Agenda packet — Carpinteria City Council, February 14, 2022

City of Carpinteria
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Monday, February 14, 2022
Council Chamber, 5775 Carpinteria Avenue, Carpinteria, CA 93013 *Teleconference Location: Jacksonville River City Downtown Hotel Room # 1233, 245 Water Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202
5:30 p.m. Regular Meeting
In-Person and Virtual Participation Options
*Amended Agenda
IN RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNOR’S ISSUANCE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER N-07-21, WHICH FORMALLY RESCINDED CALIFORNIA’S STAY-AT-HOME ORDER ISSUED LAST IN MARCH 2020, EXECUTIVE ORDER N-08-21, AND SANTA BARBARA COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER ORDER 2021-10.3,
THE CITY OF CARPINTERIA HAS MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE BOTH INPERSON AND VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR THIS MEETING.

To minimize the potential spread of the COVID-19 virus, the County of Santa Barbara is requiring all individuals to wear face coverings while inside City Council Chambers, regardless of vaccination status.

Attendance/Viewing Options:
• Attend the in-person meeting in City Council Chambers at City Hall (5775 Carpinteria Ave.) Please note that, per Health Officer Order 2021-10.3, the County of Santa Barbara requires all individuals to wear face coverings while indoors, regardless of vaccination status.
• View the meeting live through the City’s website (https://carpinteria.ca.us/cityhall/agendas-meetings) on your computer, tablet or smartphone. • View the meeting on Government Access Television Channel 21 (broadcast live and rebroadcast on the Wednesday and the Saturday following the meeting at 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., respectively).
• Call 669-900-9128 (and enter Webinar ID 889 0390 2262) to listen to the meeting on your phone.
• Join the City’s Zoom webinar from your computer, tablet, or smartphone by CLICKING HERE. Alternatively, you can join the Zoom webinar by logging on to www.zoom.us, downloading the application, selecting "Join Meeting", and entering Webinar ID 889 0390 2262.

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
February 14, 2022

Page 2 ends

Public Comments
• Provide a live public comment during the in-person meeting in City Council Chambers at City Hall (5775 Carpinteria Ave.). Please note the City has the discretion to limit both the overall and individual speaker time for any meeting or agenda matter. Typically, the Council’s practice has been to limit each speaker to three minutes.
• Coordinate with the City Clerk to provide a live public comment (as either a general public comment or on a specific agenda item) by phone by sending an email to [email protected] by 12:00 P.M. on the day of the meeting and including the following information in your email: (1) the meeting date and agenda item (number and title) on which you wish to speak, (2) your full name, (3) your call back number and area code. During public comment on the agenda item specified in your email, City staff will make every effort to contact you via your provided telephone number so that you can provide public comment telephonically. Please note the City has the discretion to limit the speaker's time for any meeting or agenda matter. Typically, the practice has been 3 minutes per speaker on each item.
• Provide a live comment through the City’s Zoom webinar platform (through the link provided above). To make public comments through this platform please use the “raise your hand” feature to notify staff that you would like to make a public comment during designated public comment times. Once it is your turn to provide a public comment, staff will unmute your microphone and you will be given a designated amount of time to provide your comment (typically, the practice has been up to 3 minutes per speaker on each item). At the end of your comment, staff will once again mute your microphone.
• Submit a written comment (as either a general public comment or on a specific agenda item) to be distributed to Council Members by 12:00 P.M. on the day of the meeting by either submitting your comment via (1) email to [email protected], or (2) the eComment link on the City's agenda website (https://carpinteria.ca.us/city-hall/agendas-meetings). Please reference the agenda item to which your comment pertains. Note that written comments will not be read into the record during the meeting.

Please note that the City will make every effort to make the meeting accessible virtually; however, if one of the above virtual attendance/viewing or public comment options is unavailable due to technological issues, you are invited to take advantage of one of the other participation options outlined above (including attending and providing public comment in-person in the City Council Chambers). Additional options may be made available at the meeting.

Additionally, as the situation with COVID-19 continues to evolve, the City will provide updates on any changes to this policy as soon as possible. The public is referred to the City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
February 14, 2022

Page 3 ends

City’s website at www.carpinteria.ca.us for the latest COVID-19 policies and information.

The City of Carpinteria thanks you in advance for taking all precautions to prevent spreading the COVID-19 virus.

Also, please note that Spanish interpretation will be available at the in-person meeting (but will not be available through the City’s Zoom webinar).

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INTRODUCTIONS, PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Introduction to Demographic Data Sources.

PUBLIC INFORMATION REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
This may include updates on law enforcement activity within the City from a Sheriff’s Office representative.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
The City Manager will report to the City Council regarding various City and/or community events and/or matters of interest. There will be no City Council discussion except to ask questions or refer matters to staff; and no action will be taken unless listed on a subsequent agenda.

PRESENTATIONS BY CITIZENS / PUBLIC COMMENT
This is a time for public comments on matters not otherwise on the agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. The Public Comment period is limited to 15 minutes and divided among those persons desiring to speak. No person shall speak longer than three minutes; however, the Mayor may establish shorter periods based on the time available and/or the number of persons waiting to speak. Persons wishing to speak on a specific item will be recognized at the time the agenda item is considered. The audiovisual system in the Council Chamber is not available for speaker use during the general Public Comment period.

Please be aware that items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and are normally enacted by one unanimous vote of the Council. If you wish to speak on a consent calendar item, or on a matter scheduled for consideration in a closed session at the end of the agenda, please do so during the Presentations by Citizens/Public Comment portion of the meeting.

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
February 14, 2022

Page 4 ends

The City and the City Council are not responsible for the content of statements made during the public comment period, or the factual accuracy of any such statements.

AGENDA MODIFICATIONS: The City Council may modify the regular agenda by tabling items, adding urgency items to the agenda, or changing the order in which items are considered. Changes to the Consent Calendar are considered at the time the Consent Calendar is considered.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

2. Approve the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of January 24, 2022.

3. Receive and file the Expenditures for the period beginning January 15, 2022 and ending February 4, 2022.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: NONE
PUBLIC HEARING:

4. Adopt Resolution No. 6099, Approving the Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2022-23 through 2026-27.

Recommendation: (1) Adopt Resolution No. 6099, approving the Measure A FiveYear Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2022-23 through 2026-27. (2) Authorize the Public Works Director to submit the Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects to the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments.

Staff Presenter: Brian C. Barrett, Acting City Clerk
a. Staff Report
b. Public Comment
c. City Council Determination
OTHER BUSINESS:

5. Acceptance of the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan.

Recommendation: Accept the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan.

Staff Presenter: Erin Maker, Environmental Program Manager a. Staff Report
b. Public Comment
c. City Council Determination
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
February 14, 2022

Page 5 ends

6. *Award of a Construction Contract in the amount of $2,089,242.00 to construct the Carpinteria Skate Park (Project).
*Recommendation: Defer the decision to allow additional time to analyze the sole bid received.

Staff Presenter: Matt Roberts, Parks, Recreation and Public Facilities Director a. Staff Report
b. Public Comment
c. City Council Determination

7. Response to the 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report, “Pensions in Santa Barbara County Require Vigilance, Balancing Promises and Maintaining Services”.

Recommendation: Approve the letter response to the Grand Jury Report for the City Manager’s signature and transmittal.

Staff Presenter: Dave Durflinger, City Manager
a. Staff Report
b. Public Comment
c. City Council Determination
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: The City Council will discuss local, state and/or federal legislation under consideration and decide whether to direct staff to place a matter(s) on a future City Council agenda for consideration.

TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING THE MONTHLY

MEETING OF THE CARPINTERIA LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

RECONVENE THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

COMMITTEE REPORTS, INQUIRIES AND OTHER MATTERS PRESENTED BY

COUNCILMEMBERS
Informational reports from Councilmember representatives on the committees, commissions and organizations listed below. This is also an opportunity for Councilmembers to request information from staff or seek support from fellow Councilmembers for future agenda items.

1. Representatives to Regional Agencies and Committees
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
February 14, 2022

Page 6 ends

a. Beach Erosion Authority for Clean Oceans and Nourishment (BEACON) (Clark/Alt. Carty)
b. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) (Clark/Alt. Carty) c. Channel Counties Division, League of California Cities (Nomura/Alt. Lee) d. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG)(Clark/Alt.

Nomura)
e. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)(Clark/Alt.

Nomura)
f. Santa Barbara Joint Affordable Housing Task Group (Carty & Alarcon) g. Santa Barbara County Elected Leaders Forum to Address Homelessness (Clark/Alt. Alarcon)
h. Home for Good of Santa Barbara County (Clark/Alt. Alarcon) i. South Coast Youth Safety Partnership (Lee & Alarcon) J. Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) (Nomura/Alt. Goleta) k. Multijurisdictional Solid Waste Task Group (Lee/Alt. Alarcon)

2. Joint and Standing Committees
a. City Council/Economic Vitality Committee (Carty & Lee) b. City Council/Public Safety Committee (Clark & Nomura) c. City Council/School Board Committee (Lee & Alarcon)
d. City Council/Utilities Committee (Lee & Nomura)
e. City Council/First District Supervisor Committee (Lee & Carty) f. City Council Finance/Budget Committee (Carty & Clark) g. Transportation Committee (Lee & Clark)
h. Development Review Committee (Joint Committee membership from City Council, Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board) (CC: Clark & Nomura/Alt. Carty) (PC: Benefield and Callender) (ARB: Reginato and Stein)
i. General Plan and Coastal Plan Update Committee (Joint Committee membership from City Council and Planning Commission) (Clark & Lee) (PC:

Allen/Callender)
j. Public Facility Site Acquisition/Development Committee (Carty & Nomura)

3. Ad Hoc Committees
a. Library Committee (Lee & Alarcon/Alt. Carty)
b. District Elections Committee (Alarcon & Clark)
c. COVID-19 Communications Committee (Clark & Nomura)
d. COVID-19 Recovery Committee (Carty & Lee)
e. Racial Equity and Social Justice Program Planning Committee (Nomura & Alarcon)
f. Harbor Seal Advisory Committee (Clark & Lee)

4. City Representatives on other Committees
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
February 14, 2022

Page 7 ends

a. Community Media Access Center (Gary Dobbins)
b. Santa Barbara Mosquito and Vector Management District (Joe Franken) c. Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (Chuck McQuary) d. County Library Advisory Committee (Gail Marshall)

ATTENDANCE OF COUNCILMEMBERS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held February 28, 2022 at 5:30 p.m.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 755-4403 or the California Relay Service at (866) 735-2929. Notification two business days prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements for accessibility to this meeting.

Materials related to an agenda item submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public review at the City Clerk's Office.

This agenda was posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2022, in the City Clerk's Office, on the City Hall Public Notices Window, and on the Internet.

Demographic Data Sources
City Council Meeting
February 14, 2022
Demographic Data Sources
1 Census Bureau
2 State Demographic Research Unit
Decennial Census
American Community Survey
Estimates
Projections
State Census Data Center
Data in Action Program
Data Tools
& Examples
Data Tools
& Examples
1 Mission of the bureau is to serve as the
nation’s leading provider of quality data about
its people and economy.

Census Bureau
Decennial Census
American Community Survey
Census Bureau
Decennial Census (“Redistricting File”) American Community Survey (“ACS”) Source: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about/acs-and-census.html Every ten years
Counts every person
Shorter set of questions
Official count of the population
Critical data used to provide daily
services, products, and support for
communities
Includes topics not on the Census
Every month, every year
Sample of addresses
Provides information for programs,
economic development, emergency
management, and understanding
local issues and conditions
WHEN
USES
WHAT
August 2021 RELEASE
DATES March 2022
1 Decennial vs American Community Survey
WH0
Census Bureau
1 Decennial Census Self-Response Rates

71.8%

68.5%
Sources:
https://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-sets/decennial-response-rates.html https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/2020-census-self-response-rates-map.html %

69.6% 71.4%

68.2% 69.4%
2020
2010
State County City
Source: https://data.census.gov/
Census Bureau
1 Data Tool #1 - Tables Tab
2000 2010 2020
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2000 2010 2020 2000 2010 2020
13,040
14,194
5,689
5,429 5,473
448
670 721
Census Bureau
1 Data Tool #1 - Tables Tab
2000-2020 Comparison of Decennial Census Data
13,264
Population Housing Units Vacant Units
Source: https://data.census.gov/
Census Bureau
1 Data Tool #2 – City Profile
Source: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0611446 Census Bureau
1 Data Tool #2 – City Profile: Example A
2010
65 years and over - 15.8%
Census Bureau
1 Data Tool #2 – City Profile: Example B
Source: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0611446 65 years and over – 19.2%
18 years and over – 80.5%
Under 18 years – 19.5%
Under 5 years – 5.4%
Census Bureau
1 Data Tool #2 – City Profile: Example C
Source: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0611446 English only – 59.8%
Spanish – 36.7%
Other Indo-European languages – 1.9%
Asian and Pacific Islander languages – 1.6%
Source: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0611446 Census Bureau
1 Data Tool #2 – City Profile: Example D

9.5% 9.7%

13.9% 13.8%

15.3%

16.9%
Source: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0611446 Census Bureau
1 Data Tool #2 – City Profile: Example E
2019
$1,353
2010
Source: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/community-resilience-estimates/data/supplement.html Census Bureau
1 Data Tool #3 – Community Resilience & Equity
Measures social
vulnerability more
accurately and addresses
equity concerns
Community
Resilience Estimates
Equity Supplement
Census Bureau
1 Data Tool #3 – Community Resilience & Equity
Resilience Estimates - County
Goleta
Lompoc
Carpinteria
Source: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/76f53fb6758b49dc87ef47687f9476cf Census Bureau
1 Data Tool #3 – Community Resilience & Equity
Natural, Constr. & Maint.

Food Prep & Serving
County COVID-19 Impact Planning Report
Source: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/76f53fb6758b49dc87ef47687f9476cf Sales
Prod, Trans, & Mtl.

Male
Female
City Participation
Census Bureau
1 City Participation and Implementation
Building Permits New Housing Survey
Boundary & Annexation Survey
Local Update of Census Addresses
Complete County Committees
Redistricting Mapping
Community Garden Grant
Funding of programs and services
Local and Regional Agencies
Data Uses
1 Census Bureau
2 State Demographic Research Unit
Decennial Census
American Community Survey
Estimates
Projections
State Census Data Center
Data in Action Program
Data Tools
& Examples
Data Tools
& Examples

1. Tables Tab

2. City Profile

3. Community Resilience
& Equity
2 Official source of demographic data for state planning and budgeting Annual population estimates & future projections
of population and school enrollment
Research & Analysis
Census Bureau Data, other state agencies
Source: https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/

DATA SOURCES
USES State agencies, departments, local governments,
federal government, school districts, utilities,
the private sector and the public
TIMELINES Varies
State Demographic Research Unit
2000 2010 2020
Official population
estimates of the state,
counties and cities for state
planning and budgeting

ESTIMATES
Source: https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/ 2 State Demographic Research Unit
Data Tool #1 – Estimates
Census
13,264
Census
13,040
Census
14,194
13,133 13,268
14,194
Population - City
2 State Demographic Research Unit
Data Tool #2 – Projections
Source: https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/ Forecasts of population, births
and public school enrollment
at the state and county level
50-yr Horizon
2020 2060

PROJECTIONS
Population - County
448,229
473,067
Demographic, social, economic,
migration, and housing data
• Machine-readable data files
• Customized reports
• Consultations, data analysis,
mapping, and training workshops
Source: https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/State_Census_Data_Center/ Local Network
5 regional and 36
affiliate centers in
California
2 State Demographic Research Unit
Data Tool #3 – Census Data Center
2 State Demographic Research Unit
Data Tool #4 – Data in Action Program
Source: https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Data_In_Action/ “POPULATION
PYRAMID”
Average Annual
Percent Change
2010 to 2060
2 State Demographic Research Unit
Data Tool #4 – Data in Action Program
Source: https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Data_In_Action/ 2000
2060
Santa
Barbara
County
Male Female
“POPULATION
PYRAMID”
2 State Demographic Research Unit
Data Tool #4 – Data in Action Program
1970 2010 2060
Age 20 to 64
Age 0 to 19
Age 65 Plus
Age Distribution - California
“POPULATION
PYRAMID”
1 Census Bureau
2 State Demographic Research Unit
Decennial Census
American Community Survey
Estimates
Projections
State Census Data Center
Data in Action Program
Data Tools
& Examples
Data Tools
& Examples

1. Tables Tab

2. City Profile

3. Community
Resilience & Equity

1. Estimates

2. Projections

3. Census Data Center

4. Data in Action
City of Carpinteria
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
Monday, January 24, 2022
In-Person and Virtual
Acting City Clerk Brian C. Barrett noted for the record that in response to the Governor’s Executive Orders N-07-21 and N-08-21, the City of Carpinteria has made the decision to provide both in-person and virtual attendance and participation options available to the public for this meeting and additionally noted the protocols by which the public could participate and should one of the virtual attendance/viewing or public comment options be unavailable due to technological issues, the public is invited to take advantage of one of the other participation options available.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Nomura called the meeting to order at 4:32 pm.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
There was no public comment.

CLOSED SESSION

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR(S)
Government Code Section 54957.6; City Negotiator(s): Laura Hernandez, Human Resources Administrator and Dave Durflinger, City Manager; Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 620

TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2022

Page 2 ends

Mayor Nomura temporarily adjourned to Closed Session at 4:33 pm.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Nomura called the meeting to order at 5:34 pm.

ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Councilmember Natalia Alarcon
Councilmember Gregg A. Carty
Councilmember Roy Lee
Vice Mayor Al Clark
Mayor Wade T. Nomura
Staff members present: Dave Durflinger, City Manager
Jena Shoaf Acos, on behalf of Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP acting as City Attorney of the City
of Carpinteria
Brian C. Barrett, Acting City Clerk
Michael Ramirez, Assistant City Manager
Olivia Uribe Mutal, Program Manager
John L. Ilasin, Public Works Director
Matt Roberts, Parks, Recreation & Public Facilities
Director
Licette Maldonado, Administrative Services Director

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Manager Durflinger announced that there was no reportable action from the Closed Session.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Nomura led those present in the salute to the flag.

INTRODUCTIONS, PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

2. Proclamation Designating the Month of February 2022 as “Black History Month”.

Speakers via Zoom: Jordan Killebrew on behalf of Healing Justice Santa Barbara Motion by Councilmember Alarcon, seconded by Vice Mayor Clark, to approve the Proclamation Designating the Month of February 2022 as “Black History Month.” The voice vote was as follows:

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2022

Page 3 ends

AYES: Councilmember Alarcon, Councilmember Carty, Councilmember Lee, Vice Mayor Clark, and Mayor Nomura
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Nomura and the City Council virtually presented the proclamation to Mr. Killebrew.

PUBLIC INFORMATION REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Lieutenant Butch Arnoldi with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department provided an update on crime in the City.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Durflinger reported on the City Council Workplan Session held the past Saturday and Program Manager Uribe Mutal provided an update on the COVID-19 pandemic and the Hazard Mitigation Plan.

PRESENTATIONS BY CITIZENS / PUBLIC COMMENT
Emails distributed: Suzan Cluderay and Stephen Meade
There was no oral public comment.

AGENDA MODIFICATIONS: NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR:

Motion by Councilmember Lee, seconded by Vice Mayor Clark, to approve the Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 through 7. The roll call vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmember Alarcon, Councilmember Carty, Councilmember Lee, Vice Mayor Clark, and Mayor Nomura
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried unanimously.

3. Approve the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of January 10, 2022.

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2022

Page 4 ends

4. Receive and file the Expenditures for the period beginning January 1, 2022 and ending January 14, 2022.

5. Receive and file the Contracts executed by the City Manager on behalf of the City for the period of November 16, 2021 through January 17, 2022.

6. Receive and file the Monthly City Treasurer’s Report on Compliance with Statement of Safekeeping and Investment of Public Funds.

7. Receive and file the Quarterly Review of Pension Stabilization Trust.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:

8. Authorization for the City Manager to sign and submit a notice of dispute (“Notice of Dispute”) to the County of Santa Barbara (“County”) Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) disputing the Sheriff’s Office’s recomputation of compensation for fiscal year (“FY”) 2022-23.

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to sign and submit a Notice of Dispute to the County Sheriff’s Office.

City Manager Durflinger and Russ Branson with Russ Branson Consulting presented the staff report. Mr. Branson was present via Zoom.

There was no public comment.

Motion by Councilmember Alarcon, seconded by Vice Mayor Clark, to authorize the City Manager to sign and submit a Notice of Dispute to the County Sheriff’s Office. The roll call vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmember Alarcon, Councilmember Carty, Councilmember Lee, Vice Mayor Clark, and Mayor Nomura
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried unanimously.

9. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement with COM3 Consulting, Inc. for consulting project management services for the Carpinteria Avenue Bridge Replacement Project.

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement with COM3 Consulting, Inc. for consulting project management services for the Carpinteria Avenue Bridge Replacement Project in a not-to-exceed City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2022

Page 5 ends

amount of $21,360, thereby extending the term and increasing the maximum Agreement amount to $156,060. (This motion requires a roll call vote.) Public Works Director Ilasin presented the staff report.

There was no public comment.

Motion by Councilmember Lee, seconded by Councilmember Alarcon, to authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement with COM3 Consulting, Inc. for consulting project management service for the Carpinteria Avenue Bridge Replacement Project in a not-to-exceed amount of $21,360, thereby extending the term and increasing the maximum Agreement amount to $156,060. The roll call vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmember Alarcon, Councilmember Carty, Councilmember Lee, Vice Mayor Clark, and Mayor Nomura
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried unanimously.

10. Resolution No. 6097, approving applications for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to the California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services. (This motion requires a roll call vote.) Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6097, approving applications for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Parks, Recreation & Public Facilities Director Roberts presented the staff report.

There was no public comment.

Motion by Vice Mayor Clark, seconded by Councilmember Lee, to adopt Resolution No. 6097, as read by title only. The roll call vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmember Alarcon, Councilmember Carty, Councilmember Lee, Vice Mayor Clark, and Mayor Nomura
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING:

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2022

Page 6 ends

11. City Council District Maps review, including presentation on three draft plans created by Redistricting Partners for Council review and feedback.

Recommendation: Receive the staff presentation, open the public hearing and receive public comment, close the public hearing, deliberate and provide direction to staff and consultant as determined appropriate, and schedule the next meeting.

City Manager Durflinger, Program Manager Uribe Mutal, and Sophia Garcia with Redistricting Partners presented the staff report. Ms. Garcia was present via Zoom.

Mayor Nomura opened up the public hearing at 7:11 pm.

Emails distributed: Russell Ruiz
Speakers via Zoom: Lisa Guravitz
Mayor Nomura closed the public hearing at 7:12 pm.

Vice Mayor Clark was in favor of a map that uses the freeway as a dividing line and has discrete neighborhoods on each side as well as keeping the beach area as one neighborhood. He presented his map to the Council.

Councilmember Lee was in favor of Draft Plan A with a change to include Sawyer Avenue for District C and remove it from District E.

Mayor Nomura commented that it makes sense to have the freeway as a dividing corridor.

Vice Mayor Clark recommended Draft Map A, but to remove the smaller portion of District E north of the freeway and combine it with District D.

Mayor Nomura requested that Ms. Garcia come back with an amended Draft Map A to remove the smaller portion of District E north of the freeway and combine it with District D for the Council to consider at the next meeting.

Councilmember Alarcon suggested Draft Map A, but preferred removing the smaller portion of District E north of the freeway and combine it with District D. She also suggested Draft Map B even though District E crossed over the freeway, but assumed there could be communities of interest there.

Vice Mayor Clark appreciated Draft Plan B, but did not like District E crossing over the freeway.

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2022

Page 7 ends

Motion by Councilmember Lee, seconded by Councilmember Carty, to receive and file the presentation and public comments received to date. The roll call vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmember Alarcon, Councilmember Carty, Councilmember Lee, Vice Mayor Clark, and Mayor Nomura
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS:

12. Appointments to the Harbor Seal Advisory Committee.

Recommendation: Make appointments to the Harbor Seal Advisory Committee.

Parks, Recreation & Public Facilities Director Roberts presented the staff report.

Emails distributed: Susan Mailheau
There was no oral public comment.

Motion by Councilmember Lee, seconded by Councilmember Carty, to approve those individuals as nominated by Councilmembers Clark and Lee: Andrew Brooks, David Allen, and Susan Mailheau and to also appoint two additional members to the Harbor Seal Advisory Committee as follows: (1) C Kathleen Lord (2) Teri Kay Pulliam. The roll call vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmember Alarcon, Councilmember Carty, Councilmember Lee, Vice Mayor Clark, and Mayor Nomura
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried unanimously.

13. General Fiscal Outlook and General Fund Reserve Policy report related to the City’s update of its Long-Term Financial Plan.

Recommendation: (1) Receive and file the Fiscal Outlook report and (2) Receive the General Fund Reserve Policy report and direct staff, based on the report, to prepare and return with an updated policy for City Council consideration.

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2022

Page 8 ends

Administrative Services Director Maldonado and Consultant Bill Statler presented the staff report.

Vice Mayor Clark asked for clarification if the update to the General Fund Reserve Policy would align with the recommendations presented by the Consultant. Administrative Services Director Maldonado answered affirmatively.

There was no public comment.

Motion by Councilmember Lee, seconded by Vice Mayor Clark, to receive and file the Fiscal Outlook and Reserve Policy reports and direct staff to prepare an updated General Fund Reserve Policy for Council consideration at a future meeting. The roll call vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmember Alarcon, Councilmember Carty, Councilmember Lee, Vice Mayor Clark, and Mayor Nomura
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE:

City Manager Durflinger presented the usual attachments from the League of California Cities.

Councilmember Lee noted that the Santa Barbara Humane Society will be asking the County Board of Supervisors to approve policy changes in July and requested staff look into such policies and support the changes to the Human Society. The Council gave consensus to having staff fulfill Councilmember Lee’s request. City Manager Durflinger clarified that staff will bring back an agenda matter for the Council to consider.

COMMITTEE REPORTS, INQUIRIES AND OTHER MATTERS PRESENTED BY

COUNCILMEMBERS
Councilmember Alarcon reported on the South Coast Youth Safety Partnership meeting she attended where discussion centered on the trend in opioid use specific to fentanyl in the County.

ATTENDANCE OF COUNCILMEMBERS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
All Councilmembers are expected to be in attendance at the next regular City Council meeting of February 14th.

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2022

Page 9 ends

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Nomura adjourned the meeting at 8:42 p.m.
__________________________
Wade T. Nomura, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Brian C. Barrett, Acting City Clerk
City of Carpinteria
Courucu Aceruoe Srarr Reponr
February 14,2022

ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Expenditures for the period beginning January 15, 2022 and ending February 04,2022

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council accept this report concerning the current list of warrants pursuant to Carpinteria Municipal Code 2,08.150(F).

DISCUSSION
As part of each regular City Council agenda, a list of all checks (attached) dispersed since the last reporting period is presented to the City Council pursuant to C.M.C. 2,08.150(F). The report is provided for City Council and public information and serves as Staffs verification that the expenditures have been reviewed and are within budgeted appropriations.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The warrant register included as an attachment is designed to communicate fiscal activity since the prior reporting period. No action is requested as part of this report.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Warrant Register for the period beginning January 15,2022 and ending February 04,2022
Warrant Register
February 14,2022
Page#2
Staff contact: Alexiss Martinez, Accounting Tech.
(805) 7 55-4422, AlexissM @ci. carp i nteria. ca, us
Staff contact: Licette Maldonado, Admin Services D
(805) 7 55-4448, LicetteM@ci. carpinteria. ca. us
Reviewed by: Dave Durflinger, City Manager
(805) 7 55-4400, [email protected]. ca. us
Signature
G : \Ad m i n Services\Staff Report\Staff Re port AP. docx Vendor Number
Payable #
Bank Code: AP Eank-AP Bank
0044709
287303896883X01102022
593278
s93279
rNV00032s8
2tt73
rNV0003256
57927
JAN22 001 3011 022093901
JAN22 001 3011 0284s0702
1NV0003261
1017
7183
03398
JAN22 80s-684-7613-042205-5
Vendor Name
Payable Type Post Date
ACCESS CONTROL SECUR|ry, INC.
lnvoice OLI2O/2022

AT&T MOBILITY
lnvoice 0t/2O/2022

BIG GREEN CLEANING COMPANY
lnvoice 0l/20/2022
lnvoice 0I/20/2022

BUENA VENTURA SWIMMING
lnvoice 0L/20/2022

C & W CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES, INC
lnvoice 0t/20/2022

CHRISTOPHER DEAN
lnvoice 0t/20/2022

COASTAL VIEW NEWS
lnvoice 0L/20/2022

CORMAC O'BRIEN DBA SOUTH COAST ANALYTICS
lnvoice 0L/20/2022
lnvoice 0t/20/2022

COX BUSINESS
lnvoice 0t/20/2022
lnvoice 0t/2O/2022

DALE REDFIELD
lnvoice 0l/20/2022

DAVIS CME
lnvoice 0L/20/2022

EASY LIFT TRANSPORTATION
lnvoice 0L/2O/2022

ENCOMPASS CONSULTANT GROUP, INC
lnvoice 0rl2o/2022

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
lnvoice 0f/20/2022

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
lnvoice 0L/20/2022
lnvoice 0L/20/2022

HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS
lnvoice 0U20/2022

JUAN O'S MOBILE REPAIR
lnvoice 0L/2o/2022
lnvoice 0L/20/2022

LAE ASSOCIATES INC,
lnvoice 0!/20/2022

LEAGUE OF CA CITIES
lnvoice 0I/20/2022
LIN CONSULTING INC.
lnvoice Ot/20/2022

MCA DIRECT
lnvoice OU20/2022

MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE
lnvoice 0L/20/2022

MONICA NESHEIM
lnvoice 0r/20/2022
MOSS, LEVY & HARTZHEIM tLP
Warrant Register
Carpinteria, CA
Date Range: 0L/15/2022 - 02/04/2022
Payment Date
Payable Descrlptlon
Payment Type
0!20/2022 Regular
sEcuRrTY FOR VETS HALL EVENT 12118/21
OU20/2022 Regular
CITY HALL MONTHLY PHONE BILL. DECEMBER 2021
01/20/2022 Regular
JAN22 CONTRACTED JANITORIAL SERVICE-5103 CARP AVE
DEC21 CONTRACTED CLEANING SERVICE-CIry & VETS HALL
01/20/2022
SWIM MEET DUES tt/6 - IT/7/2L
Regular
0r/20/2022 Regular
NEW GUARD RAIL AT THE END OF VIA REAL & HWY 150
0r/20/2022 Regular

EL CARRO RENTAL CANCELLATION
or/20/2022
NOTTCE OF PUBLTC HEARTNG 01/06/22
Regular
0!20/2022 Regular
RAPID COVID TESTING Ulol21, ADDITIONAL RESULTS
RAPTD COVTD TESTTNG v18l21
OL/20/2022 Regular
JAN22.CITY HALTTV & INTERNET SERVIC€S
JAN22-VETS HALL INTERNET SERVICES
0U20/2022 Regular
LTBRARY CONSULTANT SERVTCES 01/02 /2022-0Lh412022
0t/20/2022 Regular
DEC21. PROJECT SERVICES FOR 2021 PAVE. MAINTENANCE
0r/2012022 Regular
JAN22 COMMUNIry TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
0L/20/2022 Regular
DEC2I. ENGINEERING SERV. FOR 2021 CARP PAVE REHAB
0L/20/2022 Regular

PHONE & INTERNET SERVICES FOR LG TOWER & BOATHOUSE
0L/20/2022 Resular
CARP VIA REAL DESIGN SERVICES THROUGH L2/3L/2L
CARP VIA REAL DESIGN SERVICES THROUGH L2/3L/202L
0L/20/2022 Regular
CONTRACT & AUDIT SERVICES - SALES TAX Q3 2O2O
0L/20/2022 Regular
UNIT 322 TEST CHARGING SYSTEM, ALTERNATOR REPAIR
FORK LIFT IGNITION REPLACEMENT UNIT 328
0L/2012022 Regular
DEC21 UPDATE 5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
0112012022 Regular
MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR CHANNEL COUNTIES DIVISION 2022
0U2012022 Regular
DEC21 DESIGN SERVICES FOR CARP X PALM AVE INTERSEC
0L/2012022 Regular

CA MUNICIPAL HANDBOOK & CALENDAR OF EVENTS
0L/20/2022 Regular
MAT REPTACEMENT, UNIFORM CLEANING-12/27121
0L/20/2022 Regular

POOL SPECIAL EVENT SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND
PaymentAmount Number
217.50 100646
2,L50.78 100647
2,L82.00 100648
232.50 100649
12,290.00 100650
453.75 1006s1
150.00 100652
4,680.00 100553
554.34 100654
269.50 100655
72,520.20 100656
1,000.00 1006s7
503.75 100658
144.30 100659
14,570.38 100660
1,134.55 100661
L,28!.27 100662
1,630.00 100663
200.00 L00664
17,677.93 100665
258.18 100666

92.21 100567
200.00 100668
L
z
458200
4s820r.
r479
1482
srN007349
21-960
L754
14530
2022003
516179007
tNV0003262
oL/20/2022 Regular 6,000.00 100669
29628
2EE2
L44397
39016
lnvoice OU2O/2022 AUDITSERVICESTO DATE
OPTONYINC. Ot/20/2022 Re8utar
lnvoice 0L/20/2022 DEC21 PROJECT SERV. FOR Clry HAtL SOLAR ENERGY PACIFIC MATERIALS LABORATORY OL/20/2022 Regular
lnvoice 0!20/2022 SOIL TESTING FOR BLUFFS TRAIL CIP
ROCKWELLPRINTING 0Ll2O/2022 Resular
lnvoice 01/20/2022 CIW OF CARP LOGO ENVELOPES, PRTNTED FULI COLOR SANTA BARBARA PEST CONTROL 0Ll2O/2022 Regular
lnvoice 0t120/2022 DEC21 PEST CONTROL AT C|TY HALL
lnvoice 0L/2O/2022 DEC21 PEST CONTROL AT VETS HALI
SANTA BARBARA SAND & TOP SOILCORP Ot/2012022 Regular
lnvoice OL/20/2022 SAND FOR SAND BAGS AT PUBLIC WORKS YARD SHOWSCAPES 0L/20/2022 Regular
lnvoice 0t/20/2022 JAN22 LANDSCAPE SERVTCES THROUGHOUT CtTy SO CA EDISON 0Ll2O/2022 Regular
lnvoice 0L120/2022 ELECTRICIry-4683 gTH ST
SOLID WASTE SOLUTIONS INC 0L/20/2022 Resular
lnvoice 0I/2012022 ANNUAL REPORT PREP & CALRECYCLE GRANT REPORT UNDERGROUNDSERVICEALERTOFSOUTHERN CALIFOOI,/20/2022 Regular lnvoice 0L/20/2022 JAN22 NEW TICKET CHARGES & DATABASE MATNTENANCE lnvoice 0L/20/2022 JAN22 CA STATE FEE FOR REGULATORY COSTS WAXIESANITARYSUPPLY 0t12012022 Regular
lnvolce 0!2012022 HAND SANITIZER, ROLLS, BUCKETS, GERMtCtDAt BOWL WOOD ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTION 0L/20/2022 Regular lnvoice 0L120/2022 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN THROUGH rO/Or/ZOZr ZWORLD GIS 0r/20/2022 Regular
lnvoice 0L/20/2022 MAPPING/GISSERVICE
SEIU tOCAt 620 0L/27/2022 Regular
lnvoice Otl27/2022 Employee Union Oues Contribution
UNITED WAY OF SANTA BARBARA COUNW 0L/27/2022 Regular
lnvoice Ol/27/2O22 Employee United Way Contribuilon
VANTAGEPOI NT TRANSFER AGENTS - 457 0t/2il2022 Resular
lnvoice 0L/27/2O22 ICMA Employee Contributions
lnvoice 0L127/2022 ICMA Employee Contribuilons
lnvoice 0L/27/2022 Deferred Compensation Contribution
ANIMAL MEDICAL CLINIC 0I/27/2022 Regutar
lnvoice OU27/2022 DEC21 CONTRACTED VET SERVTCES
lnvoice Ot/2712022 DEC21 DOG IICENSING ISSUANCE
COASTALVIEW NEWS 0L/27/2022 Regular
lnvoice 0t/27/2022 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE D|STR|CT ELECTTONS O1l13/22 lnvoice 0L/27/2022 ANNUAL WORK PLAN MEETING ADVERTTSTNG 0U13l22 lnvoice 0U27/2022 AD FOR DISTRICT ELECTION DRAFT M APSOL/20/22 lnvoice OL/27/2022 REDISTRICTING ELECTIONS AD 01/20122
lnvoice 07/27/2022 CITY WORK PLAN MEETING ADVERTISEMENT O1l20l22 GRACENOTE 0L/27/2022 Regular
lnvoice 0l/2712022 JAN22 LISTING DISTRIBUTION SERVTCES
GRANICUS 0L/27/2022 Regular
lnvoice 0tl77/2022 FORM 700 PROCESSING SOFTWARE
LOWE'S 0l/2il2022 Resular
IOWE'S 0L/2il2022 Regular
lnvoice 0L127/2022 TRASH PICK UP TOOL FOR PARKS
SANTA BARBARA BICYCLE COALITION 0I/27/2022 Regular
lnvoice 0t127/2022 202L-2O22SAFE ROUTESTOSCHOOTSERVTCE
SANTA BARBARA COUNry, SHERIFF'S DEPT 0t/27/2022 Regular SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, SHERIFF'S DEPT 0t/27/2022 Regular lnvoice Ot/2712022 DEC21 CONTRACTED LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVTCES lnvoice OU27/2022 JAN22 CONTRACTED tAW ENFORCEMENTSERVTCES TWO TRUMPETS COMMUNICATIONS 0t/27/2022 Regular
lnvoice 0L12712022 NOV21 COMMUNICATIONS SERVTCES
lnvoice 0I/27/2022 DEC2I COMMUNICAT|ONS SERVICES
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, SHERIFF'S DEPT 0L/27/2022 Regular 1,82s,00 100670
6,690.00 100671
685.39 700672
120.00 100673
541.07 t00674
18,500.00 100675

15.88 100675
3,486.25 L00677
2L5.28 100678
904.30 100679
10s.00 100680
2,s00.00 100681
244.87 100582

24.00 100683
4,687.26 100684
1,545,00 100685
1,730.00 100686
7L.3r 100587
2,996.66 100688
(4s.26) 100689

45.26 100589
7,000.00 100690
185
!9t472
38829535
JAN22 700474689651
12202101"48
05820206382
80556114
ss8582837
20r"0323
rNV0003287
tNV0003288
rNV0003278
rNV0003280
rNV0003281
u9547
L40548
303892
303897
57943
57945
57958
57959
57960
9747077735
L47362
3380s8478
I175
1363
1376
(763,722.00l,
763,722.00
100691
100591
11,100.00 100692
1198
L202
381,861.00 100693
1363-2
rNV0003296
lnvoice 0L127/2022

AMY BTAKEMORE
lnvoice 02/03/2022

A-OK POWER EQUIPMENT
lnvoice 0210312022
lnvoice 02/03/2022
DEC2l CONTRACTED TAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE (CORRECT)
02/03/2022 Regular
ARCHTTECTURAL REVTEW BOARD-MEETtNGS 10/14 - 12116
02/03/2022 Resular

PRE MIX CASE, SHARPENING TOOL

CHAIN SAW FITES & POWER HEDGER
02/03/2022
JAN22 MONTHLY FSA ADMIN FEE
Regular
02/03/2022 Regular
DESIGN SERVICES FOR RINCON TRAIL THROUGH T2I3LI2T
02/03/2022 Regular
.JAN22 CONTRACTED CLEANING SERVICE.PUBLIC RESTROOMS
02/03/2022 Regular
ARCHTTECTURAT REVTEW BOARD-MEETtNGS 10/14 - 12116
02/03/2022 Regular
DEC21 FINGERPRINT APPTICATIONS
02/0312022 Regular
DEC21 CARPINTERIA FEMA CRS APPTICATION
DEC2l INSPECTIONS FOR 4285 CARP SANCTUARY BEACH
DECzl CONSTRUCT OBSERVATIONS FOR CARP CSD OFFICE
DEC21 PLAN CHECKS FOR FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH
02/0312022 Resular
CANON 5760 & CANON 5275 PRINTERS AT C.H. LEASE
02/03/2022 Resular
2ND QUARTER FY21.22 RENTAL HOUSING MEDIATION
0U03/2022 Regular
ADVERTISING OF SHORELINE PUBLIC MEETING OVOSI22
DISPLAY ADVERTISING ABOP O1106/22
SUMMARY ADOPTED ORDTNANCE 750 AD 0L/L3/22
02/03/2022 Regular
DECEMBER 2O21.ONLINE ACCESS TO CITATION PROCESSING
02/0312022 Regular
PLANNTNG COMMTSSTON MEETTNGS L0/04/2r - t2lO6/2L
02/03/2022 Regular
OCT-DEC21 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR RINCON MULTI
02/03/2022 Regular
DEC21 INSPECTION SERVICES FOR CARP PAVE REHAB PROJ
02/03/2022 Regular
CARP VIA REAL DESIGN SERVICES THROUGH LO/3L/2OZL
CARP VtA REAL DESTGN SERVTCES THROUGH L!30/202!
02/03/2022 Regular
INITIATIVE MEASURE FOR 2022 ELECTION
02/03/2022 Regular
PTANNtNG COMMTSSTON MEETtNGS 10/0412r - n/06/2L
02/03/2022
DECz1 PREMIUMS
Regular
02/03/2022 Retular

NEW ACCOUNTS PROCESSED, RENEWAIS MAILED
02/03/2022 Regular

ANNUAT WORK PLAN MEETING & PUBLIC WORKS MEETING
02/03/2022 Regular
PLANNTNG COMM TSSTON MEETTNGS L0/04 /2L - L2/06/2t
02/0312022 Regular
ARCHTTECTURAL REVTEW BOARD-MEETtNGS 10/14 - 12115
02/03/2022 Regular
ARCHITECTURAL REVTEW BOARD-MEETtNGS 10/14 - 12116
02/03/2022 Regular
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS IO/O4I2L
02/03/2022 Resular
pTANNTNG COMMTSSTON M EETt NGS t0/04 /2L - t2/O6/2t
629455
630727
100.00 100694
283.01 100695
104.50 100695
38,74r.40 L00697
4,946,00 100698

50.00 100599

32.00 100700
1,558.00 100701
r,249.52 L00702
4,088.50 100703
1,084.00 100704
200.00 10070s
120.00 100706
36,961.95 100707
2,862.50 100708
24,770.07 100709
660.00 100710
120.00 1007L1
7,330.40 L007L2
615.00 100713
539.13 100714
120.00 10071s
100.00 100716
100.00 t007r7

60.00 100718
BASIC
tN2274976 lnvoice
4708
593285
rNV0003294
555504
78905
79r3t
79L36
79L37
2794892r
rNV0003306
57916
57923
57944
133164
rNV0003301
202110515
830860
452885
457009
4788
tNV0003300
DEC21 PR€MIUMS
5tN014038
0t/22/22
rNV0003299
tNV0003293
1NV000329s
rNV0003298

CA DEPT OF JUSTICE
lnvoice
CANNON
lnvoice
lnvoice
lnvoice
lnvoice

BRAD STEIN
lnvoice

DATA TICKET INC
lnvoice

DAVID ALLEN
lnvoice
DUDEK
lnvoice

JIM REGINATO
lnvoice

JOHN CALLENDER
lnvoice
02/03/2022
02103/2022
02/03/2022
02/0312022
02/03/2022
02/0312022
02/03/2022
02/03/2022
02103/2022
02/03/2022
02103/2022
02/0312022
02/03/2022
02/03/2022

BENGAL ENGINEERING
lnvoice 02103/202?,

BIG GREEN CLEANING COMPANY
lnvoice 02/03/2022

CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC
lnvoice 02/0312022
CIW OF SANTA BARBARA, CD.RHMP
lnvoice 02/03/2022

COASTALVIEW NEWS
lnvoice 02103/2022
lnvoice 02/03/2022
lnvoice 02/03/2022
02/03/2022

EARTH SYSTEMS
lnvoice 02/03/2022

GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
lnvoice 02/0312022
lnvoice 02/03/2022

GLADWELL GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES, INC
lnvoice 02/03/2022

GLENN D LA FEVERS
lnvoice 0210312022

GUARDIAN
lnvoice L2/3L/202!

HDL SOFTWARE, LLC
lnvoice 02/03/2022

JACK'S BISTRO
lnvoice

JANE L BENEFIETD
lnvolce

JASON RODRIGUEZ
lnvoice
rNV0003302

JOHN MOYER
lnvoice 02/03/2022
120.00 100719
9308942345
a3aw
3495593769
3495660064
34968648r.5
3497065312
349132e41
3497329202
3497403239
58s90
025-364774
37893801012
80579919
558583028
ss8s83068

TAWSON PRODUCTS INC
lnvoice 02/03/2022

LEXISNEXIS MATTHEW BENDER
lnvoice 02/03/2022

LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
lnvofce 02/0312022
lnvoice 02/03/2022

MCCORMIX CORP
lnvoice 02/03/2022
02/03/2022

READY ORANGE WIPES FOR SHOP
Regular
02/03/2022 Regular

CALPERS RETIREMENT BOOKS FOR HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT
02/03/2022 Regular
PROFESSTONAL LEGAL SERVTCES THROUGH L2/3L/2O2!
PROFESSTONAL LEGAT SERVTCES THROUGH L2/31/2O21
02/03/2022

FUEL FOR CITY VEHICIES
144.56 100720

91.65 L0072L
3,783.00 100722
188.09 100723
1,600.00 100724
319.11 t0072s
4,568.75 L00726
3,230.83 L00727
460.56 100728
1,595.10 100729
1,000.00 100730
100.00 100731

75.60 IO0732
10,520.36 100733

90.00 100734
960.00 10073s
5,569.10 100736
609.65 100737
988629
2r77
516179003
576220834
5-1e228!35
51q213865
516263866
78576
793r7
79543
79664
00766613
rNV0003308
Ny0oa$!z
rNV000331.1
rAN2a7900_811Q-3ZZ0I4Q9
rNV0003297
39062
I479
14232s
r NV0003312
2L0?77
2L0372
pEc2r 700163777874
pEc21 700333892838
J.AN"Z-ZZo!291309952
Regular
MEARS DESIGN GROUP 02/0312022 Regular
lnvoice 02/03/2022 DEC21 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT FOR SKATEPARK MISS|ON UNIFORM SERVICE 02/03/2022 Resular
lnvoice 02/03/2022 MAT & TOWEL REPIACEMENT r2/27/2I
lnvoice 02/03/2022 MAT REPLACEMENT, UNIFORM CLEANING, LINEN MAINT lnvoice 02/0312022 MAT& TOWEL REPTACEMENTATCITY HAIL0L/03/2022 lnvoice 02/03/2022 MAT REPLACEMENT, UNIFORM CLEANING, IINEN MAINT lnvoice 02/0312022 MAT & TOWEL REPLACEMENT AT CITY HAtt MNS ENGINEERS INC 02/03/2022 Regular
lnvoice 0210312022 JUt21 PLAN/MAP CHECKING FOR VIA REAL RW lnvoice 02103/2022 NOV21 PLAN/MAP CHECKING FOR 5139 8TH STREET lnvoice 02/03/2022 DEC21 PLAN & MAP CHECKING FOR Ll"A REVIEW 5139 8TH lnvoice 02/0312022 DEC21 PROJ OVERSIGHT SERVICES FOR HWY 101 PHASE 4 MOFFATT& NICHOL 02/03/2022 Resular
lnvoice 02/03/2022 DEC21 PROJECT MANAGEMENT FOR DUNE & SHORELINE PROJ NATALIAATARCON 02/03/2022 Regular
lnvoice 02/03/2022 REIMBURSEMENT FOR LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT-COUNWOF SANTA BARB02/0312022 Regular lnvolce 02/0312022 0EC21 COUNTY PLANNING CHECKS FOR RINCON MULTIUSE lnvoice 02/03/2022 NOV21 COUNTY PLANNING CHECKS FOR RINCON MULTIUSE QUADIENTFINANCE USA INC 02/0312022 Regular
lnvoice 02/03/2022 POSTAGE FOR CITY HALL 12l73/2t,0L/07/Zz RICHARD EJOHNSON 02/03/2022 Resular
lnvoice 02/03/2022 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD-MEETINGS 10/14 - 12116 ROCKWELLPRINTING 02/O3/Z0ZZ Regular
lnvoice 02/03/2022 ENGRAVED NAMEPI-ATE FOR FINANCIALANALYST ROY HARTHORN 02/0312022 Resular
lnvoice 02/0312022 DEC21 PLAN CHECKSERVICES
SANTA SARBARA PEST CONTROL 02/03/2022 Regular
lnvoice 02/03/2022 JAN21 PEST CONTROLAT POOI
SANTA BARBARA SWIM CLUB 02/03/2022 Regular
lnvoice 02/03/2022 SWIM TEAM DUES FOR CARP SWIM MEET 02/06/22 50 CA EDISON 02/03/2022 Regular
lnvoice 02/03/2022 ELECTRICITY-6145 CARPINTERIA AVE
lnvoice 02/03/2022 ELECTRICITY-578l CARPINTERIA AVE
lnvoice 02/03/2022 ELECTRICIW-MULTIPLE LOCATIONS
STAPLESADVANTAGE 02/03/2022 Regular
Credit Memo 02/03/2022 CREDITFOR |NVH3494958442
Credlt Memo 02/03/2022 CREDIT FOR lNVf 3495165993
lnvoice 02/03/2022 TONER, COPY PAPER
lnvoice 02/03/2022 LASER IABELS PACK
lnvoice 02103/2022 BLUE PAPER & COPY PAPER
lnvoice 02/03/2022 GREEN HANGING FOLDERS, COPY PAPER
lnvoice 02103/2022 COPY PAPER
STEWART'S DE-RoOTING & PLUMBING 02/03/2022 Regular
lnvoice 02/03/2022 DOWNTOWN T IRRIGATION SERVICES
ryLER TECHNOLOGIES, lNC. 02/0312022 Regular
lnvolce 02/03/2022 WORKORDERS MODULEASSISTANCE
WALKER CONSULTANTS 02/03/2022 Regular
lnvoice 02/03/2022 DEC21 PROFESSIONATSERVICES FOR CARP DWNTN PARKING WAXIESANITARYSUPPLY 02/03/2022 Regular
lnvoice 02103/2022 BATH TISSUE, SEAT COVERS, DOGGIE WASTE BAGS WOOD ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTION 02/03/2022 Regular lnvoice 02/03/2022 DUNE & SHOREIINE PROJECT SERVICES THROUGH t2/3Il2I lnvoice 02/03/2022 LOCAT HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN THROUGH L2/3L/2OZI 3,r72.25
455.00
343.75
r,67L.07
16,907.48
100738
100739
100740
L0074L
100742
City of Carpinteria
Cour.rcru AceruoR Srnrr Reponr
February 14,2022

ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Adopt Resolution No. 6099, Approving the Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2022-23 through 2026-27.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt Resolution No. 6099, approving the Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2022-23 through 2026-27.

2. Authorize the Public Works Director to submit the Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects to the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments.

Sample Motion: I move to adopt Resolution No. 6099, as read by tile only, approving the Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects and authorizing submittal by the Public Works Director to the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments.

BACKGROUND
In 1989, voters in Santa Barbara County approved Measure D for a one-half percent sales tax to be used for transportation programs and projects. In November 2008, voters in Santa Barbara County approved Measure A that extended the one-half percent sales tax for 30 years. Measure A contains a strategic spending plan that includes regional projects as well as local programs and projects funded by monthly allocations to each local agency. Measure A requires each local agency to annually prepare a Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects for submittal to the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG).

The purpose of this agenda matter is to allow the City Council to consider and approve the Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects for submittal to SBCAG.

DtscusstoN
The Measure A Program (Measure A) is administered by SBCAG, of which the City of Carpinteria is a member agency (Vice Mayor Clark represents the City on the SBCAG Board of Directors). Pursuant to the Measure A rules, the City's Measure A Five-Year Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2022-23 to 2026-27 February 14,2022
Page2
Local Program of Projects (Program) must be presented in a public hearing and adopted by resolution prior to its submittal to SBCAG. Measure A funds may only be spent on qualifying programs and projects that are described in the Program.

Measure A also requires a Maintenance of Effort expenditure by the local agencies.

The Maintenance of Effort expenditure requires each local agency to expend other discretionary non-Measure A funds for transportation programs and projects equivalent to the amount expended by the local agency. To meet this requirement and receive Measure A funds, the City must continue to spend annually at least $144,839 from discretionary non-Measure A sources of funds. The match expense is allocated from the Measure X Fund as the discretionary, non-Measure A source of funds. The City's current-year budget ensures that the Measure A match requirement will be met.

Measure A also requires a minimum percentage of each local agency's allocation of Local Street and Transportation funds to be spent on eligible Alternative Transportation projects. The City's required minimum percentage for Alternative Transportation is 10% This percentage is a cumulative calculation and must be met or exceeded by the fifth year of the Program and every fifth year thereafter. Fiscal Year 2021-22 is the second program year in the current five-year period. The Alternative Transportation requirements are tracked annually through an audit process.

The City's audited Alternative Transportation spending through the first five years of the Program (Fiscal Year 2010-11 through Fiscal Year 2014-15) was 28.11% of the City's total Local Street and Transportation funds allocation. The City's audited Alternative Transportation spending through the second five-year period (FiscalYear 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2019-20) was 14.94% of the City's total Local Street and Transportation funds allocation.

Staff anticipates exceeding the minimum 10% of Alternative Transportation spending requirement for the current five-year Program period. Staff estimates the Alternative Transportation spending to be 39.00% of the City's total allocation through Fiscal Year 2020-21. Staff also anticipates the following alternative transportation projects would increase the City's Alternative Transportation percentage within the next fiscal year:

1. Franklin Creek Trail lmprovement Project (project includes accessible surfacing, safety fencing, and adjacent accessibility improvements to and from Aliso Elementary School along Franklin Creek Trail between Carpinteria Avenue and Seventh Street and Ninth Street between Franklin Creek Trail and Holly Avenue)

2. Citywide sidewalk maintenance.

With the adoption of Resolution No. 6099, the Program would allocate Measure A funds to the City's Street Maintenance and Capital lmprovements Programs. Measure A funds pay for both staff and consultant/contractor costs associated with qualifying maintenance and capital project work. See Attachment A for the proposed Program.

Capital projects consist of projects included in the Capital lmprovements Program as well as projects that are considered capital maintenance. Capital maintenance projects are developed by the Public Works Department to address heavy maintenance needs Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2022-23 to 2026-27 February 14,2022

Page 3 ends

such as curb, gutter, and sidewalk repairs and pavement maintenance. These projects are typically included in the annual Public Works Department's budget.

Measure A also includes funding for local public transit and alternative transportation projects. The table below shows the past 10 years of the total annual Measure D/Measure 41 allocations; the estimated allocations for the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (SBMTD) Seaside Shuttle, Easy Lift, and Help of Carpinteria; and alternative transportation grants received by the City. The last column of the table reflects the net Measure D/Measure A allocations after expending money on the SBMTD Seaside Shuttle, Easy Lift, and Help of Carpinteria expenses; and Measure A grant monies received by the City. This is the amount available to address the Program and grant projects.
1 Under the Measure D Program, the City received Measure D fund allocations and then expended Measure D money on the SBMTD Seaside Shuttle. Under the Measure A Program, SBMTD receives a direct allocation from Measure A, which has been deducted from the City's allocation. 2 The Public Works Department submitted grant applications for Cycle 5 of both the Measure A Bike and Pedestrian Program and Safe Routes to School Program to help fund the Franklin Creek Trail lmprovement Project. The total grant amount being sought is $550,375.

Fiscal
Year
Measure
D
Allocation
Measure
A
Allocation
SBMTD
Seaside
Shuttle
Easy Lift Help of
Carpinter
ia
Measure
A Grant
Programs
Net
04/05 $748,764 $0 $54,802 $12,612 $5,000 $o $676,350
05/06 $815,976 $o $56,173 $12,612 $5,000 $0 $742,191
06t07 $748,857 $o $57,577 $12,612 $5,000 $0 $673,668
07t08 $787,107 $0 $59,016 $12,612 $5,000 $o $710,479
08/09 $709,093 $o $85,751 $12,612 $5,000 $0 $605,730
09/10 $717,435 $0 $64,527 $12,612 $5,000 $o $635,296
10t11 $o $633,709 $0 $17,000 $o $o $616,709
11t12 $o $800,356 $o $12,000 $5,000 $541 ,1 50 $1,324,506 12t13 $o $648,772 $o $12,000 $5,000 $263,623 $895,395
13t14 $o $624,459 $0 $12,000 $5,000 $o $607,459
14t15 $o $725,334 $o $12,000 $5,000 $0 $708,334
15t16 $o $748,818 $o $12,000 $5,000 $447,044 $1,178,962 16t17 $0 $757,998 $o $12,000 $10,000 $o $735,998
17t18 $o $910,4791 $o $12,000 $5,429 $o $893,050
18t19 $o $772,022 $0 $12,000 $5,429 $o $754,593
19t20 $o $855,1 87 $o $12,000 $5,530 $85,938 $923,595
20t21 $0 $904,394 $o $12,000 $5,430 $0 $886,964
21t22 $0 $801,800 $o $12,000 $5,430 $550,3752 $1,334,745 Note: All amounts shown in table are actuals except for FY 2021-22 which are estimates FY 2017-2018 actual Measure A revenue of $910,479 is an anomaly due to a change in accounting accruals to record revenues earned in that fiscal year as compared with prior years.

Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2022-23 to 2026-27 February 14,2022

Page 4 ends

Measure A also provides for competitive alternative transportation grants. The City must compete for the Measure A alternative transportation grants, and the call for grant proposals occurs about every two or three years. This year, the Public Works Department has submitted Cycle 5 applications for the Measure A Bicycle & Pedestrian and Safe Routes to School Grant Programs for the Franklin Creek Trail lmprovement Project. The City is seeking $550,375 in grant funds for this project as previously mentioned earlier in this staff report. The City received a total of $1 ,338,155 in Measure A grants from the four previous cycles which averages to approximately $134,000 per year. The competitive alternative transportation grants are to be used solely for capital projects and not maintenance. The total estimated cost of the proposed Program exceeds the available annual allocation to the City of Measure A Program revenue.

POLICY CONSISTENGY
The proposed Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. The recommendation is also consistent with and serves to implement the City's Capital lmprovement Program.

The adoption of the Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects is a requirement of Measure A as established by Ordinance No. 5 of the Santa Barbara County Local Transportation Authority. Adoption of the Program obligates the City to expend Measure A funds on the projects listed in the Program; however, the Program may be modified each year to reflect the changing priorities of the City Council. The Program may also be amended during a program year subject to the approval of the SBCAG Board of Directors. Measure A funds are intended to be flexible, and adoption of the Program does not preclude the City from determining transportation priorities.

FINANCIAL SIDERATIONS
The five-year estimate of Measure A local apportionments has been made by SBCAG in the amount of approximately $4.9 million, and is shown in attached Resolution No. 6099. The total Measure A revenue amount includes a projected carry-over fund balance of $109,948 from the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 budget for a total of $5.0 million.

LEGAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
As a funding source for the City's transportation infrastructure, Measure A revenue and related programming for use are critical to mitigating the liability exposure and protecting public welfare and safety.

OPTIONS

1. Adopt Resolution No. 6099, approving the Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2022-23 through 2026-27 . (Staff recommendation) Measure A Five-Year Local Program of Prolects for Fiscal Years 2022-23 to 2026-27 February 14,2022

Page 5 ends

2. Direct revisions be made and adopt the Measure A Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2022-23 to 2026-27. The Measure A Local Program of Projects is due to SBCAG by February 28,2022.

PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
There are no principal parties expected at this meeting

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Resolution No. 6099
Staff contact:

Brian C. Barrett, Acting City Clerk
(805) 7 55-4446; brianb@ci. carp i nteria. ca. us
Reviewed by:

John L. llasin, Public Works Director
(805) 880-3402; [email protected]. us
Reviewed by:

Dave Durflinger, City Manager
(805) 7 55-4400; [email protected]. us

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No.6099
RESOLUTION NO. 6099

A RESOLUTION OF THE CARPINTERIA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING
THE MEASURE A FIVE.YEAR LOCAL PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FOR FY 2022.23 THROUGH FY 2026.27
WHEREAS, on November 4,2008, the voters of Santa Barbara County approved Ordinance No. 5, the Road Repair, Traffic Relief and Transportation Safety Measure known as Measure A; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance provides that the Santa Barbara County Local Transportation Authority shall annually approve a program of projects submitted by local jurisdictions identifying those transportation projects eligible to use Measure A funds during the succeeding five-year period; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carpinteria was provided with an estimate of annual Measure A local revenues for fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27 (Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the City of Carpinteria has held a public hearing in accordance with Section 18 of the Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED as follows:

SECTION 1. The City of Carpinteria does hereby adopt the attached Five-Year Local Program of Projects (Exhibit B) to be funded in part with Measure A revenues and authorizes submittal to the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments.

SECTION 2. The City of Carpinteria certifies that it will include in its budget an amount of local discretionary funding for local streets and roads sufficient to comply with the Maintenance of Effort requirements contained in Section 27 of the Measure A Ordinance, and
SECTION 3. Pursuant to the Measure A ordinance, the City of Carpinteria will not use Measure A revenues to replace private developer funding that has been committed to a transportation project or would othenruise be required under current City policies.

SECTION 4. The City of Carpinteria has complied with all other applicable provisions and requirements of the Measure A Ordinance.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of February, 2022, by the following called votes:

Resolution No. 6099
Page2

AYES COUNCILMEMBER
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:

Mayor, City of Carpinteria
ATTEST:

Acting City Clerk, City of Carpinteria
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carpinteria held the 14th day of February, 2022.

Acting City Clerk, City of Carpinteria

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Jena Shoaf Acos, on behalf of
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
Acting as City Attorney of the City of Carpinteria
Resolution No. 6099

Page 3 ends

EXHIBIT A
TO RESOLUTION NO. 6099
Five-Year Estimate of Measure A Local Apportionments
Resolution No. 6099

Page 4 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF CARPINTERIA
Five-Year Measure A Revenue Estimate
Local Street and Transportation lmprovements
Citv of Carointeria $109.948 $964.761 s984.558 s1 .0'12.380 s973.326 $'1 .007.439 $5,052,412 Carry-over
from prior
years
J urisdiction FY 22123 FY 23-24 FY 24125 FY 25t26 FY 26t27 Total Alternative Mode Percentage 1Oo/o
Minimum to be Spent on Alternative
Modes bv FY 25126 s505.241

Resolution No. 6099

Page 5 ends

EXHIBIT B
TO RESOLUTION NO. 6099
Measure A Five-Year Program of Local Projects
Resolution No. 6099

Page 6 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit B
CitY of C31Pinfg1i3
Five Year Measure A Program of Projects (FYs 22123 to 261271 Measure A Local Street and Transportation lmprovements Submittal Form (Figures in $000)
ForSants Barbar County
OnlY
Class 2 Bikeway lvlaintenance
Expenditure - Couni as
Allernative Transportalion
Expenditure
Local Street & Transportation lmprovements Measure A Revenues Non-Measure A Revenues Total Project Cost
Project Descriptions
FY 2020t21
Actual
Expenditures
Carry-over
from FY
20t2.1
Carry-over
from FY
21t22
FY 22t23 FY 23t21 FY 24t25 FY 25t26 FY 26127 TOTAL Measurc A Revenues
Regional
lvleaaure A
Programs
Remaining
lvleasure D
Local State Fedeml TOTAL Non-lueasure A
Revenues
Adminislralion Prooram $63 s196
s52 s30 $40 sl 475 s1 5
Riohlof-Wav irainlenence P.onram $30 s24 $32 $40 s160 sl 0 $1.

Transoortation. Paftano and Liohlino Prooram $40 $158 \1) arprnlefla Avenue tsndQe Replacemenl Protecl s52 s25 s24 $40 $'1.025 $14.000 $ 025 179 Pavemenl R€habililalion Proiecls $'1'19 $'145 $'150 s5s8 to lvemenl Marnlenance Proiects s85 $150 $573 s2 500 n2
I s139
Pavement Manaoemenl uodale $25 s50
eletv lmorcwmenE
Traffic Safelv Prooram s52 $40
$206
$a5
$6 $69 $2t5 215
$341
laben FoE3tru St@l TE ProoEm
$1 35 s140 Iil 50
$0
om Damaoo Reorirlo TEn3ootulion Facililie3
0 s0
50 oadmv Dnlnaoe Facilitio3
10 $25 $24 s24
s0
fnffic sional coordlna$on. lnlerection chanmliataon
0 s0
0 fntrc ilrn.d.tunt
TrafficOoeralions Prooram s24 s24 s35 s40
$0
0 Landscaoe Maintenance Prooram $24 $35 $40 s157
;ommunrtv Farm Pnvacv Fence Proiect
larointeia Freewav Circulalion lmDrovemenls $0 s674
326
Melchind Fund3 for Sbb and Redionrl Pr6dEm. rnd p?6io.G s0
$0
0 s0
Altemative Transportation Expenditures Measurc A Revenues Non-Measure A Revenues Total Prolect Cost
Project Descriptions
FY 2020t21
Actual
Expenditurcs
Carry-over
from FY
20t21
Carry{ver
from FY
21t22
FY 22t23 FY 23t24 FY 24t25 FY 25t26 FY 2A127 TOTAL Me8surc A Revenues Local
Regional
Measu@ A
Programs
Remaining
lvleasure O
State Federal TOTAL Non-Measure A
Revenues
tlntenance. ReHir. conllrucllon & lmorovefranl of Bik€ & P€d Frcililie. joncrete Repatr Proaram/curb RamD Proaram $75
$0
le Path lMainlenance Prooram 0
'anKiln ureek I rarl lmprovemenl Pfotecl
Pedeslrian Crossino Imorovemensl - Beilerd Avc & Dorrence Wav 0 Srosswalk lmprovements at: Cartlin Car. to lMemorial Park; Ogan Rd. & Vallecito Rd.t Pear St & Ceroinleria Ave Cremar Rd & C.r6intp.i, Avp $o
ile Routes lo schools Educalion Proaram s6
0 s0
Edu@c lnna[ FaE! tor senioB & Disbled
$0
s0 $0
0 $0
Easv Lift Transoodalion Parrlransil Seruice $12 $12 $12 s $60 Helb of Caroinlerie DiaLA-Ride Seruicp s6
Prcgnm1 Educallon, & lncontivqs to Redu@ Single Occupant Auto Tripe or fnnaoorhlion Damend
0 s0
s0
so 0 $0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $r,359 9o $109 $964 s984 $1,0't2 $973 $1,007 $s,049 $1,s50 $0 $'r'r,299 $1,475 $14,000 $27,771 $32,596 roTAL MEASURE A ALLOCATTON (Fy 2022t23TO 2026t271 ts,049

MINIMUM ALTERNATIVE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED BY INVESTMENT PLAN TO BE MET BY FY 2024/25 FOR FISCAL YEARS 2O2O'21 THROUGH 2024125 10%
rOTAL MEASURE A ALLOCATION TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION $820 tE20

PERCENTAGE OF MEASURE A ALLOCATION TO ALTERNATIVE
TR,ANSPORTATION 16.24%
City of Carpinteria
Gouttcu- AceruoR Srerr Reponr
February 14,2022

ITEM FOR COUNCI CONSIDERATION
Acceptance of the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan.

Sample Motion: I move to accept the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan

BACKGROUND
Just as with so many coastal communities, Carpinteria's shoreline is inherently vulnerable to tidal damage whenever conditions are severe and oqean wave run-up or beach erosion occurs. Large storms, ocean waves, and onshore winds contribute to this vulnerability. Storm events in 1969, 1982, 1988, 1995, and 1998 serve as examples of when private and public improvements along the ocean front were damaged or severely threatened.

Much of Carpinteria including Carpinteria State Beach, beach neighborhood, and Downtown lie at low elevations behind an unarmored coast (i.e. no rock revetment or similar type of construction material). As part of the City's ongoing sea level rise vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning investigations, the western portion of Carpinteria is identified as potentially vulnerable to coastal hazards associated with sea level rise. Due to this region's low elevation, unarmored shoreline when combined with fluvial flood hazards from the three major creeks (Carpinteria Creek, Franklin Creek, and Santa Monica Creek) and Carpinteria Salt Marsh, Carpinteria is one of the most vulnerable communities to damage from sea level rise.

Historically, Carpinteria was occupied by an extensive wetland and dune system where Carpinteria's western one-mile of shoreline supported a large dune complex that buffered low-lying areas from ocean waves and flooding. These dunes allowed the formation of vegetated wetlands and intertidal sand and mud flats. Much of the low-lying neighborhoods and Carpinteria State Beach are within these former wetlands and are likely to be subject to future coastal flooding and tidal inundation as sea levels rise based on recent sea level rise flood and inundation projections within the Final Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
February 14,2022
Page2
SLRVAAP. Ongoing planning efforts at the local, regional, and state level are currently working to develop long-term mitigation measures.

Since 2003, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)was working on the Shoreline Storm Wave Damage Reduction Study. The purpose of that study was to identify solutions that will reduce the probability of damaging ocean events. The study is complex and technically comprehensive. Unfortunately, the study was indefinitely suspended due to inconsistent funding. Since the study was initiated, the threat of sea level rise merited grant funding opportunities from the state in order to investigate shoreline resiliency, and the City pursued grant funds in order to explore adaptation strategies to mitigate coastal flooding hazards and to improve shoreline resiliency. ln July 2018, the City held a workshop to collect public input and feedback for initial adaptation concepts of increasing shoreline resiliency. On September 9,2019, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an Agreement with Wood Environment & lnfrastructure Solutions, lnc. for preparation of the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan. On April27,2020, the City Council authorized the City Managerto execute an Agreement with Moffat & Nichol for coastal engineering services in support of preparing the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan.

Ongoing work at the state level as well as local and regional partnerships are exploring the complex issues facing coastal communities in addressing long-term solutions to sea level rise. The City is closely monitoring state legislative actions related to sea level rise and continues to work with other local agencies on a regional scale. Long-term planning efforts that are being undertaken include the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan update and partnerships with the Santa Barbara Climate Collaborative and the Beach Erosion Authority for Clean Oceans and Nourishment (BEACON), both of which the City is an active member.

The Dune and Shoreline Management Plan builds upon City objectives, including the Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Project, and the City's General Plan/Local Coastal Plan updates in order to plan for and adapt to projected sea level rise. Since initiating the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan, the City conducted five public workshops, one at each project milestone, in an effort to engage stakeholders and solicit feedback. on January 9,2022, the draft of the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan was released for public comment. Copies of the public comments are shown in Attachment B. On February 7,2022, the draft was presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission showed interest in further exploration of the Alternative 1- the winter berm. The winter berm currently is a seasonal program and only offers protection from coastal hazards during the winter months. lf the City were to decide to move fonuard with this alternative as a year-round program, the project would face similar environmental review and permitting requirements. There are several challenges identified with a year-round construction of the winter berm in which Alternative 3 seeks to address including nraintained public access ways, habitat benefits, and lower overall maintenance costs due to plant establishment.

Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
February 14,2022

Page 3 ends

The purpose of this agenda matter is for the City Council to accept the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan as the basis for the creation of mitigation measures against near-term (approximately 50 years) sea level rise.

DISCUSSION
The Dune and Shoreline Management Plan is intended to guide the City in developing a project to address near- to midterm sea level rise vulnerabilities. lt would also allow the City to seek out additional grant funding sources for further development of a project.

The Dune and Shoreline Management Plan is one part of the City's response to the impacts of projected sea level rise. lt is intended to be complementary to other policies and programs developed by the City to address identified in the City's Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. The Plan objectives are:

1. Reduce vulnerability of the beach neighborhood and Downtown, particularly for disadvantaged communities and the City's central businesses, to projected sea level rise generated hazards, such as tidal inundation, flooding, wave attack, and coastal erosion;

2. ldentify the preferred project design for a living shoreline based on site constraints, engineering feasibility and long-term sustainability through at least 2050 and set forth other alternatives that were considered;

3. Protect transportation infrastructure, including the California Coastal Trail, railroad, and City streets, which are projected to become vulnerable to flooding with up to two feet of sea level rise.

4. Restore historic dune habitats that formerly lined the Carpinteria City Beach and restore and enhance existing dunes within the Carpinteria State Park using nature-based solutions to protect landward neighborhoods, infrastructure, and Carpinteria State Park campgrounds.

5. ldentify required future permits and environmental review for future project implementation;

6. Assess near-term and longterm costs for the project;

7. ldentify available federal, state, and local funding sources; and

8. Provide co-benefits to public health, public access, coastal habitats, and ecosystems.

The Dune and Shoreline Management Plan encompasses approximately 1.5 miles of coastline starting at the mouth of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh at Sand Point to the western edge of Tar Pits Park. The beaches fall within the jurisdiction of the City, County of Santa Barbara (County), and California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks). The Dune and Shoreline Management Plan's study area was divided into four segments referred to as "Reaches" as shown in Figure 1 below. Carpinteria City Beach and Carpinteria State Beach extend for over one mile and are known for their gentle sandy slope and relatively calm conditions.

Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
February 14,2022

Page 4 ends

The Dune and Shoreline Management Plan includes the following elements Existinq Shoreline Manaqement Policies, Regulations. and Proqrams Projects within the coastal zone are subject to the guiding principles of the California CoastalAct and CCC sea level rise policy guidance. Additional guidance from BEACON; City General Plan/Local Coastal Plan; and collaboration with other federal, state, and local agencies and programs inform the design and development of the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan.

PCIect Constraints and Feasibility
A detailed Constraints and Feasibility Analysis was prepared by Moffat & Nichol in order to identify the reaches of the beach where a living shoreline may be feasible under existing conditions. Constraints were divided into two categories- natural and manmade. Natural constraints included the existing beach conditions, coastal processes, and wave dynamics as well as biological resources, topography, and subdrainage. Manmade constraints included land ownership particularly in the developed areas, transportation infrastructure, public access and views, utilities, and existing coastal structures. These constraints were used in the analysis of feasible design alternatives.

Factors determining the most feasible design alternative included constructability, affordability, permitting, and public acceptance. The project location is adjacent private residential properties along the coast and it is anticipated that the property owners and -atffiOri!}
Figure 1. Project Location and Reaches
Mt.|&htc..tff-cd
ffia-qrffi.*5U
Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
February 14,2022

Page 5 ends

other stakeholders such as utility representatives, would be integral to the process of developing an appropriate project design based on the selected alternative.

Livinq Shoreline Desiqn Alternatives and Modelinq
A site specific numerical modelwas developed to determine the performance of proposed shoreline adaptation strategies. Modeling for both existing and proposed beach profiles was conducted incorporating the impacts of both sea level rise and storm conditions. The numerical model used was the XBeach re.5834, a widely applied model developed by USACOE. The model predicts wave run-up and overtopping on the beach and the changes in the beach profile (i.e. the cross-sectional elevation of the beach) using input data of beach profile, tidal elevations, ocean wave height, and period. Two design alternatives were initially considered but eventually discarded prior to modeling due to constraints. The following four alternatives were carried fonruard for analysis:

1. Existing Winter Berm: This alternative was selected for modeling as it represents an existing baseline condition for which other alternatives can be compared against, as well as to model the effectiveness of the existing winter berm program at protecting the City's Beach Neighborhood under future sea level rise conditions

2. Wider Beach from Nourishment: This alternative would involve extensive beach nourishment within Reach 2 to create a wider beach, approximately 150 feet wider than the exiting beach.

3. Singe Ridge Dune with Wider Beach: This design alternative would include a single ridge dune with a slightly lower profile than the Winter Berm, coupled with sediment nourishment to create a wider beach.

4. Double Ridge Dune with a Wider Beach: This design alternative would construct two dunes, both at a lower elevation than the Winter Berm and relatively wider and flatter in grade, with the same elements of sediment nourishment as Alternative 3.

These four alternatives were then compared to determine efficacy in reducing wave runup and overtopping and were ranked from best to worst as shown below:

1. Alternative 3 - Single Ridge Dune with Wider Beach;

2. Alternative 1 - Existing Winter Berm;

3. Alternative 4 - Double Ridge Dune with Wider Beach; and

4. Alternative 2 - Wider Beach from Nourishment
The recommended design alternative, Alternative 3, was selected using several evaluation factors. Alternative 3 would reduce wave run-up elevations and subsequent overtopping to the greatest degree when compared to the other design alternatives. lt also preserves the existing recreation benefits of Carpinteria City Beach by incorporating sediment nourishment to widen the beach. Carpinteria City Beach is considered an important economic and recreation contribution to the community.

Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
February 14,2022

Page 6 ends

The second highest rated design alternative, Alternative 1, was used to provide a baseline of existing conditions during the winter months. lf the City were to decide to move fonrard with this alternative as a year-round program, any project based on this would face similar environmental review and permitting requirements.

Preliminary design of the proposed dunes/living shoreline as described for Alternative 3 would involve a single ridge dune approximately 40 feet in width at the dune crest. The dunes would be constructed in roughly the same location where the City's winter sand berm is currently constructed annually. The dune crest would be variable and naturalized with hummocks and saddles, and would generally be constructed to a crest elevation of approximately 6 feet above existing beach elevation. Design of the dune would include accessways at each street end (Ash Avenue, Holly Avenue, Elm Avenue, and Liden Avenue) and a combined boat launch and accessible ramp at Ash Avenue in order to maintain existing beach access provided at these locations. Sediment for both the beach nourishment and dune system would have a grain size consistent with the existing site. Dune establishment would involve placement of sand, seeding with native plant seeds, and the installation of fencing to reduce disturbance from foot traffic. The dunes would be vegetated with a plant palette of California natives.

After preliminary review of potential sources of sediment with beach quality sand in the region, four potential sources were identified including offshore, the Carpinteria Salt Marsh desilting, County-owned flood control debris basins, and opportunistic construction. One or a combination of these sources could be used for beach nourishment; however, each also poses challenges and would need to be included in further environmental review and permit processes.
lnstallation of a sand retention structure, potentially at Linden Avenue at the eastern extent of Reach 2, would help retain sand along the nourished beach by increasing longevity of the wider beach resulting from proposed beach nourishment activities and reducing need for more frequent beach re-nourishment and associated costs (e.g. sediment acquisition and construction). However, the exact design and effectiveness of a sand retention structure on maintaining sand on the upcoast beach as well as its potential impacts on downcoast beaches remains to be determined and would require further study. Several design options are included in the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan. The recommended sand retention option is an experimental, sheet pile wall groin comprised of either steel or fiberglass. While sand retention structures exist throughout California (84-percent located in the counties of Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, orange, and san Diego), these can raise concern among regulatory agencies due to potential effects on downcoast beaches and lateral coastal access.

Livino Shoreline Adaptive Manaqement Plan
The construction of a living shoreline as described above would require maintenance and need to be adapted over time as conditions change. A preliminary adaptive management plan was included in the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan and includes the following criteria:

Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
February 14,2022

Page 7 ends

1. ldentification of permitting requirements;

2. Development of a longterm maintenance strategies based on defined maintenance triggers;

3. Description of prolect monitoring and reporting requirements;

4. ldentification of opportunities for interagency coordination and roles/responsibilities; and

5. Description of preliminary plans for abandonment of the dune system.

6. Future actions that may be required to be taken by the City, affected property owners and interested agencies, if or after the living shoreline is abandoned, based on the City's adopted SLRVAAP.

Obtaining state and federal regulatory agency permits can represent a major expense and challenge for beach nourishment projects and require several years or longer. ln order to construct a prolect in 2025, the City would likely need to obtain funding and initiate the permit process for initial project constructionin2022, as it seems likely that a minimum of three years would be required for acquiring funds for planning and permitting. The timeline is subject to availability of funding. A prolect would require local, state, and/or federal permits which, in turn, would trigger environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and potentially the National Environmental Policy Act. The likely CEQA document may be an Environmental lmpact Report (ElR) accompanied, should federal funds are involved, by an NEPA Environmental lmpact Statement (ElS) or EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) due to project's potentialfor impacts. Both CEQA and NEPA documents would likely need to be supported by technical studies. An anticipated project schedule as shown in Figure 3 below incorporates the permitting and environmental review processes as well as proposed construction.

Anticipated Project Schedule
Project initiation
2027
Seek permit process funding (1.5 years)
2022 - 2024
Permittirrg & CEQA review (3 years)
202?- -202s
Seek constructi<ln funding (2 years)
2024 - )026
Project corrstruction (1.5 years)
20?5 - 2027
Figure 3. Proposed Project Schedule
Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
February 14,2022

Page 8 ends

The need for beach and dune maintenance would be triggered by several dune performance metrics, which will be determined through use of future monitoring data and reporting described below as well as through more detailed engineering and design of the proposed dune system. Maintenance triggers include beach re-nourishment to maintain adequate beach width, dune restoration, and street end parking lot maintenance. Adjustment and/or repair of a proposed sand retention measure would also be considered. Monitoring of an experimental groin and of downcoast beaches would be critical to determining its success and identifying the necessary adjustments of the groin feature to reduce impacts downcoast.

The discussion and analysis presented in the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan leads to the conclusion that the proposed project would help reduce the impacts of both existing and future coastal threats, including sea level rise, in the near- to mid-term.

The Plan recommends that the City pursue further planning and design of a living shoreline project fronting the Beach Neighborhood and a small portion of Carpinteria State Beach, including : 1) beach nourishment to widen the shore, to buffer landward development and create more space for coastal dynamics (accommodation space), 2) the establishment of vegetated dunes fronting existing beachfront homes and 3) installation of a temporary or experimental sand retention structure to retain sand, increase the life span of the nourished beach, and reduce maintenance costs. The preferred design would involve the placement of 500,000 cy of imported sand (beach nourishment). The dunes would be constructed in the same location where the City's winter sand berm program is currently constructed annually, as well as at an approximately 35O-footlong segment of beach within Carpinteria State Park. Under the Project, Carpinteria City Beach would be nourished with sand to widen the beach area to a width of approximately 170 feet with a gentle slope, similar to existing conditions.

Sediments could be brought in from otfshore, from Carpinteria Salt Marsh desilting, foothill detention basins, and certain construction projects.

Maintenance of a living shoreline would include maintaining a wide sandy beach through beach re-nourishment activities, which would take place roughly every 10 years. Dune restoration would be needed if wave overtopping occurs at the dune crest, if the dune toe is exposed, or if a dune section is lost, though maintaining a wide sandy beach fronting the dunes will reduce likelihood of such events.

POLICY CONSISTENCY
The Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Plan support sea level rise and flood protection measures and continued work to find an optimal solution to the threat of damage to shoreline improvements.

Objective S-4 lmplementation Measure 13 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan states:

The City shall support and facilitate the current Army Corps of Engineers feasibility study and othenuise pursue long term solutions for beach nourishment and establishment of a vegetated dune system at the City beach.

Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
February 14,2022

Page 9 ends

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code $21000 et seq., "CEQA"), the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) 15061(bX3) (no significant effect on the environment).

Should the City move fonryard with securing funding, a detailed environmental review such as either a programmatic or project specific Environmental lmpact Report would need to be completed.

FI NANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
There is no cost in accepting the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan. However, implementation of any of the alternatives as recommended by the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan would require funding which is undetermined at this time.

Project costs would include planning and project initiation (e.9., planning, environmental review, permitting) and construction. lmplementation of the Project has the potential to incur a total cost ranging from $9,00,000 to $12,000,000 or more. Though costly, the alternative of repeated damage to high value residential properties and public infrastructure and required repeated clean up, repairs, and expensive adaptation measures, would likely dwarf the cost of Project implementation. Multiple funding mechanisms are identified as well as the need to acquire funding for maintenance.

Project funding would require pursuit of a combination of federal and state grants as well as local and regional funds. The City could collaborate with other agencies, such as State Parks and/or the County. Any collaboration should be explored for sharing prolect construction costs and/or offsetting maintenance costs.

LEGAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The Planning Commission reviewed and made recommendations for the Dune and Shoreline Management Plan in accordance with Carpinteria Municipal Code Section

2.32.070.

OPTIONS

1. Accept the Draft Dune and Shoreline Management Plan. (Staff recommendation)

2. The City Council could choose to not consider the recommendation and direct staff as determined appropriate.

PRINCIPAL PARTIES CTED AT MEETING
Taylor Lane, Deputy Project Manager, Wood Environment & lnfrastructure Solutions, lnc.

Chris Webb, Coastal Engineering Consultant, Moffatt & Nichol Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
February 14,2022

Page 10 ends

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:

Attachment B:

Attachment C:

Staff contact:

Erin Maker, Environmental Program Manager
(805) 880-341 5, [email protected]. us
Reviewed by:

John L. llasin, Public Works Director
(805) 880-3402, [email protected]
Reviewed by:

Dave Durflinger, City Manager
(805) 755-4400, [email protected]. us
Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
Public Comments Received
Summary of Planning Commission Meeting Deliberation dated February 7,2022
ature

ATTACHMENT A
Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
Please click the links to access the following documents:

Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
Appendix A: Constraints and Feasibility Analysis
Appendix B: Preliminary Concept Design
Appendix C: Modeling Memo
Appendix D: Draft Carpinteria Dune Restoration Plan
Appendix E: Funding and Financing Matrix Report
Appendix F: Public Comment Matrix

ATTACHMENT B
Public Comments Received
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Gavin Newsom, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Armando Quintero, Director Channel Coast District • 911 San Pedro Street • Ventura, CA 93001 (805) 585-1850
January 31, 2022

VIA EMAIL ONLY
Erin Maker
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue.

Carpinteria, California 93013
RE: City of Carpinteria Draft Dune and Shoreline Management Plan Dear Ms. Maker,
Carpinteria State Beach was established for the public enjoyment of the sandy ocean beach and its ocean-oriented recreational values. Dubbed the “world’s safest beach,” Carpinteria State Beach is a popular destination for high-quality outdoor recreation including camping and beach-going activities. This State Beach has a long history of providing high-quality outdoor recreation to hundreds of thousands of guests annually.

Given the purpose of this State Beach, and the importance of the sandy ocean beach to recreation users, we would like to share some preliminary concerns with the city of Carpinteria’s Draft Dune and Shoreline Management Plan (Plan):
 The Plan could increase operating costs at Carpinteria S.B. if the proposed groin either leads to sand buildup that increases maintenance of the boardwalk, campgrounds, and other facilities, or if it causes a depletion of sand that leads to increased flooding of park infrastructure from wave action. All such increased maintenance costs should be funded through the Plan.
 If the Plan is implemented, the CCD needs to be a part of any group evaluating the impacts of the groin or any group recommending modifications to the groin.  The Plan could impact cultural resources if the groin accelerates downcoast scour or if offshore sand is dredged from sites that are in shallow water. An analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources should be considered in the process of determining the preferred alternative.
 Park fees are used to support facility maintenance, interpretive programs, and public safety throughout the State Park System. These fees, or any proposal to increase park fees should not be considered as a potential funding source for the implementation of the Plan.
 Recreational opportunities at Carpinteria State Beach are important for local and out-of-area guests. The Plan should fully evaluate the impacts to recreation along this coastline, including on Carpinteria State Beach.

DocuSign Envelope ID: D4B00422-83AF-4026-9CAE-7C687898B944 Erin Maker
January 31, 2022

Page 2 ends

 Artificial features such as groins and jetties can create water hazards for beach goers and swimmers by introduction of rip currents, faster currents, and the like.

The Plan should fully evaluate the impacts to aquatic safety for recreation users and impacts on aquatic rescue protocols along this coastline, including on Carpinteria State Beach.

Carpinteria State Beach is operated by the Channel Coast District (CCD) of California State Parks. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the city of Carpinteria’s Draft Dune and Shoreline Management Plan. We reserve the right to provide further comment as more information about the Plan is made available, and we encourage you to engage with the CCD closely going forward in this planning process to ensure these and future concerns are addressed for the benefit of future guests to Carpinteria State Beach.

Nat Cox is a Senior Environmental Scientist and serves as the Program Manager for Natural and Cultural Resources for the CCD. Mr. Cox will serve as the CCD’s point of contact for the city of Carpinteria’s Draft Dune and Shoreline Management Plan. You can contact Mr. Cox at (805) 320-7521 or by email at [email protected].

Respectfully,
Greg Martin
District Superintendent
cc: Nat Cox, Resources Program Manager, DPR
Dena Bellman, District Planning Chief, DPR
DocuSign Envelope ID: D4B00422-83AF-4026-9CAE-7C687898B944 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
89 SOUTH CALIFORNIA ST., SUITE 200
VENTURA, CA 93001
(805) 585-1800
January 31, 2021
Erin Maker, Environmental Program Manager
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Ave.

Carpinteria, CA 93013
RE: Draft Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
Dear Ms. Maker,
Commission staff has reviewed the Draft Dune and Shoreline Management Plan (Plan) and appreciate the opportunity to provide comments for your consideration. As described within the Plan and associated background documents, the City of Carpinteria (City) is proposing to construct and maintain a living shoreline as well as perform sand nourishment and install a sand retention structure fronting the Beach Neighborhood. The proposed project is intended to reduce the vulnerability of the Beach Neighborhood and Downtown area from impacts related to sea level rise.

As noted within the Plan, the analyses completed utilized sea level rise projections consistent with those utilized in the City’s Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Project. These projections (two feet) are acceptable for planning and designing the subject project considering that it has been identified as a near-term adaptation measure that is feasible for lower amounts of sea level rise; however, the final plan should include an acknowledgement that two feet of sea level rise could occur sooner than 2050 under the extreme risk aversion H++ scenario. Additionally, while the report notes that the subject project could be a feasible solution for approximately two feet of sea level rise, the final plan should identify how much sea level rise the various project alternatives (both identified below and within the Plan) could withstand.

Commission staff also recommend additional analysis to identify the potential to extend the proposed adaptation strategies beyond the 30-50 year scope. If the option to extend the adaptation strategies is infeasible, Commission staff recommend adding a discussion regarding longer-term adaptation strategies that can be implemented.

Commission staff appreciate the range of alternatives identified within the Plan. However, in addition to those project alternatives, Commission staff recommend that the final plan include analysis of additional alternatives including the following:
• Installation of a groin structure further downcoast. This alternative should examine siting and feasibility based on natural processes and beach/nearshore morphology, rather than property ownership.
• Installation of multiple, smaller sized groins throughout the project area, again considering siting and feasibility based on natural processes and beach/nearshore morphology, rather than property ownership.
2 • Creation of a living shoreline without nourishment or installation of a groin structure.
• Creation of the preferred project with a living shoreline that has an increased height and reduced width. This alternative would not consider the provision of private views.

For the alternatives listed here, as well as those presented in the Plan, Commission staff recommend adding a discussion of hazards and impacts to the roadways, public access areas, and private properties along the project site if the proposed adaptation strategies were to fail and flooding and inundation occurred. Adding a discussion of how the City plans to remediate or account for unforeseen flooding to the various infrastructure and accessways would improve the planning and preparation of the project and may increase public acceptance of the various adaptation options.

The Plan describes that a substantial amount of imported sediment would be necessary for construction of the dune system and for beach nourishment. The Plan also identifies numerous potential sources of this sediment. However, some of the sources identified, such as from marsh desilting, could have a higher portion of fine grain material that may not be suitable for direct beach placement. As such, the final plan should include information regarding the feasibility of nearshore/surf zone placement for fine grain material. Additionally, the final plan should include justification for the quantity of anticipated sediment placement and groin structure installation.

The Plan also indicates that additional studies regarding the impacts of a groin structure on downcoast beaches is planned. Commission staff concur that completion of this study is essential to inform siting and design of the subject project and recommend that the analysis also include an evaluation of measures that could be implemented to remove a potential groin structure should unforeseen adverse impacts to coastal resources occur following installation.

The Plan also includes information relating to implementation of monitoring and maintenance activities. As the Plan is finalized, additional detail and specific monitoring and maintenance thresholds and actions should be identified. Commission staff may have comments on those actions, as well as on the initial morphology and species composition of the dune system.

Additionally, the Plan indicates that a substantial determining factor in the siting and design of the subject project is ownership of the beach area. Although some dune restoration appears to extend onto adjacent State Parks property, Commission staff recommend further coordination with State Parks, as well as beachfront property owners, to potentially broaden the scope of the subject project and to ensure that project components are sited appropriately. This could include a project design that extends into Reaches 3 and 4 (potentially through a phased approach over time), alternate groin structure siting, as well as a more landward, narrow, and taller configuration of the dune system at City Beach. Furthermore, the Plan indicates that a key goal of the subject project is to reduce vulnerability of disadvantaged communities to hazards associated with sea level rise. As such, the final plan should include a description of any outreach and engagement with environmental justice communities that has occurred, or the anticipated plan for conducting such outreach.
3 Lastly, information and guidelines relating to the Commission’s Round 7 Non-Competitive Local Coastal Program (LCP) Grant Program are forthcoming and could serve as a potential funding opportunity for continued analysis of the subject project. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments for your consideration and look forward to our continued coordination on this project. Please contact me with any further questions at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Phelps
District Supervisor
105 E. Anapamu Street, Room 406, Santa Barbara, CA 93101  (805) 568-3400  Fax (805) 568-3414 [email protected]  www.countyofsb.org/ceo

COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Mona Miyasato, County Executive Officer
Terri Nisich, Assistant County Executive Officer
Jeff Frapwell, Assistant County Executive Officer
Nancy Anderson, Assistant County Executive Officer
January 28, 2022
City of Carpinteria
Erin Maker
Environmental Program Manager
5775 Carpinteria Ave.

Carpinteria, CA 93013
Email: [email protected]
RE: City of Carpinteria Draft Dune and Shoreline Management Plan Dear Ms. Maker:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Carpinteria Draft Dune and Shoreline Management Plan. At this time, the County submits comments from the Public Works Department.

If you should have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office directly, or Maureen Spencer, Environmental Manager, Santa Barbara County Public Works Department, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jasmine McGinty
Principal Analyst
cc: Maureen Spencer, Environmental Manager, Santa Barbara County Public Works Department
Enclosures: Santa Barbra County Public Works Department Letter, dated January 26, 2022

Carpinteria City Council
1/22/2022
Dear City Council,
Surfrider Foundation is a 501c3 public-benefit environmental nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of the world’s oceans, beaches, and surf for all people. We at the Santa Barbara chapter are well aware of the problems that climate changes and the attendant ocean level rise pose for low-lying coastal areas. In particular, the coast between Linden and Ash Avenues in Carpinteria faces these challenges and we applaud your efforts to find the most environmentally friendly method to protect the homes along that stretch of the coast. We support the plan to construct a cobble and sand berm that would then be vegetated with native species.

However, we are strongly opposed to any hardened structures such as sea walls, rock revetments etc. We are also strongly opposed to any permanent, or temporary, form of groin that extends into the ocean, whether constructed of rock, steel, flexible fiberglass, or otherwise. We are also opposed as stated above even in the case of a “pilot” program. We believe such structures would violate the California Coastal Act and are unlikely to get approved by the Coastal Commission. We also oppose beach bulldozing, grooming and/or grading because it does irreparable harm to the beach habitat and ecosystem.

Our Surfrider chapter will almost certainly proactively take whatever actions allowed to prevent such a plan from being implemented.

We do realize, that as of now (e.g. before January 31, 2022, the end of the public comment period) there is no definite project submitted or yet approved and we reserve all judgement until we can see what is ultimately proposed, as well as expect a complete EIR to be performed to further help us (and the public) make a final decision on support or opposition.

However, although there is no officially approved project yet, we have followed the City of Carpinteria public zoom meetings on the subject, and reviewed and studied the latest “City of Carpinteria Dune and Shoreline Management Plan Constraints and Feasibility Report
[REVISED DRAFT]” prepared by Moffat and Nichol for the City of Carpinteria.

We also understand that soon (February or March 2022 timeframe) this plan will be put before the City Council for initial approval to proceed, and that a groin on the beach at Linden Avenue is a key element of the proposed plan.

We are submitting this letter during the Carpinteria public comment period to inform the Carpinteria City Council of Surfrider’s position on the proposal for its consideration as it goes through the approval/disapproval phase and decision on this project
Respectfully,
Ken Palley
Executive Committee
Surfrider Foundation
Santa Barbara Chapter
From: Deane Plaister
To: Erin Maker
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Carpinteria Dune and Beach Project comment
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 9:02:22 AM
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Dear Carpinteria City Council,
Regarding the development of plans to protect apartments and condos along Carpinteria City Beach by means of defensive structures, I would like to comment that the use of sand and cobble berm as a "soft" structure is preferred. While storm waves and inevitable sea level rise will at first intermittently, and eventually permanently, negate such installations, the use of soft solutions will, for a time, at least preserve the beach environment itself.

However, the proposal to build any kind of hard structure, including any sort of "adjustable" groin, is a very bad idea. In countless examples around the world, hard structures have been found to damage adjacent beach habitat by redirecting wave energy in a manner that shifts sand unnaturally, either scouring away the beach or starving down-coast areas of sand supply.

In many cases, hard structures even fail to protect the land or buildings behind them.

Ultimately, none of the proposed "solutions" are going to work against a rising sea. But for short-term mitigation of the situation, soft sand and/or a cobble berm are far and away the solution least damaging to the natural processes and biology of the beach environment.

I hope you will keep these facts of coastal dynamics in mind as you deliberate on the course the City will take.

Thank you,
Deane Plaister
30 W. Valerio St. #7
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Email response sent to Erin Maker [email protected] in response to 10/21/21 zoom carp dunes project meeting presentation Hi Erin,
A BIG thanks for a well-organized and presented seminar on the Beach restoration project. I wanted to thank you again (and all concerned) for being so thorough and really looking at all the details of the Carpinteria Beach project. I love Carpinteria too, and I think that Carp, along with Santa Barbara, has the opportunity to really “do things right” ecologically and be an example to other cities that might encounter similar issues. Also, as a Carpinteria resident, me and other resident friends that are following this, are very appreciative of the dedication and attitude toward really studying the issue and keeping us all apprised and able to be involved with feedback.

I’ve worked with the City of SB Environmental Department with Steven McIntosh, and have been a board member of the Gaviota Coast Conservancy (GCC) for years, so I wanted to acknowledge your “no stone unturned” approach.

And also wanted to acknowledge that I understand through all my GCC work, that environmental restoration is so complex! Some good questions came up and Chris Webb gave very thorough and thoughtful answers, even saying I don’t know, when unsure, or this is still being figured out. He was very forthright and I can tell is also looking for a really solid solution that also works ecologically. It’s a very complicated issue. It’s very wonderful to hear such an open and transparent presentation and communication with the public.

I thought the issue of “where to get the sand” is a complex issue and one that might have very hard to understand and intricate environmental effects and repercussions. I appreciated the question about the reef and if sand taken “in front of it” could change the whole flow. Chris answered that he was thinking of sand acquisition past the reef or from the marsh river mouth's underwater “historical Delta”. Even reducing the underwater delta could affect underwater species, kelp, urchins, whatever might call that home, as well as the tides and currents. What species get affected by dredging, etc.? So kudos for doing simulations to explore different scenarios.

As I thought about the different options 1-4 (from the current annual sand wall to the single living-dune-plus-enriched beach option), I realized, as I’m sure you all have, that every option resulted in 3-4 feet overspill from a 10-year event and that consequently, none of them provided protection from a ten-year event (and we didn’t see the figures on overtopping on larger year events).

The “best” solution for protecting the property per the presentation, was option four. According to the simulation charts Chris presented, even this best option showed a 3-foot overspill coming all the way over the enriched beach AND the single living-dune). The other three allowed 4 feet topover per the simulations, including the current annual Dune build, which is only a foot different.

I have a few follow-up thoughts and questions:

1. Chris emphasized that the topover/spillover he discussed (only for a ten-year event) was not a “wave” but more whitewater and he used the term that it wasn’t “good”. We didn’t get into how much water the 3-4 feet topover might actually entail. I’m sure it’s very dependent on severity of storm and winds. All scenarios assumed a king tide, I believe, so that is a constant factor. As much as I like creating a living dune, per the presentation, even option four, which incoporates a single living-dune, approximately 500K cu meters of sand enrichment to create 200-plus feet of beach extension, and a groin at Linden, does not solve the problem and protect the endangered residences. Is this correct?
1A. Also, I’m figuring that the 20-,30-, 50-, and 100-year events are also being simulated too. Since all four proposed solutions do not even protect from a ten-year event (e.g. they all result in overtopping ranging from 3 feet with best option number 4, and 4 feet with current annual sand berm and other options), shouldn’t we be looking at other solutions that do protect from ten-year events as well as larger events. Again, this is based on the graphs that were presented that showed that the current yearly berm protected the properties behind it “almost” as well as the option 4, which only added one foot of overtop greater protection and I’m estimating that even that reduces during larter 20- year and greater events? We have the Thomas mudslide 100-year event rainfall event to demonstrate that a one-hundred-year event can happen any time and needs to be considered as well.

2. Since the difference between options 1,2, and 3, and the best option #4 is “only” one foot per the simulations, why not just stick with the annual berm? perhaps build it thicker, temporarily reinforce it annually (perhaps using some of the fiberglass groin moveable parts discussed, etc.)
2A,. Keeping the annual sand berm would save a lot of money for basically the same result.

3. In addition, simply keeping the annual sand berm doesn’t create issues of down-groin evacuation of sand, which everyone understands does and will happen with groins. Chris’s very open and good answer to the question: "what about erosion to the east of the groin on State beach land," was something to the effect of, (paraphrased) we will keep actively modifying the groin to make it the smallest profile needed to retain the west sand enrichment, and that has the “least” erosion to the east of the Linden groin”. I have seen personally too many down-groin erosions that became and are still very problematic. We need to ensure the integrity of the state beach dunes and beach and not endanger it by protecting the property behind the annual berm. 3A. Part of the solution Chris mentioned to down-groin concerns is to have enough sand enriched up-groin so that it would come around the groin and add some sand. Addmittedly this would take monitoring and continual adding of new sand enrichment to replace what eroded down-groin. The estimate was to rebuild / add more sand every 10-15 years as an estimate. However, this is very difficult to estimate because large 10-year plus events, or more frequent big storm events could change this very significantly, requiring more frequent up-groin sand build up. The city and the State need to really work on these effects in very close concert. 3B. I’m concerned also about how large storms, in addition to the 10-year and up events, would be affected by the groin to erode more beach, perhaps into the dunes, that simulations have not shown as yet. 3C,. Keeping the annual sand berm solution, also helps avoid unknown repercussions of taking / dredging sand locally (underwater marsh river mouth delta and offshore perhaps past reef were discussed, and it was said that source is still unknown, etc.).

4. What is the justification that the City of Carpinteria has for such a massive proposal when the options are barely different that the existing berm and all options allow a very similar amount of topover? This is a serious question. I didn’t learn of the project until before the third seminar, which I attended. So I missed that part and would like to know what the genesis of this is. I understand that it is to protect from ocean rise, etc., but it doesn’t seem like any of these carefully studied options do that in the event of 10-year and especially greater size events like 50-, 100-year events anyway?
4A. The purpose of the study is to determine if there is a scenario that will accommplish the goals set out. Which is perfect. However, perhaps a successful study is also one that realizes that the proposals don’t accomplish those goals and to either keep brainstorming and researching, or to realize that the result was that the options created should not be actuated? I want to avoid implementing something just because we’ve started down the path. The simulations concern me as indicating that there is little difference between the annual berm and option four in terms of property protection. But implementing option four is opening up a huge can of environmental worms.

Sadly, we humans all know that so many of our issues like this (e.g. protecting property and life) comes from a long history of not “knowing better” and building in floodplains, or building too close to the ocean, and filling in wetlands, and diverting streams, etc. In other words, things not in sync with nature. Another example, writ large, is blocking off all the huge delta lands around New Orleans. So now, we are all doing our best to resolve issues we unknowingly created ourselves. Taking climate change and ocean rise out of the equation for Carpinteria, just for a minute, these ocean and beach properties are vulnerable to just “normal” 50- and hundred-year events, just by the fact of their location.

I’m fascinated by the challenges that you all are addressing and trying to figure out, and I know it’s a huge job. I’m guessing that my questions and concerns have been and are currently being closely looked at already. I’m sending this in hopes that the comparison of the effectiveness of the current annual berm (plus perhaps improved berm methods) in comparison with the very elaborate proposal 4, may be so equivalent that considering keeping option 1 is a good move.
very respectfully,
Greg Karpain
805-453-1949
January 31, 2022
Erin Maker
Environmental Program Manager
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Ave.

Carpinteria, CA 93013
Dear Erin,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the public draft of the Carpinteria Dune and Shoreline Management Plan. The draft plan contains some interesting elements, and represents an important step forward in Carpinteria's response to sea level rise (SLR). A living shoreline dune system could potentially play an important role in that response. Unfortunately, this particular proposal is profoundly maladaptive. It privileges the short-term interests of beachfront property owners over the long-term interests of the city and its residents, and in doing so would squander time and public funding that are needed to address long-term risks. The plan also raises troubling questions about a potential conflict of interest in the city's internal decision-making. These issues should be addressed in the final version of the plan.

The concept of maladaptation is key to understanding the problem. Maladaptation is defined in the city's SLR vulnerability assessment as "an adaptation strategy which may protect a single sector but reduces the incentive to implementing additional adaptation measures while diminishing the long-term capacity to adapt in the future." This plan's proposed approach of constructing a large-scale addition to the current beach, then constructing a dune on that new beach, would do exactly this.

It is important to understand that the plan would be hugely expensive. The draft is vague on the upper range of the initial cost, stating that "implementation of the Project has the potential to incur a total cost ranging from $9,000,000 to $12,000,000 or more." How much more? The plan doesn't say. It does admit that with many coastal communities pursuing beach nourishment as part of their own response to sea level rise, the cost of suitable sediment may increase in the future, but it doesn't factor that increase into its cost estimates.

Because of this, the plan's $9 to $12 million estimate probably represents an optimistic lower bound for the project's true initial cost. But even accepting the optimistic estimate as accurate, this project would be hugely expensive by Carpinteria standards. Excluding personnel costs, Carpinteria's current annual budget is roughy $15.2 million. In the best-case scenario, implementing this project would come close to doubling the city's entire non-personnel budget. If we narrow the focus to just capital improvement projects, the city's current annual expenditures of roughly $8.6 million would be nearly tripled by the initial cost of this project.

The plan outlines various ways we might come up with that money. A variety of possible new taxes and fees are described, along with a list of state and federal grant funding sources. The range of potential funding amounts from each of those sources is given, after which the plan confidently says, "Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the City could reasonably afford/fund Project implementation through a combination of funding measures."
That assumption is not, in fact, reasonable, and is not supported by the information in the plan. All of the identified funding sources are uncertain. Voters asked to approve new taxes and bond measures, and agencies controlling public grant money, will subject the city's proposals to careful scrutiny. What does the city intend to do with these prodigious sums? Who will benefit from the spending? What other needs for those funds might take priority?
A key part of what the public and decision makers will be looking at are the project's long-term costs and benefits. Initial implementation costs will only be the start. The newly constructed beach and dune system will require regular rebuilding. The plan is vague on the frequency and cost of maintenance.

Early in the plan's executive summary there is an estimate of annual maintenance costs of "up to $250,000 per year." Elsewhere the plan suggests that initially, re-nourishment and reconstruction of the dune might need to take place every 10 years, and might require roughly half the initial placement volume, or 250,000 cubic yards of sediment, to re-extend the beach, with additional costs to reconstruct and re-vegetate the dune. Since those costs seem likely to be more than the $2.5 million from 10 years of annual $250,000 maintenance payments, it is not clear how these two estimates of future costs relate to each other. That plan should make that more clear.

The plan recognizes that these numbers will seem high to decision makers, and attempts to address that concern in this way: "While expensive, the Project would reduce or delay projected significant and extremely costly damage to the Beach Neighborhood and even Downtown through 2050 or 2070, after which additional measures would need to be explored and implemented." Elsewhere it says, "Though costly, the alternative of repeated damage to high value residential properties and public infrastructure and required repeated clean up, repairs, and expensive adaptation measures, would likely dwarf the cost of Project implementation."
There are some valid points here, though the implication that "additional measures" could be explored only after the project ceases to be effective is dangerously misguided, as I discuss in more detail below.

It is true that the cost of ignoring SLR would dwarf the cost of this project. But that is misleading. This project offers only a brief delay of those SLR-related impacts, and makes it more, rather than less, likely that our descendants will experience those impacts in the future.

The plan's estimates for ongoing maintenance costs are based on current sea level. As sea level rises the frequency and cost of maintenance will increase. When sea level reaches roughly 2 feet above current levels the project will become largely ineffective. The re-nourished beach will be washed away. The protective dune system will be regularly overtopped and destroyed by winter storms. The beach neighborhood will be subject to frequent flooding, and the tens of millions of dollars spent to delay that event will provide no further protection. The city's vulnerability assessment acknowledges this, identifying 2 feet of SLR as a key tipping point after which protective measures will be largely ineffective.

The plan comes close to acknowledging this in a few places, but it avoids addressing the implications.

In the discussion of performance/success criteria, the plan says, "Monitoring information will be used to assess whether the Project is functioning in the short-term and how it might be expected to be selfsustaining in the longterm." There is no information in the plan itself or in the expert guidance it refers to that suggests any way for the project to be "self-sustaining in the longterm." For the plan to treat that as a possibility is misleading.

In the discussion of project abandonment, the plan says, "At some point in the projected sea level rise curve, the cost of maintaining the beach and dunes may become too great or flooding in the City may occur via other pathways (e.g., from the salt marsh or due to rising groundwater)." The use of the word "may" in this sentence is significant. Again, there is no information, either in the draft plan or in the other documents cited by it, that suggests this might not happen. It is essentially certain. For the plan to imply otherwise by using the word "may" is misleading.

As previously cited, the plan refers to 2050 to 2070 as the window of time when the project may need to be abandoned. It is important for decision makers to understand the assumptions underlying the choice of those dates, and the plan should describe those assumptions more clearly.

When the plan talks about 2050 to 2070 as the dates when the project might need to be abandoned, what it is really talking about is the possibility that 2 feet of SLR will occur by that date. The flood impacts are tied to the amount of sea level rise, not to the year. The reason there is a 20-year uncertainty is that the plan is using different assumptions about how unlucky we might be.

Sea level rise projections are uncertain, and one of the main areas of uncertainty is how quickly future SLR will happen. The OPC 2018 numbers that the plan uses say there is a 0.5% chance (1 in 200) that there will be 2 feet of SLR by 2050. There is a 17% chance (1 in 6) that there will be 2 feet of SLR by 2070. So that appears to be the range of probabilities that the plan is describing: from a 0.5% chance that the project will need to be abandoned by 2050, to a 17% chance it will need to be abandoned by 2070.

But those numbers don't tell the whole story. Decision makers might be misled by the fact that both of those probabilities are relatively low. They might think, "Sure; two feet of SLR MIGHT happen by 2050 or 2070, but that will only happen if we're unlucky. Maybe we can roll the dice." To make an informed decision it is important that higher-probability scenarios also be considered.

Reviewing the full range of probability estimates in the OPC 2018 guidance, there is a greater than 50% chance (1 in 2) that there will be 2 feet of SLR by 2100. In other words, it isn't just a lowprobability scenario that we need to worry about. There are higher-probability scenarios that play out soon enough to be a problem for current development. Also, all of these probability curves bend upward over time. In other words, under all scenarios it is expected that SLR will continue and accelerate over the rest of this century and beyond. There is no scenario in which SLR slows or stops.

There is no scenario in which we don't reach 2 feet of SLR relatively soon, most likely by 2100. If our descendants are lucky they might not reach it until after that date, but even in that unlikely case it will only be a few decades later.

This makes it important that we don't put off decision-making related to that event. The plan essentially admits this in its discussion of project abandonment, when it says, "the living shoreline’s effective lifespan is not unlimited if sea level rise proceeds as currently projected or accelerates." The plan says that "before that point [i.e., the point at which the project is no longer effective], the City will need to make decisions on other approaches to handling the coastal flooding problem as outlined in the City's SLRVAAP [vulnerability assessment]."
The key point that the plan fails to address is this: We are already at the point when we need to consider these decisions. The choices we make today will have profound effects on our future options. This plan's approach, though, is to treat the project's aftermath as something that can be safely ignored while we press forward.

There is no detailed discussion in the plan, or in the city's vulnerability assessment, of what comes after. The main focus is on short-term protective measures like beach nourishment and the dune restoration project. The plan seems to hope that some magic solution will appear so we don't need to plan for what comes after.

There will be no magic solution. All the expert information the city has collected over the last several years points in the same direction: When we reach 2 feet of SLR the beach neighborhood will experience frequent flooding. Protective measures, even wildly expensive ones like the project proposed in this plan, will no longer be effective. Whatever we're going to do to deal with that threat needs to be in place when we reach that point.

The only cost-effective solution that the city has identified for 2 feet of SLR is a transformation of the beach neighborhood to land uses that are more resilient to flooding. In other words, we need to return the beach neighborhood to something closer to the coastal estuary and oceanfront dune system that existed there before the residential development of the 20th century.

The process of implementing such a solution is commonly referred to as managed retreat. It would likely include several steps.
* An initial rezoning.
* Re-establishment of something like the living shoreline dune described by the current plan (though, as the plan acknowledges, the "ideal" place to establish it will be on the elevated backshore, the historic dune location currently occupied by the beachfront development south of Sandyland Road). * Gradual replacement of residential development with something more resilient to flooding (e.g., restoration of something like the original salt marsh).

All of these steps will be complicated and expensive, for many of the same reasons laid out in the current plan. But these steps, or something like them, will clearly be necessary. The city has identified no alternative.

This is why the proposed plan is maladaptive. The future that the plan envisions is one in which we pursue an aggressive short-term protection project, sweeping up all available public money and spending it on a solution that will become ineffective just when we need it most. In the meantime the plan would have us ignore the long-term problem, allowing continued development and redevelopment in accordance with the beach neighborhood's current inappropriate zoning. When 2 feet of SLR does arrive (as it will), our descendants will be left with few options, having already spent the money and squandered the time they could have used to implement a cost-effective managed retreat.

It will be a disaster. And it is a disaster that this plan makes much more likely.

There is one last concern that I believe the plan should address. In crafting policies relating to this issue, there is a potential for conflict between the long-term interests of the city in preserving public safety, beach recreation, and environmentally sensitive habitat, and the short-term interests of beach neighborhood property owners, especially the owners of oceanfront property along the south side of Sandyland Road, in preserving their current property values as long as possible.

In considering the project proposal in this plan, one thing that strikes me is that it has the potential to be very beneficial for short-term property values on the south side of Sandyland Road. As discussed above, the plan would be maladaptive in terms of diverting large amounts of public money away from long-term solutions. But for beachfront property, the plan would be a spectacular windfall, with huge public sums spent in a way that benefits them disproportionately. This raises questions about the city's internal decision-making process around proposing and promoting the project.

Key questions in this area include:
* How has the city addressed the need to balance the competing interests of the community generally and the beachfront property owners? What principals guide the city's exploration of project options that might benefit one part of the community versus another? * What is the city's view as to the relevance of the 1974 Roberts judgement (which established legal guidelines for resolving public/private disputes along the boundary between private and public beach on the south side of Sandyland Road). Is it the city's view that the only options available to it for responding to SLR are those that are consistent with the Roberts judgement? Or does new information about SLR, which was not considered by the court in crafting the Roberts judgement, re-open the question of how to strike an appropriate balance between public and private interests? * I believe it is the case that the city's Parks and Recreation director, Matt Roberts, is a direct descendant of two of the plaintiffs (Glenn and Claire Roberts) in the original lawsuit that resulted in the Roberts judgement. My understanding is that Matt and his family have historically owned and managed property along the south side of Sandyland Road. In that Matt appears to be continuing to participate in development of the city's project proposals in this area (I see, for example, that in the current plan's references there is an entry for "Personal Communication Between Matt Roberts of the City of Carpinteria and Chris Webb of Moffatt & Nichol. January 2021"), and given (again) the current plan's promotion of a project that would appear to confer dramatic benefits on beachfront property owners while harming the long-term interests of the community generally, it is important than this potential conflict of interest be addressed.

I raised a question about this in February 2019, in my public comments on the city's Draft Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan. I don't believe I ever received a detailed response to those concerns. My February 2019 comment on this issue is reproduced below. I basically have the same concerns now as I expressed then.
[February 2019 comments begin]
A key issue that our community will grapple with in the years ahead is the inherent conflict between Beach Neighborhood property rights and the larger community’s right to protect itself from coastal hazards and the potential loss of public beach due to SLR. It is hard to avoid noticing a potential conflict of interest, in that the city’s Director of Parks and Recreation, Matt Roberts, who has been a key player in developing the Adaptation Plan, is a member of a family with a long history of owning and managing beachfront property along Sandyland Road.

I want to be clear that I’m not making an accusation of wrongdoing. I don’t know the specifics of Matt’s current ownership or management interests, if any, in the Beach Neighborhood. More importantly, I’ve known Matt for many years, consider him a friend, and know that he is a dedicated city employee who has demonstrated many times over that he is a faithful steward of the community’s interests. I believe his vision and energy are a key asset for the community in addressing the challenges we face due to SLR.

At the same time, I come back to the principle stated in the Adaptation Plan’s Chapter 7, p. 7-9:
> One of the most controversial trade-offs of adaptation is associated with the longterm preservation of a beach, which often pits private and public interests against each other with strong overtures to social justice and community inequality... Good adaptation planning considers these trade-offs and how adaptation measures implemented to alleviate vulnerability in one sector may affect other sectors.

As the community deals with this difficult balancing act, even the appearance of a conflict of interest could cause some to question the fairness of the city’s decision making. [February 2019 comments end]
I think it is important that this issue be addressed. If Matt does not have a conflict of interest, and if in the city's view there is not even a problematic appearance of one, it should say so. If, however, there is a conflict, or at least the appearance of one, the city should figure out how to deal with it in a way that will allow it to pursue projects like this one without being hampered by the perception of a conflict.

Thank you.

John Callender
4466 Mesa Lane
Carpinteria, CA 93013
[email protected]
805-455-0053
SmartCoastCa.org
Join our contact list!
Protection Options
Dune restoration, Living shorelines, and coastal marsh enhancement SOURCES: (left to right, top to bottom) RIOS; The Bay Foundation; USFWS; The San Diego Union Tribune; UCSB; Reef Ball Foundation; The San Diego Union Tribune; UCSB; The San Diego Union Tribune Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels,seawalls Kelp forestation, beach/sand nourishment, artificial reefs • Many of California’s beaches have formed as a result of natural littoral transport barriers, primarily points, headlands, stream deltas, and similar obstructions. • Sand retention systems have been used effectively at a number of sites in California as a way to significantly extend the lifespan of a beach nourishment project (Griggs & Patch, 2006)
• Properly designed artificial reef systems will provide wave attenuation that assist with beach stabilization without causing adverse impacts on adjacent beaches (Griggs, 2007; Harris, 2003)
Artificial Reefs and Erosion Control
• Funded by the Gold Coast City Council to protect Surfers Paradise beaches from erosion (Jackson & Hornsey, 2002)
• Primary purpose was to widen the beach and dunes along Surfer’s Paradise, Main and Narrowneck Beaches to accommodate storm erosion and sea level rise • Secondary purpose to create artificial surfing reef
Narrowneck Reef on the Gold Coast of Australia
Storm erosion on Narrowneck
beach in 1996 (taken at high tide)
Narrowneck beach after storms
in 2001 (taken at high tide)
Port of San Diego
Installing Reef Balls to Help
Protect South Bay from
Rising Sea Levels
• 360 Reef Balls to be installed at a cost
of $960,000 which includes a 5-year study to
determine the ability of the reef elements to
catalyze sediment accretion or reduce erosion of
sediment shoreward and learn how the reef
impacts or enhances local species richness within
the project footprint.
• Collaborative effort with USFWS and Coastal
Conservancy, funded with grants from USFWS
and Builders Initiative
Reef Balls arranged
prior to installation
SOURCE: Coronado Times article,
Managing Editor 12/13/2021, Port of
San Diego
Connect with Us!
Website
www.smartcoastca.org
Sign Up
www.smartcoastca.org/sign-up.html

ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated February 7, 2022 Summary, February 7, 2022 Planning Commission Deliberation Draft Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
Commissioner Callender: Largely summarized in the comment letter (Attachment B) submitted by John Callender on 1/31/2022. Commissioner Callender referenced those comments in his deliberation. While it is a welcome step forward, stated that this project is a horrible idea and the wrong use of the City’s resources. Comments focused on planning more for long term impacts of SLR, including measures such as managed retreat.

Commissioner Moyer: Agrees with Commissioner Callender. Believes there are a lot of issues that still need to be worked out. In favor of the comment submitted by the Coastal Commission regarding engaging the State Park and installing multiple smaller groins, but hesitant about the groin element overall. Inquired about moving forward with just the current winter berm, but as a year round option.

Asked what would happen to the beach if the berm was left up year round. In favor of continuing with the next step, environmental review.

Commissioner La Fevers: Inquired about the feasibility of attempting to create a living shoreline in front of the developed properties. Commissioner La Fevers stated that he is not in support of managed retreat at this time, and does agree that there is benefit in moving forward with this project. Other statements included recommending that the feasibility and environmental impacts of the project be carefully considered, as well as looking carefully at the coastal access points. Echoed the comments made by Commissioner Moyer regarding the winter berm; expressed understanding that just the berm option may not be viable. Stated that the project identified as the preferred alternative is a viable project for consideration and that Council should put emphasis on a project that looks at a wider area than just the City beach. In favor of evaluating options for a wider beach. Overall emphasis on the need for grant funding to move this project forward.

Commissioner Benefield: Thought the comments made by the other Commissioners were very thoughtful. Echoed Commissioner Moyer’s comments regarding the winter berm. Agreed with previous comments made regarding grant funding. Stressed the need for other efforts regarding mitigating sea level rise in the long term that should be done parallel to short term mitigation measures.

Commissioner Allen: Absent
City of Carpinteria
Couttcrt- Aceruoa Srerr Reponr
February 14,2022

ITEM FOR COUNCI CONSIDERATION
Award of a Construction Contract in the amount of $2,089,242.00 to construct the Carpinteria Skate Park (Project).

STAFF RECO MENDATION
Defer the decision to allow additional time to analyze the sole bid received.

Sample Motion: I move to defer the decision to award the Construction Contract.

BACKG ROUND
On December 14,2015, the City Council received the Carpinteria Skate Park Feasibility Study that concluded;

1. Skateparks are an apt addition to a local agency's park and recreational facilities as is evidenced by the growing number of skateparks constructed over the past decade in California and North America. Nuisance issues related to a skatepark are similar to other outdoor public recreational facilities.

2. The demand for a skatepark in Carpinteria has been durable over the last decade and skateboarding will likely continue to be a popular recreational activity.

3. The local agency exposure to liability is equalto or less than traditionally provided core sports facilities such as basketball or soccer.

4. Site selection, quality design and a local private sponsoring organization are criticalto successfully building and operating a skatepark in any community.

City Council authorized entering into a MOU on February 22,2016 with the Carpinteria Skate Foundation. The Carpinteria Skate Foundation was incorporated in 2009 and is a charitable purpose corporate entity.

The MOU defines roles and responsibilities through five significant phases of the skate park's design, approval process and park operations. lt also describes the funding responsibilities of each party for each phase.

Award of Construction Contract for the Carpinteria Skate park February 14,2022
pg.2
July 10,2017 the City Council awarded a design services contract with Mears Design Group to design the Park.

June 1 ,2020 the Carpinteria Planning Commission granted a DP/CDP for Project #1g2016 March 8,2021the City Council accepted an Easement from Chevron USA for public parking purposes on the north-eastern portion of the Carpinteria oil and gas plant located at 5675 Carpinteria Avenue (APN 001-170-029).

On December 23,2021 and January 6,2022 the Project was advertised for public bid pursuant to Public Contract Code S 20104.

January 10,2022the City Council authorized the purchase of the project restroom in the amount of $66,000.

DISCUSSION
The bids for the Skate Park were opened on February 10, 2022 at 2 PM at Carpinteria City Hall and read aloud. The City received only one bid. Under the bid terms, the bid is good for 60 days or until April 11,2022. This allows time for some analysis.

One bid was received and is summarized below
Company Name Bid Amount
Lash Construction $2,089,242

POLTCY CONSISTENCY
The city's General Plan supports new park and recreation projects.

Open Space, Recreation & Gonservation Element
Obiective OSC-14. Provide for adequate park and recreation facilities to meet the needs of the community and yisrtors.
lmplementation Measure 61. Support development of new or expanded park and recreation facilities as demand/need dictates. When tatent demand for parks and recreation facitities is identified, adequate parkland and facilities sha// be identified and pursued.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Engineer's estimate was listed at 1.1 to 1.4 million dollars. The bid includes a variety of materials that are pre-purchased by the City. These items include the project furnishings, the pergola and the restroom building.

Market conditions, including wages and materials, are volatile in today's market and the considerable amount that the bid is over the engineer's estimate may be attributable to G/users/MatVPark-Rec/Skate Park/StaffReports/Bid Award
Award of Construction Contract for the Carpinteria Skate Park February 14,2022
pg3
market conditions. However, with only one bid received, additional analysis is warranted to determine the City's next step in delivering the Project.

A summary of the project costs using the sole bid received is presented below.

Project Costs lncurred
Project design fees
Legalfees (mostly related to easement)
Site preparation (tree work)
Printing
Planning Charges
Total Costs lncurred to Date
Anticipated Costs to ComPletion
Restroom Building
Park Furnishings
Construction Contract
Water Meter Relocation
Contingency
Total Anticipated Costs to Completion
Total Project Cost
Source of Funds
Skate Foundation Grant (Received to Date)
General Fund (legal and planning)
State Grant (Per Capita)
City Park lmprovement Funds
Skate Foundation Grant
Fundinq not yet identified
$40,880
$20,440
$18,935 $ 817
$10.783
$91-855
$66,000
$50,000
$2,090,000
$30,000
$50,000
$2.241.000
$2338255
$29,867
$31,223
$175,000
$125,000
$1,050,000
$921,765
Total Funds Required $2J3!255
Public contracts awarded by local entities require payment of prevailing wages. Thus, all such contracts must include the applicable provisions required by the Labor Code, and, with limited exception, allworkers employed by contractors performing on a public works project must be paid at least the general prevailing iate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed. Lab. Code S 1771.

The Skate Park will require ongoing supervision and maintenance. The MOU between the Foundation and the City requires an operations and maintenance plan (O&M) be agreed upon. The O & M plan must specify how the Parties will share skate park ("Park") obligations, including but not limited to:

G/users/M atUPark-Rec/Skate Parl</StaffReports/Bid Award Award of Construction Contract for the Carpinteria Skate park February 14,2022
pg. 4
' Day-to-day Park management and maintenance, including enforcement of rules, and documentation and reporting of violations.
' Programming and direct supervision/oversight of Park users under 12 years of age.
' Park maintenance inspections and related documentation and reporting. . Volunteer recruitment, training, and retention to help manage the Park. . Funding ongoing operations and maintenance.

Negotiation for the O & M plan are planned to be completed prior to the completion of the park. lt is expected that the Foundation will continue to partner with the bity to operate and fund the Park.

LEGAL D RISK MANAG EMENT CONSI TIONS
The City Attorney will be available to assist in considering options on how to proceed NS
Defer the decision of award of the Construction Contract until additional analysis can be performed.

Do not award the construction contract and reject all bids pursuant to PCC S 20166.

Provide direction to Staff.
ldentify funds and award the contract.

PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Representatives of The Carpinteria Skate Foundation

ATTACHMENTS
None
Staff contact: Matthew Roberts Director, Parks, Recreation and Public Facilities (805) 7 55-4449 [email protected]
Reviewed by: Dave Durflinger, City Manager
(805) 7 55-4400, daved@ci. carpinteria.ca. us
S
G/users/MatVPark-Rec/Skate ParUstaffReports/Bid Award
City of Carpinteria
Gouttcu- Aceruoa Srnrr Reponr
February 14,2022

ITEM FOR GOUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Response to the 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report, "Pensions in Santa Barbara County Require Vigilance, Balancing Promises and Maintaining Services"

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the letter response to the subject Santa Barbara Grand Jury Report.

Sample Motion: I move to approve the letter response to the Grand Jury Report for the City Manager's signature and transmittal.

BACKGROUND
The 2021 Grand Jury Report on local government pensions in Santa Barbara County (Attachment A) is a follow-up to a 2017-18 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report on pensions in Santa Barbara County.

The Report is in the standard Grand Jury format and includes four Findings and two Recommendations. The Report is directed for response to the nine local government agencies in Santa Barbara County: the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Solvang, and the County of Santa Barbara.

The City is required by law to provide a response to the Findings and Recommendations in the report no later than 90 days of receipt of the Report. The Report was received by the City on November 30, 2021, and response from the City is due no later than February 28,2022.

The purpose of this agenda matter is to provide a draft letter response to the Grand Jury Report for City Council consideration and action.

DISCUSSION
The City is required to respond to Grand Jury Findings in one of three ways: Agree, Disagree wholly or Disagree partially with an explanation. The City is required to respond to Grand Jury Recommendations in one of the following ways:

Response to the 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report February 14,2022
Page2
o Has been implemented, with brief summary of implementation actions taken o Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule
. Requires further analysis, with analysis completion date of no more than six months after the publication of the report
. Will not be implemented, with an explanation of why

POLICY CONSISTENCY
Responses to Grand Jury inquiries, findings and recommendations, are consistent with the City's interest in transparency and effective communication with the public about local government issues. Effectively managing City pension cost is consistent with its Mission Statement that, in part, calls for making judicious use of limited financial resources.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This response to the Grand Jury report does not directly involve any financial considerations.

LEGAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The City is required by law, California Penal Code 9933(c), to provide comments in response to the Grand Jury Report within g0 days of the date of receipt, i.e., no later than February 28,2022.

PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None

ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft letter response
B. 2021 Grand Jury Report, "Pensions in Santa Barbara County Require Vigilance, Balancing Promises and Maintaining Services"
Staff contact: Licette Maldonado
(805) 7 55-4448, licettem@ci. carpi nteria. ca. us
Reviewed by: Dave Durflinger, City Manager
(805) 7 55-4400, [email protected]. us
G : Dave/CityCounciliS-Public Pension Grand J ury Report_2022

ATTACHMENT A

DRAFT RESPONSE LETTER

CITY of CARPINTERIA, c*rFoRr{rA
February 15,2022
Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
Presiding Judge Gustavo Lavayen
312 East Cook Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
RE: Gifi of Garpinteria's Response to the Findings and Recommendations in the Santa Barbara Gounty Grand Jury Report on "Pensions in Santa Barbara County Require Vigilance"
To Presiding Judge Gustavo Lavayen/Santa Barbara Grand Jury, I am writing in response to the Grand Jury report entitled, "Pensions in Santa Barbara County." The City of Carpinteria City Council considered the Report at its regular meeting of February 14,2022, and the proceedings can be viewed through the City's website at www.carpintariaca.qov. The City Council authorized the following responses to the request from the Grand Jury for responses to certain findings and recommendations of the Report:

Finding 1a: The cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Solvang and the County of Santa Barbara are at less potential pension solvency risk.

Gity of Carpinteria Response to Finding 1a: Agree (as to Carpinteria only) The Grand Jury used information about the City's pension liability made available by CaIPERS and the City. City staff has reviewed this information and believes it to be accurate.

Finding 1c: Unfunded Accrued Liabilities have risen for all cities since 2016, and with the announced change in the Discount Rate, are expected to rise further, which could impact the cities' ability to deliver expected services to residents.

City of Carpinteria's Response to Finding 1c: Agree.

Recommendation 1: That each City Council and the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors develop and publish a comprehensive plan by June 30,2022, addressing their pension plans and how they intend to properly assure future obligations are paid when due, without impacting the timely delivery of essential and promised services to residents.

City of Carpinteria's Response to Recommendation 1: Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule. ,
5775 CARPINTERIA AVENUE o CARPINTERIA,CA 93013-2603
(80s)684-s405 o FAX(80s) 684-s304
www.carpinteria.ca.us
The City evaluates its pension obligations along with other critical financial information as a part of its Long-Term Financial Plan. The Long-Term Financial Plan is currently being updated and is expected to be considered for approval by the City Council prior to June 30,2022.

Finding 2: Section 1 15 Trusts, Pension Obligation Bonds, and Pension Reserve Funds can be effective mechanisms to protect cities from dramatic impacts to the financial markets or declines in Generalfund revenues.

Gity of Garpinteria's Response to Finding 2: Agree.

Recommendation 2:That each City Council and the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors study and determine by June 30, 2022, whether a Section 115 Trust, Pension Obligation Bond, or Pension Reserve Fund would be an effective hedge against risks to their pension plans for their city.

Gity of Carpinteria's Response to Recommendation 2: Has been implemented.

The City has established and maintained a Section 1 15 Trust since June 30, 2018 Yours,
Dave Durflinger
City Manager
2lPage

ATTACHMENT B

GRAND JURY REPORT
November 30,2021

t* illlll
DocuSign Envelope lD: 86426099-9D29-4144-83C1-2EE3F70C05D2 COTiNTY COTIRTHOT]SE
I lOO ANACAPA S]'REET
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93IOI
l
ryta
4 (80s) s68-2291
SBCGJTZi SBCOURTS.ORc
H TTP://\4rWW. SBCC.l. O RG
I

GRAND JTIRY
SANTA BAITBAIIA COT]NTY
November 30,2421
David Durflinger
Carpinteria City Manager
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Dear Mr. Durflinger,
On behalf of the 2021Santa Barbara County Grand Jury, I am attaching a copy of our report for your review and response.

PENSIONS IN SANTA BARBARA

COUNTY REQUIRE VIGILANCE
The Grand Jury, County Counsel and the Presiding Judge have approved this report. California Penal Code $933.05 requires the following:
. You are receiving this report two working days prior to its release to the public;you shall not disclose this report prior to its public release.
' You must respond to each Finding and Recommendation in this report as indicated. . You must submit your original response to the Presiding Judge. . lf you are an elec'ted county officer or agency head, the response time is no later than 60 days from the date of receipt of the report.
. lf you are the governing body of a public agency subject to the reviewing authority of the Grand Jury, the response time is no later than 90 days of receipt of the report. . lf your response to a Recommendation is, "Requires Further Analysis," you must provide an analysis completion schedule which shall not exceed six months from the report publication date.

Your response will be posted on the Grand Jury website: [email protected]. Please forward a copy of Your response to: Presiding Judge Gustavo Lavayen
312 East Cook Street
Santa Maria, California 93454
Please also forward a copy of your response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury at:
sbcojtOsbcourts.org
Respectfully yours,
Qr** 0/o-,
Pamela Olsen
Foreperson
2021Santa Barbara County Grand Jury O";i.r#*

DocuSign Envelope lD: 86A26099-9D29-41 A4-83C1 -2EE3F7 0C05D2 PENSIONS rN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY REQUTRE VIGTLANCE
Balancing Promises and Maintaining Services

SUMMARY
The202l Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) conducted a follow-up investigation to the 2017-18 Grand Jury "Pensions in Santa Barbara County" report to determine how the eight cities and the County have progressed.
ln 2017-18, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury issued an investigative report that looked at the pension plans of Santa Barbara County (County) and the eight incorporated cities within the County.

That report found there were substantial liquidity and solvency risks to the sustainability of many of the public defined benefit pension plans in the County and that if there are additional fiscal shocks, such as a fall in tax revenues or a period of low returns on pension assets held by the California Public Employee Retirement System (CaIPERS) and County of Santa Barbara Employee Retirement System (SBCERS), then other actions may be required.

Salaries and benefits, including pension costs, are the largest annual operating expenditures of the County and its eight cities. The unfunded pension liabilities for future payments to current and former staffare also a significant portion of each of their balance sheets, totaling $1.8 billion. Pensions and the related liabilities are a significant part of the operating costs of all local governments. The Jury was told that governments often cannot provide the same level of wages and benefits to attract and retain talented and capable staff as "for profit" organizations because of the need to balance providing required services to its residents against the burden of taxation or fees charged to those residents.

Pensions, the Jury learned, provide a way for local governments to attract capable staffwhile deferring some of the costs to the taxpayers to the future. Pensions are an attractive benefit for many as they assure staffof income streams after retirement.

The County and cities need to make sure they are prepared to fund future pension obligations when due, without disrupting critical services or over-burdening their residents with extra fees and taxes.

The Jury discovered that, while risks continue to exist, especially for those cities that are suffering financial challenges, there are no immediate threats and that, with proper attention, all cities and the County should be able to deliver the necessary services to its residents and meet its pension obligations as they become due.

INTRODUCTION
The County of Santa Barbara and the eight incorporated cities within the County had unfunded pension liabilities of $1.8 billion as of June 30,2020. These obligations are the calculated net present value of payments due over an extended period of years and like most U.S. cities represent the largest liability on the County's and the eight cities' General Fund Balance Sheets. Financial markets are not always predictable. For example, in early 2020, the United States was experiencing a record-breaking economy and stock markets were at all+ime highs until the COVID-l9 pandemic struck, and the financial markets contracted and drastically decreased in value. That decline was short-lived but underscores the reality that volatility in the markets can occur without warning and that the County and the eight cities need to be prepared for future significant negative impacts to the markets.

The 2017 -18 Santa Barbara County Jury issued a report about the nine principal public pension systems in Santa Barbara County (County.) Those pension systems include the County of Santa Barbara Employee Retirement System, and those managed by the California Public Employee Retirement 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury I
DocuSign Envelope lD: 80A26099-9D29-4144-83C1-2EE3F70CObD2 System for the eight cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Maria, the City of Santa Barbara and Solvang. The 2017-18 Jury found the highest risks in the plans of Lompoc, the City of Santa Barbara, and Santa Maria, which are the largest in the County. It found moderate risks in Guadalupe and Solvang. It found minimal to moderate risks in Buellton, Carpinteria and Goleta. Risks in SBCERS were moderate and well managed.

California is one of the most expensive states to live in, and Santa Barbara County is one the most expensive counties. Across the board, the cost of living in cities in the County is significantly higher than the national average.t The County and its cities must compete for qualifiid employees. to attract an appropriate workforce, the County and its cities cannot always pay salaries comparable to other employment opportunities candidates may be considering. As a result, they have followed a practice that most governmental organizations use to augment current compensation - a Defined Benefit Pension Plan. In a Defined Benefit Pension Plan the employer promises a specified pension payment upon retirement that is predetermined by a formula based on the employee's earnings history, tenure of service, and age.

Counties and cities have the option to administer their pension plans, but the costs and risks associated with doing so make using an outside administrator more attractive. In California, most counties and cities that have decided not to administer their own pension plans use CaIPERS.2 The eight cities of Santa Barbara County are members of CaIPERS. In addition to the eight cities, close to2,900 California public employers participate in CaIPERS.3 As of June30,2020, CatFgnS managed $392.5 billion in assets,a making it the largest public pension fund in the nation.3 These assets are uied to help cover the cost of future payments due current and former employers for services previously rendered. As of June 30, 2020, the assets under management represente d 70.6 percent of the Accrued Liability due members of the pension fund.s Accrued Liability is net present value of the total dollars needed as ofthe valuation date to fund all benefits earned in the past.

In addition to using investment returns, CaIPERS uses contributions from employers and members to fund payments of member benefits. Per CaIPERS, as of Jun e 30, 2020, funding for retirement benefits was broken down as follows: investment returns (55 percent), employer contributions (32 percent) and employee contributions (1 3 percent).6
Each year, employers within the CaIPERS pension fund are required to make contributions to the fund.

These contributions are made up of two components, the Employer Normal Cost and a payment that represents amortization of the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL.) The Employer Normal Cost represents the pension amount earned by active employees for services expected to be provided for the upcoming fiscal year and is paid at 100 percent. The UAL is total Actuarial Accrued Liabilities minus assets available to pay benefits eamed. Rather than requiring employers to pay the entire amount of the UAL, the annual payment is an amortized amount needed to fund the liability over an extended period for past service credit earned by members. In addition to these required payments, employers also have the option to make additional payments to pay down the UAL early. ' Salary.com https://www.salary.com/research/cost-of-living/ca (last reviewed September 21,2021) 'https://www.calpers.ca.eov/pase/about/orsiniiit;tAlp;s-story (last reviewed September 21,;021) 3 https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/facis-aboutpdf (last reviewed September 21,2021) a https://www.calpers.ca.eov/docs/forms-bublications/f;itsi;tesffi;i-nension-funding.pdf (last reviewed September 21, 2021)
s https://www.calpers.ca.qov/docs/forms-publications/facts-investment-pension-funding.pdf (last reviewed September 2l , 2021)
6 https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/newsroom/calpers-news/202 l/calpers-strong-preliminary-fiscal-lyear-investment-returntrigger-d iscount-rate-reduction 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 2
DocuSign Envelope lD: 86426099-9D29-4144-83C1-2EE3F70C05D2 CaIPERS had net investment retums of 8.5 percent for the ten-year period ending June 30, 2020.

Managed assets grew from $237 billion to $392.5 billion. During that period, the annual net investment returns ranged from a low of .01 percent to a high of 21.7 percent.

Discount Rate is the rate of return used to discount future cash flows back to their present value. Prior to 2008, CaIPERS was using a Discount Rate of 7.75 percent. Using too high a Discount Rate can understate the amount currently due for future payments. This can occur if the actual return on invested assets is less than the Discount Rate used and did occur in 2008 and 2009. Usingthe 7.75 percent Discount Rate, managed assets were shown to exceed the Actuarial Liability as of June 30, 2007. In 2008, the Great Recession began and, while the Actuarial Liability continued to grow, managed assets lost significant value. Just two years later, as of June 30,2009, managed assets were only 6l percent of the Actuarial Liability.
ln 2012, the State of California passed AB 340 and AB 197, which enacted the California Public Employees'Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) and were intended to help blunt the rise of pension debt counties and cities were facing due to the recession. PEPRAwent into effect on January 1,2013, and made several significant positive changes in California pension systems. Employees hired prior to PEPRA are members of plans which are referred to as Classic plans. Those employees retain the benefits promised under their existing plans. For employees hired after PEPRA went into effect, the plans typically set a new maximum benefit, increased the retirement age at which members became eligible, set a cap on the amount used to calculate an employee's benefit base, and forbade the practice of "Employer Paid Member Contributions" for new PEPRA members. Since its enactment, the PEPRA law has succeeded in reducing future liabilities in pension plans.

Actuarial valuations reports are prepared for all members of the CaIPERS pension fund each year.

These actuarial reports, which are typically released l4 months after the end of the reporting period, are based on several assumptions, including expected investment return and payroll growth, eligibility for the types of benefits provided, and mortality rates of retirees. Based upon actuarial valuation, the annual employer contribution rates are adjusted, as needed. Since 2016 these valuations are based on an investment return assumption of 7.0 percent. For 2021, and subsequent periods, the Discount Rate used to calculate employer contributions will be dropped to 6.8 percent,6 which will have the effect of raising the estimated future liabilities under the pension fund.

Unlike the eight cities, the County of Santa Barbara and its employees are not members of CaIPERS.

Instead, the County administers its own retirement funds through SBCERS, which was established on January l,1944.lt provides service retirement, disability, death, and survivor benefits for employees of the County of Santa Barbara, the Santa Barbara County Superior Court, and ten special districts.T As of June 30, 2020, SBCERS managed nearly $3.2 billion in assets. This amount represents approximately 74 percent of the Accrued Liability due cunent and former employees who are members of SBCERS, which^ covers 10,777 current and former employees, including 4,322 who are currently receiving benefits.8 Like CaIPERS, SBCERS funds payments of member benefits through a combination of member and employer contributions and investment income.

The Board of SBCERS sets the assumptions to be used to determine the funding requirements of the pension fund each year. One key assumption is the Discount Rate. To be more in line with actual results, the SBCERS Board has lowered the Discount Rate used to determine the Actuarial Accrued Liability several times. ln 2007 it was lowered to 7 .75 percent, and after several interim adjustments, it 7 https ://www. sbcers.org/about- us/
8 https://www.sbcers.ore/wp-content/uploads/2020-Annual-Report-Web-Version.pdf 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury -)
DocuSign Envelope lD: 86426099-9D29-41A4-83C1-2EE3F70C05D2 now sits at 7 percent.e Like plans within the CaIPERS pension fund, the SBCERS pension fund is subject to PEPRA.

Unfunded pension liabilities, as calculated by CaIPERS and SBCERS, are paid by the employer over an extended period, much like a mortgage would be. The amount of Unfunded Accrued Actuarial Liability to be paid in future periods is listed as a liability on each of the cities' and the County's financial statements. That liability is shown at the estimated net present value of the expected future payments, based upon an assumed rate of return on investment assets managed by CaIPERS or SBCERS. Like all estimates, the amounts shown are only as good as the assumptions used to calculate them. One important assumption is the Discount Rate used to calculate the liability. If future CaIPERS or SBCERS investment earnings consistently fall short of the Discount Rate used to calculate the UAL, the amount owed by the cities or County could be significantly higher. If CaIPERS or SBCERS actual investment returns are higher than the Discount Rate used to calculate the UAL, as they have been for most years the past decade, the amounts to be funded by the cities or County would be less.

While CaIPERS and SBCERS have, to date, adequately managed the assets under management for the cities and the County, there are no guarantees that investment returns will be sufficient to cover all obligations, or that other factors might occur that would negatively impact the cities or the County and their ability to meet all obligations on a timely basis. There are mechanisms available to protect the cities and the County from significant increases in future amounts to be paid, or from reductions in revenues, which could impair the ability of the cities or the County to make the future payments timely, without cutting services provided to residents. These mechanisms include:

Section 115 Pension Trusts - A Section 115 Pension Trust, which derives its name from the code section within the United States Internal Revenue Code, may be used to segregate funds from an entity's general fund for the purpose of funding future obligations, and recently has been used more frequently to set aside funds to meet future pension contributions or liabilities that would otherwise create strains on current operational budgets. Monies in a Section I 15 Trust can be invested and can potentially earn a higher rate of return than the growth of future pension obligations. One limitation on Section I 15 funds is that they are irrevocably committed for the purpose stated in the trust and may not be retrieved or used for other purposes.

Pension Obligation Bonds - A Pension Obligation Bond (POB) is a bond issued by a city or county that is repaid from future returns on the investments made using the proceeds of the bond, or from future revenues of the issuing entity. The basic principle of POBs relies on the expectation that the rate to borrow the money is less than the assumed expected return from an investment portfolio. The expected benefits to the entity are that the annual costs of funding the pension liability are offset in some part by the net proceeds of the investments. This takes pressure offthe entity to completely fund the pension obligations from annual revenues. A risk does exist in that the investments created with the borrowed funds may not perform well and the revenues are not sufficient to cover the bond costs. In that case the entity would be required to use funds from other sources, which could impact the level of services provided by the entity. It is imperative that the entity get the lowest possible interest rate to mitigate risk, and with interest rates at record lows, many entities are looking to POBs to protect them from future fluctuations in pension costs.

Pension Reserve Fund - One other option used by some entities is to create a Pension Reserve Fund within their budget that is funded in years when excess monies are available. This concept has the benefit in that should there arise a need to use the funds for other purposes, they could be redirected to the alternative use.
e https://www.sbcers.org/wp-content/uploads/Preliminary-lnvestment-Return-6-30-2021 .pdf 2021 SantaBarbara County Grand Jury 4
DocuSign Envelope lD: B0A26099-9D29-41A4-83C1-2EE3F70C05D2

METHODOLOGY
To carry out its analysis, the Jury:
r Reviewed the 2079 and 2020 CaIPERS valuation reports for the 32 planslo within the eight cities, plus related data in the public domain and as provided by the cities' plan administratorsll; r Reviewed 2020 SBCERS Annual Reports and data provided by SBCERSTo; . Reviewed "The California State Auditor's Fiscal Health Analysis of the State's Over 470 Cities,"l2 which showed California cities that could be facing irscal challenges by assessing their levels of risk using various financial indicators; o Reviewed audited financial reports of the County and of the eight cities for various years plus related data in the public domain and as provided by the County and the eight cities; and o Interviewed individuals with administrative responsibilities for the pension plans from the County and the eight cities and representatives from SBCERS and CaIPERS.

Based on the information in the documents reviewed and from the interviews with various officials of the eight cities, the County, SBCERS and CaIPERS, the Jury constructed a model to assist it in analyzing the current financial position of each of the 32 plans. The Jury also reviewed the relationship of the pension liabilities to their respective General Funds and annual operating revenues, the current and future burden to the residents of the County and the eight cities, and the years the unfunded liabilities are expected to be paid off.

OBSERVATIONS
In Santa Barbara County, PEPRA has been effective in that pension plans created as a result of the pension reform are funded at a much higher percentage. While PEPRA has helped, that does not mean there are not some significant issues to be aware of. The largest component of the Unfunded Accrued Liability in the 32 pension plans of the cities within the county are in Classic plans. Even though PEPRA plans began in 2013, as of June 30, 2020, the total UAL for the 32 plans was over $631 million, of which only $ I million was within PEPRA plans. So, while the 12 PEPRA plans are funded at an average of over 90 percent, the 20 Classic plans are only funded to an average of 68.7 percent. In future years PEPRA plans will play an increasing part in controlling pension costs of the cities and the County.

Table I (below) highlights the overall pension liabilities for each city and the County, as well their respective populations, estimated annual employer pension contributions, and analytics of how each city's and the County's obligations compare to various metrics. These analyses helped the jury classify the pension solvency risk for each of the cities and the County. For example, Lompoc, the City of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and the County have higher per capita UALs than the remaining cities, suggesting there could be a higher strain on those communities than on those with lesser per capita UALs. Also, the cities of Lompoc, Santa Barbara and Santa Maria have significantly higher Estimated Total Employer Contributions than the other cities. These factors alone may not be a warning sign, but when compared to their Projected Payrolls and to their Total General Fund Revenues, they also represent higher percentages of those amounts and suggest higher risk. ro See Appendix B
ll https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/employers/actuarial-services/emplo:yer-contributions/public-agencly-actuarial-valuationreports I 2 https ://www.auditor.ca. gov/bsa/cities_risk_index
2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 5
DocuSign Envelope lD: 86A26099-9D29-41 A4-83C1 -2EE3F7 0C05D2 Table 113
Public Pension Status, Santa Barbara County and 8 Cities, 2020 m20
Population
Normal
Accrued
tiability
Unfunded
Actuarial
tiabilitv
LJnfunded
Actuarial
tiability
Per Caoita
% Funded
(Discount
Rate - 7%l
Estimated
Total
Employer
Contribution
Estimated Total
Employer
Contribution as %
of Projected
Payroll
Estimated Total
Employer
Contribution as % of
Proi Payroll to Total
General Fund Revs
Buellton 5,7O2 s 10,618,762 5 2,678,957 ss2s.08 74.8% s 384,784 22.0X 4.27* Carpinteria 13,385 s 30,911,978 $ 9,432,389 $704.70 69.516 S 1,088,13s 37.4,1 937* Goleta 30,911 S 21,98s,402 S 4,241,19s s30s.1s ao.7* S 1,10s,343 73.5* 3.34X Guadalupe 7,743 S 18,925,088 5 4,224,747 $s42.82 75,C* 5 627,3s2 23.2* 10.:ut( Lompoc 42,853 S g2t,949,gzz S 102,9?4,79s 92,/o2.98 58.016 s 12,649,654 sr.4% 27.65% Santa Barbara 9r,685 $ 1,180,029,261 $ 385,ur,684 51,t23.tz 67.316 5 47,970,234 51.0% 32.O4* Santa Maria to7,263 5 s07,742,ts2 S 100,105,144 s3,s99.57 68.596 s 20,7s3,973 40.7% 23.46'{ Solvang s!39 s 19,743,790 S s,2ol,45s $890.81 73,7* S s99,7s1 35.59( 6.4114 County of Santa Barbara 446,499 5 4,297,727,06 S 1,103,79s,000 s1,984.s7 74.116 Totals s 6.'O7.633.255 5 t,i78,a2s,376 72,2*
Based on the Jury's investigation, interviews, and reviews of each plan's actuarial valuation report and the most recent audited financials for each city and the County, the Jury classified the cities' and the County's pension solvency risk into two categories: those that the Jury believes are at less risk to have problems with meeting their pension obligations and those that continue to have higher potential risk.

Cities and the County the Jury considers at less potential pension plan solvency risk include:
r Buellton
r Carpinteria
r Goleta
o Guadalupe
o Solvang
o County of Santa Barbara
Cities the Jury considers at higher potential pension plan solvency risk include:
r Lompoc
r Santa Barbara
o Santa Maria
The Jury does not think that any of the cities or the County are in imminent danger of insolvency related to their pension obligations. That said, the cities and the County can always take additional steps to further reduce the risk that pension obligations would impair their ability to provide all intended services on a timely basis.
r3 Except for the County information, all information within the table was obtained from the eight cities'Actuarial Valuation Reports as of June 30, 2020, prepared by CaIPERS, which are available online at. https://www.calpers.ca.qov/oage/employers/actuarial-resources/public-agency-actuarial-valuation-reports. The County information was obtained from SBCERS Actuarial Valuation Report as of June 30, 2020, available online at https://www.sbcers.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-SBCERS-AVR-Revised_202 l0224s.pdf. 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 6
DocuSign Envelope lD: 86426099-9D29-41A4-83C1-2EE3F70C05D2 And some cities are taking those additional steps. While no city, or the County, has used a Pension Obligation Bond, the cities of Guadalupe, Lompoc and Santa Barbara have indicated that they have either investigated the idea or are planning to. A Pension Obligation Bond is not without risk, so it is important that each city that considers using this tool takes a careful look at its cost of bonowing, the interest rate they can obtain, and the market outlook for debt over the life of the bond.

Several cities have either created Section I 15 Trusts (Goleta), or have told the Jury they are investigating the possibility (Guadalupe, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Solvang). A Section 115 Trust would allow the cities to set aside funds when times are good to be used to offset pension costs when the need to use general funds would negatively impact the timely delivery of essential services. The downside to using a Section 115 Trust is that the funds may only be used for the specific purpose for which the trust was created.

A less restrictive way than a Section 115 Trust for cities to set aside funds for pension needs in the future would be to create a Pension Reserve Fund. This type of reserve fund allows the cities to set aside funds for specific later needs, but allows the flexibility to divert the funds to other uses, should the need arise. None of the cities are currently using this mechanism, and instead are relying on their general reserve funds to be available if needed. The reserve funds for the cities of Guadalupe and Lompoc are currently underfunded based upon their stated policies, but both feel recent events will help them replenish their reserves within a couple of years at the most. The Jury learned that in Guadalupe there has been significant new housing built within the city and more is under construction, and in Lompoc, the recent approval of Measure Q, which increases the tax on cannabis manufacturing and distribution, is expected to create between and $5 and $8 million dollars in new revenues for the next fiscal year.

The Jury learned that all the cities and the County take their pension obligations seriously and understand the need to fulfill those obligations without impacting the delivery of essential and promised services to their residents. The Jury also learned that while these issues are analyzed and discussed annually, none of the cities or the County have a written plan addressing the risks of pension plan insolvency. A written plan would allow the residents to better understand how the cities and the County are addressing these issues and would serve as a guide to those implementing new policies.

CONCLUSION
The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury determined that while no current problems or undue risks exist and that none of the cities or the County are in imminent danger of being unable to meet their pension obligations, there still exists a need to remain vigilant and to prepare for unforeseen changes that could affect their future ability to fund their pension obligations in a timely manner.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding la
The cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goletao Guadalupe, Solvang and the County of Santa Barbara arc at less potential pension plan solvency risk.

Finding lb
The cities of Lompoc, Santa Barbara and Santa Maria are at higher potential pension plan solvency risk.
2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 7
DocuSign Envelope lD: 86426099-9D29-41A4-83C1-2EE3F70C05D2 Finding lc
Unfunded Accrued Liabilities have risen for all cities since 2016, and with the announced change in the Discount Rate, are expected to rise furthet which could impact the cities' ability to deliver expected services to residents.

Recommendation 1
That each city council and the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors develop and publish a comprehensive plan by June 30,2022, addressing their pension plans and how they intend to properly assure future obligations are paid when due, without impacting the timely delivery of essential and promised services to residents.

Finding 2
Section 115 Trusts, Pension Obligation Bonds, and Pension Reserve Funds can be effective mechanisms to protect cities from dramatic impacts to the financial markets or declines in General Fund revenues.

Reommendation 2
That each city council and the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors study and determine by June 30,2022, whether a Section 1 15 Trust, Pension Obligation Bond, or Pension Reserve Fund would be an effective hedge against risks to their pension plans for their city.

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE
Pursuant to Califurnia Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit:

Responses to Findings shall be either:
' Agree
. Disagree wholly
. Disagree partially with an explanation
Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following:
. Has been implemented, with brief summary of implementation actions taken . Willbe implemented, with an implementation schedule
. Requires further analysis, with analysis completion date of no more than six months after the publication of the report
. Willnot be implemented, with an explanation of why
Santa Ba6ara County Boad of Superuisols- 90 Days
Findings 14 2
Recommendationl,2
2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 8
DocuSign Envelope lD: 80A26099-9D29-4144-83C1-2EE3F70C05D2 City of Buellton - 90 Days
Findings 14lc,2
Recommendationl,2
City of CaryinEria - 90 Days
Findings 141c,2
Recommendation 1,2
City of Goleta - 90 Days
Findings 147c,2
Recommendation 1,2
City of Guadalupe - 90 Days
Findings 14lc,2
Recommendationl,2
Cityof Lompoc-9O Days
Findings lb,lc,2
Recommendationl,2
City of Santa Barbara - 90 Days
Findings lb,7c,2
Recommendation 1,2
City of Santa Maria - 90 Days
Findings lb,lc,2
Recommendationl,2
Cityof Solvang-90 Days
Findings 14lc,2
Recommendation 1,2
2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 9
DocuSign Envelope lD: 80426099-9D29-41A4-83C1-2EE3F70C0SD2

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY
Accrued Liabilify (also called Actuarial Accrued Liability or Entry Age Normal Accrued Liability) The total dollars needed as of the valuation date to fund all benefits earned in the past for current members.

Actuarial Valuation The determination, as of a valuation date, of the Normal Cost, Accrued Liability, and related actuarial present values for a pension plan. These valuations are performed annually or when an employer is contemplating a change to their plan provisions.

Classic Member (under PEPRA) A classic member is a member who joined CaIPERS or SBCERS prior to January 1,2013, and who is not defined as a new member under PEPRA. (See definition of New Member below).

Discount Rate Assumption The actuarial assumption that was called "investment return" in earlier CaIPERS reports or "actuarial interest rate" in section 20014 of the California Public Employees' Retirement Law (PERL) (California Government Code section 20014).

Funded Status A measure of how well-funded, or how "on track," a plan or risk pool is with respect to assets versus accrued liabilities. A ratio greater than 100 percent means the plan or risk pool has more assets than liabilities and a ratio less than 100 percent means liabilities are greater than assets.

New Member (under PEPRA) A new member includes an individual who becomes a member of a public retirement system for the first time on or after January I , 2013, and who was not a member of another public retirement system prior to that date, and who is not subject to reciprocity with another public retirement system.

Normal Cost The annual cost of service accrual for the upcoming fiscal year for active employees. The normal cost should be viewed as the long-term contribution rate.

PEPRA The California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013.

PresentValue of Benefits (PVB) The total dollars needed as of the valuation date to fund all benefits earned in the past or expected to be earned in the future for current members.

Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) When a plan's or pension fund's value of assets is less than its accrued liability, the difference is the plan's or pension fund's UAL (or unfunded liability). If the unfunded liability is positive, the plan or pension fund will have to pay contributions exceeding the NormalCost.

OTHER TERMS
Benefit Factor. The percentage of pay to which employee members are entitled for each year of service.

Complementary Risk Analysis. Additional risk analysis beyond what is presented in the CaIPERS Valuation Reports.

Employer Paid Member Contributions refers to the practice of pension plan employers paying some portion of an employee's contributions in some instances.

Pension plan. In this report, a pension plan is a given package of retirement contributions and benefits, for example, the Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Goleta. 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 10
DocuSign Envelope lD: 80426099-9D29-41 A4-83C1-2EE3F70C05D2 Pension system. In this report, a pension system is a set of pension plans under one management; for example, the pension system of the City of Goleta consists of the Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Goleta and the PEPRA Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Goleta. 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 1l
DocuSign Envelope lD: 86A26099-9D29-41 A4-83C1-2EE3F70C0SD2

APPENDIX B
20n
City/Plan Normal Accrued tiability Unfunded Actuarial [iability % Funded
(Discount Rate - 7%)
Buellton
Misc S10.117.23s s2,647,L38 73.80/"
PepMisc. 501.527 31.819 93.7%

74.4%
Carpinteria
Mtsc. s2t.023.4L7 s5.755.390 72.6%
Safetv 9,410,150 3.620.593 6t.s%
PepMisc 478.4t7 45,406 90.5%
695%
Goleta
Mtsc. s19.992.8s6 S4,063.881 79.7%
PepMisc. 7.992.546 L77,3L4 9I.I%

80.7%
Guadalupe
Misc. s8.870.433 s2.377.s84 73.2o/o
Safetv 7,27s,900 L.762.4L4 75.4o/n
PepMisc. 294.OOO 25,168 9L.4%
PepSafetv/POL 430,146 53,130 87-60/"
PeoSafetv/Fi re 54,609 6.45L aa.2%
747 7s.v/.

Lompoc
Mtsc. 52L4,274,797 S6s.964.9s6 69.2%
Safetv to2.42s.444 36,482,292 64.4%
PepSafetv/Pol 7.200.382 734,523 88.8%
PeoSafetv/Fire 1,s60.305 163.s11 89.s%
Police Tier 2 1.625.259 132,930 9!.8o/o
FireTier 2 864.23s 96,583 88.8%
Santa Barbara
lvlisc. s664.902.988 5r9g,2Lo,264 70.2%
Safetv Police 304.630.107 L06.270.049 65.toa
SAFETV F e 208,650,909 81.458.677 6r.o%
PepsAfetv Fire t.845.257 t72,694 90.6%
Santa Maria
lMisc. 527L.49232r s89,892,s91 66.9%
Safety Police t48.339.270 47.427.464 68.0%
Safetv Fire 75,810,291 2r,628.065 7r.5%
Pepsafew Police 5.858.997 668,451 88.6%
PepSafetv Fire 1.700.068 178.390 89.5%
;afetv Fire Tier 2 2.to4.052 187.001 97.104
Safe Police Tier 2 2.436.553 183,182 92.5%

68.s%
Solvang
Misc. s18,646,s9s s5.082.035 72.7%
Safetv 6t7.526 8s,659 86.0%
PepMisc. 485.669 33,77r 93.O%

71. County of Santa Barbara
County of Santa Barbara 54,297,727,ooo sl,r03,79s,ooo 743% 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 12
Upcoming Legislative Heari ngs
Home / Advocacy / Take Action / Upcoming Legislative Hearings Bills of lnterest to Cities, Jan .20-27
Lawmakers are getting closer to wrapping up last year's lingering business. Jan.21 is the last day for committees to hear and report on legislative year will begin in earnest, with legislative hearings most likely ramping up in March.

Thursday, Jan .20
any b
from I
ills introduced in 2021
vear still in their ho
Senate Appropriations, UP
. AB 607 ula
Lawmakers must also move anY bills
use of origin before Jan. 31. After that, the
on adjournment of session, Room 4203
Sales and use taxes: exemptions. blood
screening testing
Cal Cities position: OPPOSE UNLESS AMEND

CARPINTERIA LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013

MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2022
5:30 P.M.

1. Call to order and roll call.

2. Confirmation of legal noticing and procedural requirements of meeting.

3. Public Comment – This is the time for public comments on matters not otherwise on the agenda but within the subject matter of Carpinteria Library Board of Trustees.

4. Approval of minutes of regular meeting held January 10, 2022.

5. Selection of Name of the Library (verbal report).

6. Update on the Library Transition Process (verbal report).

7. Adjournment.

The Carpinteria Library Board of Trustees agenda and any associated staff reports will be available on Thursday, February 10, 2022 on the City’s Website:
https://carpinteria.ca.us/city-hall/agendas-meetings/. The Carpinteria Library Board of Trustees agenda and staff reports are part of the City Council agenda for its regular meeting of February 14, 2022. Please see “TEMPORARY

ADJOURNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING THE MONTHLY
MEETING OF THE CARPINTERIA LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES.” Details and procedures on how to provide public comment and participate in the meeting through telephonic means are available on the posted City Council agenda at https://carpinteria.ca.us/city-hall/agendas-meetings/.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Brian Barrett, Acting City Clerk at [email protected] or (805) 755-4446. Notification two business days prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements for accessibility to this meeting.

CARPINTERIA LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013

MEETING MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2022

1. Call to order and roll call.

President Nomura called the meeting to order at 7:20 pm.

Boardmembers present: Boardmember Natalia Alarcon
Boardmember Gregg A. Carty
Boardmember Roy Lee
Vice President Al Clark
President Wade T. Nomura
Staff members present: Dave Durflinger, Chief Executive Officer Jena Shoaf Acos, on behalf of Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schreck, LLP acting as City Attorney of
the City of Carpinteria
Brian C. Barrett, Acting Secretary

2. Confirmation of legal noticing and procedural requirements of meeting.

Acting Secretary Barrett acknowledged that all legal noticing and procedural requirements have been met.

3. Public Comment
There was no public comment.

4. Approval of minutes of regular meeting held December 13, 2021.

Motion by Boardmember Lee, seconded by Boardmember Alarcon, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held December 13, 2021. The voice vote was as follows:

AYES: Boardmember Alarcon, Boardmember Carty, Boardmember Lee, Vice President Clark, and President Nomura
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried unanimously.

Boardmember Alarcon asked for an update on the library transition.

Chief Executive Officer Durflinger reported that City Librarian Jody Thomas started today and she will be introduced at the January 24th City Council meeting.

He noted that the City is working with the County of Santa Barbara on the requisite agreements and amendment to the lease of the library building. He stated that all other pieces are moving along towards the July 1, 2022 opening of the City Library and briefed the Board on the development of the Library website.

5. Adjournment.

President Nomura adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m.
________________________________
Brian C. Barrett, Acting Secretary

Carpinteria City CouncilFebruary 14, 2022

Carpinteria City Council
February 14, 2022