[0:00] Heat.
[0:08] [music]
[0:18] Heat.
[0:36] [music]
[0:43] Hey, Heat. [music]
[0:48] Heat. Heat. [music]
[1:12] » [music]
[2:04] >> Hey. Hey. Hey.
[2:12] [music]
[2:37] » [music]
[2:38] >> This is the regular meeting of the Santa
[2:40] Barbara City Council, August 11th, 2026.
[2:42] Would you please join me in the pledge
[2:44] of allegiance?
[2:46] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[2:49] United States of America, to the
[2:51] republic for which it stands, one nation
[2:54] under God, indivisible, indivisible,
[2:57] liberty and justice for all. Amen.
[3:00] >> Madam clerk, would you call the role,
[3:02] please?
[3:03] Certainly. Council member Friedman here.
[3:05] >> Council member Santa Maria
[3:06] >> here.
[3:06] >> Council member Gutierrez
[3:07] >> present.
[3:07] >> Mayor Rouse
[3:08] >> here.
[3:09] >> Mayor PMston
[3:10] >> here.
[3:11] >> Uh, council member Harmon not yet
[3:12] present. Council member Harmon present.
[3:14] >> Kind of present.
[3:15] >> And council member Jordan not present.
[3:18] >> I present.
[3:21] >> Okay. Very good. Uh, madam
[3:22] administrator, are there any changes to
[3:23] the agenda?
[3:24] >> Yes, mayor. A couple changes on the
[3:26] consent calendar. Uh, staff has
[3:28] requested to remove items two and three.
[3:31] Um there's still some changes being
[3:33] negotiated with the lease holders. So we
[3:35] wanted to remove those for a future
[3:37] date. Um and then again, as we've done
[3:40] in prior meetings, we will do pulled
[3:42] consent items before general public
[3:44] comment.
[3:45] >> All right. Thank you very much. And with
[3:48] that, uh we will move to the consent
[3:49] calendar. Do you have some items to
[3:51] read, Madam Clerk?
[3:54] >> Obviously not two or three.
[3:55] >> Uh no, Mr. Mayor.
[3:56] >> You don't? Okay, that's a new one. Uh so
[3:59] um I will uh then uh if are there any
[4:02] comments or um things that need to be
[4:05] pulled for separate vote or comment?
[4:08] Are there any uh online speakers for
[4:12] consent items?
[4:18] » Uh no raised hands for consent. Mr.
[4:22] Mayor,
[4:22] >> thank you very much. With that, I'll
[4:24] entertain a motion on items one, four,
[4:28] and one, and four.
[4:30] >> So move.
[4:31] >> Moved by Freriedman, second by Snedden.
[4:35] >> We have the vote, please.
[4:36] >> Very good. This is a motion for the
[4:39] recommended items, recommended actions
[4:42] for items one and four. U motion by
[4:44] council member Friedman, seconded by
[4:46] Mayor Prom Snedden. Please go ahead and
[4:48] vote.
[4:58] Thank you. Passes unanimously with 620
[5:01] with Mr. Jordan absent and of course
[5:03] without the items two and three which
[5:05] have been moved by the administration.
[5:07] Very good. Okay. With that uh we will go
[5:11] to general public comment
[5:14] since our no poll consent items. has
[5:16] three minutes at the dis for anything
[5:18] that is not on today's agenda but within
[5:21] the purview of this body and we'll start
[5:23] out with Mark Redmond.
[5:32] » Hey, I hope everybody had a great
[5:34] fiesta. I sure did. I went all the
[5:35] nights and it was fantastic at St.
[5:39] Barber's Church. Oh, you need to turn
[5:41] the volume down. Sorry, I'm a little
[5:43] loud. lost a little hearing being a
[5:45] railroad engineer.
[5:47] Two longs, a short and a long crossing,
[5:49] you're fired and wave that flag. That's
[5:51] Union Pacific symbol. Ours was Chico
[5:54] when it was Santa Fe. And then when it
[5:55] was Burlington Northern, I called it the
[5:57] brand new the brand new Santa Fe. They
[5:59] gave me notebooks to write down. My
[6:01] train manifest to make sure I didn't
[6:03] have hazardous nicks to those dangerous
[6:05] and blow the town up if I did derailed.
[6:08] This was on the side of the bus in June.
[6:10] Woo! The college kids paid for $375.
[6:13] Could not be political, but I do have a
[6:15] podcast to get kids off of.
[6:16] >> Yeah.
[6:18] And other drugs off cotton, all those
[6:21] barbituates,
[6:23] telling you. And I tell them, don't you
[6:24] dare get off your program. Be committed.
[6:28] And if I see you in the papers, you're
[6:31] dead. That's cuz you got weak and you
[6:34] went back to those stupid drugs. And I'm
[6:37] wanting to give the police $100 for
[6:38] everybody they find on Santa Barbara
[6:40] streets selling those dirty cocaines,
[6:43] heroins, and those pills that look like
[6:45] candy. And it's ecstasy, and it's death,
[6:47] not ecstasy. Those mollies, forget it.
[6:50] Now, I got some things to say. I got to
[6:52] collect some more signatures. Some
[6:54] college kids gave me fake names and
[6:56] addresses. And Sarah says I got to go
[6:58] out and get about I don't know, maybe 60
[7:01] more to make sure I got a hundred good
[7:03] ones. So, I've been going door to door.
[7:04] I got 50 yesterday. And um my girlfriend
[7:07] gave me this stud muffin. I don't know
[7:09] why what that means.
[7:11] Maybe maybe Joanne does stud muffin.
[7:15] Okay. No donate no donations to Mark
[7:17] Redmond. I'm running a uh campaign on
[7:20] next to nothing door hangers. I got
[7:23] Jonathan Thompson, political science
[7:25] major, UC Santa Barbara Gauchos. He's my
[7:29] campaign manager. And I ran into one of
[7:31] Wendy Santa Maria's uh supporters
[7:34] yesterday when I was out on the street
[7:36] and she said, "I'm not voting for you,
[7:38] Mark. I'm not writing my name down and
[7:39] my address cuz I'm voting for Wendy cuz
[7:41] she's black like me." I said, "Wait a
[7:43] minute. I think Wendy's is kind of like
[7:44] me. Hines's 57. I'm mostly Irish, 69%.
[7:48] The rest is German, a little bit
[7:50] English, a little bit of Scottish."
[7:52] Anyway, so all I know is there's been
[7:55] over 500,000 deaths in the last five
[7:57] years in America alone. You can't count
[8:00] it in the world, it's probably about 5
[8:02] million. And so I went out last night.
[8:05] Look at this. I'm telling you, Sarah,
[8:07] I'll turn in names tomorrow night before
[8:09] 5 and I'll get on the ballot. I'll be a
[8:11] candidate just like Wendy, Kristen, and
[8:15] Ry's not running. So, um, it'll be Eric
[8:18] Freriedman and he's probably in the lead
[8:20] right now because we took a straw poll a
[8:22] couple months ago and he had 42%. I only
[8:25] had 28%. We went I had the college kids
[8:28] go up on the hill city college the
[8:30] gauchos out at Isa Vista and in word in
[8:33] downtown and I am hoping I will be the
[8:36] best mayor ever.
[8:37] >> I will bring
[8:38] >> happiness and and you know what I didn't
[8:40] even get to do my flamingo.
[8:42] >> Okay. Thanks thanks for the dance. Okay.
[8:44] Uh next speaker is Aaron Duffy.
[8:47] >> Come in here. Aaron call in all errands.
[8:53] » I'm sorry I'm a little
[8:54] >> Thank you Mark. I got this one. Thank
[8:55] you.
[8:56] >> I don't think I'm obnoxious, though. Am
[8:57] I?
[9:00] >> I'm a Spider-Man to pray over here.
[9:03] >> Hi.
[9:04] >> Good evening, mayor and city council. My
[9:06] name is Aaron Duffy. I'm back here
[9:07] again. This time with body cam evidence
[9:09] of a chronic systemic violation of
[9:11] federal ADA laws by city staff at the
[9:13] Santa Barbara Solstice Festival. This
[9:15] mismanagement has been ongoing since
[9:17] 2021 when the parade moved to Santa
[9:19] Barbara Street. For years, the city has
[9:21] allowed a block required for ADA parking
[9:23] to be double used for float
[9:24] deconstruction, prioritizing trash over
[9:27] civil rights of disabled residents and
[9:29] visitors. This year, recovering from my
[9:31] ninth surgery and focusing on recovery
[9:33] from severe mobility issues, I was
[9:36] illegally evicted from this section 5
[9:37] minutes before the parade by parking
[9:39] enforcement officer Randall Strom. He
[9:41] ordered me to move five blocks away and
[9:43] didn't understand the big deal, what the
[9:45] big deal was about a grueling 10b block
[9:47] roundtrip walk. By that time of day,
[9:49] parking there or anywhere close was
[9:51] non-existent. Staff also turned away
[9:53] multiple other valid placard holders.
[9:55] When I objected in tears, parks and
[9:57] wreck worker Sarah Nolles stated on
[9:58] camera that she only put up the ADA
[10:01] signs to quote appease some people.
[10:03] Quote, I and coldly added that my crying
[10:06] wouldn't change the laws while she was
[10:08] breaking the laws intended to protect
[10:10] disabled people. Meanwhile, Officer
[10:12] Strom dismissed my crisis while offering
[10:14] up unwanted comments about him liking my
[10:17] outfit and that I looked nice before
[10:19] ordering me to drive into traffic while
[10:21] weeping in pain and anxiety. Santa
[10:23] Barbara Police Department Commander
[10:25] Beltran, who's investigating my
[10:26] complaint, commented that Officer Stro
[10:28] sounded nice to me and there's nothing
[10:30] nice nor kind about harassment,
[10:32] exclusion, or violating my civil rights
[10:34] and endangering my life and the public.
[10:36] Worse, our ADA coordinator, Brian
[10:38] Darmore, is also the full-time city
[10:40] engineer, the very department head
[10:42] responsible for these failed street
[10:43] layouts. Due to this conflict of
[10:45] interest, I demand an independent
[10:46] investigation by the city administration
[10:49] into this six-year operational failure
[10:51] and the conduct of Officer Stro and
[10:53] Sarah Nolles. My tears do matter and
[10:56] they will change things and I need your
[10:58] help to fix this or I'll be back again
[11:01] and state my public comment every chance
[11:03] that I get so this doesn't happen to
[11:05] anyone else. I look forward to your
[11:07] public response. Thank you so much.
[11:10] >> You um Bartell's
[11:14] >> hope they don't mess with you next time.
[11:21] Dear mayor and city council members, I'm
[11:23] here to um ask you for a favor to keep
[11:26] our east side clean and professional. We
[11:30] have had multiple issues at our address.
[11:33] So our parcel faces two parking lots
[11:36] from commercial parking I mean to
[11:38] commercial uh [snorts] lots and um well
[11:41] it's about two years ago since um the
[11:45] owner Bob Ludvvic decided to uh divide
[11:48] his parking lot into several parcels
[11:51] um with ugly marbok fencing and there
[11:55] are holes in some of these um there is
[11:57] dirt everywhere. He doesn't seem to
[12:00] manage that place properly. He hired now
[12:03] a new management company, Miramar.
[12:05] They're located at 701 Nakappa Street,
[12:09] Unit D. And they were not supposedly
[12:12] very familiar with the nuisance that has
[12:14] been going on now for over two years
[12:16] because they just took over. They are
[12:18] just there, I guess, to collect the
[12:19] rents and send letters out, but we um we
[12:22] did some major investigations on this
[12:24] property. And it's just coming to the
[12:27] point that we're losing faith in our
[12:28] city government allowing this to happen
[12:30] for that long. I spoke with several of
[12:33] you guys and um I feel like it's very
[12:35] stagnantly moving forward. We don't need
[12:39] dumpsters, tents, and um trash contain.
[12:43] I mean, they probably put trash because
[12:45] we don't know what's in these
[12:46] containers, but they're all rusty, ugly,
[12:48] standing up. Several of them, I think,
[12:51] are stacked up with two of on top of
[12:54] each other. Um yeah, I I sent about 20
[12:57] pictures to you to show you what we're
[12:59] facing. Um yesterday we spoke with the
[13:02] owner of the baiting place who rents one
[13:04] of the tents where the ex um the back
[13:07] door of Rusty's is and he um he said he
[13:11] has a license and he's cutting up fish
[13:13] for bait right there. So, about a little
[13:16] bit over two years ago, our tenant
[13:18] complained about the smell of fish, and
[13:21] that was the last time we saw her
[13:22] because she moved out. And um I don't
[13:24] want to be on the list for vacancies
[13:26] because nobody wants to live in our unit
[13:29] since we have this parcel looking like
[13:31] this next door with the fish smell.
[13:34] recently um the um the landscaping
[13:37] services owner I don't want to say
[13:39] contractor because he doesn't have a
[13:40] license who rents from Bob Ludvik um he
[13:43] placed a 12ft tall tent against our
[13:46] property wall which is only 6t tall so
[13:48] it doesn't make you feel like you want
[13:50] to be on a patio or terrace if you would
[13:52] be a tenant which we don't have
[13:54] unfortunately and um I was looking
[13:57] yesterday they're dumping their
[13:58] leftovers of mango whatever because it's
[14:01] actually a food processing business I
[14:04] should say that. And they're dumping it
[14:06] against our wall. It smells like rotten
[14:08] fruit or something with ice cubes mixed
[14:10] up. And I feel like there is some time
[14:12] that we really need to clean up this
[14:14] place. I don't care if it stays empty,
[14:16] but what we're looking at is nasty.
[14:18] Thank you so much for your time.
[14:20] >> Thank you, Joanna Ol.
[14:27] » Hi. Good afternoon, honorable mayor and
[14:30] council members. My name is Joanne Olen.
[14:34] Let's call Measure A exactly what it
[14:37] was, a slick trick.
[14:39] Back in June, you sold Measure A under
[14:42] the guise of modernizing municipal
[14:45] property leases. But the second had
[14:48] passed, you used those new powers to
[14:50] hand over seven prime downtown parcels
[14:54] for 0 in land purchase price in the PO
[14:59] Noeo deal.
[15:01] Now, under item five today, you are
[15:03] pulling the exact same move. Letting an
[15:06] unelected administrator like Kelly
[15:09] McAdoo
[15:10] run ruin this city with sloppy staff
[15:13] reports you swallow without question.
[15:18] You are being handed a blanket citywide
[15:21] environmental report, a massive shortcut
[15:25] designed by staff that gives corporate
[15:27] mega developers an automatic pass to
[15:31] skip neighborhood reviews on traffic,
[15:34] water, and parking.
[15:38] Instead of holding staff accountable and
[15:40] forcing speculative real estate
[15:42] interests to pay for the massive water
[15:44] and sewer pipe upgrades 8,000 new units
[15:48] will actually need, you are rubber
[15:50] stamping these staff proposals and
[15:53] kicking these costs down the road for
[15:55] taxpayers to fix when the system breaks.
[16:00] You feign surprise at our falling city
[16:03] failing city reserves while approving
[16:06] every proposal that drains our public
[16:08] assets.
[16:11] We are heading down a point of no
[16:14] return.
[16:15] Once you surrender environmental
[16:18] oversight
[16:19] and liquidate public property on the
[16:22] advice of staff, we can never get them
[16:25] back.
[16:28] You are making the wrong kind of
[16:30] history. People won't remember you for
[16:32] the times you stood up for us.
[16:35] They will remember what that when it
[16:38] mattered most, you failed us.
[16:43] Stop letting city management steer you
[16:45] off a cliff.
[16:47] Stop overriding environmental safeguards
[16:51] and start doing the oversight job you
[16:53] were elected to do.
[16:55] taxpayers are watching and we won't
[16:58] forget. Thank you. Thank
[17:01] >> you. Uh Daniel Zimmerman.
[17:09] » Hi. It's a wonderful uh opportunity to
[17:11] speak with all of you today. Uh my name
[17:13] is Daniel. I am a PhD candidate at UCSB.
[17:17] Uh like many Americans, I'm deeply
[17:19] concerned with the installation of flock
[17:21] cameras in our community. For those who
[17:24] do not know, Flock Group Incorporated,
[17:26] also known as Flock Safety, is a private
[17:28] corporation that sells automatic
[17:30] automated license plate recognition or
[17:32] ALPR cameras to municipalities, law
[17:36] enforcement, and private communities.
[17:39] These cameras, known colloially as Flock
[17:41] cameras, although there's a couple other
[17:42] companies, uh, are nominally to reduce
[17:45] crime. However, as is becoming apparent
[17:48] to more and more Americans every day,
[17:50] these cameras represent a threat to our
[17:52] constitutional rights to privacy and our
[17:55] encroachment of state surveillance on
[17:57] the lives of lawabiding Americans.
[18:01] Flock cameras scan every car that drives
[18:03] by and using an AI algorithm, Flock
[18:06] maintains a database record of every
[18:08] car's make, model, color, license plate
[18:11] number, bumper stickers, and even
[18:13] scratches.
[18:15] While less than 1% of cars scanned by
[18:17] ALPRs are connected to any crime or
[18:19] wrongdoing, the mass installation of
[18:22] flock cameras and the collection of
[18:23] Americans data by a private corporation
[18:26] treats every citizen as a criminal. I
[18:29] appreciate all that our local law
[18:30] enforcement does every day to keep our
[18:33] community safe, but ALPRs are not
[18:35] keeping us safe as opposed to providing
[18:39] safety. Flock cameras have been misused
[18:41] throughout the country to stalk women,
[18:44] provide aid to kidnappings by ICE, and
[18:47] wrongfully convict innocent citizens of
[18:49] crime. This has been well reported in
[18:51] the Post, the Times, many papers.
[18:54] As your constituent, I urge you to pass
[18:57] local legislation that reigns in the use
[18:59] of ALPRs.
[19:01] Um, in Santa Barbara proper, there are
[19:04] 19 of these cameras and 38 in the
[19:06] greater Santa Barbara metro. These
[19:09] cameras track the thousands of cars,
[19:11] track thousands of cars that drive by
[19:13] every day. It's far too easy for this
[19:16] data to be abused and misused.
[19:20] You have the power to protect us from
[19:21] this big brother surveillance. And that
[19:23] starts with passing legislation to
[19:25] either ban ALPRs or create strict
[19:28] regulations that include the following
[19:29] guard rails. Limiting data retention to
[19:32] hours or days, not the weeks and months
[19:34] that they're kept by a private company.
[19:37] uh limiting the amount of information
[19:40] that the federal government can use,
[19:41] specifically when it's targeting
[19:43] immigrants and the most vulnerable in
[19:45] our community
[19:46] and requiring annual usage reporting and
[19:49] placing limits on the availability of
[19:50] ALPRs to those in private corporations.
[19:55] This is not a Democrat or Republican
[19:56] issue. This is a bipartisan issue that
[19:58] affects all Americans. Uh many
[20:01] localities over the country have already
[20:02] introduced these bans. I urge you to
[20:05] please follow their example and to
[20:06] protect the people of Santa Barbara.
[20:08] Thank you.
[20:09] >> Okay, that's enough. Fiser Dean,
[20:19] » you go girl.
[20:21] >> Anyways,
[20:23] uh yeah, my time.
[20:26] Yeah. Hi. Um my name is Fasia Fasia Dean
[20:29] and um I'm still in litigation.
[20:33] have some challenges. Uh would love to
[20:35] be a part of the team but uh I face
[20:38] adversity all the time. If it's not a
[20:40] gender issue, it's some other
[20:42] perspective. Okay. So um I roll with the
[20:46] punches but I always remember uh I never give up and uh I usually
[20:53] prevail somewhere.
[20:56] Okay. So uh I want to talk about
[20:59] incentivizing.
[21:01] Uh what it is is I'm a I've had a city
[21:04] license. I'm constantly going through
[21:06] things and I see constant barriers. Um
[21:09] there shouldn't be. And so I wanted to
[21:11] talk about incentivizing. Last time I
[21:13] spoke about um the carpenter hot dog
[21:17] man. And so when I talk about
[21:19] incentivizing, I want to say I want the
[21:22] city to respond to me. I have lots of
[21:25] paperwork to send to you, but I think we
[21:28] should move toward incentivizing
[21:32] uh people, businesses who are following
[21:35] the law. We have a a disproportionate
[21:39] expression. I talked about honoring the
[21:41] carpentry man Bill uh for his efforts
[21:45] and all his work, which also represents
[21:48] the city of Santa Barbara by putting a
[21:49] hot dog stand here. But when I go down
[21:52] State Street and I'm constantly working
[21:56] toward meeting all the legal standards
[21:58] and regulations and I see people
[22:00] violating the regulations and it's okay.
[22:03] Um it's not about what someone does,
[22:06] it's about all the homeless I see and uh
[22:10] people who are the government, federal
[22:12] government constantly putting programs
[22:14] together to reach people. And you know,
[22:17] I believe in self-reliance. And so what
[22:20] I'm trying to say is for example um the
[22:24] city can um assign
[22:28] peddlers to particular positions on
[22:31] State Street and only people assigned to
[22:35] that position can be there. And what
[22:37] that does is that eliminate undocumented
[22:39] people and people who are evading the
[22:42] law where you have to come pick up their
[22:44] cart. We're trying to incentivize
[22:47] positive behavior to eliminate the
[22:50] negative behavior of under the table
[22:52] transactions,
[22:54] >> okay? And unfair distribution of the
[22:56] revenue. We want more participation,
[22:59] eliminate some of the homelessness, make
[23:01] people more self-reliant and confident
[23:03] on themselves. And so I can continue
[23:05] this the next meeting, but I would like
[23:08] for the city to look into that. and I
[23:10] have some more ideas on uh what we can
[23:13] do to continue that effort. Uh thank you
[23:16] today.
[23:16] >> Thank you. Madam clerk, you have
[23:18] speakers online.
[23:20] >> Yes, Mr. Mayor.
[23:30] » We have two speakers. We have Anna
[23:34] Garcia, then Aaron Ashland. Anna Garcia,
[23:37] please go ahead.
[23:43] Hello. Um, first I'm here to ask that
[23:46] the flop camera item be moved to 5:00
[23:48] p.m. on August 25th to allow for a true
[23:51] community participation.
[23:53] A 2 p.m. meeting time is prohibitive for
[23:56] the majority of working residents in
[23:58] this city. If you won't do this, it
[24:00] sends a clear message that you do not
[24:02] intend to serve the public who pays your
[24:04] salaries and who will be impacted by
[24:06] this decision.
[24:08] Second, instead of searching for
[24:10] alternative surveillance tools that
[24:12] infringe on our right to privacy under
[24:14] the guise of safety, pass an ordinance
[24:17] that bans or significantly restricts
[24:19] their use. As the previous speaker
[24:22] mentioned, they have been abused across
[24:23] the country to uh harm people. So, let's
[24:27] not continue down that path. However, if
[24:30] council uh if council, city
[24:32] administrators, or SBPD intend to
[24:35] continue pushing forward to find an
[24:37] alternative to replace flock against the
[24:39] community's explicit will, I will
[24:42] personally commit to fundraising to
[24:44] purchase the exact surveillance devices
[24:46] selected to replace flock. We will place
[24:49] them where we can monitor the people we
[24:51] pay. At sheriff's facilities, at SBPD
[24:55] stations, and at the offices and homes
[24:58] of elected officials and city
[24:59] administrators. If you truly believe
[25:01] this level of technology is safe for
[25:03] public oversight, you shouldn't have any
[25:05] issue with it outside your own doors.
[25:08] Finally, the Supreme Court decision in
[25:10] Carpenter versus United States in 2018
[25:12] and United States versus Shatry this
[25:15] year are likely to lead to similar
[25:17] outcomes regarding continuous automated
[25:20] surveillance and how it infringes on our
[25:22] constitutional rights. moving forward
[25:24] with this plan to find alternatives uh
[25:27] particularly Axon which has been uh
[25:29] covered much in the news stating how
[25:32] much worse it is than Flock actually um
[25:35] will definitely put the city at risk of
[25:38] serious consequences
[25:40] and to be completely clear I'm not
[25:42] talking about actual guillotines as I
[25:45] read many of you allegedly felt scared
[25:48] by a sign that I had embarrassing I'm
[25:52] talking about civil rights lawsuits. So,
[25:54] make your choice.
[25:57] >> Okay, very good. Next speaker, please.
[26:08] » Final speaker is Aaron Ashland. Aaron
[26:10] Ashland, please go ahead.
[26:14] » Uh, thank you. Uh, I think the timer
[26:17] said two minutes, but I think I get
[26:18] three. But, uh, good afternoon, mayor
[26:20] and council. My main point today is
[26:22] simple. Downtown's challenges are not
[26:24] primarily caused by the State Street
[26:26] prominade and we should focus less on
[26:28] reversing it and more on testing
[26:29] practical pedestrian focused solutions
[26:31] to the real issues people are
[26:32] experiencing. I want to make three quick
[26:34] points. First on downtown tax revenue. A
[26:37] couple weeks ago at a downtown economic
[26:39] forum I heard the tax revenues I heard
[26:41] that tax revenues still haven't
[26:43] recovered to pre-COVID levels. I think
[26:44] that misses some important context. Many
[26:47] of our major downtown tenants were were
[26:48] leaving or had already closed before
[26:50] State Street became a prominade. Those
[26:52] businesses were significant sales tax
[26:54] generators. In many cases, those spaces
[26:56] are now being converted to housing,
[26:57] which simply doesn't produce the same
[26:59] retail tax revenue. So, I don't think
[27:00] it's fair to treat today's revenue as a
[27:02] clean measure of whether the prominade
[27:04] is successful. It reflects much larger
[27:06] long-term changes in retail that were
[27:07] already happening before CO and before
[27:09] the street was closed to cars. Second,
[27:11] on the actual problem or what the actual
[27:13] problem is and what to do about it. When
[27:15] this has come before council, there is
[27:17] at least some agreement from both sides
[27:19] that one of the biggest problems
[27:21] downtown isn't the absence of cars. It's
[27:23] the unsafe behavior of high-speed ebikes
[27:25] and other motorized devices. If that's
[27:27] the issue we agree on, let's test a
[27:29] solution that actually addresses it. One
[27:31] option would be a weekend pilot on
[27:33] Saturdays and Sundays for a month or
[27:34] two. Make State Street pedestrian first
[27:36] by restricting motorized vehicles except
[27:38] those specifically authorized by the
[27:40] city. You could test the whole prominade
[27:41] or even just one or two blocks. Weekends
[27:44] are a good testing window because we
[27:45] wouldn't significantly disrupt people
[27:47] commuting to work and potentially make
[27:48] them late. It gives us the freedom to
[27:50] test the theory in a real but controlled
[27:52] way. Pair it with programming, family
[27:54] activities, youth sports, performances,
[27:56] face painting, and let's see what state
[27:57] feels like when people can walk around
[27:59] without an ebike flying past them at 30
[28:01] mph. M
[28:02] >> third, every time the prominade comes
[28:03] up, we hear from the ArtWalk vendors
[28:05] about how much they're struggling. I
[28:06] believe them. I think their experience
[28:08] raises an important question. They've
[28:10] always had cars driving directly in
[28:11] front of them, and unlike a traditional
[28:13] storefront, their merchandise is
[28:14] literally displayed outside, completely
[28:16] visible to every car passing by or
[28:18] parking in front of them, in some ways
[28:20] to have the best possible version of
[28:21] window shopping from your car argument.
[28:23] So, if the cars really were the key to
[28:25] bringing customers and retail sales
[28:27] downtown, wouldn't the ArtW Walk be
[28:29] thriving, Mr. Mayor?
[28:32] the fact that it suggests we're dealing
[28:33] with something much bigger than whether
[28:35] cars are on State Street. Maybe we
[28:37] should bring the art walk on State
[28:39] Street on Saturday mornings,
[28:40] particularly in the upper, more retail
[28:41] oriented blocks. That could help the
[28:43] artist while creating another reason for
[28:45] people to walk, explore, linger, and
[28:46] shop in an area that could use activity.
[28:49] And finally, I encourage council to pay
[28:50] attention to which organizations are
[28:52] bringing forward ideas to make the
[28:54] prominade work. Groups like Friends of
[28:55] State have focused on programming,
[28:57] activation, and practical ways to
[28:58] support existing businesses. At the same
[29:00] time, I think we need to start asking a
[29:02] difficult question about DSBIA. If an
[29:04] organization is responsible for
[29:05] promoting downtown while also advocating
[29:07] to fund fundamentally change the
[29:09] prominade, there's at least an
[29:10] appearance of conflict. Its success in
[29:13] promoting State Street as it exists
[29:15] today could undermine its own argument
[29:17] for bringing back.
[29:18] >> Thank you. That's that's time
[29:19] >> deserves a closer look. Thank you.
[29:22] >> Thank you.
[29:23] >> Okay. Further speakers? Madam uh clerk?
[29:26] >> No, Mr.
[29:27] >> All right. Very good. With that, we'll
[29:29] close public comment and uh move on to
[29:31] the administrative items. If you read
[29:34] that item in the record, please madam
[29:35] clerk.
[29:36] >> Yes. Item five, certification of the
[29:38] final housing plan program environmental
[29:40] impact report. A recommendation of the
[29:43] council a adopt by reading of title only
[29:45] a resolution of the council of the city
[29:46] of Santa Barbara certifying the final
[29:47] housing plan program environmental
[29:50] impact report SC number 202204209
[29:55] and adopting findings of fact and the
[29:57] mitigation monitoring and reporting
[29:59] program.
[30:01] >> All right, thank you very much and
[30:03] please do the presentation.
[30:10] Good afternoon, Mayor Rouse and council
[30:13] members. My name is Julia Pujo,
[30:15] environmental analyst. Here with me
[30:17] today is Rosie Dy, principal planner.
[30:22] Today, staff are requesting that council
[30:25] adopt a resolution to certify the final
[30:27] housing plan program, EIR, adopt SQA
[30:31] findings of fact, and adopt the
[30:33] mitigation monitoring and reporting
[30:35] program.
[30:37] These actions will complete the SQA
[30:39] process for the final housing plan
[30:41] program EIR and these actions also
[30:45] support program H9 of the housing
[30:47] element.
[30:51] The city prepared a housing plan program
[30:53] EIR that evaluates the impacts of
[30:56] implementing the 32 housing programs
[30:59] within the sixth cycle housing element.
[31:02] This includes ongoing current programs
[31:05] as well as future housing programs. A
[31:09] key assumption is the development of 801
[31:13] housing units which is the city's
[31:16] regional housing need or reena. The EIR
[31:20] analyzes the effects of construction
[31:22] growth and operational impacts.
[31:26] This is a program EIR which is which
[31:28] includes a city-wide environmental
[31:30] analysis of the housing programs and
[31:34] future housing development. Notably, it
[31:37] does not evaluate or approve any
[31:40] particular development project in any
[31:42] particular project site.
[31:45] Uh the EIR identifies feasible
[31:47] mitigation measures and evaluates two
[31:50] alternatives uh in compliance with SQA.
[31:55] A key benefit of the housing plan EIR is
[31:57] that it supports program H9 resource
[32:01] protection and development certainty
[32:03] within the six cycle housing element.
[32:06] Uh, program H9 calls for resource
[32:08] protection, recognizes the need to plan
[32:11] for housing in a way that protects
[32:13] natural and cultural resources, that
[32:16] responds to the climate crisis, and
[32:19] provides certainty for developers.
[32:22] The EIR also identifies mitigation
[32:25] strategies that can be applied to future
[32:27] housing developments.
[32:30] And the EIR provides a streamlining
[32:32] potential for future SQA reviews for
[32:35] housing programs and for future housing
[32:38] development projects.
[32:42] To briefly clarify the difference
[32:44] between the housing element and the
[32:46] housing plan because these terms are
[32:49] sometimes used interchangeably.
[32:51] The housing element refers to the state
[32:54] required policy document that was
[32:56] adopted by the city.
[32:59] Whereas the housing plan is what the EIR
[33:02] refers to which is the collective set of
[33:05] actions required to implement the
[33:08] housing element. This includes municipal
[33:11] code amendments, resolutions, permit
[33:13] streamlining processes
[33:16] and other actions to fully implement the
[33:19] programs in the housing element. the the
[33:21] set of actions is what the EIR
[33:24] evaluates.
[33:28] This slide shows the SQA process. Uh
[33:32] this has been a multi-year process
[33:35] starting with a scoping period where the
[33:37] city notified the public and agencies
[33:41] following an ER analysis was was
[33:44] developed uh with the help of technical
[33:48] consultants and in coordination with
[33:50] multiple city departments as well as
[33:52] other public uh local and regional
[33:55] agencies.
[33:58] Uh earlier this year, the city released
[34:00] the draft uh EIR for a public review
[34:04] period of 45 days between January and
[34:08] March and held a meeting before the
[34:10] planning commission. During the public
[34:13] review period, the city received
[34:15] comments from members of the public,
[34:17] local and state agencies, and from the
[34:20] planning commission, and those comments
[34:21] are within chapter 8 of the EIR. We are
[34:25] currently in the final stages of the EIR
[34:27] process and staff has prepared draft
[34:30] findings and staff is now seeking city
[34:33] council action on the EIR. Uh following
[34:37] city council action, staff will file the
[34:39] appropriate SQA notices.
[34:45] The EIR includes uh the full range of
[34:48] environmental topics required by SQA.
[34:52] Many environmental resource topic areas
[34:54] were found to result in less than
[34:56] significant impacts.
[35:01] Uh six topic areas were found to have
[35:04] impacts that are potentially significant
[35:06] and requiring mitigation. That includes
[35:09] air quality, biological resources,
[35:11] cultural and tribal resources, hazardous
[35:14] materials, noise and utilities and
[35:17] service systems.
[35:20] For all environmental impacts,
[35:22] mitigation was identified that would
[35:24] reduce impacts to a less than
[35:26] significant level and the ER did not
[35:29] identify any significant or unavoidable
[35:32] impacts.
[35:36] SQUA requires that the city make
[35:39] findings for each potentially
[35:41] significant impact and there are three
[35:43] options. The first is that mitigation is
[35:47] feasible and will be adopted.
[35:49] The second option is that another agency
[35:52] is responsible for implementing
[35:54] mitigation. And the third option is that
[35:57] mitigation is not feasible uh
[36:00] potentially for legal, technological
[36:03] uh or economic reasons. If it is found
[36:06] that mitigation is not feasible, a
[36:08] statement of overriding considerations
[36:11] would be required.
[36:13] Uh the staff recommendation is that
[36:16] council finds for each impact that
[36:18] mitigation is feasible and will be
[36:20] adopted.
[36:22] Therefore, no statement of overriding
[36:24] considerations would be required. And
[36:26] these findings are within attachment two
[36:29] of the council agenda report packet.
[36:35] A mitigation monitoring and reporting
[36:38] program also known as a MMRP was
[36:41] prepared consistent with SQA.
[36:45] Uh because this is a program EIR
[36:48] implementation of the MMRP would occur
[36:51] through future city actions including
[36:53] amendments to the municipal code,
[36:55] updates to city environmental guidelines
[36:58] and procedures and standard conditions
[37:01] of approval that would be applied to
[37:03] future development projects.
[37:06] The MMRP identifies the actions required
[37:09] to implement the mitigation measure, the
[37:11] responsible city department timing and
[37:15] monitoring.
[37:17] I want to note that currently many of
[37:19] the mitigation measures in the EIR are
[37:21] being implemented to individual
[37:23] development projects on a case-bycase
[37:26] basis and adoption of the MMRP and
[37:30] implementation will provide uh clear
[37:33] consistent and transparent standards
[37:36] that will help streamline the
[37:37] development process, provide clear
[37:39] direction to developers and continue to
[37:42] protect environmental resources.
[37:45] And once implemented, those requirements
[37:47] will apply to qualifying development
[37:49] projects.
[37:54] Uh I'll briefly
[37:56] provide a highlevel overview of the
[37:58] impacts requiring findings and
[38:00] associated mitigation measures.
[38:03] The ER found that uh potential a
[38:07] potential impact related to construction
[38:09] air quality emissions uh for larger
[38:12] projects and perhaps in the case where
[38:14] multiple projects are in the same area.
[38:18] Uh the analysis was developed in
[38:22] coordination with the air pollution
[38:23] control district and mitigation is was
[38:27] identified that would stand would
[38:29] establish standard construction
[38:30] practices to reduce construction
[38:32] emissions.
[38:37] The ER identified potential impacts to
[38:40] biological resources if housing
[38:43] development were to occur on a site that
[38:45] contained natural habitat, wildlife
[38:47] movement corridors, and sensitive
[38:49] species. This analysis was developed in
[38:52] coordination with California Fish and
[38:53] Wildlife and mitigation was identified
[38:57] that include creek protections, riparian
[39:00] protections, nesting bird surveys, and
[39:02] oak woodland protection.
[39:06] Uh these mitigation would establish
[39:08] requirements
[39:10] uh that would be applied to applicable
[39:13] housing developments.
[39:17] Impacts uh were or potential impacts
[39:20] were identified to historical,
[39:23] archaeological and tribal resources if
[39:25] development were to occur on a site that
[39:27] contained those resources. Mitigation was identified in the EIR
[39:32] that includes historical resource
[39:34] protections, archaeological resource
[39:36] protections, and tribal cultural
[39:39] resource protections. I will also note
[39:41] that this mitigation was largely
[39:44] implemented with the adoption of updated
[39:48] city guidelines for archaeological,
[39:50] tribal, and historic resources and
[39:52] updates to the historic preservation
[39:55] ordinance in 2025.
[40:02] uh impacts related to potential site
[40:04] contamination, groundwater and um soil
[40:08] contamination on sites throughout the
[40:10] city. uh and mitigation was identified
[40:14] that included um environmental site
[40:17] assessments and investigations,
[40:20] remediation measures and risk management
[40:22] measures that would be implemented
[40:24] consistent with the appropriate
[40:27] regulatory agency.
[40:29] This analysis was developed uh with
[40:31] coordination from county environmental
[40:33] health services which is the designated
[40:36] regulatory oversight agency for site
[40:39] contamination in our area.
[40:44] Noise impacts were identified related to
[40:47] construction noise uh in mitigation
[40:50] includes a construction noise management
[40:52] plan and vibration control plan which
[40:54] would be applied to qualifying
[40:55] development projects.
[40:57] Additionally, an impact was identified
[41:00] related to uh projects that could occur
[41:04] in areas where ambient noise levels
[41:06] exceed residential standards. for
[41:09] example, along the highway 101 corridor
[41:13] and uh a mitigation was identified that
[41:16] would include a noise study and site uh
[41:19] based attenuation features that would be
[41:21] incorporated to in the design of
[41:24] development projects in that area.
[41:29] The project or the EIR evaluated impacts
[41:32] to utilities and service systems. The
[41:35] EIR found that existing utility services
[41:38] and infrastructure can accommodate the
[41:41] anticipated increases in demand for
[41:43] water, wastewater, electricity, solid
[41:46] waste and other utilities. However,
[41:48] individual development projects may
[41:50] require new utility connections,
[41:53] upsizing or the replacement of aging
[41:55] infrastructure.
[41:58] Uh mitigation would apply to those
[42:00] scenarios and would include the same
[42:01] measures that were identified for air
[42:03] quality, biological resources, cultural
[42:05] hazardous materials and noise.
[42:12] Two alternatives were analyzed in the ER
[42:14] consistent with the SQA guidelines. This
[42:17] includes a no project alternative. The
[42:20] no project alternative assumes that no
[42:22] action is taken. This would result in
[42:25] less housing being built and would not
[42:28] meet the city's obligation under state
[42:31] housing law.
[42:33] Another alternative was analyzed called
[42:35] the additional housing alternative which
[42:37] assumes a scenario where housing is
[42:40] developed that exceeds the city arena.
[42:43] The alternative does not specify how
[42:47] programs are expanded. It only analyzes
[42:50] the resulting consequences
[42:53] and the alternatives analysis helps
[42:56] demonstrate the relative environmental
[42:58] effects of the housing plan in
[42:59] comparison to the other scenarios.
[43:06] Council's action today requires several
[43:09] SQA findings. And to highlight the key
[43:12] findings,
[43:13] uh, council must find that the EIR is
[43:16] completed in compliance with SQUA, that
[43:19] the EIR reflects the city's independent
[43:22] judgment,
[43:23] that city council has reviewed and
[43:26] considered the information in the final
[43:28] EIR.
[43:30] And also, as a reminder, no significant
[43:33] and unavoidable impacts are identified
[43:35] in the EIR. and staff recommends the
[43:38] finding that for each significant impact
[43:40] feasible mitigation will avoid or reduce
[43:43] the impact
[43:44] and SQA also requires the adoption of a
[43:47] mitigation monitoring and reporting
[43:49] program.
[43:53] Uh to summarize the final EIR provides a
[43:56] citywide environmental framework for
[43:58] implementing program H9 resource
[44:00] protection and develop development
[44:03] certainty. It identifies feasible
[44:05] mitigation for potentially significant
[44:07] impacts and no significant and
[44:10] unavoidable impacts are identified. Uh
[44:13] the staff recommendation is that staff
[44:15] is that council adopt a resolution to
[44:18] certify the final housing plan program
[44:20] EIR adopt SQA findings of fact and adopt
[44:22] the MMRP.
[44:25] That concludes staff's presentation and
[44:27] we are available for questions. Thank
[44:29] you.
[44:30] >> Thank you very much. Um I have no
[44:32] speaker slips to this item. Madam clerk,
[44:34] are there any raised hands online?
[44:40] » No, Mr. May.
[44:41] >> Okay, very good. So with that, we will
[44:42] then go we'll close public comment and
[44:44] go to council for questions and
[44:46] comments. Miss Snen,
[44:49] >> thank you. Mayor Rose,
[44:50] >> round of questions first, I should say,
[44:51] then we'll do deliberations.
[44:52] >> Okay, questions. Thank you. Um, so and
[44:55] thank you for the pre-briefings on this
[44:57] as well. Appreciate that. So I I have
[44:59] some I guess my questions are series of
[45:02] questions that can all be handled
[45:03] together but it's more about um the
[45:06] holistic larger scale
[45:10] uh picture um and how this impacts so
[45:13] specific things
[45:15] um wastewater evacuation routes I mean I
[45:20] know these aren't individual projects
[45:21] that are being um approved but the the
[45:25] larger picture traffic water needs needs
[45:28] um particularly
[45:30] fire response in say um the upper state
[45:34] area if that gets redeveloped as it's
[45:38] planning to be with a very large project
[45:41] will we have the funds necessary or the
[45:44] development fees high enough to be able
[45:46] to build a new fire station there to
[45:48] meet those needs that kind of thing. Um,
[45:52] another question about um biodiversity
[45:55] mitigations if if that could be built
[45:58] into this and um you know busing needs,
[46:03] things like that. things that uh on
[46:05] larger scales might have impacts that my
[46:08] concern is that if we approve this then
[46:12] we're saying that that large scale need
[46:15] is met and that there if we're just
[46:18] looking at individual projects past that
[46:20] we'll have missed our opportunity to to
[46:23] weigh in on some of those um
[46:26] particularly development fees and a fire
[46:29] station. And then it was noted in the
[46:32] planning commission to um to heagis you
[46:36] know when it when it closes which it's
[46:39] you know scheduled to close ahead of
[46:41] when we had hoped um are we prepared for
[46:45] the environmental impacts of whatever
[46:47] that next part of the plan is. So I
[46:50] guess my question is with with large
[46:54] holistic picture things like that if we
[46:57] do a blanket and maybe that's not the
[47:00] right term but if we do a um approval of
[47:02] this now for implementing our whole plan
[47:05] does that take away our ability in the
[47:09] big picture to be able to mitigate for
[47:12] those in the future
[47:16] » council member Snetted and I'll uh I'll
[47:19] try too. It's a multi-art question. Um,
[47:24] regarding impacts to
[47:28] wastewater evacuation, things like that.
[47:32] The EIR is at a citywide level and it
[47:36] assumes that projects are consistent
[47:39] with the general plan, that they're
[47:41] consistent with the housing programs,
[47:43] consistent with the zoning. um it
[47:45] doesn't necessarily exempt them from
[47:48] further screening. Uh and so if there is
[47:52] a project that say is not consistent
[47:55] with those items, um then they'll be
[47:58] continued they'll continue to be subject
[48:00] to further squa review.
[48:04] Uh the house the housing plan EI found
[48:06] that fire services were acceptable or
[48:10] are acceptable with the amount of
[48:12] growth. It does not analyze developers
[48:15] fees specifically. That's an economic
[48:18] consideration that is outside of the
[48:21] scope of the EIR and SQUA.
[48:24] Um it is mainly looking at the physical
[48:27] impacts of do we need to identify a new
[48:31] site for a fire station. Um that type of
[48:34] thing but not necessarily how to fund
[48:37] it. But um the ER did find that fire ser
[48:40] the existing level of fire service could
[48:42] accommodate the growth um as currently
[48:45] planned in the housing plans.
[48:47] Uh,
[48:49] regarding Tahiguas, uh, we've been in
[48:52] contact with county staff who are
[48:54] managing um, that project. And so, as I
[48:58] understand, the the county is looking at
[49:00] several alternatives on Tiguis, but they
[49:03] have not yet released what those
[49:05] alternatives are and what the plan is.
[49:07] Uh, but we'll stay in close coordination
[49:10] with that.
[49:11] Um, and if I could just add something to
[49:14] some of the things you mentioned,
[49:15] specifically evacuation um, planning, we
[49:19] are um, you actually um, authorized an
[49:21] update to our safety element. And so
[49:23] that's a great place to look at these
[49:26] things holistically. Um, and we are
[49:28] actually by state law need to look at
[49:30] our evacuation routes and locations and
[49:32] planning.
[49:33] >> So that's that's coming up. So, so I
[49:37] guess as a followup, like if I if I
[49:40] didn't believe that the existing fire
[49:43] services could accommodate 8,000 more
[49:47] units,
[49:49] um, would it be appropriate then for me
[49:51] to not be able to find these findings
[50:02] hypothetically?
[50:06] Are we clear?
[50:18] » Uh, Council Member Snettin, uh, the the
[50:20] finding would need to be supported by
[50:22] substantial evidence such as an expert
[50:25] opinion or a technical report. Uh, and
[50:30] if you if there was that that finding or
[50:33] evidence within substantial evidence,
[50:36] then you would be able to make that
[50:38] finding if you chose.
[50:40] >> Okay. And if those reports are being
[50:43] developed now and we haven't seen them
[50:46] yet, um,
[50:48] >> well, I'll leave I'll leave it at that.
[50:50] Thank Thank you.
[50:53] >> Further questions?
[50:55] I had one kind of a follow up on Miss
[50:57] one of Miss Netton's comments about the
[50:59] EI and you mentioned of course schools
[51:01] as part of the SQL process. It brings to
[51:04] mind uh what we've already was approved
[51:06] on cycle which was the 1900 units in
[51:08] Lumbra Plaza property and I noticed that
[51:12] the uh some from well I'll say feedback
[51:16] be polite about it from the hope school
[51:17] district because obviously they'd be
[51:19] overwhelmed by that. So, how does that
[51:21] square? How do we place that much
[51:24] population out there? Not knowing what
[51:26] the percent of school age children are
[51:27] going to be, of course. How does that
[51:29] square with this process and do we have
[51:32] to revisit that when it comes to this
[51:35] element?
[51:37] >> Mayor Rouse, good question. Uh, so
[51:40] unfortunately the the scope of SQA is
[51:42] quite narrow in that regard. The impact
[51:45] is focused more on is there appropriate
[51:49] school sighting and then would the
[51:51] construction of a new school uh result
[51:54] in physical impacts as opposed to more
[51:57] administrative or economic impacts of
[52:00] increased enrollment.
[52:02] Uh the the analysis in the EIR found
[52:06] that across the city individual schools
[52:10] have individual capacity.
[52:12] uh when we look at it holistically
[52:15] and so uh that found that no uh
[52:18] alternative school site would be needed
[52:21] and um no construction in that in terms
[52:23] of resulting in environmental
[52:25] [clears throat] impacts. Um
[52:29] the economic side of it is not covered
[52:32] in the scope of SQUA. Um and so that is
[52:36] outside the purview of the EI. No, thank
[52:39] No, I mean I I I get that part, but as
[52:41] you look at the number one, there's
[52:43] obviously no suitable site for a new
[52:45] school to be built, nor would there be
[52:47] foreseeable funding to build a brand new
[52:49] school. But the other side of the coin
[52:50] is if you look at the the enrollment of
[52:53] Hope School District now and the
[52:55] anticipated extra population, it doesn't really match up without some
[52:59] kind of strange interd district, you
[53:02] know, transit system or doing whatever
[53:04] we would have to do. So it just it just
[53:06] seems anothetical to the idea of sequent
[53:09] trying to not have people transit as far
[53:12] to go to their shopping work schools
[53:14] that kind of thing. So I don't know just
[53:16] I know that you don't have that answer
[53:18] but I'm just kind of curious about the
[53:20] whole process itself.
[53:22] Mr. Freriedman.
[53:25] >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. Just kind of a
[53:26] followup. I appreciate my colleagues
[53:29] questions but so first I want to ask
[53:31] what happens if we don't pass this
[53:32] today?
[53:35] Uh, council member Freeman, I believe
[53:37] the options are to continue or to deny
[53:42] the not certify the EIR. So, I believe
[53:45] that means nothing happens. The the
[53:47] mitigation measures would not be
[53:49] adopted. We would not move forward with
[53:51] those um conditions or programs in the
[53:54] MMRP. And I I believe and staff can
[53:57] correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that
[53:58] then each individual program would have
[54:00] to go through comprehensive
[54:02] environmental review uh which would
[54:04] result in great expense and some of
[54:05] those are city initiated programs. So
[54:07] the city would then have to take on uh
[54:10] additional expense to do that individual
[54:12] environmental review for each program or
[54:14] um element of the housing plan.
[54:17] >> And and that's for each one of those. So
[54:20] we would have a using our current staff.
[54:22] So we would on top of everything else
[54:24] we're doing and this would streamline
[54:27] some of these projects so that
[54:31] the so when these projects come forward
[54:33] they don't have to come back through it.
[54:34] So the question I have is if we didn't
[54:37] approve this today, so there was a
[54:39] majority that based on the issues that
[54:42] were raised today didn't go forward with
[54:43] it.
[54:45] Then how would that in terms of trying
[54:49] to meet our housing production numbers?
[54:52] If we now have to have our staff, we
[54:55] would then have to have our staff go
[54:56] through and do each one of these
[54:58] programs. Would that potentially delay
[55:00] new housing development because they
[55:03] would want to wait until we've done all
[55:04] this or what would happen because that
[55:07] could take a number of years, right, to go through all these individually and
[55:12] then if in that time what happens to
[55:16] projects that want to go through but we
[55:18] haven't done the work yet because we
[55:19] have to sign staff or get consultants to
[55:21] come out and and do all that.
[55:26] Um, Council Member Freriedman, I'll I'll
[55:28] try to address at least the programs
[55:30] part of it. So, so far we've done um a
[55:33] couple of programs already like adaptive
[55:34] reuse and most of them have been
[55:36] ordinance amendments and because this
[55:38] wasn't completed yet. Uh, we had to do a
[55:42] sequ. Luckily, those have been um
[55:45] qualified for a notice for exemption.
[55:47] So, it hasn't been too ownorous to do
[55:50] that. There's upcoming programs. I can't
[55:52] guarantee they would all be exempt from
[55:54] SQA. They'd probably have. So that's
[55:56] it's hard to know ahead of time um for
[55:58] the future ordinance amendments or other
[55:59] program implementation
[56:02] how much extra time it would add.
[56:04] Housing production is kind of since this
[56:08] new housing element was adopted has been
[56:10] pretty steady. Um but we're just, you
[56:13] know, we there's always a lag because we
[56:15] have all these programs. It takes us a
[56:16] while to adopt each one and we're hoping
[56:19] the production numbers will go up, but
[56:22] for now they've been about, you know,
[56:24] 200 or so building permits a year. Um,
[56:26] that's been pretty steady. Um, the
[56:28] second part was about the actual housing
[56:31] itself. So, a lot of housing projects
[56:33] are exempt from SQA. Julia can probably
[56:35] address this better than me. So, some of
[56:38] them will keep going. Um, but I think
[56:40] there are projects that do trigger squa
[56:42] where they could get caught up and it'll
[56:44] take longer. Does that sound
[56:57] Uh, council member Freeman, that's
[56:59] correct. There are a number of
[57:01] applications in the process where SQA is
[57:04] already underway for those particular
[57:06] applications.
[57:07] Uh there's a number of concern is
[57:09] there's a number of sites especially in
[57:12] the downtown and the waterfront area
[57:13] that have site contamination
[57:16] where the SQA guidelines specify that an
[57:19] exemption cannot be used. And so an
[57:22] option for those sites would be to tier
[57:25] off of the housing plan EI if it were
[57:28] certified
[57:31] otherwise they would need to go through
[57:32] their own individual SQL process. So
[57:34] help me understand that that point. A
[57:38] site with contaminated
[57:41] with some type of contamination
[57:43] would have I want to word this correctly
[57:47] would be able to use this but at the
[57:48] same time how would we get the level of
[57:51] certainty that we're remediating and
[57:53] addressing those types of impacts?
[57:57] >> Uh Council Member Frerieden. Uh, so the red dots on this map, and I
[58:01] understand it's kind of small and hard
[58:03] to see, but those are Cortezy list
[58:05] sites. There's about there's over 400 of
[58:07] them in the city of Santa Barbara. And
[58:10] the squa guidelines specify that an
[58:14] exemption cannot be used on a parcel
[58:16] that contains um one of these red dots.
[58:20] Uh, the procedures are already in place.
[58:22] Those sites are regulated by state
[58:24] agencies, by the water board, by the
[58:27] county environmental health services and
[58:30] staff rely staff rely on those agencies
[58:33] pretty heavily to tell them uh for them
[58:36] to tell us rather what measures they
[58:38] need to take to remediate their site.
[58:41] And so during the application review
[58:43] process, there's ongoing coordination.
[58:46] This is something that staff regularly
[58:48] screen for during the development
[58:50] process. And so if a state agency
[58:54] contacts us and recommends a particular
[58:57] investigation or if they recommend
[59:00] particular site measures um or remedial
[59:03] actions then the city in turn makes
[59:06] those conditions of approval for that
[59:10] project. And I'll just also add that um
[59:13] one of the requirements is that each one
[59:15] of the programs or projects that comes
[59:18] through has to go through the the MMRP
[59:20] which is and so for here you can see for
[59:23] example the mitigation is they have to
[59:25] do a phase one and phase two
[59:26] environmental site assessment which
[59:28] would require them to do a survey like
[59:29] are there any former gas stations on the
[59:32] site and if so then they would have
[59:34] potentially have to um do soil sampling
[59:37] and so so each so there's the mitigate
[59:40] they have to still follow all of the
[59:42] mitigations. They don't just get
[59:44] exempted from doing anything to
[59:46] remediate the site. The EIR actually
[59:49] lays out those mitigations that are
[59:50] required for each, you know, when these
[59:53] things come up.
[59:54] >> And so staff staff will review it at the front end of an application and
[59:58] say, "Oh, yeah, this is subject to the hazard and hazardous material
[1:00:03] mitigation remediation program." And so
[1:00:05] they need to follow these steps. So, so
[1:00:08] the the program that we're discussing
[1:00:10] today would still have the protections
[1:00:12] in place for those sites. It's not like
[1:00:13] it would it would reduce it. Okay. And then there would also be the that
[1:00:17] impacts. Thank you. I just wanted the
[1:00:19] clarification of if we decided not to go
[1:00:22] forward with it, uh what the impacts
[1:00:23] would be on our staffing levels, housing
[1:00:25] production, and that. And just a couple
[1:00:27] more followups and it it gets to some of
[1:00:30] the points on
[1:00:32] especially in upper state street where
[1:00:36] so in here we we you discussed earlier
[1:00:39] that it does show that there is adequate
[1:00:42] level of service from fire for fire but
[1:00:44] one of the things that has come up in
[1:00:46] that that neighborhood is there's a fundamental change that could
[1:00:49] take place and it is going citywide too
[1:00:52] but that's going to be one of the first
[1:00:53] areas and downtown as well is as we get
[1:00:57] larger or taller buildings above three
[1:01:01] stories going up five or six or however
[1:01:04] tall they go up in that area
[1:01:06] that it changes how the level of service
[1:01:09] responding for fires is on those types
[1:01:11] of buildings because we have people
[1:01:13] would be living in them that's
[1:01:14] fundamentally different than we are now.
[1:01:15] So if we were to say need another ladder
[1:01:18] truck in that area
[1:01:20] to be able to adequately respond we
[1:01:22] don't have that now. We don't have a
[1:01:23] place to park it up there because the
[1:01:25] only ladder truck is downtown.
[1:01:29] Does this impact and it gets the earlier
[1:01:31] questions, does it impact our ability to
[1:01:34] uh respond? Um do we still have the
[1:01:36] ability to
[1:01:39] are we giving away basically are we
[1:01:40] giving any anything away in terms of
[1:01:42] having a requirement that we that we
[1:01:44] upgrade fire services up there?
[1:01:47] >> Uh council member Freeman, no. the the
[1:01:50] if there is a particular project that
[1:01:53] would require that there's not only SQL
[1:01:54] findings but health and safety findings
[1:01:57] and so uh if there's a project that
[1:02:00] requires that then that project would
[1:02:02] need to address that uh this this
[1:02:06] process allows for streamlining but if
[1:02:08] there are those outlier projects that uh
[1:02:11] do need further types of review or there
[1:02:14] there's considerations that don't line
[1:02:16] up with the assumptions in the EIR then
[1:02:19] those would be addressed um by those
[1:02:21] individual projects.
[1:02:22] >> Okay, perfect. That I just wanted to
[1:02:24] clarify based on some of the earlier
[1:02:26] questions, comments, and then again
[1:02:28] water, wastewater, adequate park, open
[1:02:30] space,
[1:02:32] those still have a path that we can work
[1:02:34] to address those within this. This is
[1:02:36] just having the EIR for these projects
[1:02:38] so that there's a a way for it to go
[1:02:40] forward so it reduces the staff time of
[1:02:42] having to go in and do one of these
[1:02:44] anyways on their own, the programs on
[1:02:46] that. So, okay. Thank you.
[1:02:49] All right. Very good. Further questions
[1:02:51] from council.
[1:02:53] Okay. With that, we'll come back for
[1:02:55] deliberation
[1:02:59] comments. Uh, Miss Sn.
[1:03:02] >> Thank you, Mayor Rouse. I'll just um
[1:03:04] make the comments that I I I I do
[1:03:08] understand and appreciate um how this
[1:03:11] could streamline housing production and appreciate the work on it. And it um
[1:03:17] just for myself I have concerns that in
[1:03:20] the holistic picture
[1:03:22] um there are studies we've not heard
[1:03:25] back yet um the the findings so things
[1:03:28] on fire stations to what the plan is for
[1:03:32] that schools um wastewater mitigations
[1:03:37] and then looking at that map that you
[1:03:39] showed with the green dots and the red
[1:03:41] dots you know all of the mesa was an
[1:03:44] active oil field and that's not flagged
[1:03:47] on there as a large area. So, I'm um
[1:03:52] hesitant to have a a overarching
[1:03:56] holistic um EIR
[1:04:00] um that that exempts things first and
[1:04:03] then goes back to projects. So, um, even
[1:04:07] though I can I can see what the
[1:04:08] streamlining um ability would be, I just
[1:04:11] am hesitant to streamline too far. So,
[1:04:16] um, I'll be voting no on it, but with
[1:04:18] very much appreciation for the work
[1:04:20] that's gone into it and hoping that, um,
[1:04:22] that work would help towards any future
[1:04:25] individual ERS that might make those
[1:04:28] faster.
[1:04:30] >> Miss Herman,
[1:04:31] >> thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, yeah, I
[1:04:33] appreciate those comments. I think I
[1:04:35] have um similar concerns. I just come
[1:04:38] down I think on the other side and and
[1:04:40] for me I I I definitely agree there's um
[1:04:44] some things about a programmatic
[1:04:47] approach just in general I would say
[1:04:50] particularly
[1:04:51] um when we're talking about development
[1:04:53] just with all of the things that we have
[1:04:56] to deal with that seem to be sort of
[1:04:57] taking away our local control any
[1:05:00] programmatic approach um I just have
[1:05:03] this gut reaction that feels like we're
[1:05:05] just continuing in that direction.
[1:05:07] However, um and I know that wasn't that
[1:05:10] wasn't the criticism, but I that was my
[1:05:12] own tangent just there. Um I I think
[1:05:14] there are real questions that we'll need
[1:05:17] to keep our eye on, but generally
[1:05:19] speaking, um you know, we spend so much
[1:05:22] time talking about how we have to
[1:05:24] facilitate housing production and to
[1:05:27] find ways to do that. And one of the
[1:05:30] long-standing concerns is the
[1:05:32] environmental impacts of that housing
[1:05:34] production. And how can we thread the
[1:05:36] needle and do multiple things at once?
[1:05:40] How do we sort of walk and chew gum,
[1:05:42] produce housing, and um do it in a way
[1:05:45] that's reflective of uh the other values
[1:05:47] that we hold so dear. And I think this
[1:05:49] is a step in that direction. So I will
[1:05:52] be supporting it today. I do acknowledge
[1:05:54] um as council member Snedden did there
[1:05:56] are there are real concerns and those
[1:05:58] concerns I think are something that are
[1:06:00] wellounded. I know that you all are
[1:06:03] watching those very closely as well. Um
[1:06:06] but in general I just think this slide
[1:06:08] 17 which is not up but I'm looking at
[1:06:11] it. Sorry. Um, this is where I I think
[1:06:15] it just for us um this makes this plan
[1:06:18] is is the direction that we need to go
[1:06:20] and it's the best of of the alternative.
[1:06:22] So, I'll be supporting it today. Thank
[1:06:24] you,
[1:06:25] >> Mr. Freriedman.
[1:06:26] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you uh to my
[1:06:28] colleagues with robust discussion.
[1:06:31] I I follow where Council Member Harmon
[1:06:33] is is.
[1:06:36] It's important that we do protect
[1:06:39] neighborhoods and we address the issues
[1:06:40] of water, schools, fire safety,
[1:06:42] evacuations
[1:06:44] and there are other means that we need
[1:06:46] to do that other other opportunities
[1:06:48] through there. what this does that that
[1:06:50] doesn't change this by approving it and in fact one of the concerns I have
[1:06:56] is and many people in the community have
[1:06:58] is we keep saying we want to meet our
[1:07:00] housing production numbers and one of
[1:07:04] the reasons is for communities that
[1:07:07] aren't the state has already shown that
[1:07:10] they are being heavy-handed in taking
[1:07:12] away local control and to have the
[1:07:15] ability to analyze these projects
[1:07:19] still have mitigation measures, still
[1:07:21] make sure they're going through the
[1:07:22] process, but at least demonstrate that
[1:07:26] we are doing a good faith effort to
[1:07:28] produce housing.
[1:07:30] That enables us in the long run to to
[1:07:33] show how we've done that to produce the
[1:07:35] housing, not just plan to produce it.
[1:07:37] Those that's the old days. And I would
[1:07:41] have strong concerns if we didn't move
[1:07:43] forward with this today based on what uh
[1:07:46] staff said earlier that our own staff
[1:07:49] would then have to go through and do
[1:07:51] these on an individual basis. A huge
[1:07:53] staff burden that were not budgeted for
[1:07:56] that might actually come out to the
[1:07:57] similar results that we have here. We
[1:08:00] would basically be spending a lot of
[1:08:02] time to get to right where we are here
[1:08:04] today.
[1:08:05] and it's the same staff that's working
[1:08:07] on a lot of other major projects. So,
[1:08:10] um, in terms of moving it forward, we do
[1:08:13] need to keep the eye on on a lot of
[1:08:15] these issues that development is
[1:08:16] causing,
[1:08:18] but uh, at the same time, we're either
[1:08:21] going to move forward with housing
[1:08:22] production where we need it and in
[1:08:24] strategic areas and facilitate that or
[1:08:26] we're not. So, uh, that goes in into
[1:08:29] that, uh, housing production, but also
[1:08:31] the oversight to make sure we're not
[1:08:33] putting, you know, u in areas that we
[1:08:35] don't want it. So, uh, this went through
[1:08:37] the planning commission. Our staff has
[1:08:38] vetted it. It's more in line with what
[1:08:41] the state law is so we can keep local
[1:08:43] control. So, those are the reasons I'm
[1:08:44] voting for it.
[1:08:46] >> Miss Santa Maria,
[1:08:49] >> thank you, Mayor Rouse. Thank you to my
[1:08:50] colleagues. I think you all made some
[1:08:52] excellent points.
[1:08:54] I I'll I'll speak a little bit more
[1:08:56] broadly and then get to this, but when
[1:08:58] we talk about the solutions to the
[1:09:00] housing crisis, I think we can all agree
[1:09:02] there is not just one solution to it
[1:09:04] all. Supply is a really big factor in
[1:09:06] it, but if we don't develop in a
[1:09:09] thoughtful manner, then that can have
[1:09:11] those unintended consequences in our
[1:09:12] neighborhoods, similar to what mayor
[1:09:14] prompts that and me or some of those
[1:09:16] that she mentioned. Um,
[1:09:19] I'll cut right to the chase and say I
[1:09:21] I'm inclined to support this, but with a
[1:09:24] lot of hesitation to be honest, because
[1:09:27] we are essentially voting
[1:09:31] on information that we don't fully have
[1:09:34] yet, it seems to me, um, if we don't
[1:09:36] have the, you know, the findings when it
[1:09:39] comes to the the fire safety areas,
[1:09:44] you know, that that is something that
[1:09:46] we're going to have to deal with later.
[1:09:48] And so I I'm I support moving this
[1:09:52] forward given that staff has laid out
[1:09:55] mitigation uh methods and there are
[1:09:58] there do seem to be other avenues of us
[1:10:01] catching these additional consequences
[1:10:04] that may result from development. So I
[1:10:07] will support this. Um, but I I I want to volunteer myself as to to be a
[1:10:15] partner in this to help really keep a
[1:10:18] sharp eye on these developments because,
[1:10:21] as a lot of folks will tell you, when
[1:10:24] you are living right next to a
[1:10:25] development, if that development was not
[1:10:28] thought out and planned with the input
[1:10:30] of the surrounding neighborhood, it is
[1:10:32] going to cause some serious impacts. And
[1:10:34] the people that have, you know,
[1:10:36] purchased or live property right next to
[1:10:38] it, you know, they're like they're going
[1:10:40] to have to suffer the consequences. And
[1:10:42] it's not necessarily just an
[1:10:44] individual's issue, right? If they're
[1:10:46] neighbor, it's also a city-wide issue if
[1:10:48] we are experiencing issues with um you
[1:10:51] know, the other myriad of things. So, I want us to
[1:10:56] in the in the larger scheme of things, I
[1:10:59] would encourage us to think about how do
[1:11:01] we meet developers where they're at so
[1:11:03] that they can develop housing, but not
[1:11:06] at the risk of these neighborhood
[1:11:09] impacts that we can foresee and that we can do something about. And I really
[1:11:14] just want to celebrate staff. you are
[1:11:16] all clearly doing an incredible job
[1:11:18] laying out all of the mitigation the
[1:11:21] ways that you will mitigate some of
[1:11:22] these issues. I just have concerns about
[1:11:25] the parts where we don't have all the
[1:11:26] data yet. Um so I I really just want to
[1:11:30] however I can support in helping keep an
[1:11:32] eye on on things so that when we do have
[1:11:34] that data if we need to make any
[1:11:36] amendments to how we're approaching
[1:11:37] things we can do so. But um thank you to
[1:11:40] our staff for all the work that you're
[1:11:41] doing. Uh I'll I'll be supporting this
[1:11:44] moving forward.
[1:11:46] And council member Sanry, I just want to
[1:11:47] thank you for your comments. You know, I
[1:11:49] think it's very important and you know,
[1:11:51] just to reiterate, staff will every
[1:11:54] application that comes in will receive
[1:11:56] thorough review. And so for those that
[1:11:58] do not have the data that you're
[1:12:01] suggesting, that will be part of the
[1:12:03] that initial review process. So, we
[1:12:04] appreciate the the comments and just
[1:12:06] know that the staff team is very
[1:12:08] thoughtful and you know, these projects
[1:12:10] will still go through comprehensive
[1:12:12] review by our development team. Thank
[1:12:15] you.
[1:12:17] >> All right. Very good. Well, I've rarely
[1:12:18] heard over my years about projects not
[1:12:21] having enough review in this town, but
[1:12:23] it's uh it's really tough because I'm very critical of the whole arena
[1:12:27] process and the way the algorithms work
[1:12:29] and how they get to the numbers they're
[1:12:30] at. I I this there's a lot of hocus
[1:12:33] pocus there, but it is what it is. And
[1:12:34] it's hard because you have a lot of
[1:12:37] conflicting direction from the state of
[1:12:39] California in terms of build this, check
[1:12:42] that, do this, but don't do that. And the local agencies end up paying the
[1:12:46] price in terms of staff time and
[1:12:48] capacity. And these housing almost we
[1:12:51] all went through that not too long ago,
[1:12:53] did we not mistake? Yes. So, um I'll be
[1:12:57] supporting this. Um, but it is hard when
[1:13:00] I look at things like saying, "Well, we
[1:13:02] got to make sure we have the
[1:13:04] infrastructure, we have the schools, we
[1:13:06] have the road capacity. Oh, and by the
[1:13:08] way, we need to build a gazillion units
[1:13:11] on this acre." Um, and boy, is it
[1:13:14] confusing to figure out developers are
[1:13:17] also scratching their heads figuring out
[1:13:19] what is it you want and not you collect,
[1:13:22] you collectively, the state versus the
[1:13:24] city versus all these things. So, uh,
[1:13:26] but now we're also
[1:13:29] kind of rooting for the SQL process in a
[1:13:31] lot of ways. So, it's it's important
[1:13:33] that we have some consistency as much as
[1:13:35] possible even though this is a a broader
[1:13:38] thing. I I say I I like Miss Mackado, I
[1:13:42] have a lot of faith that staff is going
[1:13:44] to be going to have no lack of scrutiny
[1:13:46] when it comes to these projects and how
[1:13:48] they fit in. It is important though I
[1:13:51] think like Miss Santa Maria said is
[1:13:52] about the impacts on neighborhoods the
[1:13:54] impacts of the sanctity of a
[1:13:56] neighborhood as it respects density
[1:13:59] parking schools the whole thing that
[1:14:02] stuff is still really really important I
[1:14:04] think it gets shoved under the bus for
[1:14:05] the desire to build housing and if an
[1:14:07] item from time to time so uh very
[1:14:11] complex very tough process but I will be
[1:14:14] supporting uh the effort from staff uh
[1:14:17] are there any further comments Or should
[1:14:19] we go to a motion?
[1:14:23] >> I'll move staff recommendation.
[1:14:24] >> Moved by Harmon.
[1:14:26] >> Second.
[1:14:26] by Santa Maria. May we have the
[1:14:28] vote, please, Madam Clerk?
[1:14:34] » Yes. This is a motion for the
[1:14:36] recommended action for item five. Motion
[1:14:38] by Council Member Harmon, seconded by
[1:14:40] Council Member Santa Maria. Please go
[1:14:42] ahead and vote.
[1:14:52] passes uh 5 to1. Miss Sneden voting in
[1:14:56] opposition, Mr. Jordan absent.
[1:14:59] All right, very good. Thank you. Uh with
[1:15:02] that, we will move on to any committee
[1:15:03] assignment reports. Anybody have one
[1:15:05] from the gallery here,
[1:15:10] Miss Ned?
[1:15:15] Sorry, I just lost my list. Uh, come
[1:15:17] back to me. Thank
[1:15:22] » Oh, you don't? Okay, I'm sorry. Mr.
[1:15:23] Freeman,
[1:15:26] >> I just want to thank all the volunteers
[1:15:28] and all the families that participated
[1:15:31] in Fiesta this year. It was a great
[1:15:33] year. There was there was expansion out
[1:15:35] into Coast Village Road and Galita and
[1:15:37] more of an effort. I know my colleagues,
[1:15:39] we all enjoyed going to the different
[1:15:40] ones. So, it was a great time in Santa
[1:15:42] Barbara to show what we were about the
[1:15:43] community and again just wanted to thank
[1:15:45] everybody for making this year's fiesta
[1:15:47] successful and all the events. Look
[1:15:49] forward to next year's.
[1:15:50] >> Thank you, Miss Schmid.
[1:15:51] >> Thank you, Mayor Ross. Um, so I'd like
[1:15:53] to congratulate Linda Crop on her
[1:15:55] congressional woman of the year. Um, we
[1:15:58] did hold a sustainability council
[1:16:00] committee meeting and heard about uh the
[1:16:02] better building um proposals that we'll
[1:16:04] be hearing about um in our joint
[1:16:06] planning commission meeting. And I also
[1:16:09] attended at the um CEC the climate
[1:16:11] Fridays where um Aleia Prento gave a
[1:16:15] fabulous presentation on the better
[1:16:17] building and was able to um work with
[1:16:19] the community answering questions. Um
[1:16:22] the Museum of Contemporary Art, there is
[1:16:24] a show up now that was put on by um
[1:16:27] Sunun the Space. Um it's an indigenous
[1:16:29] art show. It's up all week. Um really encourage people to go see that.
[1:16:34] And then at neighborhood advisory
[1:16:37] committee um the committee heard about
[1:16:40] or council heard about um residential
[1:16:44] permitting and some sort of the pros and
[1:16:46] cons of that.
[1:16:48] >> Thank you. Uh big shout out to whoever
[1:16:51] cleaned up day plasma was back. Is that
[1:16:53] parks and wreck?
[1:16:55] >> It is uh maintenance staff parks and
[1:16:57] wreck. It's a combination of a whole
[1:16:58] host of team.
[1:16:59] >> I want those people in my garage for
[1:17:00] sure. That was amazing. By the time I
[1:17:02] got here Monday, it was like nothing had
[1:17:04] ever happened.
[1:17:04] >> It's a miracle like how clean Sunday was
[1:17:06] gone quickly. Wow. Pretty amazing. Okay,
[1:17:09] if there are no further comments or
[1:17:11] questions, we will move to a journ.
[1:17:13] >> Thank you.
[1:17:16] >> Yeah, that was at me. I get out there.
[1:17:17] It was like
[1:17:37] » [music]