't want it. So, uh, this went through
the planning commission. Our staff has
vetted it. It's more in line with what
the state law is so we can keep local
control. So, those are the reasons I'm
voting for it.
>> Miss Santa Maria,
>> thank you, Mayor Rouse. Thank you to my
colleagues. I think you all made some
excellent points.
I I'll I'll speak a little bit more
broadly and then get to this, but when
we talk about the solutions to the
housing crisis, I think we can all agree
there is not just one solution to it
all. Supply is a really big factor in
it, but if we don't develop in a
thoughtful manner, then that can have
those unintended consequences in our
neighborhoods, similar to what mayor
prompts that and me or some of those
that she mentioned. Um,
I'll cut right to the chase and say I
I'm inclined to support this, but with a
lot of hesitation to be honest, because
we are essentially voting
on information that we don't fully have
yet, it seems to me, um, if we don't
have the, you know, the findings when it
comes to the the fire safety areas,
you know, that that is something that
we're going to have to deal with later.
And so I I'm I support moving this
forward given that staff has laid out
mitigation uh methods and there are
there do seem to be other avenues of us
catching these additional consequences
that may result from development. So I
will support this. Um, but I I I want to volunteer myself as to to be a
partner in this to help really keep a
sharp eye on these developments because,
as a lot of folks will tell you, when
you are living right next to a
development, if that development was not
thought out and planned with the input
of the surrounding neighborhood, it is
going to cause some serious impacts. And
the people that have, you know,
purchased or live property right next to
it, you know, they're like they're going
to have to suffer the consequences. And
it's not necessarily just an
individual's issue, right? If they're
neighbor, it's also a city-wide issue if
we are experiencing issues with um you
know, the other myriad of things. So, I want us to
in the in the larger scheme of things, I
would encourage us to think about how do
we meet developers where they're at so
that they can develop housing, but not
at the risk of these neighborhood
impacts that we can foresee and that we can do something about. And I really
just want to celebrate staff. you are
all clearly doing an incredible job
laying out all of the mitigation the
ways that you will mitigate some of
these issues. I just have concerns about
the parts where we don't have all the
data yet. Um so I I really just want to
however I can support in helping keep an
eye on on things so that when we do have
that data if we need to make any
amendments to how we're approaching
things we can do so. But um thank you to
our staff for all the work that you're
doing. Uh I'll I'll be supporting this
moving forward.
And council member Sanry, I just want to
thank you for your comments. You know, I
think it's very important and you know,
just to reiterate, staff will every
application that comes in will receive
thorough review. And so for those that
do not have the data that you're
suggesting, that will be part of the
that initial review process. So, we
appreciate the the comments and just
know that the staff team is very
thoughtful and you know, these projects
will still go through comprehensive
review by our development team. Thank
you.
>> All right. Very good. Well, I've rarely
heard over my years about projects not
having enough review in this town, but
it's uh it's really tough because I'm very critical of the whole arena
process and the way the algorithms work
and how they get to the numbers they're
at. I I this there's a lot of hocus
pocus there, but it is what it is. And
it's hard because you have a lot of
conflicting direction from the state of
California in terms of build this, check
that, do this, but don't do that. And the local agencies end up paying the
price in terms of staff time and
capacity. And these housing almost we
all went through that not too long ago,
did we not mistake? Yes. So, um I'll be
supporting this. Um, but it is hard when
I look at things like saying, "Well, we
got to make sure we have the
infrastructure, we have the schools, we
have the road capacity. Oh, and by the
way, we need to build a gazillion units
on this acre." Um, and boy, is it
confusing to figure out developers are
also scratching their heads figuring out
what is it you want and not you collect,
you collectively, the state versus the
city versus all these things. So, uh,
but now we're also
kind of rooting for the SQL process in a
lot of ways. So, it's it's important
that we have some consistency as much as
possible even though this is a a broader
thing. I I say I I like Miss Mackado, I
have a lot of faith that staff is going
to be going to have no lack of scrutiny
when it comes to these projects and how
they fit in. It is important though I
think like Miss Santa Maria said is
about the impacts on neighborhoods the
impacts of the sanctity of a
neighborhood as it respects density
parking schools the whole thing that
stuff is still really really important I
think it gets shoved under the bus for
the desire to build housing and if an
item from time to time so uh very
complex very tough process but I will be
supporting uh the effort from staff uh
are there any further comments Or should
we go to a motion?
>> I'll move staff recommendation.
>> Moved by Harmon.
>> Second.
by Santa Maria. May we have the
vote, please, Madam Clerk?
» Yes. This is a motion for the
recommended action for item five. Motion
by Council Member Harmon, seconded by
Council Member Santa Maria. Please go
ahead and vote.
passes uh 5 to1. Miss Sneden voting in
opposition, Mr. Jordan absent.
All right, very good. Thank you. Uh with
that, we will move on to any committee
assignment reports. Anybody have one
from the gallery here,
Miss Ned?
Sorry, I just lost my list. Uh, come
back to me. Thank
» Oh, you don't? Okay, I'm sorry. Mr.
Freeman,
>> I just want to thank all the volunteers
and all the families that participated
in Fiesta this year. It was a great
year. There was there was expansion out
into Coast Village Road and Galita and
more of an effort. I know my colleagues,
we all enjoyed going to the different
ones. So, it was a great time in Santa
Barbara to show what we were about the
community and again just wanted to thank
everybody for making this year's fiesta
successful and all the events. Look
forward to next year's.
>> Thank you, Miss Schmid.
>> Thank you, Mayor Ross. Um, so I'd like
to congratulate Linda Crop on her
congressional woman of the year. Um, we
did hold a sustainability council
committee meeting and heard about uh the
better building um proposals that we'll
be hearing about um in our joint
planning commission meeting. And I also
attended at the um CEC the climate
Fridays where um Aleia Prento gave a
fabulous presentation on the better
building and was able to um work with
the community answering questions. Um
the Museum of Contemporary Art, there is
a show up now that was put on by um
Sunun the Space. Um it's an indigenous
art show. It's up all week. Um really encourage people to go see that.
And then at neighborhood advisory
committee um the committee heard about
or council heard about um residential
permitting and some sort of the pros and
cons of that.
>> Thank you. Uh big shout out to whoever
cleaned up day plasma was back. Is that
parks and wreck?
>> It is uh maintenance staff parks and
wreck. It's a combination of a whole
host of team.
>> I want those people in my garage for
sure. That was amazing. By the time I
got here Monday, it was like nothing had
ever happened.
>> It's a miracle like how clean Sunday was
gone quickly. Wow. Pretty amazing. Okay,
if there are no further comments or
questions, we will move to a journ.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah, that was at me. I get out there.
It was like
» [music]