Agenda packet — Carpinteria City Council, September 8, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

BACKGROUND
The California Avocado Festival (Event) is an annual community event operated by California Avocado Festival, Inc.1 (Applicant) in cooperation with the City of Carpinteria and held over the first weekend in October. The Event is one of the largest free festivals in California, drawing thousands of attendees owntown each day of the Event.

The Event d by the City
Council in previous years in -kind and direct costs for support.

One aspect to the economic benefit recognized in the past has been the opportunity of fundraising for local non-profit organizations. Another is the long-term benefit of promoting the community as a safe, family friendly place to visit. Further, anecdotal feedback from the business community suggests that the event serves to boost sales for certain categories of business such as restaurants, bars and retail, and generates increased transient occupancy tax revenue during the event.

The purpose of this agenda matter is for the City Council to consider approving a Special Event Permit for the Applicant to operate the 2025 California Avocado Festival. Related to this approval is an allowance for the event to be conducted, in part, in public rights-ofway, and for the Application to sell and serve alcoholic beverages on public property.

Finally, the approval, as recommended by staff, includes authorizing expenditures from City funds in order to pay for a portion of the costs associated with operation of the Event including the provision of law enforcement services, temporary traffic control and postEvent street cleaning services.

DISCUSSION
The Special Event Permit Application, as shown in Attachment A, proposes the Event operate from Friday, October 3, 2025, to Sunday, October 5, 2025. On Friday, October 3, the event is proposed to operate from 1:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. On Saturday, October 4, the event is proposed to operate from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and on Sunday, October 5, from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. These hours are a change from recent prior year Event hours. Specifically, the Event would run one (1) hour later on Friday and one-half (1/2) hour later on Sunday.

The proposed Event footprint, which has been the same for many years, includes Linden Avenue between Carpinteria Avenue to the north, Sixth Street to the south, and portions of intersecting streets within the Event footprint area. The Event footprint also includes the Carpinteria Arts Center courtyard. The Event layout map can be found as Attachment B. Linden Avenue between Carpinteria Avenue and 6th Street would be closed on the morning of Thursday, October 2, for Event set-up and is expected to be reopened to vehicular traffic late Sunday night, October 5.
1 As of September 5, 2023, the entity is in good standing with the State Franchise Tax Board and is exempt from tax under Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) Section 23701(f).

Special Event Permit Application for 2025 California Avocado Festival September 8, 2025

Page 3 ends

For electric power sources, the Applicant would provide most of its own power via portable power generators. For sanitary facilities, Applicant would provide portable hand washing and urinal/toilet facilities and janitorial services. The City public restrooms at Parking Lot #1 (Ninth Street) and Parking Lot #3 (Fifth Street) would be closed, all day/night, during the Event.

The Applicant is requesting for alcoholic beverage sales and serving to be allowed in a Designated Alcohol Area footprint (See Attachment B). The City has historically accommodated this request by acting to declare the Event footprint a public park for the duration of the Event and authorizing the conduct of the Event, including 24-hour occupancy/use and alcohol sales, pursuant Carpinteria Municipal Code §12.24.022, Permits Special Public Park Use.

The Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license application is consistent with the Special Event Permit Application. Hours of operation that are proposed for alcoholic beverage sales and serving are from 1:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Friday, from 11:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Saturday, and from 11:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Sunday. These hours reflect a change from recent past years by extending alcohol sales by 15 minutes on each day.

The Special Event Permit Application is also requesting law enforcement services, and temporary traffic control and street cleaning services from the Public Works Department.

These service requests are consistent with prior Event requests and City approvals. The City has budgeted up to $15,000 for law enforcement services. The number of deputies mount are
paid by the Applicant. This is estimated to be
$21,000. $21,479 cost for law enforcement services, of which City paid $15,000.

The Applicant proposes to provide private security guard patrol in the festival footprint during the event and overnight. Such service is in addition to law and code enforcement and the
Community Development Department Code Compliance Division, respectively.

The estimated total cost of temporary traffic control and street cleaning services is $17,183.00. This includes maintenance staff overtime ($2,508.63), forklift rental ($1,400), flatbed rental ($3,600), and sidewalk cleaning ($9,675). These hard costs would be allocated from the Gas Tax Fund for the temporary traffic control and Measure A Fund for the street cleaning services. Other costs, valued at approximately $3,031.95, reflect Street Maintenance workers regular time and administrative staff time for review/processing of the Event application for City Council consideration.

The Public Works Department, Community Development Department Code Compliance Division, Santa Barbara County Department, and Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District coordinated with the applicant in developing the event action plan Special Event Permit Application for 2025 California Avocado Festival September 8, 2025

Page 4 ends

(EAP). The EAP is a central document in managing the emergency response to an incident. The EAP was prepared by the Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District as the lead agency of incident command. Prior to and each morning during Event operation, the above participating agency representatives and Applicant representatives will meet to review pertinent preparation and response matters.

POLICY CONSISTENCY
The proposed approval of a permit to conduct the annual Avocado Festival, as proposed and conditioned, can be found consistent with various City policies, including, but not limited to, those concerning promotion of the local economy and public health and safety.

A. Economic Vitality: The Avocado Festival was established in 1986. For many years it was run by the Carpinteria Valley Chamber of Commerce and today is operated by a dedicated local non-profit organization. The event is intended to support local service organizations and the economy by promoting the community and local agriculture in a positive light and providing a context for fundraising.

B. Public Health and Safety: The City has many policies and regulations concerning public safety that are considered and implemented through the Special Event Permit process and operation of the annual Avocado Festival. Provisions that are taken to protect public health and safety include, but are not limited to:

1. Mandatory Food Safety Meeting and Inspections- The Applicant facilitates an annual meeting with the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department in order to advise event food vendors on food safety requirements for outdoors.

Health inspectors visit each food vendor booth prior to serving food to the public.

2. Mandatory Alcoholic Beverage Servers Training- All volunteers that serve alcoholic beverages are required to participate in the State of California ABC server training. The server training is intended to minimize public intoxication and violations of alcohol regulations.

3. Event Security- The Applicant is responsible for providing qualified private event security services.

4. Public Safety- The City and Applicant cooperatively pay for special event law enforcement services provided by
Department. An event safety area that is operated by the Santa Barbara County -Summerland Fire District, and
trained volunteers, provides public safety information and also serves as a central location for paramedic/emergency medical services and lost-andfound.

Special Event Permit Application for 2025 California Avocado Festival September 8, 2025

Page 5 ends

5. Hours of Operation- The Applicant must operate the event that fits with the character and interests of the Carpinteria community. For recurring events, the organizer must make adjustments as needed in order to improve the event in meeting the expectations of the City and the community. Hours of operation, entertainment, vendors, and other aspects of event operations must be reviewed by City staff for public health and safety requirements. Also, event rules are reviewed for the incorporation of the prohibition of animals (except for legally registered service animals and emotional support animals), smoking, and other conduct determined to be inconsistent with the Carpinteria Municipal Code. The Special Event Permit requires the Event rules to be posted at all entrances.

6. Controlling Alcoholic Beverage Sales/Consumption- The City Council may allow alcoholic beverage sales and serving in the event footprint area by declaring the Event footprint a public park and authorizing the Event pursuant Carpinteria Municipal Code Section §12.24.022, which, in part, allows for nighttime use and the serving and consumption of alcoholic beverages where approved as a part of a Special Event Permit. Carpinteria Municipal Code Section 10.68.010 defines a special event as including any event in a public park where regulated alcoholic beverages are to be consumed. ABC would then issue a permit to the event subject to conditions and/or restrictions on the sale and serving of alcoholic beverages including defining the Alcohol Sales Permit footprint area and limiting the hours of sale.

7. Sanitary Facilities, Storm Water Pollution Prevention, and Recycling- Sanitary Facilities- Portable hand washing and urinal/toilet sanitary facilities and janitorial services are required to be provided by the event organizer.

Storm Water Pollution Prevention- Best management practices are required to be implemented at existing storm drain inlets within and adjacent to the event.

Recycling- Recyclables are required to be segregated from the event solid waste stream. Vendors are prohibited from using nonrecyclable, plastic take-out food containers. The Applicant is also required to instruct vendors to avoid distribution of plastic-filmed bags and to document and report solid waste stream and recycling diversion amounts.

Special Event Permit Application for 2025 California Avocado Festival September 8, 2025

Page 6 ends

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
contribute $15,000
for Sheriff Support Services provided during the festival, $17,183 Public Works related hard costs (cost not otherwise incurred), and $3,031.95 in soft cost (staff time for work conducted during normal hours of operation). At the Regular City Council Meeting of June 23, 2025, City Council requested financial reports for the festival. The Applicant has submitted Profit & Loss statements in summary and detail format that are provided as Attachment C. A supplemental letter from the event organizer is provided as Attachment D.

Sufficient funds were anticipated and are budgeted for in the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Budget under 205-431-5536 [Gas Tax Fund] and 215-431-5302 [Measure A Fund], to pay the Event costs.

LEGAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Approval of the Special Event Permit Application results in the footprint of the event being designated as a public park and allows for the sale and serving of food and alcoholic beverages, and public occupancy of the space during designated nighttime hours.

OPTIONS

1. Approve the Special Event Permit for the 2025 California Avocado Festival. (Staff recommendation)

2. Direct changes to the conditions and approve the Special Event Permit.

3. Deny the Special Event Permit Application.

PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Representatives of California Avocado Festival, Inc., Applicant

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Special Event Permit Application
Attachment B: Festival Layout Map
Attachment C: Profit & Loss Budget Report
Attachment D: Supplemental Letter
Special Event Permit Application for 2025 California Avocado Festival September 8, 2025

Page 7 ends

Staff contact:

Shay Darrington, Engineering Technician
(805) 755-4445; [email protected] Signature
Reviewed by:

Pam Greer, Finance Manager
(805) 880-3406; [email protected] Signature
Reviewed by:

Michael Ramirez, City Manager (805) 755-4450; [email protected] Signature

ATTACHMENT A
Special Event Permit Application

ATTACHMENT B
Event Layout Map

ATTACHMENT C
Profit & Loss Budget Report

ATTACHMENT D
Supplemental Letter

City of Carpinteria

COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT

ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Response to the 2025 Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury Report, “Santa Barbara County South Coast Housing Crisis: A Call to Action.”

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Review and approve staff's recommended responses to the Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury Report “Santa Barbara County South Coast Housing Crisis: A Call to Action;” and

2. Authorize the City Manager to sign and transmit the City’s response to the Presiding Judge, Honorable Patricia Kelly of the Superior Court; to send a copy to the current impaneled Grand Jury; and to file a copy with the City Clerk’s Office.

Sample Motion: I move to review and approve staff’s recommended responses to the Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury Report titled “Santa Barbara County South Coast Housing Crisis: A Call to Action”; and authorize the City Manager to sign and transmit the City’s response to the Presiding Judge, Honorable Patricia Kelly of the Superior Court, provide a copy to the current impaneled Grand Jury, and file a copy with the City Clerk’s Office.

BACKGROUND
On June 19, 2025, the Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury released its report titled “Santa Barbara County South Coast Housing Crisis: A Call to Action” (Attachment A), hereafter referred to as the Grand Jury Report (GJR). This report identifies the low levels of housing construction in recent years as a key driver of the housing affordability crisis for low- and moderate-income residents in unincorporated south Santa Barbara County (SBC), and the cities of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria (collectively, “south coast jurisdictions”). The GJR focuses on three primary barriers to the construction of affordable housing, and proposes solutions for south coast jurisdictions to implement together.

In accordance with California Penal Code §933(c), public agencies must respond to Grand Jury reports within 90 days. The law mandates that the governing body of the Agenda Section: Other Business
Agenda Item No.: 10
Council Meeting Date: September 8, 2025
Grand Jury Response
September 8, 2025

Page 2 of 6 ends

public agency submit comments on the findings and recommendations to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. These responses must be provided promptly to the judge who impaneled the Grand Jury.

As the City of Carpinteria received the GJR on June 19th, the City Council is required to respond by September 17, 2025.

DISCUSSION
The GJR discusses a variety of factors that affect the availability, permitting, and construction of affordable housing. It first summarizes a few development and policy projects currently happening in south coast jurisdictions that aim to increase or ease the permitting of affordable housing. The report then identifies three obstacles to development: funding limitations, regulatory and legal complexity, and development costs.

Given these obstacles, the report proposes five categories of strategic solutions:

A. Modernize Local Ordinances
B. Streamline Approval Processes
C. Expand and Stabilize Funding
D. Utilize Public and Surplus Land
E. Community Engagement and Public Outreach
The report states that housing construction in south coast jurisdictions is unlikely to reach the number of housing units identified in the 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Additional collaboration between the various housing and construction stakeholders is necessary. The GJR concludes with three findings and corresponding recommendations for the south coast jurisdictions. It directs the City of Carpinteria to provide a response to Findings 1, 2, and 3, and Recommendations 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, and 3d.

Responses to findings should indicate agreement, disagreement with explanation, or partial disagreement with an explanation. Responses to recommendations should include one of the following:
• Has been implemented, with a summary of the implementation actions taken; • Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule; • Requires further analysis, with an analysis completion date of fewer than 6 months after the issuance of the report; or
• Will not be implemented with an explanation of why.

Attachment B contains the draft City Response Letter to the GJR, written with input from Community Development Department and General Government staff. The draft Grand Jury Response
September 8, 2025

Page 3 of 6 ends

responses take into account, among other factors, the City’s past and upcoming Housing Element implementation programs, budget constraints, staff capacity, and partnerships with local organizations.

POLICY CONSISTENCY
Responding to the GJR and addressing the housing crisis is consistent with State and local directives, including the programs within the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element. It is also consistent with the 2025-2027 Strategic Plan Council Goal #1: Enhance Public Outreach, Education, and Transparency.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
No additional funding requested at this time. Minimal staff time to prepare the report is included in the Adopted FY 2025-27 General Fund Budget. Should the City Council direct staff to pursue additional actions at the GJR’s suggestion, additional funding may be necessary, and would be considered at a future City Council meeting.

LEGAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council must provide a response to the GJR pursuant to California Penal Code §933(c) within 90 days of receipt of the report.

OPTIONS
The Council may choose to:

1. Review and approve staff’s recommended responses to the Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury Report “Santa Barbara County South Coast Housing Crisis: A Call To Action”; and authorize the City Manager to sign and transmit the City’s Response to the Presiding Judge, Honorable Patricia Kelly of the Superior Court, provide a copy to the current impaneled Grand Jury, and file a copy with the City Clerk’s Office. (Staff recommendation)

2. Provide suggested changes to the response letter, and direct staff as determined appropriate.

3. Not approve the response letter, and direct staff as determined appropriate.

PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None.

Grand Jury Response
September 8, 2025

Page 4 of 6 ends

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2025 Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury Report Santa Barbara County South Coast Housing Crisis: A Call To Action.

Attachment B: City response letter to Grand Jury Report Staff contact: Mindy Fogg, Principal Planner
(805) 755-4408; [email protected]

Signature
Reviewed by: Nick Bobroff,
Community Development Director
(805) 755-4407; [email protected]
Signature
Reviewed by: Michael Ramirez, City Manager (805) 755-4450, [email protected] Signature

ATTACHMENT A
2025 Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury Report,
“Santa Barbara County South Coast Housing Crisis: A Call To Action.” 2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 1

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SOUTH COAST HOUSING CRISIS

A CALL TO ACTION

SUMMARY
The housing shortage in Santa Barbara County’s South Coast, particularly for low- and moderateincome residents, is reaching crisis levels. This growing concern is now a frequent topic at public hearings, advocacy meetings, and in news reports.

The root of the problem is a lack of new housing development for many years. The situation has been made worse by the rise in short-term rentals and an increasing number of second or third homes left vacant for much of the year. While the County has met its obligation under the California Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to plan for increased housing supply, there are serious barriers to building this housing, particularly affordable and workforce housing.

Numerous barriers continue to stand in the way of actual construction. These include high land and labor costs, development fees, restrictive zoning, and neighborhood opposition (commonly known as “Not In My Back Yard” or NIMBY). Complex regulations further delay or block projects. The many federal and state programs that offer subsidies for affordable housing are underfunded, oversubscribed, and beset with confusing rules and deadlines. Recent shifts in federal policy have cast uncertainty on the future of these programs.

Although RHNA only mandates planning, not building, housing, the County and cities do have tools to directly facilitate construction. These include expanding ministerial approvals, using objective design standards for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), revising restrictive codes, and rezoning land specifically for affordable and workforce housing.

The 2024-25 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) observed that our local governments on the South Coast, local non-profit organizations, many developers, and some employers are striving to create more housing, but much more needs to be done. To truly address the South County’s housing needs and meet RHNA goals, local agencies must go beyond planning. They must commit meaningful resources to the actual development of this needed housing.

BACKGROUND
The South Coast of Santa Barbara County is known for its beauty, climate, and geography.

Residents have long sought to preserve this unique character, often by supporting regulations that slow housing development. However, due to increasing population and workforce growth, the 2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 2
region now faces a severe housing shortage, especially for low- and moderate-income families.

Currently, more than 65 percent of local workers cannot afford to live in the area and are forced to commute long distances to work. As of March 25, 2025, the City of Santa Barbara Housing Authority (HASB) had 7,732 households on its Section 8 (see Glossary) waitlist. On that date, HASB announced it would pause new voucher issuances due to uncertainty over federal housing funding.

The California State Legislature has long recognized the need for more affordable housing, passing numerous laws over decades to support local governments, agencies, and developers. The State Legislature continues to introduce more legislation aimed at producing more affordable housing.1 Since 1969, California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has required local governments to plan for the housing needs of all income levels through California’s Housing Element Law. This planning is guided by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which assigns housing targets to each region every eight years across six income categories based on the Area Median Income (AMI). In 2024, the AMI for Santa Barbara County was $119,100.

The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) reviews state-assigned housing targets and distributes them among cities and unincorporated areas (see Additional Resources).

Each jurisdiction must then adopt a Housing Element in its General Plan to meet these targets.

Previously, housing targets were weighted toward North County due to greater land availability.

However, the current cycle shifts the focus to the South Coast, where housing needs are most acute. The South Coast now bears approximately 60% of the County’s total RHNA allocation of 24,856 units, The allocation of units for the South Coast is shown in Table 1. Accordingly, the Jury has focused its attention on the South Coast.
1 Buffy Wicks, “California Legislature Releases Sweeping Bill Package to Fast Track Housing Production,” press release, March 27, 2025. https://a14.asmdc.org/press-releases/20250327-california-legislature-releases-sweepingbill-package-fast-track-housing Table 1: Current Santa Barbara County RHNA Allocation
South Coast
Jurisdiction
RHNA
Allocation
Allocation by Income Level
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Carpinteria 901 286 132 135 348
Santa Barbara 8,001 2,147 1,381 1,441 3,032
Goleta 1,837 682 324 370 461
Unincorporated 4,142 809 957 1,051 1,325
2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 3
Historically, Santa Barbara County has failed to meet its RHNA targets in terms of actual construction, largely due to overly optimistic planning and local resistance to housing development.

In the current RHNA cycle (2023–2031), the State has imposed significantly higher housing targets and enacted stricter laws with real penalties for missing deadlines for Housing Element adoption. This includes stronger enforcement tools, such as AB 1893 (2024) (Builder’s Remedy, see Glossary), for jurisdictions that missed their Housing Element deadlines.

Progress to Date by Local Jurisdiction for the South Coast Housing Element All the jurisdictions on the South Coast missed the initial deadlines for obtaining State approvals for their completed Housing Element plans but were spurred into action when developers threatened to invoke Builder's Remedy exemptions on pending or proposed projects. As of March 2025, all Housing Elements in the County have been approved by the State and have been incorporated into each jurisdiction's respective General Plan. These are readily available on the County and city websites (see Additional Resources).

All jurisdictions on the South Coast have prudently identified additional sites to exceed the RHNA requirements by 10 to 15 percent to avoid falling short should any sites become unavailable for development by 2031. The County and cities are only required to identify suitable sites and are not directly responsible for actually building housing. They are, however, required to make it as easy as possible for developers to be able to build housing in the various categories needed. As detailed in the documents listed in the Additional Resources section of this report, each Housing Element includes a variation of the following key goals, each of which is expanded into specific implementation plans and programs:
 Process improvements
 Changes to existing design standards
 Relaxation of existing regulations
 Funding
 Fee structures
 Public and private development partnerships

METHODOLOGY
The Jury reviewed documents and conducted interviews to investigate the reasons behind the housing shortage on the South Coast. The Jury focused on affordable housing because the availability of market rate housing does not present a significant problem. Data on affordable housing was analyzed based on the RHNA definitions. The Jury’s methods of investigation included:
2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 4
 Interviews with city (Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria) and County staff and housing providers
 Interviews with Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) staff  Attendance at County Board of Supervisors meetings and city council meetings  Review of California housing laws
 Review and analysis of the County’s and South Coast cities’ General Plans and Housing Elements for the 2023-31 cycle
 Review of the County’s and South Coast cities’ ordinances and resolutions related to affordable housing
 Review and analysis of affordable housing agreements between developers and the County  Examination of building permit applications, approved projects under development, news media coverage, and public hearings

DISCUSSION
The Jury reviewed the Housing Elements of the County and cities on the South Coast and found there is a critical need for housing for people who cannot afford market-rate housing. Therefore, the Jury decided to focus on the obstacles to affordable housing development and potential solutions.

Housing Developments in Progress
Several housing projects with 100 percent affordable units have been launched by non-profit organizations, such as People’s Self-Help Housing, and public agencies, such as HASB and the Housing Authority of Santa Barbara County (HASBARCO). Some projects have been completed (e.g., a 60-unit project in Goleta), others are under construction, and many are still in the planning phase. Some private developments incorporate inclusionary housing requirements where a proportion of units must be affordable, although terms vary and are often negotiated between developers and local governments. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs (JADUs) are also being built under streamlined state laws, such as ministerial approvals using objective design standards (see Glossary), although only about 65 percent are expected to qualify as affordable.

For example, in the City of Santa Barbara over a thousand ADUs have either been completed or are under development. Local employers such as Yardi Systems, Inc., the Rosewood Miramar Hotel, the Santa Barbara Cemetery Association, Cottage Health, and others have also begun sponsoring affordable housing projects for their employees.

In addition, the County, cities, and public agencies have identified and started to develop housing projects on land that they do not anticipate using. Some examples include:
2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 5
 The City of Santa Barbara is working with HASB to develop workforce housing on a vacant lot and has designated the current site of the Santa Barbara Police Department for future housing
 The Santa Barbara Unified School District has leased two parcels of land to HASBARCO to build affordable housing
 The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) has reached an agreement with a private developer to build transit-oriented, multi-family rental housing, which will include 15% affordable units, on MTD’s vacant property
While the County and some of the municipalities have included a few parcels of publicly owned land in the Housing Element, there is more land owned by them and other public agencies that could be identified and repurposed for affordable and workforce housing. Utilizing these publicly owned lands would help to foster public-private partnerships since the cost of land will become less of an obstacle to building affordable and workforce housing.

Obstacles to Development
South Coast residents have historically supported land use policies that preserved neighborhood character, which has unintentionally contributed to severe housing shortages. Costly development fees, community opposition, labor costs, land acquisition costs, and prolonged development entitlement processes (see Glossary) further stall progress. Though some employers and school districts are leveraging their land for housing, such efforts are infrequent.

1. Funding Limitations
Affordable housing depends on a complex mix of federal, state, and private funds. Each of these funding sources has its own criteria and timelines. The availability of federal and state funding for affordable housing construction is predicated on meeting strict eligibility requirements and tight timing windows. The complexity of this process requires successful participants in these programs to have experienced and dedicated staff or consultants to navigate the process. The State of California produces a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) calendar2 to assist those who want to use grant or credit programs to build more affordable housing. The complexity of this chart reflects the complexity of this funding process.

Typically, these sources are oversubscribed and subject to unexpected rule changes. For example, current uncertainties about federal funding have caused the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara to cease issuing the Section 8 vouchers. Developers often factor the availability of these vouchers into decisions about whether to include affordable units.

Even though some cities have implemented creative financing mechanisms and public-private partnerships, these efforts have not kept pace with the rising need for affordable housing. 2 See the HCD’s website for the latest NOFA calendar: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-and-funding/nofa-calendar 2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 6
The County of Santa Barbara and the City of Santa Barbara have both established housing trust funds certified as Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI, see Glossary). These funds are intended to supplement the development of affordable housing projects. The County has deposited fees collected from developers into their fund. In addition to depositing developer fees, the City of Santa Barbara has also transferred some resources into their fund from their contingency reserves.

On June 10, 2025, the City of Santa Barbara budgeted $3.5 million to be added to their housing trust fund to fund affordable housing over the next two years; the Jury applauds this action, but believes that much more needs to be done given the pent-up demand for affordable housing in the City. Recent experience has shown that one unit of affordable housing may cost as much as one million dollars to build in the City of Santa Barbara.

Both the City of Santa Barbara and the County need to access other sources to increase the impact of these funds. For example, the County of Ventura actively promotes its housing trust fund and advertises for contributions from the philanthropic community.

Neither the City of Goleta nor the City of Carpinteria have established CDFI-certified housing trust funds to date.

2. Regulatory and Legal Complexity
Streamlined approval processes are now in place for affordable housing and ADUs, but many projects still face delays due to overlapping agency jurisdictions (e.g., Coastal Commission), siloed city and county permitting and approval processes, appeals, lawsuits, and neighborhood objections. These barriers disproportionately affect affordable housing projects, which are unable to absorb high carrying costs during such delays.

Within this system, there is no single individual tasked with assisting developers of affordable housing to navigate this complex process and to deal with multiple regulatory agencies. Figure 1 (below) illustrates the planning permit process in Santa Barbara County.

3. Development Costs
Government fees, prevailing wage requirements, interest on loans, and prices of land and material all drive up costs for affordable housing. Any uncertainty in the development process, such as appeals, litigation, and unexpected delays in approvals, can add to project costs.

Deed restrictions and rent caps required by inclusionary housing mandates often discourage developers from proceeding with below market rate housing projects. 2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 7
Figure 1
Source: County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Department Strategic Solutions
The current housing crisis has created a flurry of activity at the state and local levels. Every day, new measures are taken: bills are proposed in the legislature; ordinances are drafted at the local levels; and solutions are proposed in the media. The Jury recognizes all these efforts and hopes that some of the solutions will be realized.
2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 8
All of the governments in the South Coast are working diligently on these problems, and the Jury applauds their efforts. However, to make significant numbers of housing units available, the region must adopt a more unified, forward-thinking approach. All aspects of the development process, from application to completion of construction and occupancy, must work seamlessly together and all the involved agencies must collaborate to help the developer navigate the steps involved in an expeditious manner. The County and municipalities on the South Coast could consider taking measures such as those listed below:

A. Modernize Local Ordinances
 Update zoning, design standards, and utility requirements for density and affordability  Ensure alignment with state mandates to avoid development delays and legal vulnerability B. Streamline Approval Processes
 Shift to parallel permitting processes across jurisdictions  Increase use of ministerial approvals for qualifying projects  Establish a mechanism for parallel processing across jurisdictions, both municipal and separate agencies, from whom developers must obtain approvals  Specify guidelines that will allow developers to qualify for exemptions from some requirements of the review process if project criteria are met up front  Provide navigation assistance to allow developers to move expeditiously through the approvals required from various agencies
C. Expand and Stabilize Funding
 Develop and promote housing trust funds to leverage the benefits of Community Development Financial Institutions and philanthropic partnerships  Reinvest market-rate development fees into affordable housing D. Utilize Public and Surplus Land
 Inventory land owned by cities, school districts, and special districts and repurpose any that is surplus to their operational requirements
 Prioritize high-opportunity areas near jobs and transit E. Community Engagement and Public Outreach
 Continue community forums used during the Housing Element update  Publicly track and share development milestones
 Promote understanding of housing’s role in community resilience 2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 9

CONCLUSION
The affordable housing crisis on the South Coast remains a complex and urgent challenge, shaped by high land costs, state and local regulatory hurdles, and limited financial resources. The development process is often slow and fragmented, and affordable housing projects face competition for limited funding.

Although the jurisdictions on the South Coast will meet the RHNA goals that require identification of suitable building sites, it is unlikely that the target of increasing the inventory of affordable and moderate-income housing on the South Coast will be realized by 2031.

Ultimately, providing needed housing on the Santa Barbara South Coast will require sustained collaboration among local governments, developers, community stakeholders, and the broader public to build a more inclusive, affordable, and resilient housing landscape.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1: Santa Barbara County and the cities of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria own land that is surplus to their operational requirements, some of which could be used for affordable housing.

Recommendation 1a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria identify publicly owned properties within their jurisdiction that could be utilized for affordable housing.

Recommendation 1b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria invite public and private developers to work with them to build affordable housing on the publicly owned land identified as available.

Finding 2: The process for issuance of a permit for affordable housing development projects in the County and the cities of Santa Barbara, Goleta and Carpinteria is costly, time consuming, and complicated.

Recommendation 2a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria each create a position to be staffed by a qualified person who can coordinate and facilitate the application and approval processes for affordable housing projects, with the authority to bring together all interested parties to arrive at an expeditious resolution of any issue.
2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 10
Recommendation 2b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria review their processes for development approvals to prioritize affordable housing projects.

Recommendation 2c: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria apply the ministerial approval process to all development projects comprising seventy five percent or more of lowincome housing.

Recommendation 2d: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria conduct a review of all development and impact fees and find ways to waive, reduce or amortize fees for affordable housing projects.

Finding 3: There are insufficient funds available to develop needed affordable housing.

Recommendation 3a: The Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of Goleta and Carpinteria establish dedicated housing trust funds, certified as Community Development Financial Institutions, to facilitate the building of affordable housing.

Recommendation 3b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors increase funding to the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Barbara County to facilitate the building of affordable housing.

Recommendation 3c: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara City Council further increase funding to the City of Santa Barbara Local Housing Trust Fund to facilitate the building of affordable housing.

Recommendation 3d: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta and Carpinteria promote contributions to their housing trust funds by other non-governmental organizations, the philanthropic community, and the public.

REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit.
2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 11
Responses to Findings shall be either:
- Agree
- Disagree with an explanation
- Disagree partially with an explanation
Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following:
- Has been implemented, with a summary of the implementation actions taken - Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule
- Requires further analysis, with an analysis completion date of fewer than 6 months after the issuance of the report
- It will not be implemented with an explanation of why Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3
Recommendations 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3b, 3d
City of Santa Barbara – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3
Recommendations 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3c, 3d
City of Goleta – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3
Recommendations 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3d
City of Carpinteria – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3
Recommendations 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3d

2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 12

GLOSSARY
AB (Assembly Bill): A bill introduced in the California State Assembly (e.g., AB 1893).

ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit): A secondary housing unit on a property, such as a converted garage or standalone structure.

Affordable Housing: Affordable housing refers to housing that is priced on the basis of ability to pay and not on the market rate of a housing unit. If the total housing expense of a family remains at or below 30% of their gross household income, then the housing unit is considered affordable.

Area Median Income (AMI): The income value at which an equal number of families earn more, and an equal number of families earn less. The AMI value is derived from census data and is determined annually by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is specific to an area. Thus, the AMI on the South Coast of Santa Barbara varies for each city and for the unincorporated of the County and is defined in their respective Housing Elements.

Builder’s Remedy: A legal provision in California that allows developers to bypass local zoning restrictions when cities or counties fail to comply with the Housing Element Law. The Builder’s Remedy can be invoked when a city or county fails to obtain state approval for its Housing Element by the State’s deadline either because it has not been submitted in time or because the Housing Element proposals do not meet the State’s requirements. Under such circumstances, developers can propose housing projects that do not conform to local zoning regulations if at least 20% of the units are designated as affordable housing, or 100% are moderate-income housing. The city or county cannot reject these projects based on some zoning or General Plan inconsistencies.

CDFI (Community Development Financial Institution): A non-profit financial institution that supports affordable housing and economic development. The federal CDFI Fund was created to help certified CDFIs generate economic growth and opportunity. It provides funding, resources, and technical assistance to help local financial institutions take a market-driven approach to support the economic needs of a community. By being a certified CDFI, a housing trust fund is eligible to receive funding and other assistance from the CDFI fund to build affordable housing.

Development Entitlement Process: The entitlement process is a critical phase in real estate development, involving the legal and regulatory approval required to proceed with a development project to ensure compliance with zoning laws, building codes, and other regulations. Steps in the entitlement process include zoning approval, land use permits, environmental impact assessments, site plan approval, public hearings, and permits. Such approvals are necessary to ensure legal compliance, to manage legal and environmental risks, to obtain community support, and to confirm project feasibility.
2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 13
HASB (Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara): The agency responsible for managing affordable housing programs in the City of Santa Barbara.

HASBARCO (Housing Authority of Santa Barbara County): The public agency focused on affordable housing development and management in Santa Barbara County, excluding the City of Santa Barbara.

HCD (California Department of Housing and Community Development): The agency tasked with developing housing policy and administering funding and development programs in the State of California.

Housing Element: The component within local government’s General Plans that meets the state requirement that all cities and counties in California adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in their communities at all income levels.

HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development): The federal agency responsible for housing policy and programs.

Inclusionary Housing: To be considered inclusionary, a housing development is required to have a certain percentage of affordable housing units (typically five to 20 percent) to be included when market-rate housing is being built.

JADU (Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit): A smaller unit within the primary home, usually repurposed from existing space.

Ministerial Approval: Ministerial approval is a faster and less complex approval process compared to discretionary review, which involves public hearings and more subjective judgment.

NIMBY (Not in My Backyard): A term describing opposition to development projects, especially housing.

Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA): A NOFA or Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is a document that announces a funding opportunity for grants. NOFAs can be used to announce funding opportunities for various housing-related programs, such as HUD’s housing counseling programs, Community Development Financial Institution programs (CDFI), and programs for rural housing.

Objective design standards: Projects seeking ministerial approval must demonstrate compliance with clear, objective standards and regulations, often outlined in zoning ordinances or specific codes.
2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 14
RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation): A state-mandated process that assigns housing development targets to cities and counties based on projected needs.

SBCAG (Santa Barbara County Association of Governments): A regional, independent public agency that coordinates transportation and housing planning among Santa Barbara County and all eight incorporated cities in the County.

SB (Senate Bill): A bill introduced in the California State Senate (e.g., SB 35).

Section 8 – now called Housing Choice Program: This is the federal government’s largest program for assisting low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled in being able to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. A housing subsidy is paid by an authorized housing authority to the landlord on behalf of a participating family. The family pays rent based on their income, and the housing authority pays the difference between that amount and the market rent.

South Coast: The South Coast of Santa Barbara County is defined by SBCAG in their Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, July 15th, 2021, as follows: “For purposes of the RHNA methodology, the County is divided into two subregions, referred to as the South Coast and North County Housing Market Areas, and further divided into the incorporated cities and unincorporated areas contained within these two subregions.” See Figure 2.

Figure 2
Source: County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Department 2024-2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 15
The South Coast Housing Market Area includes the cities of Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, and Goleta, as well as unincorporated Montecito, Summerland, Toro Canyon, Mission Canyon, Eastern Goleta Valley, Isla Vista, Hope Ranch, UCSB, and Gaviota.

Workforce Housing: For purposes of this report, workforce housing refers to housing that is needed for households who do not qualify for affordable housing because their income exceeds the AMI for moderate income in any city or County area on the South Coast, but cannot afford market rates for housing for rent or sale. A large number of the workers employed by public and private employers fall within this category.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Housing Elements for the 2023-2031 Cycle:

1. City of Santa Barbara:
https://santabarbaraca.gov/HousingElement

2. City of Goleta:
cityofgoleta.org/home/showpublisheddocument/29869/638375666841470000

3. City of Carpinteria:
https://carpinteriaca.gov/city-hall/community-development/planning/housingelement-update/

4. County of Santa Barbara:
https://www.countyofsb.org/3177/Housing-Element-Update
Housing Element Annual Progress Reports for 2024:

1. City of Santa Barbara Housing Element Annual Progress Report, 2024:
https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-
03/HE%20APR%20SantaBarbara2024.pdf

2. City of Goleta Housing Element Annual Progress Report, 2024:
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31599/63878576838 1830000

3. City of Carpinteria Housing Element Annual Progress Report, 2024:
https://carpinteriaca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/2024-HE-APR-StaffReport-with-Attachments-3-10-2025.pdf

4. County of Santa Barbara Housing Element Annual Progress Report, 2024:
https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/1aa7eb3e-858e-450a-82fb-549760e6fee8

ATTACHMENT B
City response letter to Grand Jury Report
CITY of CARPINTERIA, CALIFORNIA
5775 CARPINTERIA AVENUE • CARPINTERIA, CA 93013-2603
(805) 684-5405 • FAX (805) 684-5304
www.CarpinteriaCA.gov
September 9, 2025
Hon. Patricia Kelly
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
2025 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
Santa Barbara County Courthouse
1100 Anacapa Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
SUBJECT: 2025 Grand Jury Report, “Santa Barbara County South Coast Housing Crisis: A Call To Action”
Dear Judge Kelly and Members of the Grand Jury,
The City of Carpinteria (“City”) is pleased to provide the following responses to the above referenced report issued by the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury and received by the City on June 19, 2025:

Finding 1: Santa Barbara County and the cities of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria own land that is surplus to their operational requirements, some of which could be used for affordable housing.

City of Carpinteria Response: Disagree.

The City owns approximately 130 acres of land, over three-quarters of which are dedicated for public parks and open space. Several of the City’s larger public open space properties are also subject to deed restrictions or conservation easements which significantly restrict the types and intensity of development that may occur on them, ensuring their permanent protection for public open space and/or conservation purposes. The remainder of Cityowned lands, which cumulatively comprise approximately 10 acres, are used for the City’s three downtown public parking lots, the City Hall campus, a parcel fully developed with a flood control detention basin, and a single parcel presently developed with a 100% affordable housing development (i.e., Atrium Court Apartments). The three public parking lots are heavily relied upon by residents, employees, and visitors to the City’s downtown core and adjacent public recreation and open space areas. The city hall campus (approximately 4.8 acres) contains city administrative offices, council chambers, public works incorporation yard, sheriff sub-station, a public skatepark, and surface parking lots to support those uses.

Page | 2
The City has, in the past, worked with affordable housing providers to make surplus Cityowned lands available at little or no cost to facilitate production of affordable rental housing in Carpinteria (e.g., Atrium Court Apartments, Dahlia Court Apartments Expansion).

However, having previously dedicated those limited surplus lands to such uses, the City has exhausted that resource. In light of the above information, the City does not own any remaining lands that are surplus to its operational needs.

City of Carpinteria Response: Has been implemented.

During the development of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element, the City identified Candidate Sites for possible rezoning to higher density residential uses, and existing Underutilized Sites that could be further developed or redeveloped to accommodate (additional) housing units. No City-owned sites were identified as Candidate or Underutilized Sites, for the reasons listed in the above response to Finding 1. As part of the initial Housing Element inventory process, the City did identify potential candidate or underutilized sites owned by other public agencies, such as the Carpinteria Unified School District (CUSD) and engaged those entities concerning the inclusion of those properties in the City’s inventory.

However, based on a lack of support or interest from those agencies, said lands were not included in the final inventories. Nevertheless, to the extent City resources allow, the City will continue to seek opportunities for property acquisition that could help facilitate affordable housing production.

City of Carpinteria Response: Has been implemented.

The City has a past successful track record of partnering with affordable housing providers to secure and construct several deed-restricted affordable housing developments, and agrees that this will continue to be an important strategy to facilitate and/or finance affordable housing construction going forward. The City is committed to continue seeking out such opportunities and funding sources in the future as they arise, and as City resources allow for. However, as noted in the above responses to Finding 1 and Recommendation 1a, the City does not currently own any lands that are surplus to its operational needs or that could presently be made available for a City partnership affordable housing project.

Page | 3
City of Carpinteria Response: Disagree partially.

The City is located entirely within the California Coastal Zone,1 which necessitates most development to obtain a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) in accordance with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP is certified by the California Coastal Commission, and contains both objective and subjective policies that prioritize protection of sensitive coastal resources. Projects requiring a CDP must be reviewed for consistency with these policies and in most cases, require discretionary review and approval, which can add additional time, cost, and complexity to projects.

Despite these factors, the City has made diligent efforts to streamline and reduce costs for project applicants, including but not limited to, affordable housing developments. The City offers opportunities for pre-application consultations with planning staff and submittal of conceptual review applications as a means to allow prospective developers to receive feedback and direction from staff and/or decision-makers prior to a formal project submittal.

The City also routinely reviews and processes project applications in a shorter timeframe2 and at a lesser cost relative to staff time or permit fees than our neighboring jurisdictions.

Additionally, as of late 2023, the City established and staffed a dedicated Long-Range Planning division that is tasked with implementing the 2023-2031 Housing Element programs. A recent LCP Amendment rezoned approximately 20 acres of land to accommodate the City’s RHNA shortfall and provide a ministerial permitting process for qualifying housing development that includes at least 20 percent low-income units and meets applicable objective standards. Other Housing Element Programs will similarly seek to offer streamlined permitting processes and/or reduced costs for certain types of housing projects. The City’s Coastal Land Use Plan / General Plan (CLUP/GP) is also currently undergoing a comprehensive update which will consider re-designating additional lands for multifamily residential development, and that will further allow for streamlined development, as any projects consistent with the new CLUP/GP will be able to rely on the environmental review conducted by the City.
3 Therefore, while the City generally agrees that affordable housing development in California, and particularly in the Coastal Zone, can be costly, time consuming, and complicated, Carpinteria continues to seek opportunities to reduce costs, and simplify and streamline the approval process for affordable housing. See also response to Recommendation 2d below.

Recommendation 2a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria each create a position to be staffed by a qualified person who can coordinate and facilitate the application 1 The California Coastal Zone is a legislatively-defined geographic region that establishes the area regulated under the Coastal Act, encompassing both land and water areas along the length of the California coastline from the Oregon border to the Mexico border.
2 California Department of Housing and Community Development, “Housing Element Implementation and APR Data Dashboard.” https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-open-data-tools/apr-dashboard 3 See California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15183.

Page | 4
and approval processes for affordable housing projects, with the authority to bring together all interested parties to arrive at an expeditious resolution of any issue.

City of Carpinteria Response: Has been implemented.

In late 2023, the City hired a new long-range planning division. One of the primary responsibilities assigned to the division is to facilitate affordable housing development and the policy framework to support them. The long-range and current planning divisions regularly coordinate and work closely together to expedite processing applications for affordable housing projects, including regular consultation with special districts (water, sanitary, fire protection, etc.) and Public Works to ensure all agencies/departments work together to efficiently process permit(s).

While the City has not seen any applications for housing projects where all or most of the units are deed restricted for lower income households in many years, there are several active applications for housing projects with an affordable component. All such projects are prioritized and processed expeditiously such that issues are resolved quickly.

Recommendation 2b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and City Councils of Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria review their processes for development approvals to prioritize affordable housing projects.

City of Carpinteria Response: Has been implemented.

As mentioned above, part of the implementation for the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element involved rezoning land to a new Residential/Mixed Use (RMU) zone district and creating a ministerial CDP process for projects that incorporate a minimum of 20% lower-income housing units and adhere to Objective Design Standards.4 Projects that meet these requirements are not required to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board or Planning Commission and can be approved by the Planning Director. Additional Housing Element Programs commit the City to consider additional strategies to streamline certain types of housing projects and continue to offer and expand access to concessions and incentives for affordable housing projects. State housing law also implements strict timelines on certain housing projects incorporating affordable units, further prioritizing these applications in City staff’s queues.

City of Carpinteria Response: Has been implemented.

The RMU zone district provides a ministerial approval process for projects with 20% or more affordable units, provided that they also meet all applicable Objective Design Standards. As part of the currently underway General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan update, the City is 4 The Objective Design Standards are codified as Carpinteria Municipal Code Chapter 14.51:
https://library.municode.com/ca/carpinteria/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT14ZO_CH14.51OBDEST Page | 5
considering additional sites for redesignation to the RMU district which would expand the applicability of this ministerial permitting process to additional sites beyond the approximately 20 acres rezoned thus far.

City of Carpinteria Response: Has been implemented.

In 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5238 which grants a 50% reduction in Development Impact Fees for affordable housing developments providing 100% of the units to low- or very-low income households for a 55-year minimum term. More recently, as part of its 2023 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, the City transitioned its fee program to a square footage-based rate whereby new dwelling units are charged based on the amount of habitable square footage rather than application of flat rates for single family and multifamily residential construction. This new fee structure seeks to ensure Development Impact Fees are more proportionately reflective of the demands placed on City services and infrastructure.

Going forward, as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Programs, the City has also committed to exploring and offering additional concessions and incentives for affordable housing projects. These include, but may not be limited to, considering the granting of fee deferrals, reductions, and waivers for affordable housing projects.

Finding 3: There are insufficient funds available to develop needed affordable housing.

City of Carpinteria Response: Agree.

The City’s FY 2025-2027 Budget anticipates increased expenditures for day-to-day municipal operations as revenues remain flat, making it increasingly unlikely the City will have discretionary funds to utilize for housing development projects. Generally, City planning and building staff have observed dramatic increases in construction costs in recent years, further straining the already limited funding stream for affordable housing in the City.

The City has recently contracted with a grant consultant to assist the City in seeking and applying for available grants across many fields, including affordable housing funds. While this partnership is brand new, City staff look forward to the opportunities this may bring in the coming years.

City of Carpinteria Response: Will not be implemented.

The City currently contracts with the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Barbara County to manage the City’s Workforce Homebuyer Down Payment Loan Program, which was funded Page | 6
by a one-time settlement payment. While all funding has been granted as of the end of 2024; additional loans could be granted pending the repayment of outstanding loans.

The City does not have the staff capacity, or fiscal means to operate its own housing trust fund. City staff identified 22 similarly-sized cities in California and found that only one had its own housing trust fund.5 Nevertheless, as part of its FY25/27 Strategic Work Plan, the City intends to explore options for expanding its partnership with the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Barbara County, or establishing a partnership with another existing housing trust fund, to facilitate a Carpinteria-specific program.

City of Carpinteria Response: Will not be implemented.

Similar to the above response, the City does not have the in-house staff capacity to solicit contributions to or manage a housing trust fund. The City remains committed to forming partnerships with organizations and the philanthropic community who can help support affordable housing opportunities or other housing resources in Carpinteria. For example, the City recently partnered with the Santa Barbara Foundation, a local 501(c)(3) organization, as a fiscal sponsor to allow charitable donations to a City-administered parks and recreation improvement fund. The fund enables individuals, businesses and philanthropic partners to make tax-deductible contributions towards priority projects. While this partnership is in its initial pilot stage, there are discussions of expanding the fund to cover additional projects, including but not limited to, affordable housing development. ***
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Grand Jury Report.

Sincerely,
Michael Ramirez
City Manager
cc: Ryan Kintz, Assistant City Manager
Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
Digital Copy to: [email protected]
5 The City of Mill Valley, CA has a population of approximately 13,904 people and established its own housing trust fund in 2017 (source). Mill Valley is an affluent community with a median household income double that of Carpinteria, indicating it may have additional resources or staff to implement and fund a housing trust fund (source).

City of Carpinteria

COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT

ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
City Logo Review and Adoption

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the City logo as presented.

Sample Motion: I move to adopt the City logo as presented.

BACKGROUND
The City of Carpinteria currently uses an official City seal as its sole visual identifier. The seal serves an important purpose in representing the City in formal, legal, and ceremonial intricate design
has presented challenges in terms of scalability, color, and adaptability particularly across digital platforms, signage, and other everyday uses.

In recent years, many municipalities in California have adopted a dual-symbol approach, maintaining the City seal for official, regulatory, and ceremonial use while also developing a separate City logo for broader communication purposes. Logos are typically designed to be clear, flexible, and easily recognizable across a wide range of formats. In many cases, logos are also used as a tool for expressing civic identity and fostering a sense of pride among residents and community stakeholders.

Across Santa Barbara County, many municipalities have taken varying approaches to the use of seals and logos:

Cities of Buellton and Guadalupe currently utilize only a City seal.

Cities of Santa Maria, Solvang, Lompoc, and Santa Barbara have both a City seal and a logo or wordmark.

City of Goleta and County of Santa Barbara use a seal that also functions as a simplified logo or wordmark.

Agenda Section: Other Business
Agenda Item No.: 11
Council Meeting Date: September 8, 2025
Development of City Logo
September 8, 2025

Page 2 ends

As the City of Carpinteria continues to engage with a broad audience including residents, businesses, visitors, and partner agencies questions around visual identity, clarity, and consistency have become increasingly relevant. The development of a City logo would not replace the existing seal, but rather serve as a complementary symbol for use in more general and community-facing applications.

This approach has been adopted by many cities as a way to balance tradition with the practical needs of modern communication. A City logo can also serve as a unifying visual element that reflects the character and values of the community, and can support consistent representation across departments, programs, and platforms.

DISCUSSION
The City of Carpinteria currently does not have an official city logo. This absence was recent internal assessments. While the official City seal serves an important ceremonial and legal role, it presents challenges when used across modern communication clearly in small-scale or digital formats, limiting its effectiveness on platforms such as social media, apparel, promotional materials, and signage.

As a result, many City departments have independently developed visual elements to meet their needs, leading to a lack of consistency in how the City is represented. The adoption of an official logo would support a unified visual identity across departments and applications, while preserving the seal for formal, legal, and ceremonial use.

Project Process
In response to this identified need, City staff initiated a logo development process with the support of Hayley Fedders of Studio Seaside of Carpinteria and Lea Boyd of Two Trumpets Communications. A kickoff meeting was held on August 6, 2025, to establish The following goals were identified for the project:

Develop a clean, timeless, and versatile logo system that reflects the City of across all departments and media.

Ensure the logo appeals to a broad audience while maintaining a professional and civic identity.

Improve scalability and versatility for use in digital and physical applications.

Incorporate recognizable local elements that are visually simple and not overly detailed or trendy.

Create a logo system that allows department-level adaptability while supporting citywide uniformity.

Development of City Logo
September 8, 2025

Page 3 ends

Design with bilingual accessibility in mind, maintaining both English and Spanish versions for inclusivity.
nature, heritage, and values in an approachable, enduring design.

Following the kickoff meeting, several design drafts were developed and circulated direction. A revised version was then presented to the Public Engagement Committee on August 26, 2025. Both Vice Mayor Solorzano and Councilmember Nomura expressed agreement that the general style of the logo was an appropriate direction, with a few suggested modifications.

These recommended changes were incorporated into the revised logo being presented in this report. The updated design has since been circulated among City leadership for additional input, particularly regarding its use across departments and community-facing applications.

Rationale for Adoption:

The adoption of a City logo offers several benefits:

Legibility & Versatility: The logo is more adaptable to small-scale and digital formats than the current seal, enabling use across websites, social media, printed materials, uniforms, and merchandise.

Consistency & Brand Cohesion: A standardized logo supports consistent visual communication across departments, replacing the current patchwork of informal logos and adaptations.

Modern Branding Practices: The use of both a seal and a logo aligns with common best practices among California municipalities, where the seal is reserved for formal functions and the logo is used for everyday and public-facing communication.

Community Identity & Pride: A thoughtfully designed logo helps visually represent the values and identity of Carpinteria. The inclusive, bilingual, and community-centered design approach ensures the logo reflects a wide range of atural environment and
heritage.

Connection to Place: The new logo design prominently features the Carpinteria Bluffs, a treasured open space and natural landmark that holds deep meaning for residents and visitors alike. The Bluffs are not only visually iconic but also tment to preservation, coastal access,
and environmental stewardship. Their inclusion in the logo reinforces a strong sense of place and collective pride.

Development of City Logo
September 8, 2025

Page 4 ends

Next Steps
Should the City Council approve the adoption of the new City logo, staff will begin implementing the updated visual identity across all materials moving forward. The existing City seal will continue to be used for ceremonial, legal, and regulatory purposes, preserving its formal and historic significance.

The City recognizes that older logos, such as the Parks and Recreation logo, are still present on many materials throughout the City on signage, uniforms, apparel, and other assets. While it is not feasible or cost-effective to replace all of these immediately, the new logo will be incorporated as items are replenished or updated over time. This gradual transition approach ensures fiscal responsibility while steadily moving toward a more cohesive brand identity.

To support a smooth and consistent rollout, a City branding guide will be developed with the support of Two Trumpets Communications, and distributed to all departments. This guide will provide clear direction on:

When to use the City logo versus the City seal
Approved color palettes and typography
Guidance for both print and digital applications
Standards for department-level branding adaptations, where appropriate The branding guide is intended to serve as an internal resource to help staff create visually appealing, professional, and consistent materials. It is not meant to limit creativity unified branding
approach will improve public recognition and engagement, elevate the professionalism of City communications, and clearly convey that materials are official City communications.

This phased implementation will enable the City to gradually replace outdated logos over time and unify its visual presence across outreach, signage, communications, and community programs supporting clarity, accessibility, and inclusivity in all materials.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
commitment identified in with City Council Primary Goal #1: Enhance Public Outreach, Education, and Transparency to enhancing accessibility, transparency, and public engagement. This initiative further
promoting a more professional, cohesive, and unified identity across all City services. By ust,
modern, and responsive to the community we serve.

Development of City Logo
September 8, 2025

Page 5 ends

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

There are no new financial considerations associated with this project. Funding for the development of a new City logo was included in the approved FY 2025-2026 budget.

LEGAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

None.

PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT THE MEETING:

None.

OPTIONS:

1. Adopt the City logo as presented.

2. Adopt the City logo with minor modifications.

3. Do not adopt the City logo as presented and provide direction to staff as appropriate.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Brand Identity Presentation Document
Staff Contact:

Juliza Briones, Program Manager
805-754-4401; [email protected]
Signature
Reviewed by: Michael Ramirez, City Manager
805-755-4450; [email protected]
Signature

ATTACHMENT A
Brand Identity Presentation Document

Take Action
Home / Advocacy / Take Action
Oppose Unless Amended SB 364 (Strickland) Outdoor advertising displays:
customary maintenance: permits.

SB 364 expands the definitions of “customary maintenance provisions” of an outdoor advertising display under the Outdoor Advertising Act to include replacing or eliminating structural members, posts, and internal bracing of billboards. These changes are in direct conflict with decades of California case law and local permitting authority.

Why this is important to Cal Cities members:
• SB 364 would allow billboard companies to dramatically alter structures and bypass all local input and control, creating significant safety and environmental risks.
• SB 364 would expose cities to costly lawsuits if they try to enforce safety, environmental, or cultural protections that the bill exempts from review.

Action requested: Send a letter to your Assembly Member today to oppose unless amended SB 364 (Strickland) Outdoor advertising displays: customary maintenance: permitting, which conflicts with decades of case law related to local regulations of outdoor billboard advertising. SB 364 has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee and may move to the Assembly floor before the legislative session ends on Sept. 12.

How to contact your Legislator: Find Your California Representatives Supporting documents: Cal Cities Opposition Letter; Sample SB 364, City Opposition Letter
Questions? Contact your Regional Public Affairs Manager or Damon Conklin, Legislative Advocate, [email protected]
Agenda Section: Legislative Update
Agenda Item No.: N/A
Council Meeting Date: September 8, 2025
Support Climate Safe Infrastructure Priorities in Cap-and-Trade Reauthorization The Legislature is moving forward to reauthorize the state’s Cap-and-Trade Program, which is set to expire in 2030. High-emitting businesses, which represent roughly threequarters of the state’s emissions, are required by the state to reduce greenhouse gases.

However, they can buy a limited number of credits each year — the “cap” — from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to cover their emissions. The process creates a market price for the credits, with auction proceeds going toward the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Cal Cities is leading a coalition alongside local government, transportation, and labor partners to urge state leaders to prioritize climate-safe infrastructure improvements during their negotiations, which will last through the end of the legislative session. Strong city voices today will help ensure future investments prioritize funding to cities.

Contact your legislators to request support for climate safe infrastructure projects and program funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as part of the Cap-andTrade reauthorization negotiations.

Cities are strongly encouraged to submit a letter of support to their legislators as well as Senator Monique Limón and Assembly Member Jacqui Irwin — the two lawmakers leading the negotiations.

Supporting documents: coalition priorities; sample city letter How to contact your Legislator: Find Your California Representatives Questions? Contact your Regional Public Affairs Manager or Legislative Advocate Melissa Sparks-Kranz at [email protected]
Support SB 346 (Durazo) Transient Occupancy Taxes: Short-term Rental Facilitator
What the Bill Does: Enables enforcement of local ordinances related to short-term rentals, including the collection and remittance of transient occupancy taxes (TOT) by providing cities with the physical address of each short-term rental listed on the facilitator’s website and full audit authority of TOT dollars. This bill ensures that the correct amount of TOT is being collected and remitted and allows for more effective enforcement against unlicensed units.

Action Requested: Ask your Assembly Member to Support SB 346 (Durazo) Local Agencies: transient occupancy taxes: short-term rental facilitator (as amended 7/7/25). SB 346 is a Cal Cities-sponsored bill that will be heard on the Assembly floor when the Legislature returns from summer recess in early August. Please talk to your Assembly Member in the district AND send a letter of support for SB 346.

What else you need to know: Unfortunately, short-term rental providers are engaging in an all-out lobbying blitz to oppose SB 346 and mislead the public about the impact on consumers. City officials should talk to their Assembly Members ASAP about the impacts of short-term rentals in their communities and why it is important that short-term rentals pay their fair share of TOT in the communities they do business in.

Links and Attachments: Cal Cities letter; sample city support letter Where to Send Letter: See sample letter for legislative portal link. Send copy to [email protected], and your regional manager's email.

Oppose SB 445 (Wiener): Transportation Projects: Permitting SB 445 makes sweeping changes to the state’s process for permitting local projects and significantly impairs local governments’ ability to manage public infrastructure, ensure worker and public safety, and coordinate across infrastructure sectors. Most concerningly, the bill grants project proponents—public or private—the authority to advance projects that could significantly alter or relocate critical infrastructure such as water, wastewater, and power, without consulting the affected city.

Call or text your Assembly Member today to OPPOSE SB 445 (Wiener), which was amended this week to remove local discretion on infrastructure projects. SB 445 is currently in the Assembly Committee on Transportation, awaiting a hearing.

How to contact your Legislator: Find Your California Representatives Supporting documents: Cal Cities Opposition Letter; Sample SB 445 City Opposition Letter
Questions? Contact your Regional Public Affairs Manager or Damon Conklin, Legislative Advocate, [email protected]
Oppose SB 79 (Wiener): The wrong way to go about solving our housing crisis SB 79 (Wiener) requires cities to ministerially approve higher-density residential projects — up to 7 stories — near public transit stops, regardless of zoning codes. SB 79 limits the use of local development standards and allows transit agencies land-use authority over residential and commercial development on property they own or lease, without any requirement that developers build housing, let alone affordable housing. This onesize-fits-all mandate overrides local planning, bypasses environmental review, and silences public input. Cities must oppose SB 79 to preserve balanced, communitydriven development.

Call or text your Assembly Member today to OPPOSE SB 79 (Wiener) Transitoriented Development. SB 79 will be heard in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on July 2.

How to contact your Assembly Member: Find Your California Representatives Supporting documents: Cal Cities Opposition Letter
Questions? Contact your Regional Public Affairs Manager or Jason Rhine, Senior Director, Legislative Affairs.

Cal Cities SB 79 Opposition Letter
SB 79 Sample City Opposition Letter
Oppose AB 339 (Ortega) Local public employee organizations: notice requirements.

AB 339 (Ortega) requires the governing body of a public agency, board, or commission to give a recognized employee organization written notice regarding contracts to perform services that are within the scope of work of the job classifications represented by the recognized employee organization. As currently drafted, AB 339 is impractical in its execution, unworkable for ensuring provision of public services, and disincentivizes reaching final agreement in local labor negotiations.

Send a letter today to OPPOSE AB 339 (Ortega) Local public employee organizations: notice requirements. AB 339 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Labor, Public Employees and Retirement (PERS) Committee on Wednesday, June 18. If your city is represented by a Senator on the Senate PERS Committee, please CALL them to request their NO vote.

Where to send your letter: See sample city letter link for legislative portal submission instructions. Send a copy to [email protected] and your RPAM’s email.

Supporting documents: Cal Cities Opposition Letter
Questions? Contact your Regional Public Affairs Manager or Johnnie Piña.

AB 339 Sample City Opposition Letter
Make phone calls ASAP requesting the appropriations committees to support or oppose Cal Cities’ priority bills!
Links to each bill, including sample letters, are included in the summaries below.

The Legislature moves all bills with fiscal implications through the appropriations committees twice a year, which will determine if a bill is heard on the floor of either house. Cal Cities hosted a Legislative Appropriations Webinar with more information on Cal Cities priority bills. If you have questions or feedback, please contact your regional public affairs manager.

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

SUPPORT BILLS
SB 496 (Hurtado) Advance Clean Fleets Reform.

This measure would create a formal appeals process for denied extension requests, broaden the definition of emergency vehicles, and remove the “pay to play” requirement for extensions under the Advanced Clean Fleets rule.

SB 569 (Blakespear) Homeless Encampment Collaboration Act.

This measure would increase communication between the Department of Transportation and local governments to address encampments on state property. This would include a dedicated local government liaison to facilitate communication, provide guidance on best practices, and oversee delegated maintenance agreements.

OPPOSE BILL
SB 79 (Wiener) Transit-Oriented Development.

This measure would require cities to ministerially approve housing up to 7 stories high and with a density of 120 homes per acre near public transit, regardless of local zoning laws. It also gives transit agencies full land-use authority on land they own without any requirement to build housing.

Call the Senate Appropriations Committee Today!
Senate Committee Members Phone Number
Sen. Anna Caballero (Chair) (916) 651-4014
Senate Committee Members Phone Number
Sen. Kelly Seyarto (Vice-Chair)(916) 651-4032
Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (916) 651-4003
Sen. Megan Dahle (916) 651-4001
Sen. Tim Grayson (916) 651-4009
Sen. Laura Richardson (916) 651-4035
Sen. Aisha Wahab (916) 651-4410

ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

SUPPORT BILLS
AB 1 (Connolly) Residential property insurance: wildfire risk.

This measure would require the Department of Insurance to include wildfire mitigation in the next draft of the Catastrophe Modeling regulations.

AB 476 (Gonzalez) Metal Theft.

This measure would deter theft of metal used in public utility infrastructure by increasing the criminal fines that may be imposed for the unlawful purchase or unlawful possession of stolen public agency materials.

AB 650 (Papan) Planning and zoning: housing element: regional housing needs allocation.

This measure would allow local governments to begin the housing element update process six months earlier and create more clarity and certainty in the housing element review process. It would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide detailed feedback when responding to housing element drafts.

AB 846 (Connolly): Endangered species: incidental take: wildfire preparedness activities.

The bill would expedite environmental permits for cities with local wildfire preparedness projects in fire-risk areas near urban communities.

AB 888 (Calderon) California Safe Homes Grant Program.

This bill would create the California Safe Homes Grant Program which would provide funding to individuals, cities, counties and special districts for roof hardening and home hardening.

OPPOSE BILLS
AB 1383 (McKinnor) Public Employees’ Retirement Benefits.

AB 1383 would upend many of the reforms put in place in 2013 by PEPRA.

Specifically, this measure would:
• Increase the pensionable compensation cap.
• Reduce the retirement age for public safety from 57 to 55 prospectively. • Add a fourth safety tier that is 3% @ 55 years old, prospective and subject to bargaining;
• Allow local agencies to adjust their local formula in a prospective manner. • Permit authorized employee representatives to bargain with the employer over the employee share of payment for the normal cost.

While we recognize and appreciate the intent of the bill to support the recruitment and retention of essential public safety professionals, the bill would impose increased local pension obligations and undo critical pension reform.

AB 1022 (Kalra) Parking: Ability to Tow.

This measure would prohibit the towing or immobilizing of vehicles that have accrued 5 or more delinquent parking citations. Specifically, AB 1022 would:
• Eliminates the option for parking enforcement to immobilize or tow an out-of-state vehicle.
• Remove the tool for agencies to rightfully obtain a warrant to perform a tow. • Reward bad behavior for those who purposely ignore tickets without any repercussions, regardless of income levels.

This legislation would severely limit cities’ ability to enforce parking regulations, causing a cascade of fiscal damage: lost revenue, increased administrative costs, clogged courtrooms, decreased compliance, harm to local businesses, public safety risks, and overall reduced effectiveness of municipal government operations.

Call the Assembly Appropriations Committee Today!
Assembly Committee MembersPhone Number
Asm. Buffy Wicks (Chair) (916) 319-2014
Asm. Kate Sanchez (Vice Chair) (916) 319-2071
Asm. Joaquin Arambula (916) 319-2031
Asm. Blanca Pacheco (916) 319-2064
Assembly Committee MembersPhone Number
Asm. Lisa Calderon (916) 319-2056
Asm. Jessica Caloza (916) 319-2052
Asm. Diane Dixon (916) 319-2072
Asm. Sade Elhawary (916) 319-2057
Asm. Mike Fong (916) 319-2049
Asm. Gail Pellerin (916) 319-2028
Asm. Mark Gonzalez (916) 319-2054
Asm. Gregg Hart (916) 319-2037
Asm. Jose Luis Solache Jr. (916) 319-2062
Asm. Tri Ta (916) 319-2070
Asm. David Tangipa (916) 319-2008
For more information, please contact your regional public affairs manager.

Help provide greater clarity to the housing element process by supporting AB 650 (Papan)!
AB 650 (Papan) would help ensure that cities have the necessary resources, feedback, and time to site and plan for housing, as required by state law. The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development will hear the bill on April 24. Cities should call or mail their legislators and tell them to vote YES on AB 650. Please send letters to [email protected] and your regional public affairs manager.

AB 650 Sample City Support Letter

Carpinteria City CouncilSeptember 8, 2025

Carpinteria City Council
September 8, 2025