[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]

Regular City Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript