Goleta City Council
January 20, 2026

Agenda Item C.3

DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM
Meeting Date: January 20, 2026
____________________________________________________________ T
O: Mayor and Councilmembers
S
UBMITTED BY: Luz “Nina” Buelna, Public Works Director
P
REPARED BY: Teresa Lopes, Principal Civil Engineer
S
UBJECT: City of Goleta Transportation Advisory Structure Evaluation Report RE
COMMENDATION:

A. R
eceive a report regarding potential organizational structures for the review and consideration of transportation and circulation issues; and B. S
upport the recommendation of Option 1 – No Group/Status Quo, as identified through the evaluation criteria, and direct staff to continue administering transportation and circulation-related issues under the current framework.

BACKG
ROUND:

A
fter the City Council establishes policy direction, approves programs, and sets funding priorities, the City manages transportation planning, traffic operations, and roadway safety through an internal, staff -led process administered by the Public Works Department. Public Works is responsible for day -to-day transportation engineering and operational decisions and for implementing adopted transportation policies and plans, consistent with applicable state and federal law, engineering standards, and regulator y requirements.

T
ransportation improvements are advanced through adopted plans, technical studies, capital projects, maintenance activities, development review, and grant-funded programs.

Key guiding documents include the General Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), the Vision Zero approach adopted on February 20, 2024, and the City of Goleta’s Traffic Safety Study (GTSS), including the Systemic Safety Analysis Report and Local Road Safety Plan. Together, these documents establish the City’s policy framewor k for transportation safety and multimodal mobility.

I
mprovements identified in the BPMP and GTSS are implemented through existing City programs, including pavement maintenance, conditions placed on the approval of private developments, and the Capital Improvement Program. Approximately 45 percent of the 1 Meeti ng Date: January 20, 2026
Page
2 of 6
multimodal and safety -related improvements identified in these plans have been completed or are currently in active development, reflecting the City’s practice of integrating safety and mobility improvements into routine project delivery.

Rout
ine transportation decisions are implemented administratively by Public Works when they do not change roadway function and are consistent with adopted plans. These actions include pavement striping, shared lane markings, parking striping, signage, signal timing and phasing adjustments, turn movement modifications, and other traffic control measures within the existing roadway configuration. Decisions are informed by engineering judgment, collision data, speed studies, and field conditions.

Publ
ic engagement under the City’s current approach is integrated into transportation maintenance activities, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects, and development - related improvements, as well as during the project review and approval process. Public Works conducts project-specific outreach based on the scope and potential community impacts of each project. Outreach methods may include public meetings, open houses, mailed notices, door hangers, website updates, construction notifications, press releases, email, text messages, direct coordination and city council meetings with affected neighborhoods, schools, businesses, and other stakeholders.

In ad
dition to project -specific outreach, Public Works conducts regular coordination as part of its ongoing transportation operations. This includes quarterly meetings with the Sheriff’s Department to review traffic operations and safety concerns, bi -annual coordination with local school districts regarding circulation and access issues, and routine quarterly meetings with utility providers to align construction, maintenance, and traffic control activities. Public engagement also occurs through the City Council agenda process for items requiring Council action, including published staff reports, public noticing, and opportunities for public comment at Council meetings. This layered approach allows outreach and coordination to be scaled appropriately while maintaining transparency and responsiveness.

Counc
il review is required when proposed actions involve functional roadway changes, new policy direction, or formal approvals, such as changes to parking, access, or capital project authorization. When a Council review is required, staff prepare a single staff report and agenda package.

Th
is staff-led, direct-to-Council model reflects the City’s current organizational structure and staffing levels and has supported efficient implementation while maintaining Council oversight for policy-level and functionally significant decisions.

On A
pril 15, 2025, the Council considered the formation of a proposed “ Transportation and Circulation Standing Committee” and directed staff to evaluate the formation of a City board, commission, or committee focused on transportation and circulation issues and return with a recommendation.

DIS
CUSSION:

Regi
onal Context and Research
2 Meet ing Date: January 20, 2026
P
age 3 of 6
Staff reviewed transportation advisory structures used by other jurisdictions within Santa Barbara County and across California to understand how cities of varying sizes and contexts organize transportation oversight. This research focused on organizational approaches rather than identifying direct peer cities and included a range of internal staff committees, Council committees, and public commissions. A summary of this research is provided in Attachment 1.

R
eview of Other Jurisdictions
Within Santa Barbara County, staff reviewed practices at the County of Santa Barbara and the Cities of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Carpinteria, Buellton, Guadalupe, Lompoc, and Solvang. Most jurisdictions within the County manage transportation matters through internal staff coordination, with items elevated directly to the governing body when approval is required. The City of Santa Barbara is the only jurisdiction in the county with a standing public transportation advisory body.

S
taff also reviewed selected California C ities outside the county, including Davis, Manhattan Beach, San Luis Obispo, and Seaside, to understand alternative advisory structures. These Cities illustrate a range of models, including public commissions, topic- specific advisory committees, and staff-led approaches with Council oversight.

T
his research informed the development of the four organizational options presented in this report. Each option reflects an approach currently used by other jurisdictions.

E
valuation Framework
Staff evaluated four potential structures for transportation coordination, policy review, and community engagement. This evaluation is documented in Attachment 1, which includes jurisdictional research and an assessment of staff effort associated with each option.

C
ouncil review requirements are consistent across all options. Council action is required when actions involve policy decisions, funding approvals, or changes that materially alter parking supply, access, or policy-level transportation changes. The staff effort required to prepare and present an item to Council is therefore the same regardless of the organizational structure selected.

O
ption 1 represents the City’s existing baseline process. Options 2 through 4 introduce additional advisory review steps prior to Council consideration. Differences in staff effort reflect only the additional coordination, documentation, and follow -up associated with those advisory steps, not the underlying Council review.

O
ptions Analysis
O
ption 1 – No Group (Status Quo)
Transportation issues continue to be reviewed internally by Public Works and brought directly to Council as needed through the existing single- step process, avoiding the added delays and procedural layers that Options 3 and 4 would introduce, which would compete with existing work program priorities under current staffing levels.

Routine operational and engineering decisions consistent with adopted plans are implemented administratively.
3 Meeting Date: January 20, 2026

Because this option reflects the City’s current process, it adds no incremental staff time beyond the baseline Council review effort.

Option 2 – Internal Working Group
This option formalizes staff -level coordination prior to Council review. It adds limited staff effort to convene the working group and refine materials internally but does not require Brown Act compliance or public meetings. Council review remains unchanged.

Option 3 – Council Committee
This option adds a Brown Act -compliant Council subcommittee review before items proceed to the full Council. It increases staff effort due to agenda preparation, meeting support, and revisions based on committee direction, while also introducing additional procedural delays that extends the timeline for presenting items to Council.

Option 4 – Public Transportation Commission
This option creates a formal public advisory commission. It requires the highest level of staff effort due to public agendas, notices, minutes, response to public testimony, and preparation of materials for both commission and Council review , while also introducing additional procedural delays that extend the timeline for presenting items to Council . Moreover, there is the added cost of the commissioner's stipends associated with this option.

Programmatic Items for Advisory Review (Options 3 and 4 Only) If the Council were to select Option 3 (Council Committee) or Option 4 (Public Transportation Commission), staff recommends that certain recurring, programmatic transportation items be reviewed by the advisory body prior to Council consideration, rather than being scheduled for standalone Council discussion.

These items would include:
• The Annual Pavement Management Program update
• Periodic updates to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan • The annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) related to transportation and circulation projects
Under this approach, these programmatic items would be reviewed in detail at the advisory level and subsequently brought forward to Council on the Consent Calendar.

This structure is intended to reduce duplicative presentations, focus detailed technical discussion within the advisory body, and ensure workflow efficiency.

All legislative decisions, funding approvals, and actions that materially alter parking supply, access, or policy direction would continue to require Council approval and remain subject to Council discretion.

4 Meeting Date: January 20, 2026

Summary
Staff evaluated four organizational options using the criteria described in Attachment 1 .

The evaluation was conducted by a staff team comprising three representatives from the Public Works Department and one from the City Manager’s Office. Each option was assessed for public transparency and engagement, program effectiveness and delivery capacity, interdepartmental coordination, administrative and staff capacity , and cost efficiency using a consistent framework. The primary lens for this evaluation was st aff’s ability to implement projects, programs, and routine work successfully and efficiently, not necessarily a lens of how to best engage in policy making.

Based on the ranking criteria, Option 1 – No Group (Status Quo) ranked highest overall.

Option 1 – No Group (Status Quo) is the preferred approach as it best aligns with the City’s current operating model, staffing capacity, and project delivery efficiency , without adding any administration complexity. Option 2 – Internal Working Group also scored favorably and represents an alternative approach should the Council seek to formalize additional internal coordination without establishing a new advisory body. Options 3 and 4 ranked lower due to the additional administrative requirements, staff time, and procedural steps associated with those structures. While each of these two options do offer some advantages (see attachment 1 report) that the Council may wish to discuss, the formal evaluation did not determine that the potential advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to continue administering transportation and circulation-related issues under Option 1 – No Group (Status Quo). If the Council desires an increase in structured internal coordination without establishing a formal committee or commission, Option 2 – Internal Working Group could be implemented efficiently within existing resources.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

Option 1 – No Group (Status Quo) reflects the City’s existing staff-led process and does not add cost beyond current staff resources.

Option 2 – Internal Working Group would result in a modest increase in staff coordination time for periodic interdepartmental meetings and internal reviews . These impacts are expected to be manageable and absorbed within existing budgets.

Options 3 – Council Committee and Option 4 – Public Transportation Commission would result in increased ongoing staff and administrative costs related to Brown Act compliance, agenda preparation, meeting support, documentation and follow -up. Based on preliminary estimates included in Attachment 1, these options would introduce recurring costs that are not currently budgeted. A detailed fiscal and staffing impact analysis would be recommended prior to implementation.

5 Meeting Date: January 20, 2026

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Direct staff to implement Option 2 – Internal Working Group. This would formalize cross-departmental coordination prior to Council review while maintaining the existing Council approval process and avoiding additional Brown Act requirements.

2. Direct staff to establish Option 3 - Council Committee or Option 4 - Public Transportation Commission.

If Council selects either Option 3 or 4, staff would return with required implementation actions, including draft resolutions (Option 3) and/or ordinances (Option 4), roles and responsibilities, meeting structure, and an updated fiscal and staffing impact analysis.

LEGAL REVIEW BY: Isaac Rosen, City Attorney

APPROVED BY: Robert Nisbet, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City of Goleta Transportation Advisory Structure Evaluation Report

2. PowerPoint Presentation – Transportation Advisory Structure Evaluation

6 ATTACHMENT 1

City of Goleta Transportation Advisory Structure Evaluation Report

7 Transportation Advisory Structure Evaluation Report

January 20, 2026
8 2
Table of Contents
Section 1: Purpose and Background ............................................................................... 3 Section 2: Existing Conditions and Context ..................................................................... 5 Section 3: Regional Comparison of Transportation Advisory Structure ........................... 6 Section 4: Transportation Advisory Structure Options Considered ................................. 9 Section 5: Ranking Criteria and Evaluation ................................................................... 17 Section 6: Staff Analysis and Recommendation ............................................................ 19 Section 7: Exhibits ......................................................................................................... 21

9 3
Section 1: Purpose and Background
The purpose of this report is to present the City Council with options for establishing a Transportation Commission or Committee to advise on citywide transportation issues, including traffic safety, multimodal mobility, and implementation of adopted City transportation policies such as the 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), Vision Zero approach, and the Goleta Traffic Safety Study (GTSS). The report outlines potential organizational structures, associated staff resource considerations, and examples from other jurisdictions in Santa Barbara County and throughout the State.

The City adopted a resolution in support of Vision Zero Efforts to Eliminate Fatal and Severe Transportation- Related Collisions on February 20, 2024. This action followed several years of work to advance transportation safety and multimodal mobility through adopted plans and studies. The City BPMP identified a connected network of multimodal improvements based on community input and technical analysis. In 2022, the City’s GTSS provided a citywide evaluation of collision trends and roadway characteristics and identified potential countermeasures for consideration.

Improvements identified in the BPMP and GTSS continue to inform the City’s planning and project development processes. Public Works has advanced a range of these improvements through pavement maintenance work, development conditions, operational adjustments, and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Approximately 45 percent of the multimodal projects identified in these planning documents are completed or are in active development. This work reflects the City’s ongoing practice of implementing adopted transportation plans through existing workflows. Public Works coordinates regularly with a wide range of internal City Departments and regional partners to identify and address transportation needs and issues, review City projects in all phases (planning, design, and construction) , and discuss coordination items. This coordination includes various internal City Departments, quarterly meetings with the Sheriff’s Office, quarterly utility meetings with all utility companies, utility districts, and the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD), and biannual meetings with Goleta schools and school districts to support ongoing communication, planning, and collaboration. The public is engaged through our structured process, which includes early outreach, public meetings, feedback collection, and the incorporation of community input into project design and decision-making. In addition, the City is a voting member of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) Technical Transportation Advisory Committee and meets monthly with other Santa Barbara County agency leaders to provide technical advice and make recommendations on transportation issues affecting the region.

Goleta’s transportation system continues to evolve with increasing multimodal activity and ongoing coordination with regional partners. Transportation matters are currently reviewed internally by the Public Works Department, with City Council consideration occurring when proposed actions involve functional changes to the roadway, new policy direction, or formal approvals. Routine striping, signing, signal operations, and other 10 4
operational adjustments consistent with adopted plans are implemented at the staff level through maintenance and CIP projects and operational efforts. This report proposes an alternative advisory structure used in other jurisdictions and presents four organizational options for the Council’s consideration, along with a staff recommendation.

Based on staff’s evaluation of regional and selected state jurisdictions , the following organizational options are presented for Council consideration:
• Option 1 – No Group (Status Quo): Transportation issues continue to be handled internally by Public Works through ongoing monitoring, technical analysis, and coordination among staff, with findings, recommendations, and proposed actions presented directly to City Council as needed for review, direction, and approval. • Option 2 – Internal Working Group: A cross-departmental team composed of Public Works, City Manager’s Office, Planning, Neighborhood Services, County Sheriff and Fire, and MTD that meets quarterly to handle transportation issues through ongoing monitoring, technical analysis, and coordination among staff, with findings, recommendations, and proposed actions presented directly to City Council as needed for review.
• Option 3 – Council Committee: A two-member committee to serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council. The comm ittee would meet quarterly or as needed to review transportation matters and provide policy guidance and recommendations .

This committee would provide an additional opportunity beyond the current workflow for public engagement with elected officials as part of the legislative process. • Option 4 – Transportation Commission: An advisory body composed of Council- appointed residents and representatives from key partner agencies such as MTD, County Sheriff, and Fire, reviews transportation matters and provides policy guidance and recommendations. This Commission would provide an additional opportunity beyond the current workflow process for public engagement as part of the legislative process with those appointed.
11 5
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Context
The City currently has no standing transportation advisory body. Transportation matters are addressed internally by the Public Works Department and presented directly to City Council. Staff actively coordinate with MTD, SBCAG, the County of Santa Barbara, the City of Santa Barbara, the County Sheriff, and other regional jurisdictions on transportation safety initiatives, corridor studies, fire and traffic studies, traffic modeling, design and construction projects, and other transportation- related items. These efforts include traffic signal coordination and timing, intersection control evaluations, traffic - calming assessments, speed surveys, and multimodal corridors and safety analyses from planning through implementation. The public is engaged at points where input will meaningfully inform decisions, determined on a case-by-case basis.

Goleta’s transportation network serves a growing community with increasing multimodal activity. The City’s location between Santa Barbara and the unincorporated county results in shared corridors and regional connections that require consistent coordination among agencies. Transportation planning is also guided by the City’s adopted policy framework, including the General Plan, BPMP, and GTSS, which collectively support safety, accessibility, and sustainable mobility.

As a Vision Zero City, Goleta integrates safety as a central principle in all projects and studies. The C ity maintains ongoing communication with residents, businesses, and schools through community workshops, public meetings, and project-specific outreach to ensure transportation priorities reflect community input. These public touchpoints, combined with regular interagency coordination, help inform project development and policy recommendations presented to the City Council.

Goleta’s current workflow enables effective coordination across agencies and supports data-driven decision- making for transportation planning and operations. The City’s ongoing collaboration with regional partners and consistent engagement with the community ensure that transportation priorities remain aligned with local needs and broader mobility goals. This foundation provides flexibility to continue addressing transportation matters internally or to explore formalized advisory structures in the future as the City’s transportation network and programs evolve. 12 6
Section 3: Regional Comparison of
Transportation Advisory Structure
Staff evaluated how other jurisdictions structure their transportation oversight and advisory functions. This review provides context for potential models that could inform future discussion on whether establishing a formal advisory body would add value or improve coordination within Goleta’s existing framework.

Findings from Agencies within Santa Barbara County
Staff prepared a matrix of comparable structures used by other agencies within Santa Barbara County and in other jurisdictions, the matrix is found in Exhibit A. Staff’s findings are shown below:

City of Carpinteria – Staff Committee
• S taff-level committee that includes Public Works and safety personnel who review transportation issues and meet on an as-needed basis. • Provides recommendations to City Council on operational and technical coordination for traffic-related requests.
• Does not operate as a standing public advisory body.

City of Santa Maria – Traffic Committee
• Technical advisory group composed of staff and technical experts that meet monthly.
• P rovides recommendations to the City Council on traffic operations, control devices, and safety improvements.
• Does not operate as a standing public advisory body.

City of Santa Barbara – Transportation & Circulation Committee (TCC) • P ublic advisory body that meets monthly and is Brown Act–compliant. • Provides recommendations to the City Council on multimodal transportation, traffic calming, neighborhood safety, and pedestrian and bicycle polic ies and selected project concepts.
• Supported by a larger Public Works Department with dedicated Transportation and Mobility staff, allowing for regular agenda development and public participation.

County of Santa Barbara – Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC) • Staff-level technical advisory group including Public Works staff, California Highway Patrol, County Sheriff’s Office, and County Fire Department representatives that meet on an as-needed basis.
13 7
• Provides recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on speed limits, signage, warrants, and other traffic control measures.

Cities of Buellton, Guadalupe, Lompoc, and Solvang – Staff Coordination Models • Transportation-related matters are generally managed internally by staff. • These cities do not maintain standing transportation committees or commissions. • Organizational models are scaled to staffing levels and community size, allowing direct communication between staff and Council.

Within Santa Barbara County, the City of Santa Barbara is the only jurisdiction that maintains a standing public transportation advisory body. Other cities and the County rely on staff -level or technical coordination models, with transportation matters elevated directly to their respective governing bodies for consideration. These approaches reflect differences in staffing capacity, organizational structure, and service area and demonstrate a range of methods for coordinating transportation planning and operations.

Findings from Other Jurisdictions
The cities included in this review were selected to illustrate a range of transportation advisory structures used by California jurisdictions with varying sizes, land-use contexts, and transportation demands. While the cities reviewed are not direct peers to Goleta, they provide relevant examples, including university-adjacent communities, coastal cities, and jurisdictions with established multimodal transportation programs. The intent is to show organizational approaches rather than identify a single comparable model. Additional details on each jurisdiction’s advisory body, scope, membership, and meeting practices are provided in Exhibit B.

City of Davis – Transportation Commission
• Integrates multimodal planning, traffic safety, and sustainability within a single advisory structure.
• Includes student representation (UC Davis) and emphasizes data- driven decision-making.
• Demonstrates how a city transportation commission can advance Vision Zero and climate goals through public collaboration.

City of Manhattan Beach – Parking & Public Improvements Commission (PPIC) • The structure is comprised of four (4) at -large members and one (1) member of the business community.
• Make recommendations to the City Council on public parking issues, capital improvement projects, traffic management, and activities in the public right -of- way, including encroachment permits.
14 8
City of San Luis Obispo – Active Transportation Committee (ATC) and Mass Transportation Committee (MTC)
• Two separate advisory bodies with specified areas of focus (ATC – active transportation; MTC – public transit).
• The ATC is composed of seven City residents and registered voters with an interest in alternative transportation. The committee provides advisory oversight and policy input on bicycle and pedestrian transportation within the City of San Luis Obispo and on issues related to bicycling and walking connections beyond city limits.
• The MTC is composed of seven members representing Cal Poly staff, students, seniors, business interests, transportation professionals, individuals with disabilities, and one at -large member. The committee assists with the ongoing public transit program serving the City and Cal Poly and, upon request, provides recommendations to the City Council on transit routes, schedules, capital projects, fares, marketing, and service enhancements.

City of Seaside – Traffic Advisory Committee
• A traffic advisory committee (TAC) to serve without compensation, consisting of one councilmember, who is the chairman, the director of public works, who is the vice-chairman, the chief of police, the director of community development, and the fire chief, or their designees.
• To review all requests for traffic safety regulatory or control devices, signs and markings, and to make studies and recommendations to the City Council , planning commission or appropriate city department, with respect to all matters of traffic, traffic circulation and traffic safety including traffic laws, parking and speed regulations, crosswalks, stop signs, traffic control devices and signals, street lights, school crossings, signing, pavement marking and other related matters
• Recommendations made by the TAC are to be ratified by the City Council prior to implementation.

Other California cities use a range of advisory and review structures to address transportation planning, traffic operations, and mobility policy. Together, these examples illustrate a range of organizational approaches used by municipalities to structure transportation oversight, from staff- based technical review to formal public advisory commissions.
15 9
Section 4: Transportation Advisory Structure
Options Considered
Staff evaluated four potential structures for managing transportation-related coordination, policy review, and community engagement. The four options were developed based on research into transportation advisory structures used by other jurisdictions, incl uding cities within Santa Barbara County and comparable California communities . This research informed the range of organizational models considered, from staff -led internal coordination to formal public advisory bodies. The four potential structures include the following:

Option 1 – No Group (Status Quo)
Option 2 – Internal Working Group
Option 3 – Council Committee
Option 4 – Transportation Commission

The evaluation focuses on each structure and considerations for staff workload, administrative requirements, and procedural steps associated with reviewing transportation items that may require City Council consideration. The analysis is determined by Exhibit C (Estimated Staff Time by Task and Organizational Option) and Exhibit D (Estimated Staff Hours and Cost), which together establish a consistent framework for comparing staff effort across all options on a per-item basis.

As reflected in Exhibits C and D, all options share a common baseline level of staff effort associated with preparing and presenting an item to the City Council when Council review and/or approval is required. This baseline includes technical analysis, interdepartmental coordination, regional partner coordination, public engagement , and preparation of a single staff report and agenda package for City Council consideration. The baseline City Council review effort is consistent across all options and does not vary by the selected organizational structure.

The options differ in the amount of additional staff time required prior to City Council consideration. That incremental effort varies depending on whether an option includes internal coordination only, public advisory committee , or a Brown Act–governed Council Commission. Additional staff time includes staffs’ management of the advisory body including preparation of agendas and presentation materials, participation in committee or commission meetings, response to feedback or public comments , revisions to s taff reports, and coordination with the City Clerk to meet Brown Act and records retention requirements.

Under Option 1 (No Group / Status Quo), no additional time is anticipated beyond the current workflow. For o ptions 2 through 4, staff effort increases incrementally as organizational complexity and public process requirements increase, resulting in additional coordination, documentation, and revisions made prior to City Council action. 16 10

This structure allows for a side-by-side comparison of each option based on staff resource demand, administrative complexity, and procedural requirements, while holding the baseline City Council review effort constant across all options. In all 4 options , staff will continue to implement the City’s transportation plans through existing workflows coordinated by Public Works. This includes regular collaboration with internal departments, regional partners, utilities, county sheriff and fire, schools, and transit agencies to address transportation needs across planning, design, and construction phases. City Council review is required when action involves policy decisions, funding, or changes that materially alter parking supply, access, or circulation and therefore require council action, as opposed to routine operational or engineering decisions implemented by staff. Our public outreach framework will continue to follow established criteria and be applied as needed to individual projects or policies. Options 2-4 will include an additional advisory-body decision point in the established workflow. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are provided.

Option 1 – No Group (Status Quo)
Transportation matters continue to be reviewed and managed internally by the Public Works Department and will go directly to City Council when actions involve changes to roadway function, adoption of new policy, or other approvals requiring Council action.

This is the City’s existing structure and uses a single-step review process and does not include an intermediate advisory committee or commission.

Public Works retains authority for routine operational and engineering decisions that maintain the roadway’s existing function and intended use and are consistent with adopted City policies, including the BPMP, Vision Zero approach, and GTSS . These operational actions include pavement striping, shared lane markings, parking striping, signage, signal timing and phasing adjustments, turn movement modifications, and related traffic control measures. Operational decisions are guided by adopted plans and supported by staff analysis of collision data, speed studies, and field conditions.

Composition: Public Works, Sheriff's Department, and City Manager’s Office. With MTD, Fire, Neighborhood Services, and Planning consulted as needed.

Public Engagement: Undertaken in alignment with established criteria and applied to individual cases as appropriate.

Meetings: Internal only as needed.

Brown Act: Not Applicable.

Estimated Additional Staff Time and Cost per Meeting: 0 hours (approximately $0).

Typical Discussion Topics:
• Review of upcoming capital and maintenance projects, traffic studies, and grant opportunities.
• Project design coordination, red curb placement, traffic control plans, and technical analyses for capital and maintenance projects. 17 11
• Safety evaluations, coordination on Vision Zero implementation, speed surveys, and intersection performance reviews.
• Identification of systemic improvements, project needs, or technology upgrades that could enhance traffic operations in the future.
• Safety and corridor studies, updated master plans, and traffic modeling efforts. • Enforcement activity and community feedback received through outreach efforts. • Community outreach planning and follow-up for project-specific engagement.

Advantages:
• Use of existing staff and resources with no additional administrative requirements.
• Items move efficiently from staff analysis to Council action allowing for streamlined decision making.
• Allows for operational details and candid discussion at staff level. • Flexible and not constrained by public meeting law.

Disadvantages:
• Meetings are on an as -needed basis and increase the risk for gaps in communication.
• Internal meetings are not public and would not provide an additional public forum. • May carry transparency and buy-in risks.
• May result in late-stage changes when items reach the council agenda. • Attendance is limited to invited staff or stakeholders and may miss key perspectives relevant to each subject.

Option 2 – Internal Working Group
A cross- departmental staff team (Public Works, City Manager’s Office, Planning and Environmental Review, Neighborhood Services, County Sheriff and Fire, and MTD) would meet quarterly to review transportation safety, mobility, and policy issues. This structure formalizes informal coordination and provides a consistent venue for sharing information and identifying needs. The additional workload introduced by this option is limited, as staff may refine materials based on internal feedback before items proceed to City Council.

These refinements are generally minor and consist of technical clarifications or updates requested by the participating departments.

Administrative characteristics:
• One or more internal coordination meetings before Council review. • Feedback may result in technical clarifications or data updates. • No Brown Act agendas, noticing, minutes, or public packets.

Composition: Public Works, City Manager's Office, Planning, Neighborhood Services, County Sheriff and Fire, and MTD.
18 12
Public Engagement: Undertaken in alignment with established criteria and applied to individual cases as appropriate.

Meetings: Quarterly (Internal).

Brown Act: Not Applicable.

Estimated Staff Time and Cost per Meeting: 8–16 hours (approximately $1,040 to $2,080).

Typical Discussion Topics:
• Review of upcoming capital and maintenance projects, traffic studies, and grant opportunities.
• Project design coordination, red curb placement, traffic control plans, and technical analyses for capital and maintenance projects. • Safety evaluations, coordination on Vision Zero implementation, speed surveys, and intersection performance reviews.
• Identification of systemic improvements, project needs, or technology upgrades that could enhance traffic operations in the future.
• Safety and corridor studies, updated master plans, and traffic modeling efforts. • Enforcement activity and community feedback received through outreach efforts. • Community outreach planning and follow-up for project-specific engagement.

Advantages:
• Creates a predictable forum and formalizes internal coordination for sharing items across departments and regional partners.
• Increased trust and transparency by decision making being shared across departments and regional partners.
• Use of existing staff and resources with no additional administrative requirements.
• Can be established immediately without ordinance or recruitment. • Allows for operational details and candid discussion at staff level. • Flexible and not constrained by public meeting law.

Disadvantages:
• Internal meetings are not public and would not provide an additional public forum. • May carry transparency and buy in risks.
• May result in late-stage changes when items reach the council agenda. • Attendance is limited to invited staff or stakeholders and may miss key perspectives relevant to each subject.

Option 3 – Council Committee
Two Councilmembers would meet quarterly with staff and agency partners (MTD, Sheriff’s Office, and Fire) to review transportation priorities and provide direction before items advance to the full Council. This option introduces a formal Council C ommittee 19 13
governed by the Brown Act to provide review and recommendations. This Council Committee requires staff to prepare meeting materials, present items publicly, and revise reports, analyses, and presentations based on Committee input . These revisions may include
multiple edits, supplemental analysis, or additional research before the item is recommended to the City Council for final consideration.

Composition: Two Councilmembers + Staff + Regional Partner Liaisons Public Engagement: An additional opportunity occurs as part of the legislative process.

Meetings: Quarterly
Brown Act: Applicable
E
stimated Staff Time and Cost per Committee Meeting: 17–64 hours (approximately $4,420
to $8,320)
Typical Discussion Topics:
• Review of traffic safety data, Vision Zero progress, and upcoming capital improvement and maintenance projects.
• Policy guidance on corridor studies, Complete Streets, and multimodal mobility initiatives.
• Community concerns are elevated through the Council or received during project outreach.

Administrative characteristics:
• One or more Committee meetings before Council review. • Brown Act requirements apply to committee meetings, including agendas, posting, public packets, and minutes.
• Committee review may result in revisions or requests for supplemental information.
• Revised materials are prepared for City Council after committee review.

Advantages:
• Creates a predictable forum and formalizes coordination for sharing items across departments, regional partners, and committee members.
• A smaller group can dive deeper into complex or technical issues ahead of Council meetings.
• Keeps committee members informed on key transportation priorities and ongoing involvement helps maintain context across multiple projects or long- term initiatives.
• Provides opportunity for additional public comment and encourages more public participation in a less formal setting than Council.
• Allows early policy alignment before items reach full Council. 20 14
Disadvantages:
• Additional staff time requires preparation of formal agendas, public packets, and minutes in accordance with Brown Act requirements.
• Introduce an additional review process, which increases the amount of staff coordination and follow-up needed before items move to the full Council. • Adding a committee to the existing process can lengthen the timelines before items reach Council and ultimately implementation.
• Topics may be discussed in detail at the committee and then revisited at Council, which may result in duplication of effort.
• Council may reach a different outcome than the committee’s recommendations. • Increased staff effort associated with committee support may require prioritization among competing work programs, which can reduce flexibility in responding to time-sensitive transportation needs and affect the timing of other initiatives.

Option 4 –Transportation Commission
A formal advisory body composed of five appointed public members with representation from MTD, the Sheriff’s Office, and Fire would review transportation-related items prior to City Council consideration. This option requires the greatest level of revision and follow- up, as staff must prepare materials for both the Commission and the City Council, respond to Commission motions, public testimony, and stakeholder input, and then revise all materials again before the item advances to Council for final action. This structure also requires additional public outreach before and after meetings, along with increased coordination with the City Clerk’s Office to meet Brown Act requirements, including agenda preparation, posting, minutes, and records retention.

Composition: 5 Public Members + Agency Liaisons
Public Engagement: An additional opportunity occurs as part of legislative process.

Meetings: Quarterly
Brown Act: Applicable
Estimated Staff Time and Cost per Commission Meeting: 58–94 hours (approximately $7,540 to $12,220)
Typical Discussion Topics:
• Transportation policy reviews and recommendations, including Vision Zero, Complete Streets, and multimodal planning.
• Input on capital improvement and maintenance priorities, grant applications, and project design concepts.
• Public feedback on neighborhood traffic concerns, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and transit coordination.

Administrative characteristics:
• One or more Commission meetings before Council review. 21 15
• Brown Act requirements apply to all Commission meetings, including agenda preparation, noticing, minutes, and records retention.
• Commission deliberation may generate requests for additional analysis, benchmarking, technical updates, or supplemental information. • Staff must revise materials after Commission review and incorporate Commission motions, public testimony, and stakeholder input before forwarding items to City Council.
• Public comments during Commission meetings may result in additional follow-up tasks, clarifications, and neighborhood outreach.
• Increased coordination with the City Clerk’s Office is required for agenda posting, minutes, and records management.
• Administration of the Commission requires ongoing responsibilities such as ordinance adoption, member recruitment, and training, and may require dedicated clerical support depending on meeting volume.

Advantages:
• Provides a formalized and structured public forum where transportation items are reviewed prior to Council consideration.
• Formalizes cross- agency coordination through participation from MTD, the Sheriff’s Office, and Fire.
• Commissions often include members with technical, professional, or lived transportation experience, leading to more informed and nuanced recommendations.
• Commissioners may serve multi -year terms, providing long- term perspective beyond election cycles.
• A formal commission structure clarifies responsibilities, reducing confusion about authority and process.
• The commission can vet issues in depth, allowing Council to focus on policy decisions rather than technical details.
• A standing commission can regularly monitor transportation trends, policies, and performance rather than reacting to individual projects.

Disadvantages:
• Significant staff time required for the preparation of formal agendas, public packets, and minutes in accordance with Brown Act requirements. • Adding a commission to the existing process can lengthen the timelines before items reach Council and ultimately implementation.
• Topics may be discussed in detail at the commission and then revisited at Council, which may result in duplication of effort.
• Council may reach a different outcome than the commission’s recommendations. • Projects may be delayed while awaiting commission review, even for routine or minor matters.
• Advisory recommendations may carry less weight if responsibility is spread across multiple bodies.
22 16
• Appointed members may lack technical knowledge or require onboarding, reducing efficiency.
• Filling seats and maintaining quorum can delay progress. • Ongoing administration requires ordinance adoption, member recruitment, training, and continued clerical support.
• Increased staff effort associated with commission support may require prioritization among competing work programs, which can reduce flexibility in responding to time-sensitive transportation needs and affect the timing of other initiatives.

Summary
The City has four options for consideration for handling transportation issues. Option 1 – No Group (Status Quo) allows staff to continue with the existing structure and address routine matters quickly and preserve staff capacity for project delivery and technical work.

Option 2 – Internal Working Group provides consistent communication and proactive problem-solving with minimal additional staff time. Option 3 - Council Committee offers focused oversight, early public input, and stronger accountability, though it can slow decision-making and sometimes produce outcomes that differ from Council. Option 4 – Transportation Commission brings dedicated expertise, long-t erm perspective, and broader community engagement, but it adds formal steps, requires significantly more resources,
and can delay project implementation. Each option balances efficiency, ove
rsight, public involvement, and process speed differently. 23 17
Section 5: Ranking Criteria and Evaluation
A framework was developed to provide a transparent, balanced evaluation method that considers both policy alignment and administrative practicality. Each evaluation criterion has an assigned maximum point value, for a total of 100 points. Evaluators awarded points directly to each option based on their professional judgment of how well it satisfies each criterion. Partial points may be assigned where performance falls between levels.

When as
signing scores, evaluators should weigh both qualitative and operational factors.

Higher scores should reflect clear alignment with City goals, efficient use of resources, and demonstrated public value. Lower scores should be reserved for options that present implementation barriers, limited coordination, or minimal benefit to community outcomes.

The narr
ative descriptions below ensure consistency and clarity across reviewers.

Publ
ic Transparency and Engagement (20 Points)
This criterion measures how effectively the structure promotes open communication and public participation in transportation decision-making. Higher scores should be assigned to options that provide regular public meetings, published agendas, and visible opportunities for community input prior to Council final consideration. Lower scores should be used for options that limit or exclude the public from the review process, rely solely on staff coordination, or lack clear mechanisms for public feedback. This category emphasizes accountability, inclusivity, and community trust.

Pr
ogram Effectiveness and Delivery Capacity (25 Points)
This criterion measures how well each option enhances the City’s ability to deliver transportation projects effectively , from concept through construction. Higher scores should be assigned to structures that streamline project development, enhance decision- making efficiency, and strengthen accountability for safety and multimodal outcomes.

Lower scores should be given to options that add process without improving delivery timelines, interdepartmental coordination, or measurable results. This category reflec ts the importance of performance, accountability, and implementation readiness.

Int
erdepartmental Coordination (20 Points)
This criterion assesses how effectively the option facilitates collaboration between City departments and partner agencies. Higher scores should go to options that encourage consistent communication, shared review processes, and cooperative problem -solving between Public Works, Planning, Police, Fire, and MTD. Lower scores represent models where coordination is ad hoc or limited to single- department review, resulting in slower implementation or inconsistent outcomes. This factor captures the importance of efficiency and unified decision-making.

Adm
inistrative and Staff Capacity (20 Points)
24 18
This category evaluates whether the option can be realistically supported within existing staff and management resources. Higher scores should be assigned to structures that can operate within current staffing levels and skill sets, requiring minimal new administrative systems or workload increases. Lower scores should reflect options that would strain current capacity, require additional personnel, or introduce complex administrative burdens. This criterion measures feasibility and workload sustainability.

Cost
Efficiency (15 Points)
This criterion considers both direct and indirect costs, including staff time, administrative effort, and the fiscal impact of implementation. Higher scores represent options that provide meaningful value relative to their cost , those that use staff efficiently, minimize meeting overhead, and avoid significant new expenditures. Lower scores should be given where ongoing costs are high, processes are duplicative, or the return on investment is limited. This measure emphasizes responsible fiscal management and efficient resource use.

Scor
ing Summary
Each evaluator assigned a point score for each criterion (up to its maximum). Partial points are encouraged when performance falls between clear categories. The total score out of 100 represents the option’s overall performance. The option with the highest composite score will reflect the most balanced combination of transparency, feasibility, coordination, and cost-effectiveness within current City capacity.

Evaluation Criteria Points Description
Public Transparency &
Engagement 20 Measures how well the option supports
public involvement and transparency.

Program Effectiveness &
Delivery Capacity 25
Evaluates how effectively the option
improves the City’s ability to plan,
manage, and deliver transportation
projects.

Interdepartmental
Coordination 20 Evaluates how effectively departments
collaborate under the model.

Administrative & Staff
Capacity 20 Assesses feasibility within current staffing levels and management workload.

Cost Efficiency 15 Rates each option’s expected cost-
effectiveness and resource impact.

Total 100 Points
25 19
Section 6: Staff Analysis and Recommendation
Staff evaluated four organizational options using the evaluation criteria described in Section 5. The review was conducted by a staff team consisting of three representatives from the Public Works Department and one representative from the City Manager’s Office. Each option was evaluated using a consistent framework that considered Public Transparency & Engagement , Program Effectiveness & Delivery Capacity , Interdepartmental Coordination, Administrative & Staff Capacity, and Cost Efficiency B
ased on this evaluation, Option 1 – No Group (Status Quo) ranked highest overall and most closely aligns with the City’s current operating model, staffing capacity, and approach to transportation project delivery. Option 2 – Internal Working Group also scored favorably and represents an incremental enhancement to existing practices but did not exceed Option 1 in overall alignment with staff capacity and delivery efficiency.

Option 1 relies on existing staff -led processes with direct City Council review when required. This approach minimizes additional administrative steps, avoids added procedural layers, and allows staff to focus available resources on implementation of adopted plans and policies, including the BPMP, Vision Zero approach, and the GTSS.

This option preserves flexibility to scale public outreach and Council involvement based on the scope and impact of individual projects.

Option 2 introduces structured cross- departmental coordination through an internal working group without creating a public body or triggering Brown Act requirements. While this option improves internal alignment, it introduces additional coordination time beyond the baseline process and did not rank higher than Option 1 when evaluated against overall staff workload, delivery timelines, and cost efficiency.

Option 3 – Council Committee and Option 4 – Transportation Commission ranked lower due to the additional layers of review, formal meeting requirements, and ongoing administrative obligations they introduce. While these options provide expanded formal advisory processes, they require increased staff time, multiple review cycles, and sustained agenda management, which would affect delivery timelines and workload sustainability under current staffing levels.

Based on the staff evaluation and ranking results, staff recommends Option 1 – No Group (Status Quo) as the most appropriate transportation advisory structure at this time.

If City Council desires additional internal coordination without establishing a formal advisory body, Option 2 – Internal Working Group represents a viable secondary alternative that could be implemented within existing resources.

Options 3 and 4 are not r ecommended at this time
but may be reconsidered in the
future
if staffing levels, workload, or Council priorities change. If Council directs staff to pursue Option 3 or
Option 4, staff would return with additional information, including 26 20
• Draft resolution establishing the body as well as any corresponding required change to
the Goleta Municipal Code to establish a commission
• Coordination with Finance regarding fiscal
impacts
• Proposed bylaws and Brown Act compliance framework
• Recruitment
schedule, if applicable
• Budget and work program implications
27 21
Section 7: Exhibits
A. Existing Transportation Review Bodies in Santa Barbara County B. Transportation Advisory Commissions and Committees in Selected California Cities
C. Estimated Staff Time by Task and Organizational Option D. Estimated Staff Hours and Cost
28 Agency Body Name Type Members Scope & Responsibilities Frequency Brown Act City of Buellton None — —
Transportation and traffic
matters are reviewed
internally by Public Works,
with items requiring policy
direction or Council action
presented directly to City
Council.
— No
City of
Carpinteria
Traffic Safety
Committee
Internal Staff
Committee
(Technical)
Police, Fire, Public Works,
Planning
Reviews technical traffic
matters such as stop sign
requests, striping, signals,
speed zones, and safety
concerns, and provides
technical recommendations
directly to City Council.

As needed No
City of Goleta None — —
Transportation and traffic
items handled internally by
Public Works and presented
directly to Council
— No
City of
Guadalupe None — —
Transportation and traffic
items handled internally by
Public Works and presented
directly to Council
— No
City of Lompoc None — —
Transportation and traffic
items handled internally by
Public Works and presented
directly to Council
— No
City of Santa
Barbara
Transportation &
Circulation
Committee
Public Commission
(Advisory)
7 members (5 city residents,
2 city or county residents)
appointed by Council
Advises City Council and the
Planning Commission on
transportation policy matters,
including the Circulation
Element, traffic calming,
pedestrian and bicycle
policies, neighborhood traffic
management, transit, and
land use strategies.

Monthly Yes
City of Santa
Maria
Traffic
Committee
Internal Staff/
Agency Committee
(Technical)
7 members (Automobile Club
of Southern California, CHP,
Caltrans, Community
Development, Public Works,
City of Santa Maria Police and
Fire, Santa Maria/Bonita
School District)
Makes technical and
operational recommendations
to City Council on traffic
matters, including speed
regulation, traffic calming and
controls, red curbs, stop
signs, street changes,
parking, and permit parking.

Monthly No
City of Solvang None — —
Transportation and traffic
items are handled internally
by Public Works and
presented directly to Council
— No
County of Santa
Barbara
Traffic
Engineering
Committee
(TEC)
Internal Staff/
Agency Committee
(Technical)
12 Members County Public
Works (Traffic Engineering),
CHP, Sheriff, Fire, and
representatives from each
district
Reviews operational traffic
matters such as speed zones,
signage, warrants, and
intersection control, and
provides technical
recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors for
unincorporated areas.

As needed – no
meeting since
2019
No
This table summarizes existing transportation advisory bodies and internal review practices used by cities and the County within Santa Barbara County for informational purposes.

Existing Transportation Review Bodies in Santa Barbara County

EXHIBIT A
29 Agency Body Name Type Membership /
Composition Scope & Responsibilities Frequency Brown Act City of Davis Transportation
Commission
Public Commission
(Advisory)
7 members, UC
Davis student and
representatives
Advises on multimodal
mobility, traffic safety, active
transportation, and integration
of climate policy with
transportation planning
Monthly Yes
City of
Manhattan
Beach
Parking & Public
Improvements
Commission (PPIC)
Public Commission
(Advisory)
5 members – 4 at-
large, 1 business
community member
owning or operating
a business located
in the City
Established by resolution, the
Parking and Public
Improvements Commission is
responsible for public parking
issues, capital improvement
projects, traffic management,
activities within the public
right-of-way including
encroachment permits,
undergrounding of utilities,
and environmental
enhancement.

Monthly Yes
ATC: 7 City
residents and
registered voters
with an interest in
alternative
transportation.

ATC: The ATC provides
oversight and policy decisions
on matters related to bicycle
and pedestrian transportation
in the City of San Luis Obispo
and its relationship to
bicycling and walking outside
the City.

MTC: 7 members
representing Cal
Poly staff, students,
seniors, business,
transportation
professionals,
disabled individuals,
and one at-large
member.

MTC: The MTC assists with
the ongoing program of public
transit in the City and Cal
Poly. As requested, the MTC
provides recommendations
and input to the Council
regarding routes, schedules,
capital projects, fares,
marketing, and additional
services.

City of
Seaside
Traffic Advisory
Committee Committee 5 members
The Traffic Advisory
Committee (TAC) reviews all
requests for traffic safety
regulatory or control devices,
signs, and markings.

Quarterly Yes

EXHIBIT B
Transportation Advisory Commissions and Committees in Selected California Cities This table summarizes transportation advisory bodies used by selected California cities to provide contextual examples of organizational structures and scopes of responsibility.

City of San
Luis Obispo
Active Transportation
Committee (ATC) &
Mass Transportation
Committee (MTC)
Public Commission
(Advisory) Quarterly Yes
30 Task Description
Council Meeting Traffic
analysis and report preparation
(same for each item)
5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15
Includes field data collection; speed surveys; collision analysis; engineering review; and preparation of
technical memoranda or staff reports. Level of detail
varies by option: internal reviews require summary
materials, while Council and Commission processes
require full Brown Act–ready reports with exhibits.

Council Meeting
Interdepartmental coordination
(same for each item)
5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10
Coordination among Public Works, Planning, Sheriff,
Fire, MTD, and applicableagency partners. Activities
include reviewing project materials, confirming
operational implications, and incorporating
departmental input into recommendations.

Meeting presentation
preparation 0 0 2 4 7 12 12 17
Preparation of agendas, reports, exhibits, and
presentation materials. Internal groups require basic
agendas and summaries. Council Committees and
Commissions require Brown Act–compliant notices,
public agendas, and more extensive documentation.

Committee meeting 0 0 1 2 2 5 2 5
Attendance and participation in meetings to present
findings, answer questions, and respond to direction.

For Brown Act bodies, this includes formal
presentations, public comment periods, and follow-up
clarification.

Revisions and follow-up
implementation 0 0 5 10 8 15 15 25
Under Option 2 (Internal Working Group), revisions
are limited to internal updates to staff summaries and
technical materials, with no clerking or public meeting requirements. Option 3 (Council Committee) requires
preparation of revised reports and exhibits consistent
with Councilmember direction, along with Brown Act
responsibilities such as agenda posting, minute
preparation, and coordination with the City Clerk’s
Office. Option 4 (Public Transportation Commission)
has the greatest administrative workload, as staff
must support a full advisory body posting agendas,
preparing minutes, updating staff reports, and
managing public records and then complete a
second round of revisions and documentation for City
Council consideration.

Estimated Baseline Staff Time
for City Council Review (Per
Item, All Options)
10 25 10 25 10 25 10 25
Represents the baseline staff effort required to
prepare and present a transportation item to the City
Council when Council consideration is required.

Estimated Staff Time
Associated with Each
Organizational Option (Per
Item)
0 0 8 16 17 32 29 47
Represents the additional staff effort required prior to City Council consideration based on the selected
organizational structure.

Estimated Staff time per Item 10 25 18 41 27 57 39 72
Baseline City Council review time with the additional
staff time associated with the selected organizational
option.

EXHIBIT C
Estimated Staff Time by Task and Organizational Option
This table summarizes the estimated staff hours required to complete common transportation review tasks under each organizational option.

Option 1: No Group (Status
Quo)
Direct-to-Council Internal
Review
Option 4: Public
Transportation Commission
Public Advisory Commission
(Brown Act)
Option 3: Council Committee
Council Subcommittee (Brown
Act)
Option 2: Internal Working
Group
Cross-Departmental Staff
Group (Non–Brown Act)
31 Average Loaded Hourly Rate 130.00$ hour
Option Meetings
per Year
Items per
Meeting
Option 1 – No Group
(Status Quo) 0 0 $ - $ - 0 0 0 0 -$ -$ 0 0 -$ -$ Option 2 – Internal
Working Group 8 16 $ 1,040.00 $ 2,080.00 4 1 8 16 1,040.00$ 2,080.00$ 32 64 4,160.00$ 8,320.00$ Option 3 – Council
Committee 17 32 $ 2,210.00 $ 4,160.00 4 2 34 64 4,420.00$ 8,320.00$ 136 256 17,680.00$ 33,280.00$ Option 4 – Public
Transportation
Commission
29 47 $ 3,770.00 $ 6,110.00 4 2 58 94 7,540.00$ 12,220.00$ 232 376 30,160.00$ 48,880.00$

EXHIBIT D
Estimated Staff Hours and Cost
Estimated Hours per
Item Annual Staff Hours (Range) Estimated Annual Cost
(Range)Estimated Cost Per MeetingEstimated Staff Hours (Range) per meeting
Estimated Staff Cost Per
Item
32 ATTACHMENT 2

PowerPoint Presentation – Transportation Advisory Structure Evaluation

33 Transportation Advisory Structure
Evaluation Report
January 20, 2026
City Council Meeting
34 CITY’S CURRENT

TRANSPORTATION

PLANNING AND

OPERATIONS

REGIONAL RESEARCH AND

OTHER JURISDICTIONS,

TRANSPORTATION AND

ADVISORY STRUCTURES

PRESENT CITY COUNCIL

WITH TRANSPORTATION

ADVISORY STRUCTURE

OPTIONS

PREPARE AND COMPARE

POTENTIAL

ORGANIZATIONAL

STRUCTURES AND

PROCEDURAL

DIFFERENCES

PRESENT STAFF FINDINGS

AND IMPLEMENTATION

CONSIDERATIONS
January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting 2
Outline
35 Current
Transportation
Planning and
Operations
January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting
3 36
Transportation Approach, Plans,
and Studies
Goleta adopted the vision zero
appr
oach in February 2024
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
(
BPMP) October 2018
The Goleta Traffic Safety Study
G
TSS, March 2023
General Plan
January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting 4
37 Coordination
and Outreach
Community
Communicate
Coordinate
January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting 5
38 Regional Research
January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting 6
39 Other Jurisdictions Research
January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting 7
40 Options Considered
Option 1 – N o Formal Committee (Status Quo)
Option 2 – I nternal Working Group
Option 3 – Co uncil Committee
Option 4 – Pu blic Transportation Commission
January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting 8
41 Evaluation Framework For Options
January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting 9
Evaluation Criteria Points Description
Public Transparency &
Engagement 20 Measures how well the option supports
public involvement and transparency.

Program Effectiveness & Delivery
Capacity 25
Evaluates how effectively the option
improves the City’s ability to plan, manage,
and deliver transportation projects.

Interdepartmental Coordination 20 Evaluates how effectively departments collaborate under the model.

Administrative & Staff Capacity 20 Assesses feasibility within current staffing levels and management workload.

Cost Efficiency 15 Rates each option’s expected cost-
effectiveness and resource impact.

Total 100 Points
42 Fiscal Impacts
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with
re
ceiving this report.
Option 1 represents the City’s existing process and does n
ot add cost beyond current staff resources.
Option 2 would result in a modest increase in staff
c
oordination time that could be absorbed within existing budgets.
Options 3 and 4 would increase ongoing staff and
ad
ministrative costs, and a detailed fiscal analysis would be recommended prior to implementation.

January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting 10
43 Staff Recommendation
Option 1 – N o Group (Status Quo) ranked highest overall. Current structure supports efficient implementation and Co
uncil oversight.
Option 2 could be implemented at Council direction to
f
ormalize internal coordination, with no change to Council authority or public process requirements.
Options 3 and 4 require additional staff resources.

January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting 11
44 Questions/Comments
12January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting
45