Agenda packet, regular meeting — Santa Barbara City Council, February 1, 2022

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CITY COUNCIL
Randy Rowse
Mayor
Rebecca Bjork
Interim City Administrator
Meagan Harmon
Mayor Pro Tempore
Kristen W. Sneddon
Ordinance Committee Chair
Ariel Pierre Calonne
City Attorney
Eric Friedman
Finance Committee Chair
Alejandra Gutierrez
Oscar Gutierrez
Mike Jordan
City Hall
735 Anacapa Street
http://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov
FEBRUARY 1, 2022, 2:00 PM
AGENDA
THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD BY TELECONFERENCE AS AUTHORIZED BY GOVERNMENT CODE § 54953(e)(1)(A) TO PROMOTE SOCIAL DISTANCING AND PRIORITIZE THE PUBLIC’S HEALTH AND WELL-BEING UNDER SANTA BARBARA COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER ORDERS. AS A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY PRECAUTION, THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS WILL NOT BE OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. COUNCILMEMBERS MAY PARTICIPATE ELECTRONICALLY. THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA STRONGLY ENCOURAGES AND WELCOMES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING THIS TIME.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS:

HOW TO OBSERVE AND/OR SPEAK LIVE AT A MEETING
• Web: https://santabarbaraca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_BHXU9bk1SWq0ntGHplRq0Q (Participation via Zoom) Please complete the Zoom registration questions stating which item you wish to speak on. • Telephone: Dial 1-669-900-6833, Enter Webinar ID: 948 7481 3299 (press *9 to raise/lower hand; press *6 to mute/unmute) • Online Streaming: Council meetings are streamed live at www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP • TV: Each regular City Council meeting is broadcast live in English and Spanish on City TV Channel 18 and rebroadcast in English on Wednesdays and Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays at 9:00 a.m., and in Spanish on Sundays at 4:00 p.m. Each televised Council meeting is closed captioned for the hearing impaired. Check the City TV program guide at www.santabarbaraca.gov/citytv for rebroadcasts of Finance and Ordinance Committee meetings.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public wishing to speak must “raise their hand” in the Zoom platform by selecting the virtual hand icon when their item is called. When persons are called on to speak, their microphone will be activated by City staff and the speaker will be notified that they can now unmute themselves in order to begin speaking. The speaker will then need to unmute themselves by selecting the ‘mute/unmute’ icon or pressing Alt+A on their keyboard. Each speaker will be given a total of 3 minutes to address the Council. Pooling of time is not allowed during meetings conducted electronic public comment. If general public comment on items not on the agenda at the beginning of the 2:00 p.m. session exceeds 30 minutes, there will be an opportunity for additional off-agenda public comment at the end of the meeting. The City Council, upon majority vote, may decline to hear a speaker on the grounds that the subject matter is beyond the City’s subject matter jurisdiction.

WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comments may also be submitted via email to [email protected] prior to the beginning of the Council Meeting. All public comments submitted via email will be provided to City Council and will become part of the public record.

CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE
PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment on matters not listed on the agenda will occur at the beginning of the meeting.

Members of the public wishing to speak must “raise their hand” in the Zoom platform by selecting the virtual hand icon during the presentation of that item. When persons are called on to speak, their microphone will be activated by City staff and the speaker will be notified that they can now unmute themselves in order to begin speaking. The speaker will then need to unmute themselves by selecting the ‘mute/unmute’ icon or pressing Ctrl+Alt+A on their keyboard.

For those who need accessibility accommodation in using the “raise hand” function and/or registering to participate in the Zoom session, please contact the Clerk’s office by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting for assistance. Additionally, a speaker may email [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. the day before a meeting, stating which item they wish to speak on. When persons are called on to speak, their microphone will be activated the speaker will be notified by City staff that they can now unmute themselves in order to begin speaking. The speaker will then need to unmute themselves by selecting the ‘mute/unmute’ icon or pressing Ctrl+Alt+A on their keyboard.

Each speaker will be given a total of 3 minutes to address the Council. Pooling of time is not allowed during general public comment.

The time allotted for general public comment at the beginning of the 2:00 p.m. session is 30 minutes. The City Council, upon majority vote, may decline to hear a speaker on the grounds that the subject matter is beyond the City’s subject matter jurisdiction.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDIZED ITEMS: Members of the public wishing to speak on a matter on the agenda must “raise their hand” in the Zoom platform by selecting the virtual hand icon during the presentation of that item. The “raise hand” icon is generally located on most devices in the upper right hand corner of the screen. For those who need accessibility accommodation in using the “raise hand” function, please contact the Clerk’s office by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting for assistance. Additionally, a speaker may email [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. the day before a meeting, stating which item they wish to speak on.

When persons are called on to speak, their microphone will be activated and they will be notified to begin speaking. Each speaker will be given a total of 3 minutes to address the Council. Pooling of time is not permitted during meetings conducted electronically.

ORDER OF BUSINESS: Regular meetings of the Finance Committee and the Ordinance Committee begin at 12:30 p.m. The regular City Council meeting begins at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall.

REPORTS: Copies of the reports relating to agenda items are available for review at http://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP.In accordance with state law requirements, this agenda generally contains only a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. Should you wish more detailed information regarding any particular agenda item, you are encouraged to obtain a copy of the Council Agenda Report (a "CAR") online at the City's website (http://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP). Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are posted to the City’s website as soon as reasonably feasible.

CONSENT CALENDAR: The Consent Calendar is comprised of items that will not usually require discussion by the City Council. A Consent Calendar item is open for discussion by the City Council upon request of a Councilmember, City staff, or member of the public. Items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by a single motion. Should you wish to comment on an item listed on the Consent Agenda, after turning in your "Request to Speak" form, you should come forward to speak at the time the Council considers the Consent Calendar.

SPANISH INTERPRETATION: If you need interpretation of your communications to Council from Spanish into English, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 564-5309 or by email at [email protected]. If possible, notification of at least 48 hours will usually enable the City to make arrangements.

INTERPRETACIÓN EN ESPAÑOL: Si necesita una interpretación del español al inglés, para sus comunicaciones al Consejo, comuníquese con la Oficina del Secretario Municipal al 564-5309, o por correo electrónico a [email protected]. Si es posible, la notificación de al menos 48 horas generalmente permitirá a la Ciudad hacer los arreglos.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: If you need auxiliary aids or services or staff assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's Office at 564-5305 or by email at [email protected]. If possible, notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will usually enable the City to make reasonable arrangements. Specialized services, such as sign language interpretation or documents in Braille, may require additional lead time to arrange. 02/01/2022 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 1 FEBRUARY 1, 2022 AGENDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 2:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

1. Subject: Employee Recognition – Service Award Pins
Recommendation: That Council authorize the City Administrator to express the City’s appreciation to employees who are eligible to receive service award pins for their years of service through February 28, 2022.

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT CALENDAR

2. Subject: Adoption Of An Ordinance For A Proposed Ten Year Mooring Lease With The State Of California For The East Beach Mooring Program Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Authorizing the Waterfront Director to Execute Lease Agreement No. 8688 Between the State of California and the City of Santa Barbara, for the East Beach Mooring Permit Program, Commencing Upon the Effective Date of the Enabling Ordinance.

3. Subject: Adoption Of An Uncodified Ordinance Providing An Economic Recovery Extension And Transition Period By Amending, Restating, And Extending Provisions Previously Included In The Emergency Economic Recovery Ordinances
Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, an Uncodified Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Providing an Economic Recovery Extension and Transition Period by Amending, Restating, and Extending Provisions Previously Included in the Emergency Economic Recovery Ordinances. 02/01/2022 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 2

4. Subject: Introduction Of An Ordinance Approving The 2021-2022 Management Salary Plans
Recommendation: That Council introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Adopting the 2021-2022 Salary Plan Applicable to Unrepresented Managers and Professional Attorneys (except the City Administrator and the City Attorney), and the 2021-2022 Salary Plan Applicable to Certain Unrepresented Safety Managers.

5. Subject: Employee COVID-19 Testing And Appropriate General Fund Reserves (210.01)
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Receive a report regarding the declaration of an emergency purchase for general services with South Coast Analytics to conduct COVID-19 testing for City employees;
B. Authorize the Finance Director to execute an agreement with South Coast Analytics to conduct ongoing COVID-19 testing for City employees in an amount not to exceed $300,000; and
C. Appropriate $400,000 of available General Fund reserves in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 in the Human Resources department budget.

6. Subject: Authorization To Execute Amended Legal Services Agreement With Best, Best & Krieger, LLP And Related Budget Actions
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Authorize the City Attorney to execute an amended legal services agreement with Best, Best & Krieger, LLP to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $35,000 to $85,000 for special counsel services related to investigation of groundwater and communication with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding the same; and
B. Increase appropriations in the Fiscal Year 2022 Airport Operations budget in the amount of $50,000 funded from the Airport Operating Fund reserves. 02/01/2022 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 3

7. Subject: Contract For Professional Services To Administer The Community Workforce Agreement Associated With The Central Library Renovation Project
Recommendation: That Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a City Professional Services Agreement with TSG Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $48,552 to administer the requirements set forth in the Community Workforce Agreement for the Central Library Renovation Project, and authorize expenditures of up to $4,855 for extra services that may result from necessary changes in the scope of work.

8. Subject: Contract Amendments For Construction Support Services Associated With The Central Library Renovation Project
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract amendment with Arcadia Studio, a California Corporation, to amend the scope of services to include construction support services associated with the Central Library Renovation Project in the amount of $25,000;
B. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract amendment with LMA Architects, a California Corporation, to amend the scope of services associated with the new Americans with Disabilities Act elevator design included in the Central Library Renovation Project in the amount of $10,359; and
C. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract amendment with LMA Architects, a California Corporation, in the amount of $55,215 to amend the scope of services to include construction support services associated with the Central Library Renovation Project and authorize the Public Works Director to approve expenditures of up to $5,522 for extra services as necessary.
02/01/2022 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 4

9. Subject: Sole Source Agreement With Hadronex Inc. For The Purchase And Installation Of SmartCover Level Sensor Units
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Find and determine that SmartCover Level Sensor Units are a sole source product and service and authorize the purchase of SmartCover Level Sensor Units from Hadronex Inc. as the sole source provider pursuant to the Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 4.52.070(K); and B. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute a sole source services contract with Hadronex Inc. doing business as SmartCover, in the amount of $295,688 for the purchase, installation, and maintenance of 45 SmartCover Level Sensor Units.

10. Subject: Response To The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report On Housing The Homeless In Santa Barbara County During The Pandemic Recommendation: That Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter of response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report titled “Keys to Housing the Homeless.”
This concludes the Consent Calendar.

CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE AND ATTORNEY REPORTS

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

11. Subject: Adoption Of Resolution Setting The Date For A Public Hearing Regarding Declaration Of A Public Nuisance From Traffic Impacts Of The Chick-Fil-A Restaurant
Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Santa Barbara Setting March 1, 2022 As The Time And Date Of A Public Hearing To Consider The Declaration Of A Public Nuisance Arising From The Operation Of A Drive-Through At The Restaurant Located At 3707 State Street (APN 051-590-024).
02/01/2022 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 5

12. Subject: Establish An Ad Hoc Committee For Conceptual Design Of Pedestrian And Bicycle Paths Across Mission Canyon Bridge Recommendation: That Council establish an ad hoc committee, with administrative and technical support from the Public Works Department, in order to interact with and represent community stakeholders to determine a project concept that will address pedestrian and bicycle path of travel safety concerns across the Mission Canyon Bridge. Council should establish a date-certain requirement for the ad hoc committee to report back within nine months with a concept that has compelling stakeholder support.

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

13. Subject: Execute Agreement With OpenGov, Inc., For On-line Digital Budget Book And Appropriate General Fund Reserves In Fiscal Year 2022 (210.01) Recommendation: That Council:

A. Authorize the Finance Director to execute a five year agreement with OpenGov, Inc., for a total of $647,481 to transition from a printed budget document to an on-line, interactive digital format for the City’s budget; and B. Appropriate available General Fund Reserves in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 in the amount of $91,511 in the Finance Department.

CITY ATTORNEY

14. Subject: Report On Rent Control Issues And Request For Rent Control Consultant Funding
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Receive the attached report discussing rent control issues and models; B. Authorize the City Administrator to negotiate and enter into a consulting contract, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for rent control economic analysis services; and C. Increase expenditure appropriations in the Fiscal Year 2022 City Administrator’s Office budget in the amount of $200,000 funded from the General Fund reserves.

COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

COUNCILMEMBER COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
02/01/2022 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 6

PUBLIC COMMENT (IF NECESSARY)

ADJOURNMENT

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Administrator’s Office
SUBJECT: Employee Recognition – Service Award Pins
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the City Administrator to express the City’s appreciation to employees who are eligible to receive service award pins for their years of service through February 28, 2022.

DISCUSSION:

The City appreciates the loyalty to the community and the dedication to public service that are demonstrated by City employees throughout the organization every day. Since 1980, the City Employees’ Recognition Program has recognized length of City Service. Service award pins are presented to employees for every five years of service. Those employees achieving 25 years of service or more are eligible to receive their pins in front of the City Council.

Attached is a list of those employees who will be awarded pins for their service through February 28, 2022.

ATTACHMENT(S): February 2022 Service Awards
PREPARED BY: Nicole Grisanti, Administrator’s Office Supervisor SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca Bjork, Interim City Administrator APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office
Agenda Item No. 1

ATTACHMENT
FEBRUARY 2022 SERVICE AWARDS
February 1, 2022 Council Meeting
5 YEARS
Rachel Becerra, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Department Mariana Cruz, Senior Wastewater Collection Systems Outreach Program Coordinator, Public Works Department
Sara Iza, Principal Project Manager, Airport Department 10 YEARS
Justin Hesketh, Police Officer, Police Department
Christopher Rickerd, Parking Coordinator, Public Works Department 15 YEARS
Bill Hornung, General Services Manager, Finance Department Jeff Smith, Recreation Supervisor, Parks & Recreation Department Jose Ibarra, Grounds Maintenance Worker II, Parks & Recreation Department 20 YEARS
Adam Nares, Geographic Information Systems Technician, Community Development Department
30 YEARS
Greg Metcalf, Waterfront Maintenance Worker II, Waterfront Department 35 YEARS
David Ward, Fire Captain, Fire Department
ORDINANCE NO._____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA AUTHORIZING THE WATERFRONT
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE LEASE AGREEMENT NO. 8688

BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA, FOR THE EAST BEACH MOORING

PERMIT PROGRAM, COMMENCING UPON THE

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ENABLING ORDINANCE

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. In accordance with the provisions of Section 521 of the Charter of the City of Santa Barbara, the lease agreement with the State of California, for the East Beach Mooring Program, commencing upon the effective date of the enabling ordinance, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, is approved.

Agenda Item No. 2
1 ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA PROVIDING AN ECONOMIC

RECOVERY EXTENSION AND TRANSITION PERIOD BY

AMENDING, RESTATING, AND EXTENDING PROVISIONS

PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE EMERGENCY ECONOMIC

RECOVERY ORDINANCES

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings and Determinations.

A. On May 27, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5944, an uncodified emergency ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara pertaining to Covid-19 economic recovery.

B. On August, 11, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5963, an uncodified emergency ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara extending and amending Ordinance No. 5944 pertaining to Covid-19 economic recovery.

C. On February 23, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5993, an uncodified emergency ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara extending and amending Ordinance No. 5944 and Ordinance No. 5963, authorizing the City Administrator to make recovery-related amendments to leases for City property, and providing additional relief pertaining to Covid-19 economic recovery and relief. Among other things, Ordinance No. 5993 extended the operation of Ordinances No. 5944 and 5963 until March 8, 2022. Those ordinances ratified and authorized the City to close State Street to motor vehicle traffic in the downtown area, create the State Street Promenade, and to allow the temporary expansion of commercial uses into streets, sidewalks, parking spaces, and other areas citywide.

D. On March 9, 2021, the City Council took action to:

1. Adopt vision principles to guide the master planning process for the downtown State Street area;

2. Direct staff to initiate amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan and other actions necessary to transition from temporary to permanent closure of certain blocks of State Street to motor vehicles and other circulation improvements for the downtown State Street area;
Agenda Item No. 3
2 3. Direct staff to initiate planning and other processes necessary for preparation of a master plan; and

4. Establish an advisory committee for the State Street master plan process.

E. On July 20, 2021, the City Council appointed the State Street Advisory Committee as a limited duration advisory committee. The State Street Advisory Committee held its first meeting on August 11, 2021.

F. The City Council desires to assist further the economic recovery begun under Ordinances Nos. 5944, 5963, and 5993 and to continue the operation of the State Street Promenade and other outdoor business activities in other parts of the city as a pilot program pending completion of work of the State Street Advisory Committee and further action by City Council, subject to the limitation that nothing in this Ordinance or Ordinance Nos. 5944, 5963, or 5993 or any administrative policy, rule or regulation promulgated under any of them created or creates a vested right to continue any activity or use authorized thereunder.

G. The City Council desires to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and provide a clear access route for fire apparatus, emergency medical vehicles, and other police, public safety, and emergency service vehicles and equipment along the State Street Promenade. The current configuration and location of many of the temporary outdoor business facilities installed along the State Street Promenade under emergency Ordinances Nos. 5944, 5963, and 5993 result in an access route that is less than recommended by the Fire Marshal, Fire Chief, and Police Chief. It is also less than the minimum width established by Santa Barbara Municipal Code § 503.2.1, which provides that fire apparatus access roads must have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Therefore, this Ordinance requires that all temporary outdoor business facilities installed within the State Street Promenade shall promptly be brought into compliance with the access road standards.

H. This action is taken as a municipal affair for the benefit, health, safety, and welfare of the people of Santa Barbara pursuant to the City’s power under Vehicle Code Section 21101 and City Charter Sections 400, 401, and 505.

SECTION 2. Downtown State Street / State Street Promenade.

A. State Street between Victoria Street and Haley Street (hereinafter, “Promenade”) will remain closed to motor vehicles as provided in this Ordinance. The City Administrator, with the consent of the City Traffic Engineer and in consultation with the State Street Advisory Committee, from time-to-time, may authorize motor vehicle use of the portions of the Promenade or extend the Promenade area by closing additional blocks to evaluate traffic patterns and closure impacts as part of the pilot program pending completion of the work of the State Street Advisory Committee and further City Council 3 action. The Public Works Director is authorized to install and maintain traffic control signs, devices, fixtures, and structures as approved by the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer necessary or convenient to implement this Subsection. The City Administrator is authorized to establish regulations for use of the roadway by pedestrians, bicycles, and other forms of wheeled transportation. The City Administrator is authorized to establish regulations for limited use of the Promenade by motor vehicles for deliveries, maintenance, solid waste collection service, farmers’ markets, construction activities, and special events.

B. Outdoor business facilities may be located in the roadway portion of the Promenade adjacent to a business premises as provided in Subsections B, C, D, E, and F of this Section. The sidewalks are reserved for pedestrian travel only, unless the facility is operated pursuant to an Outdoor Dining License Agreement issued under Chapter 9.95 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code. An unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches shall be maintained for fire and emergency vehicle access along a path approximately in the middle of the Promenade roadway as determined by the Fire Marshal and Traffic Engineer. A graphic depiction of the fire and emergency vehicle access area for a typical block is shown on Exhibit A. In addition, an unobstructed area between the curb and middle of the roadway shall be maintained in the areas in front of the buildings at 735, 820, and 1214 State Street as determined by the Fire Marshal. The Traffic Engineer shall maintain a map or diagram of the unobstructed areas required by this Section. This Subsection shall be implemented immediately upon the effective date of this Ordinance.

C. Outdoor business facilities existing on January 25, 2022 shall be modified as necessary to comply with the fire and emergency vehicle access requirement of Subsection B of this Section no later than March 8, 2022. The facilities, as modified to comply with the fire and emergency vehicle access requirement, may continue so long as the facility otherwise remains in compliance with applicable provisions of the City of Santa Barbara’s Guide to Operating a Business on the Temporary State Street Promenade, updated July 9, 2021. The City Administrator may issue amendments to guidelines relating to existing facilities under this Subsection C.

D. New outdoor business facilities placed after January 25, 2022 must comply with Subsection B and applicable provisions of the City of Santa Barbara’s Guide to Operating a Business on the Temporary State Street Promenade, updated July 9, 2021, except that all aesthetic design provisions of the guidelines are to be considered recommendations and not mandatory provisions. The City Administrator may issue guidelines relating to the placement of new facilities under this Subsection D.

E. Outdoor business facilities, equipment, and furnishings located within the roadway in compliance with this Section are exempt from the requirements of Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 9.95. Notwithstanding Section 9.95.060, an outdoor dining area may be licensed and permitted under Chapter 9.95 within the sidewalk frontage of a business provided that the sidewalk remains accessible to persons with 4 disabilities as required by state and federal law and the area meets the other requirements of Chapter 9.95. Service of alcoholic beverages within outdoor business areas maintained in compliance with this Section is permitted as authorized by and subject to the requirements of the license issued for the business by the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Outdoor cooking is prohibited.

F. The accessibility provisions of the City of Santa Barbara Guide to Operating a Business on the Temporary State Street Promenade, updated July 9, 2021, shall continue to apply unless superseded by regulations issued by the City Administrator under Subsection D of this Section.

G. Outdoor business facilities existing on January 25, 2022 on West Victoria Street between State Street and Chapala Street and on State Street between Victoria Street and Sola Street may continue to operate as provided in this Section.

SECTION 3. Parklets and Off-street Parking Areas Outside the Promenade.

A. The City of Santa Barbara Parklet Guidelines, updated September 1, 2021 and Guide to Temporary Outdoor Dining on Private Property, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk, issued under Ordinance Nos. 5944, 5963, and 5993, shall continue to apply for the duration of this Ordinance. The “Interim Period” as used in the Guidelines is amended to include the duration of this Ordinance.

B. Parklets installed and maintained in compliance with this Section are exempt from the requirements of Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 9.95. Service of alcoholic beverages within parklets installed and maintained in compliance with the Guidelines is permitted and authorized by and subject to the requirements of the license issued for the business by the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Outdoor cooking is prohibited within parklets.

C. Notwithstanding anything in the Santa Barbara Municipal Code to the contrary, for the duration of this Ordinance, the City Administrator may allow businesses that expanded existing permitted commercial uses of property under Ordinances Nos. 5944, 5963, and 5993 to continue to operate in specific areas of on-street parking spaces, and required off-street parking and setback areas of the commercial premises as provided in The Guide to Temporary Outdoor Dining on Private Property.

SECTION 4. Hours of Operation for Outdoor Dining.

A. In the Central Business District, Funk Zone, and on Coast Village Road, as shown on a map maintained by the City Administrator, businesses may operate in facilities established under Section 2 or 3 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m., unless an earlier closing time is required as a condition of the Alcoholic Beverage Control liquor license or City land use permit for the establishment. 5 B. In all other areas of the City, businesses may operate in facilities established under Section 3 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily, unless an earlier closing time is required as a condition of the Alcohol and Beverage Control liquor license or City land use permit for the establishment.

SECTION 5. Expiration. No Vesting of Rights.

The Ordinance expires on December 31, 2023. Nothing in this Ordinance or Ordinance Nos. 5944, 5963, or 5993 or any administrative policy, rule or regulation promulgated under any of them creates, vests, or confers any right to continue any activity or use authorized thereunder beyond the term of this Ordinance. All facilities within the right of way are subject to removal upon demand of the City. This Ordinance does not authorize any permanent change in the size or configuration of an Alcohol and Beverage Control-licensed premises.

SECTION 6. Supplemental Regulations.

The City Administrator is authorized to promulgate and enforce regulations supplemental to the provisions of this Ordinance, including making amendments to the Guide to Operating a Business on the Temporary State Street Promenade, the Guide to Temporary Outdoor Dining on Private Property, and the Parklet Guidelines consistent with this Ordinance.

SECTION 7. Enforcement.

A. This Ordinance may be enforced as provided in Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapters 1.25 and 1.28. The City Attorney is authorized to take any additional administrative, civil or criminal enforcement action that may be necessary to assure implementation of this Ordinance.

B. In addition to any enforcement remedy under Subsection A of this Section, any facility, equipment, or furnishing existing in the Promenade or in any other street or public right-of-way in violation of this Ordinance may be removed by City employees or contractors under the direction of the Public Works Director. The owner of the business responsible for the existence of the facility, equipment, or furnishing shall be liable to the City for all costs of removal, impoundment, storage, and disposal. Before removal, the Public Works Director shall cause not less than 24 hours’ written notice to be posted on the business premises and delivered to the owner or a manager of the business. Santa Barbara Municipal Code Sections 10.56.020, 10.56.030, and 10.56.040 apply to items removed pursuant to this Subsection.

C. The authorization under Section 2 or 3 of this Ordinance shall be suspended for any business that is subject to more than two enforcement actions under either Subsection A or Subsection B of this Section upon written notice by the City Administrator 6 or a city employee designated by the City Administrator. A business owner may appeal a suspension to the City Council.

SECTION 8. Suspension of Design Review.

To further the purposes of this Ordinance as a temporary measure and pilot program, design review under Titles 22, 28, and 30 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code is suspended for the temporary facilities and uses installed and maintained as authorized by this Ordinance.

SECTION 9. Indemnity and Insurance.

By placing facilities, equipment, or furnishings under this Ordinance, the owner agrees to defend and indemnify the City and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any liability arising from the existence, use, or condition of the facilities, equipment, or furnishings. All persons and businesses that establish temporary operations in the public right-of-way must provide a certificate of insurance from their business insurance carrier naming the City and its officers, employees, and agents as additionally insureds.

SECTION 10. CEQA.

This Ordinance is categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (existing facilities), 15303 (construction of small structures), and 15304(e) (minor, temporary uses of land).

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Administrator’s Office
SUBJECT: Introduction Of An Ordinance Approving The 2021-2022 Management Salary Plans
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Adopting the 2021-2022 Salary Plan Applicable to Unrepresented Managers and Professional Attorneys (except the City Administrator and the City Attorney), and the 2021-2022 Salary Plan Applicable to Certain Unrepresented Safety Managers.

DISCUSSION:

This item was originally introduced at the December 7, 2021, City Council meeting and adopted on December 14, 2021 by the City Council.

The language related to paid holiday was incorrect and has been corrected on the attached Management Performance and Compensation Plan.

Paid holiday time is awarded based on regularly scheduled work day hours per holiday for a full-time manager (pro-rated for part-time employees). When a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday the preceding Friday or following Monday, respectively, will be observed as a legal holiday. Whenever a holiday occurs on a manager's regularly scheduled day off, the manager is entitled to an additional day off. Such day off shall be taken within sixty (60) calendar days, or shall be compensated at straight pay.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

No additional financial impact related to this administrative correction.

ATTACHMENT(S): Management Performance and Compensation Plan Agenda Item No. 4
Council Agenda Report
Introduction Of An Ordinance Approving The 2021-2022 Management Salary Plans February 1, 2022

Page 2 ends

PREPARED BY: Sam Ramirez, Administrative Analyst III
SUBMITTED BY: Wendy Levy, Human Resources Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

ATTACHMENT
1 CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

MANAGEMENT

PERFORMANCE
AND

COMPENSATION
PLAN
(REVISED February 2022)

MANAGEMENT

PERFORMANCE AND COMPENSATION PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPENSATION PLAN .................................................................................1

1. BACKGROUND...............................................................................................1

2. PARTICIPANTS...............................................................................................1

3. COMPENSATION PLAN FUNCTION ............................................................2

4. GOALS OF MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN ................................2

5. MARKET COMPARISON STRATEGY .........................................................2

6. PLAN DESIGN - CONTROL POINT (C/P) PAY SYSTEM ............................3

7. SALARY CONTROL POINT ADJUSTMENT PROCESS..............................3

8. SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................3

9. PAY FOR PERFORMANCE ...........................................................................3

10. SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT PAY........................................................................4 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM.....................................................5

11. GOALS OF EVALUATION SYSTEM .............................................................5

12. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PERIOD.....................................................5

13. AUTHORITY TO EVALUATE PERFORMANCE ...........................................5

14. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS.........................................................5

15. CITYWIDE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES .................................................6

16. RATINGS .........................................................................................................6

17. PROMOTIONS AND NEW APPOINTMENTS TO MANAGEMENT .............7 BENEFITS ........................................................................................................8

18. BENEFIT GROUPS I AND II...........................................................................8

19. HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS ...........................................................8 A. CAFETERIA PLAN CONTRIBUTION..................................................8 B. DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS.............................................9 C. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (EAP)...................................9 D. LIFE INSURANCE................................................................................9 E. LONG TERM DISABILITY..................................................................10 F. SHORT-TERM DISABILITY...............................................................10 G. ACCIDENT/CANCER INSURANCE ..................................................10 H. TAX-QUALIFIED EXPENSE ACCOUNTS ........................................10 I. EXECUTIVE CAR ALLOWANCE ......................................................10

20. TIME OFF AND LEAVE BENEFITS.............................................................10 A. VACATION & SICK LEAVE ADVANCED CREDIT UPON HIRE
............................................................................................................10 B. VACATION..........................................................................................11 C. LEGAL HOLIDAYS.............................................................................12 D. PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS ................................................................12 E. MANAGEMENT LEAVE.....................................................................12 F. SICK LEAVE.......................................................................................13 G. NON-REPLENISHABLE SICK LEAVE ..............................................13 H. CATASTROPHIC LEAVE – See Appendix A ....................................14 I. LEAVES OF ABSENCE .....................................................................14

21. RETIREMENT BENEFITS ............................................................................15 A. RETIREMENT PLAN (PERS) ............................................................15 B. DEFERRED COMPENSATION .........................................................15 C. SERVICE CREDIT FOR SICK LEAVE UPON RETIREMENT .........15 D. RETIREE MEDICAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION .......................16

22. EDUCATION BENEFITS...............................................................................17 A. LEAP TRAINING PROGRAM ............................................................17 B. EDUCATIONAL REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM.............................17 C. MANAGEMENT MASTER’S DEGREE PROGRAM – See
Appendix B..........................................................................................17

23. HOUSING BENEFITS ...................................................................................17 A. COASTAL HOUSING PARTNERSHIP (CHP) ..................................17 B. CALPERS MEMBER HOME LOAN PROGRAM...............................17 SPECIAL PROVISIONS.................................................................................17

24. UNREPRESENTED POLICE SAFETY MANAGEMENT
EMPLOYEES.................................................................................................18

25. UNREPRESENTED FIRE SAFETY MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES.........18 APPENDIX A: Catastrophic Leave Policy- Management
APPENDIX B: Management Master’s Degree Program
APPENDIX C: ICMA CODE OF ETHICS

ATTACHMENT
1 COMPENSATION PLAN

1. BACKGROUND
After considerable evaluation and staff review, and approval by the City Council, a new Management Performance and Compensation Plan was adopted in the 1977-1978 fiscal year.

Through an ongoing series of revisions this plan continues to effectively direct the evaluation and compensation of the City's management employees.

This Management Performance and Compensation Plan emphasizes the need for a high level of performance by managers and provides adequate incentives and rewards for said performance.

This plan recognizes that:

1. Managers are not extended technicians, but rather are individuals with the unique responsibility for analyzing and synthesizing the input of subordinates, peers, and the public in making decisions regarding the allocation of human and financial resources for which they should be held accountable; and

2. A compensation plan for management should not just provide a financial gain for employees, but should also create direct benefits to the City organization and the public it serves.

The overall objective of the plan is to establish regularly utilized, practical, and uniform performance measurements and related compensation procedures.

2. PARTICIPANTS
Management positions, subject to the Management Performance and Compensation Plan, are regular (not hourly) positions designated as Management in the adopted Position and Salary Control Resolution.

Managers in a recognized bargaining unit (Police Management Association, Fire Management Association) are covered by compensation and benefits provisions of the Management Performance and Compensation Plan only to the extent outlined in the applicable labor agreement.

Some provisions of the Management Performance and Compensation Plan are applicable only to Police Safety Management and Fire Safety Management employees, and these are included in the designated “Special Provisions” section of this document.

Professional Attorneys are defined as the City Attorney, Assistant City Attorney III, Assistant City Attorney II, Assistant City Attorney I, and the Deputy City Attorney. The COLAs and benefits provided under this Compensation Plan apply to professional attorneys as specifically provided in the Professional Attorneys Compensation Plan adopted by the City Council. -2-
The Management Performance and Compensation Plan and the Professional Attorneys’ Compensation Plan, will be amended, as necessary, to include changes to compensation and benefits.

3. COMPENSATION PLAN FUNCTION
The primary function of the Management Performance and Compensation Plan is to regularly review and assess the City's compensation practices, carefully analyze labor market data and internal salary relationships among the various classes of work and, based on this analysis, assign a salary range to each classification and recommend modifications to the City's approach to compensation, as needed. This provides an integrated salary plan for all of the City's management classifications.

4. GOALS OF MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN
The main goal of the Management Compensation Plan is to attract and retain quality managers for service with the City of Santa Barbara. The compensation package is designed to deal effectively with the demand of the labor market and to keep up with the cost of living.

Individual City management employees should perceive the plan as recognizing personal performance, being motivational, and being consistently applied City-wide without regard to age, ancestry, color, mental or physical disability including HIV and AIDS, gender identity and expression, marital status, medical condition, national origin, race, religious belief, or sexual orientation. The Management Compensation Plan should be seen as flexible, rewarding exceptional performers, and allowing for the hiring of individual managers above entry level as necessary. The plan should be clearly understood by all City management employees and have participant acceptance.

In addition, the plan should avoid being overly complex, not be perceived as negative, and should solve salary compaction or compression problems.

5. MARKET COMPARISON STRATEGY
The City of Santa Barbara's management compensation strategy provides policy guidance relative to the selection of labor market employers, and scope of external market surveys.

In overall terms, the City's comparison labor market should:
 Focus on full service coastal and/or urban cities, which are comparable to Santa Barbara with respect to budget, service structure, and service area population.  Include, when necessary, specialized markets for selected jobs; e.g. harbors, airports, utilities and parks and recreation.
 Recognize the impact of tourism on service demands.
-3-
 Recognize agencies located within a defined, competitive recruitment area within the Santa Barbara region, i.e. Ventura County area.

The City's preferred competitive position should be based on total cash compensation and should take into account the cost of living, especially as it relates to housing and difficulties in recruitment and retention of management staff.

6. PLAN DESIGN - CONTROL POINT (C/P) PAY SYSTEM
The design of the pay system is based on the control point pay concept. The control point (the top of the salary range) is the placement of a salary at the City's desired position relative to its labor market for any given position. City policy for managers entering City employment will be to pay within a 20% range of the control point salary. An individual manager's salary movement from salary at hire or promotion to the control point is to be based on merit and determined through the use of the management performance evaluation process.

7. SALARY CONTROL POINT ADJUSTMENT PROCESS
Salary control point adjustments are to be made periodically and may be based on a cost of living adjustment (COLA), external market survey data, anticipated labor market movement, maintaining salary differentials between management classes in a series, and/or maintaining salary differentials between managers and other subordinate classes. The City's ability to pay for adjustments will also be a consideration.

8. SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Adjustments to existing salary ranges will be recommended by the City Administrator to the City Council. Management salary adjustments will be adopted by the City Council and reflected in the City’s official salary schedules.

9. PAY FOR PERFORMANCE
The City's management performance evaluation system will determine a manager's pay for performance. The guidelines and criteria for individual salary adjustments will be as follows:

COLA (RANGE) INCREASE
Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) are increases to management salary ranges recommended by the City Administrator. When a COLA increase adjustment is made to the salary range for a management position, management employees in that position who obtained an Overall Rating of “Successful” or “Exceptional Work” or “Needs Improvement” on their last annual Management Performance Evaluation will receive the same adjustment to their individual salaries. COLAs may be scheduled in advance through adoption of a management salary plan. Approved COLAs are scheduled as follows:
-4-
1) Police Captains and Police Lieutenants: Police Lieutenants and Police Captains will receive salary increases as provided in the applicable Police Management Association labor agreement.
2) Fire Battalion Chiefs and the Fire Division Chief-Prevention: will receive salary increases as provided in the applicable Fire Management Association labor agreement.
3) Other managers, including the Fire Chief, Fire Division Chief- Operations, Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief, will receive salary increases as provided by Salary Plan(s) adopted by the City Council by ordinance.

MERIT INCREASE
Eligibility for a merit adjustment is for those individuals who are not already at the Control Point (top of the range) for their position. Merit increases are individual increases, based on each manager’s performance, allowing the managers to work toward the Control Point.

The merit increase is based on the Evaluator’s assessment of the Manager’s Overall Rating for the evaluation period. The Manager qualifies for a merit increase only if he/she obtains an Overall Rating of “Successful” or “Exceptional Work”. The merit increase may be between 0 to 10 %.The exact percentage of merit awarded will be determined by the Evaluator with appropriate approval.

Any merit increase of greater than 5% must first be approved by the City Administrator.

A manager's actual salary may not exceed (unless "Y-rated") the Control Point (top of the salary range). A manager's actual salary may fall below the minimum set for a range if performance is “Unacceptable”. An employee whose salary falls below the minimum shall not be entitled to receive COLA or merit increases until performance reaches a level which would justify such an increase.

10. SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT PAY
When a Manager is temporarily assigned special duties or a special project, that employee may be eligible for Special Assignment Pay. In these cases, the Management employee may not be working in an "Acting" capacity, where he or she is performing the essential functions and duties of another management classification, but is given a special assignment or a special project above and beyond what is expected from his/her current job classification.

The City Administrator or his/her designee will determine the special pay rate, if any, ranging from 1% to 20% of the manager's salary. This special pay provision may be provided to the management employee on a temporary basis, reviewed at least annually and is not to exceed two years on the same assignment. The completion of a special pay assignment project may be followed by new special pay assignments.
-5-

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM

11. GOALS OF EVALUATION SYSTEM
The key element of this compensation plan is the performance evaluation system. The effectiveness of the system is dependent upon the planning that supports it and may be measured by the quality of actual management performance. The primary purpose of the appraisal program is to motivate each manager to work at his/her fullest capacity. A secondary purpose is to provide a basis for rewarding management personnel in accordance with their individual performance and to identify those managers whose work is not in keeping with appropriate standards.

The City's management evaluation program is designed as a communications process which not only permits, but requires input and feedback from all organization levels in establishing goals, objectives, work responsibilities, and standards of performance measurement. The methods and techniques are intended to be applied uniformly in all departments and divisions. The program is flexible enough to be adaptable to the philosophy, characteristics, and operating methods of various organizational units. This plan establishes an accurate, objective, and reliable method of measuring performance that will benefit the City and develop the individual manager.

12. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PERIOD
Annual management performance evaluation periods correspond to the July-June fiscal year.

Each manager's performance will be formally reviewed at mid-year and again following the end of the fiscal year, although the manager and evaluator have a continuing responsibility throughout the year to review performance progress.

13. AUTHORITY TO EVALUATE PERFORMANCE
Authority and responsibility for approving management performance goals, completing performance evaluations, and recommending merit increases will be assigned as follows:
o For department heads and City Administrator's staff, the City Administrator has the authority.
o For division managers, the department heads have the authority in consultation with the City Administrator.
o For all other management employees, the division managers have the authority in consultation with the department head.

14. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
At the beginning of each fiscal year a subordinate manager and his or her Evaluator will jointly develop the performance objectives for the subordinate manager in the upcoming fiscal year, including any:

1. “P3” Performance Program Objectives

2. Other Projects / Programs (or stages thereof) for Completion -6-

3. Day to Day Operations Objectives

4. Professional Development Objectives (for Manager and his/her Staff) A measure (qualitative or quantitative) should be provided for each objective. At the end of the fiscal year, each manager's performance will be evaluated based, in part, upon the completion of the outlined responsibilities. The Evaluator will assign a performance rating to each objective.

At times, conditions outside the individual manager’s control will alter the manager's activities.

These adjustments and any corresponding changes to the manager’s individual performance goals should be discussed as they become apparent throughout the evaluation period.

15. CITYWIDE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
In addition to the manager’s individual performance goals, each manager will be evaluated on performance related to important City-wide objectives and management skills, including but not limited to the following:

A. Section 2: Citywide Objectives: These are programs and interests that have been deemed to be important to the welfare of the whole City, and must be actively supported by all management personnel
o “P3” Performance Program Implementation
o Department/City-wide Communication
o Staff Development
o Diversity
o Injury/Illness and Prevention Program
B. Section 3: Management Skills Objectives: The development and effective use of these skills are deemed important for all management personnel o Budgeting / Financial Management
o Policy Development / Implementation
o Public and Community Relations
o Leadership
o Judgment
o Managing / Supporting Employees
o Encourage Creativity and Innovation
o Oral Communication / Presentation Skills
o Written Communication
The Evaluator will use his/her judgment as to the fit between the specific job skill and the manager’s job and assign a performance rating to each Citywide objective.

16. RATINGS
Each manager will receive an overall rating on his or her evaluation based on his or her performance. The Evaluator may consider factors such as the amount of time the manager has been in the job, the amount of previous or on-the-job training he/she has had, the type and -7-
complexity of projects he/she has been assigned, and the pace and complexity of the work environment in developing the overall rating.

The ratings, both for individual performance objectives and for the overall rating, are as follows:

Exceptional Work: Means the Manager’s overall performance, during this review period, has significantly exceeded expected levels of performance. This rating should be used sparingly to indicate exceptional performance (a breakthrough to a new higher level of accomplishment and/or unexpectedly superior performance on a special or emergency assignment.)
Successful: Means the Manager’s performance, during this review period, has made a contribution to the success of the department and the City, and indicates the achievement of competency in this skill area. The Manager consistently meets, and at times exceeds, expectations and performance standards. Performance is within the expected scope and is indicative of a competent manager. It is expected that managers who are performing both at and above expectations will receive this rating.

Needs Improvement: Means the Manager’s overall performance, during this review period, has been below the expected level of quality or quantity. The Manager needs to take steps to correct identified deficiencies.

Unacceptable: Means that on an overall basis the Manager has, during this review period, performed in a manner significantly below the level to be expected considering the manager’s previous experience, tenure in the class and the Manager’s duties and responsibilities, and that it appears to be reasonably certain that the manager is either unwilling or unable to perform successfully.

Not Applicable/ Not Observed: The skill or characteristic does not apply to this position, is new and not yet measurable, or the activity was not under the Manager’s control.

17. PROMOTIONS AND NEW APPOINTMENTS TO MANAGEMENT
The process for assimilating newly promoted or appointed managers into the evaluation system is as follows:

1. The initial performance goals will be developed during the first three (3) months of employment.

2. The beginning date of the evaluation period may be between one (1) and three (3) months from the date of employment as agreed to by the manager and his/her supervisor.

3. All evaluation periods must cover a period of at least three (3), but no more than twelve (12) months with the end of the evaluation being June 30.

4. The manager will be evaluated at the conclusion of each evaluation period (June 30).
-8-

5. The beginning salary for a management employee will be negotiated within the salary range for the position.

6. All subsequent changes in salary will be made based upon performance evaluation.

Salary adjustments, except for those hired between April 1 and July 1, will be as follows:
 If rating is “Successful” or “Exceptional Work”: COLA + (X/12 x Merit Increase) = % total salary increase, where X is the number of full months contained in the evaluation period for the last fiscal year.
 If rating is “Needs Improvement”: COLA only
 If rating is “Unacceptable”: Not eligible for salary increase.

Those not evaluated because they were hired between April 1 and July 1 will receive the amount of the COLA adjustment in order to maintain their relative position in the range.

BENEFITS

18. BENEFIT GROUPS I AND II
All management classifications will be designated as belonging to Benefit Group I or Benefit Group II. This designation will determine the amount/level of benefits that will accrue to each management employee.

Group I: City Administrator, Assistant City Administrator, all Department Heads.

Group II: All other management classifications.

19. HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS
A. CAFETERIA PLAN CONTRIBUTION
Managers will receive a monthly contribution to the cafeteria plan for the purchase of health and welfare benefits and/or optional cash-out. The dollar value of full family medical and dental will be determined based on the premiums for the least expensive comprehensive plans.

The cafeteria plan amount will be periodically adjusted so that it is equal to no less than:

Group I Managers: Group II Managers:

Effective 1-1-2013 $1718 per month $1676 per month
Information about the benefits available and their cost will be distributed to all management employees at the beginning of each benefit year (i.e. calendar year). The City retains full and complete control over the selection, approval and administration of the City's group insurance program.
-9-
The benefits will be subject to the following rules:

1. Benefit selections must be made prior to the beginning of each benefit year.

Employee changes in benefit plan selections, such as adding or deleting coverage and/or dependents, may only be made in accordance with Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code and City policy.

2. All benefits selected from the cafeteria plan must be paid for in full from the maximum benefit provided except when the maximum is insufficient to cover all insurance coverage selected. In such cases, the premium amount not funded by the City-provided benefit will be paid through an employee deduction applied against the medical premiums.

3. No unexpended dollar amounts associated with selected benefits may be disbursed to a terminating employee.

4. All benefit selections are subject to State and Federal rules, regulations, and laws regarding employee benefits and tax status. No guarantee is made regarding the tax-exempt status of any and all benefits presented or selected.

5. Management employees will be eligible for benefits coverage and the respective Group I or Group II monthly cafeteria plan contribution, on the first day of the month following their hire date.

B. DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS
The cafeteria plan allowance can be used toward same sex and opposite sex domestic partner dependent coverage under the medical, dental, and vision plans, and any other plan where such coverage is allowed. In order to receive this benefit, domestic partners must be registered with the City Clerk’s Office and/or the Secretary of State of California, and the employee must provide proof of registration. The affected employee(s) will be responsible for all tax consequences of this benefit.

Additionally, Domestic Partners who are registered with the City Clerk’s Office and/or the Secretary of State of California are treated the same as spouses under all City policies related to employees’ families.

C. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (EAP)
Managers and their families will have access to the City’s Employee Assistance Program for free confidential counseling services. This amount will not be counted against the cafeteria plan allowance.

D. LIFE INSURANCE
Life Insurance will be provided equal to an amount of one times annual salary. An equal amount will be provided for accidental death and dismemberment (ADD) coverage. This amount will not be counted against the cafeteria plan allowance.
-10-
E. LONG TERM DISABILITY
Each management employee will receive coverage under the City's long term disability insurance program. This amount will not be counted against the cafeteria plan allowance.

F. SHORT-TERM DISABILITY
Managers are eligible to participate in an optional Short-term Disability plan at their own cost.

G. ACCIDENT/CANCER INSURANCE
Managers are eligible to participate in an optional Supplemental Accident and Cancer insurance plan at their own cost.

H. TAX-QUALIFIED EXPENSE ACCOUNTS
The City offers several tax-qualified arrangements to allow managers to set aside money to pay for eligible expenses on a pre-tax basis. These include:
 Medical Flexible Spending Account
 Dependent Care Account
I. EXECUTIVE CAR ALLOWANCE
Executives are eligible for a monthly car allowance. This allowance is adjusted based upon the IRS mileage rate. Please contact the Finance Department for the current allowance.

J. CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE
Managers are eligible for $50.00 a month cell phone allowance if they are not issued a City paid for Cell Phone.

20. TIME OFF AND LEAVE BENEFITS
A. VACATION & SICK LEAVE ADVANCED CREDIT UPON HIRE
a. An employee who is appointed from outside City of Santa Barbara government service within one (1) year of leaving employment with either the City of Santa Barbara or another city, county, state agency, federal agency or special district and who, in the opinion of the Human Resources Manager, possesses government experience directly related to the position to which he or she has been appointed, may be offered credit for years of prior service with the City of Santa Barbara and/or his or her immediate previous government employer in the following ways:
i. Vacation Accrual: At the discretion of the Human Resources Manager, the employee may be offered credit for up to the total number of prior full years of service at the City of Santa Barbara and/or his or her immediate previous government employer toward the initial vacation accrual rate. The employee will not be eligible to progress to a higher -11-
accrual rate until employee has the normal required minimum amount of City of Santa Barbara service for that accrual rate.
ii. Sick bank: At the discretion of the Human Resources Manager, the employee may be credited with up to 96 hours of sick leave. Thereafter, employee will accrue sick leave at the normal rate.
b. A former City of Santa Barbara employee reemployed within one year under Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 3.16.320 will automatically qualify for the full vacation accrual credit under (i), above, for his or her prior City of Santa Barbara service. However, under no circumstance will prior accrued vacation balances cashed out to the employee upon termination be reinstated.

B. VACATION
Managers will accrue vacation as follows:

Years of Days
Service Per Year
Group I
0-3 160 hours
4-5 200 hours
6+ 224 hours
Group II
0-2 120 hours
3-5 160 hours
6-7 200 hours
8+ 224 hours
Vacation for management employees will be used within the following parameters:

1. The maximum vacation accrual will be 600 hours.

2. The maximum vacation accrual may be waived if scheduled vacations are cancelled by the City for emergencies or cancelled by the manager due to the illness, injury, or personal emergency. The manager will submit to the City Administrator, via the Department Head, a memo requesting approval for the accrual beyond the maximum. The City Administrator may establish a deadline by which the manager must reduce the vacation accrual to at or below the maximum, or be subject to the accrual discontinuance provisions outlined in item #3 below.

3. A manager whose vacation balances exceed the maximum accrual of 600 hours will not be eligible to accrue further vacation until such time as the manager has reduced his or her accrued leave balances through time off, catastrophic leave donation, or buy-back, to below the maximum accrual. There is no retroactive -12-
grant of vacation compensation for the period of time the vacation compensation was at the cap.

C. LEGAL HOLIDAYS
Paid holidays include:

January 1st (New Year's Day)
3rd Monday in January (M. L. King Jr.'s Birthday)
3rd Monday in February (President's Birthday)
March 31st (Cesar Chavez’s Birthday)
Last Monday in May (Memorial Day)
June 19th (Juneteenth)
July 4th (Independence Day)
1st Monday in September (Labor Day)
November 11th Veteran’s Day
4th Thursday in November (Thanksgiving Day)
4th Friday in November (Day following Thanksgiving)
December 25th (Christmas Day)
Paid holiday time is awarded based on regularly scheduled work day hours per holiday for a fulltime manager (pro-rated for part-time employees). When a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday the preceding Friday or following Monday, respectively, will be observed as a legal holiday.

Whenever a holiday occurs on a manager's regularly scheduled day off, the manager is entitled to an additional day off. Such day off shall be taken within sixty (60) calendar days, or shall be compensated at straight pay.

D. PERSONAL LEAVE DAYS
Managers will be entitled to thirty-two (32) paid personal leave hours (pro-rated for part-time employees) each fiscal year per the following schedule:

On the payroll July 1st 32 hours
Hired between July 2 and October 1 24 hours
Hired between October 2 and Jan 1 16 hours
Hired between Jan 2 and April 1 8 hours
Personal leave days must be taken by the end of each fiscal year or lost. Personal leave will be scheduled on the same basis as vacation. In no case will managers be entitled to cash payment for personal leave days not taken.

E. MANAGEMENT LEAVE
The purpose of management leave is to provide a process for authorizing paid leave time, on a flexible basis, to management employees who are not eligible to receive overtime compensation or compensatory time off. Due to the nature of their positions, managers are required to place greater emphasis on the accomplishment of program objectives, rather than on the actual number of hours worked. Their activities are regulated by fulfilling program responsibilities rather than by -13-
scheduled hours. They may be required to periodically or routinely work long or irregular hours, and to attend various meetings and functions to fulfill the responsibilities of their positions.

Eligibility: This management leave policy applies to all regular management employees designated as being exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, subject to department head, City Attorney, or City Administrator approval, as outlined below.

Award: Each eligible management employee is awarded forty (40) hours of management leave (pro-rated for part-time employees) for the fiscal year as follows:

Managers on the payroll July 1 (inclusive) 40 hours
Managers hired between July 2 and October 1 (inclusive) 30 hours Managers hired between October 2 and January 1 (inclusive) 20 hours Managers hired between January 2 and April 1 (inclusive) 10 hours A manager on a Leave of Absence without Pay on July 1st will receive the Management Leave hours (prorated) when s/he returns to work.

The department head, City Attorney, or City Administrator may grant additional paid leave to each eligible management employee during the year. The amount of additional paid leave, if any, will be subject to discretion of the department head, City Attorney, or City Administrator.

Use: Management Leave is scheduled like vacation. The leave provided by this program is not related to hours worked nor subject to accrual, and may not be carried over beyond the end of the fiscal year. Upon resignation or termination, a manager will not be entitled to any payout of management leave.

Approval: Administration of this policy is subject to the discretion and approval of the department head, except for City Attorney or City Administrator appointment positions, which are subject to the discretion and approval of the City Attorney or City Administrator respectively. Final resolution of any disputes arising from this policy will rest with the City Attorney or City Administrator as appropriate.

F. SICK LEAVE
Sick leave allowance will accrue at the rate of 8 hours per month.

G. NON-REPLENISHABLE SICK LEAVE
Management employees are eligible for non-replenishable sick leave. After five (5) years of continuous service, a manager may accumulate additional sick leave at the rate of sixteen (16) hours at full salary for each additional year of continuous service. The maximum accumulation is two hundred and forty (240) hours and is not replenishable. Non-replenishable sick leave hours may only be used after the manager’s entire regular sick leave bank is exhausted. -14-
H. CATASTROPHIC LEAVE – See Appendix A
The management catastrophic leave policy allows managers to donate vacation time to the applicable leave banks of full-time and part-time employees who are incapacitated due to a catastrophic illness or injury or who must care for a spouse or child who has a catastrophic illness or injury. A catastrophic illness or injury is a severe illness or injury which is unusual, unexpected, and immediate in nature; and which is expected to preclude an employee from returning to work for an extended period of time, during which the employee will exhaust all of his/her accumulated leave balances.

Donated vacation time will be converted and credited to the recipient in equivalent hours of sick leave at the recipient's base hourly rate (e.g. employee A makes $20/hour and donates 1 hour of vacation time to employee B who earns $10/hour. Employee B's applicable leave bank is increased by 2 hours for each hour donated by A).

I. LEAVES OF ABSENCE
Medical Leave: Managers are eligible to request a medical or family leave of absence of up to one year under the City’s FMLA/CFRA Family Medical Leave Policy, the Leave without Pay (Medical Reasons) Policy, the Maternity Leave Policy, and/or the Parental Leave Policy.

The City Administrator may grant an extra leave of absence, in addition to that provided under the various sick leave policies to a manager who has been continuously employed by the City for five (5) years or more. When all sick leave has been exhausted, the manager can make a request, in writing, for extra leave and attach a report from his/her medical doctor stating the extent of the illness and the approximate time required for recovery. If approved the request shall be based on the following schedule:

Service in Years (active & continuous): Maximum # of Months of Extra Leave Allowable:
5- 10 3
10-15 6 (including the 3 above)
15-20 9 (including the 6 above)
20 + 12 (including the 9 above)
During such period of extra leave, the manager shall receive an amount equal to 50% of his/her regular salary (MC 3.08.210).

Non-Medical Leave: Managers may also request a personal leave of absence of up to one year for non-medical reasons under the City’s Leave of Absence without Pay (Non-medical reasons) Policy. A sabbatical may constitute a reason for a leave of absence. An approved leave of absence without pay will not constitute a break in continuous service. -15-

21. RETIREMENT BENEFITS
A. RETIREMENT PLAN (PERS)
Each management employee will be enrolled in the Public Employee's Retirement System (PERS), in either the miscellaneous or safety category as determined by the individual's job classification.

New Members: Effective January 1, 2013, new members as defined by California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (hereinafter “AB 340”) will be covered under the 2.7% at 57 Safety retirement formula or the 2% at 62 Miscellaneous retirement formula, with a final compensation measurement period of the average of the highest three (3) consecutive years, as well as all other statutory requirements of AB 340. Effective July 1, 2013, new employees and/or members as defined by AB 340 shall contribute half the normal cost for benefits, as defined by AB 340; the City will not pay any portion of these employees’ required contributions.

Classic Members: Employees who qualify as “Classic” PERS members by virtue of service with the City or another qualified employer prior to January 1, 2013 will be covered under the following plans:

1. Police and Fire Safety Managers: The City’s Fire and Police Managers are covered under the PERS 3% at age 50 benefit formula, with a final compensation measurement period of the single highest year.
a. Represented Police and Fire Safety Managers contribute toward retirement as outlined in the applicable labor agreement.
b. Unrepresented Police and Fire Safety managers contribute toward retirement as outlined in the as provided by Salary Plan(s) adopted by the City Council by ordinance.

2. Miscellaneous Managers: The City’s Miscellaneous Managers are covered under the PERS

2.7% at age 55 benefit formula, with a final compensation measurement period of the single highest year. The employee’s contribution toward the employee’s required member contribution, if any, is adjusted upward or downward from year to year depending on the City’s employer rate from PERS.

Managers also have the option, at their own expense, to receive PERS service credit for any military service time or other service time eligible for service credit purchase under the applicable PERS plan.

B. DEFERRED COMPENSATION
In addition to the City’s retirement plans, managers may elect to participate in the deferred compensation program to save for retirement. The deferred compensation program is a taxqualified Section 457 government defined contribution retirement program.

C. ANNUITY FOR SICK LEAVE UPON RETIREMENT
At the time of retirement, the City shall calculate the amount of an annuity for the retiring manager similar to the PERS amendment that provides service credit for sick leave. Note: This provision -16-
does not apply to Fire Safety Managers since credit for sick leave is included in their PERS contract, nor to Police Management Association (PMA) members, who are covered under the provisions of their labor agreement.
1) The following conditions apply to this benefit:
a. In order to qualify for payout of sick leave upon retirement, the retirement eligible manager must have at least five (5) years of service and at least 300 sick leave hours;
b. The conversion rate of 0.004 years of service credit for each day of sick leave is utilized;
2) Safety group members who obtain 90% of final compensation upon retirement are not eligible for this benefit. (All safety group PERS contract evaluations limit a safety member's maximum annual pension to no more than 90% of final compensation regardless of the length of service and this benefit carries the same restriction); and 3) If the City amends its PERS Miscellaneous or Police contract evaluation to include service credit for sick leave upon retirement, non-safety or Police members, respectively, will be included in that PERS contract amendment and the annuity program will be discontinued for that group.
4) The retiring manager will be paid out in a lump sum amount based upon the value of the sick leave annuity.

This provision is not intended to provide a benefit when a similar benefit would not be available from PERS under the service credit for sick leave contract amendment.

D. RETIREE MEDICAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION

1. This provision is applicable to managers who retire from City service and a. Have 10 or more years of classified or unclassified service; or b. Retire from the City with an industrial disability retirement.

2. The City will contribute $12.00 per month, per year of service, toward the purchase of retiree medical insurance, up to a maximum of 35 years (i.e. $420.00 per month).

3. The retiree is not limited to the purchase of a City sponsored plan, provided however, that if the retiree purchases another insurance plan, the retiree must supply the City with adequate proof of insurance coverage prior to any contribution from the City. Proof of such coverage will be provided to the City on a periodic basis, as reasonably determined by the City.
-17-

4. The City will continue to make its contribution until the retiree reaches age 65 or dies, whichever occurs first, provided however, that if the retiree dies before reaching the age of 65 and there is a surviving spouse or registered domestic partner, the City's contribution will cease when the retiree would have reached 65. Thereafter, the spouse may remain on the insurance plan, at his/her cost, subject to the conditions set forth by the insurance company.

22. EDUCATION BENEFITS
A. LEAP TRAINING PROGRAM
The City is committed to providing quality in-house training to managers through the Learning for Excellence and Achievement Program (LEAP).

B. EDUCATIONAL REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM
(Note: Due to financial conditions, this program was suspended effective July 1, 2009.

The program is scheduled to be reinstated in July 2014.) Managers are eligible for up to $1,000 per year in educational reimbursement through the Citywide Educational Reimbursement Policy.

C. MANAGEMENT MASTER’S DEGREE PROGRAM – See Appendix B
(Note: Due to financial conditions, this program was suspended effective July 1, 2009 and remains suspended)
The City will pay the cost for a manager to obtain a master’s degree from an accredited institution, as detailed under the Management Master’s Degree Program.

23. HOUSING BENEFITS
A. COASTAL HOUSING PARTNERSHIP (CHP)
The City is a member employer of this organization which assists regular employees in becoming homeowners in the local community by providing financial assistance and educational services.

The package provides financial-assistance programs addressing common obstacles to purchasing a home, such as the down payment and closing costs. Refinancing for homeowners, and other housing programs are also available.

B. CALPERS MEMBER HOME LOAN PROGRAM
PERS offers its members a variety of options for purchasing or refinancing a home.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS
-18-

24. UNREPRESENTED POLICE SAFETY MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES
Uniform Allowance
The Deputy Police Chief and Police Chief will receive a uniform allowance equal to the amount established for a Police Officer under the Police Unit M.O.U. in effect at the time.

P.O.S.T.

The Deputy Police Chief and Police Chief will receive advanced Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) pay equal to the amount established for a Police Sergeant.

25. UNREPRESENTED FIRE SAFETY MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES
Uniform
The Fire Chief and the Fire Division Chief- Operations will receive an annual uniform allowance equal to the amount established for a Firefighter per the Fire Unit M.O.U. in effect at the time.

Emergency Overtime:
o Overtime will be accrued or paid to Fire Chief and the Fire Division Chief-Operations at straight time only when assigned to emergency suppression or prevention duties. o Overtime will not be accrued for performing administrative duties. o Overtime shall be accrued or paid out at the rate of time and one-half when providing mutual aid for which the City is reimbursed at the rate of time and one half. o Overtime may be accrued in a bank of hours not to exceed 48 hours. -19-

APPENDIX A

CATASTROPHIC LEAVE POLICY- MANAGEMENT
I. PURPOSE: To establish a program whereby City employees can donate vacation and/or compensatory time, if applicable, to:

A. The sick leave banks of permanent full-time and permanent part-time employees who are incapacitated due to a catastrophic illness or injury; or B. The vacation leave banks of permanent full-time and permanent part-time employees who are caring for a spouse or child who has a catastrophic illness or injury.

II. DEFINITION: A catastrophic illness or injury is a severe illness or injury which is unusual, unexpected, or immediate in nature; and which is expected to preclude an employee from returning to work for an extended period of time, during which the employee will exhaust all of his/her applicable accumulated leave balances.

III. POLICY: City employees may donate vacation and/or compensatory time, if applicable, to a permanent full-time or permanent part-time employee if:

A. An employee experiences a catastrophic illness or injury or must care for a spouse or child who has a catastrophic illness or injury which requires the employee to be absent from work for an extended period of time;
B. The employee has nearly exhausted all applicable leave balances (sick, vacation, personal leave, and compensatory time in the case of the employee’s off-duty catastrophic illness or injury; vacation, personal leave and compensatory time due to caring for a spouse or child who has experienced a catastrophic illness or injury); and
C. The employee or if incapacitated, the legally recognized representative, has agreed to accept the donation if approved by the department head and the City Administrator.

D. The department head will take action to help ensure that each employee's decision to donate or not donate to a Personal Catastrophic Leave Account is kept confidential and that the donor and recipient employees are not pressured to participate.

E. State and Federal income tax on the value of vacation and/or compensatory time, if applicable, donated will be deducted from the recipient employee's pay at the time the hours are used.
-20-
IV. PROCEDURES:

A. A request is made by the recipient employee or if incapacitated, the legally recognized representative, to the department head for the establishment of a Personal Catastrophic Leave Account. This request may be made prior to the employee exhausting all of his/her applicable paid leave balances so that time donated may be utilized immediately upon exhaustion of the employee's leave balances, but not before.

B. Upon approval of the department head and the City Administrator, and upon agreement of the recipient employee, a Personal Catastrophic Leave Account will be established. The employee or if incapacitated, the legally recognized representative, will sign the "Request to Receive Donation(s)" form allowing publication and distribution of information regarding his/her situation.

C. The employee or if incapacitated, the legally recognized representative, will be required to provide verification of the catastrophic illness or injury from an attending physician before and while using time donated under this program. All information provided by the attending physician will remain confidential.

D. The request for donations will occur in three month intervals and may be extended up to a maximum of twelve (12) continuous months for any one catastrophic illness/injury, based upon approval of the department head and City Administrator.

E. Donated vacation and/or compensatory time will be converted and credited to the recipient’s applicable leave bank in equivalent hours based upon the recipient's base hourly rate. (e.g., employee A makes $20/hour and donates 1 hour of vacation time to employee B who earns $10/hour. B's applicable leave bank is increased by 2 hours for each hour donated by A.)
F. Employees will use the "Donation of Vacation and/or Compensatory Time" form to submit donations of vacation and/or compensatory time, if applicable, directly to Human Resources. All donations will be reviewed for compliance with this policy.

After review, the form will be forwarded to Payroll for action and adjustment to the donor's and recipient's paid leave balances.

G. All donations of vacation and/or compensatory time, if applicable, will be in increments of 4 hours or more (e.g. 4, 8, 12 hours) and will be made in three month increments. An employee may not donate vacation or compensatory time, if applicable, which would reduce his or her total accrued combined balance of vacation, compensatory time, personal leave and sick leave to less than 120 hours after the donation.

H. The donation of vacation and/or compensatory time, if applicable, is irreversible.

Should the recipient employee not use all the donated time for the catastrophic illness or injury, any balance will revert to a City-wide "Catastrophic Leave Bank" for -21-
future use by employees with need for that donated time pursuant to the provisions of this Catastrophic Leave Policy.

I. A report on the usage of Personal Catastrophic Leave Accounts and status of the City-wide "Catastrophic Leave Bank" will be available to recognized labor organizations and others with a need to know. The report will include the identity of the recipient(s), hours donated, hours used and the remaining balance(s). -22-

APPENDIX A

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CATASTROPHIC LEAVE POLICY - MANAGEMENT
(Attachment A)

REQUEST TO RECEIVE DONATION(S)
This form is for those City employees who are incapacitated due to a catastrophic illness or injury and wish to benefit from a City-established employee-donated Catastrophic Leave Bank. To be eligible to participate in the program, it is foreseen that an employee will use all of his/her accumulated leave balances because of a catastrophic illness or injury; however, any hours donated may not be utilized until the employee's leave balances are actually exhausted.

The purpose of this form is not to be intrusive into the personal life of any employee. The goal is to obtain enough information so that the decision to establish a Catastrophic Leave Bank for any given employee will be based on appropriate considerations. The intent is to establish a Catastrophic Leave Bank for those employees truly in need.

Name: Date:

Job Title: Department:

Please describe why you are requesting use of the Catastrophic Leave Bank including specific information such as the nature of the catastrophe. (A doctor's Certificate of Disability and/or more pertinent information will be required by the City.)

How much donated time do you estimate you may need?
I agree to allow this information to be released to those employees wishing to donate their vacation time to me, as well as those people involved in the administration of the program.

Signed by the Requesting Employee or if incapacitated, the Legally Recognized Representative _________________________________________Date________________________

Signed by the Department Head _________________Date _____________________ Signed by the City Administrator __________________Date _____________________ -23-

APPENDIX A

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CATASTROPHIC LEAVE POLICY - MANAGEMENT
(Attachment B)

DONATION OF VACATION TIME

CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Human Resources
FROM:
(Employee Name and Department)
DATE:

I understand that this donation of my vacation time is irrevocable. Should the employee receiving the donation not use all of the donated time for the catastrophic illness or injury, the balance will remain with the Catastrophic Leave Bank for future use by other employees with need for the donated time.

I understand that I may only donate vacation time and that time may only be donated in increments of four hours or more.

I understand that I cannot donate vacation time which would reduce my total accumulated vacation, personal leave, and sick leave to less than 120 hours after my donation.

I have read and understand all of the above and I freely and without restraint elect to donate ____ vacation hours to a Catastrophic Leave Bank established for the benefit of ___________________________.
(employee's name)
NAME: ________________________________________________
(Please Print)
SIGNATURE: ___________________________________________
DATE: ________________________________________________
-24-

APPENDIX B

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
MANAGEMENT MASTER’S DEGREE REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM

PROGRAM CURRENTLY SUSPENDED
7/1/05

1. Objective
The City of Santa Barbara believes that continuing formal education has a positive impact on a manager’s contribution to the City; therefore, the City supports self-development and educational efforts of its managers by providing reimbursements for many of the expenses associated with obtaining a Master’s Degree related to the employee’s current profession as approved by the City Administrator.

2. Determining Program Eligibility (Note: this program suspended effective July 1, 2009) Effective July 1, 2005 a regular management employee is eligible for this program after successfully completing one-year of employment.

A participating manager will complete and submit a Master’s Degree Reimbursement Application to their Department Head for approval prior to starting the program. The application will include the outline/schedule of the courses for the Master’s Degree.

Upon approval from the Department Head, the Application will be sent to the Human Resources Office for final approval. The Human Resources Manager or designee has sole approval of courses to reimburse.

Depending on the potential impact of a manager’s absence on department operations and workload, the manager’s Department Head may allow the manager to rearrange work schedules or use accrued vacation, personal leave, or holiday (Police only) time to help accommodate coursework during off-duty hours.

Managers enrolled in the Master’s Degree Reimbursement Program are also eligible to receive the annual $1,000 from the Education Reimbursement Program for books related to their Master’s Degree and for non-Master’s degree related courses that qualify under the Education Reimbursement Program.

3. Eligible Expenses
The Program will reimburse the expenses of tuition, required textbooks, registration, program and lab fees and other fees directly related to the Master’s Degree. All other expenses such as parking, hotel accommodations, and travel expenses are not eligible for reimbursement. -25-

4. Program Budget
Funding for the program is limited to the total amount designated by the City Administrator.

Course approval is contingent on the availability of funds in the Master’s Degree Reimbursement Program fund administered by Human Resources.

5. Reimbursement Amount
The City will reimburse up to a maximum of $9,000 for a Master’s Degree in Public or Business Administration. This amount is based on the cost of a Master’s Degree in Public Administration at Cal-State Northridge (non-cohort model). This amount will be contingent on the total funding available for reimbursements. These funds will be increased in the future as necessary as the non-cohort tuition at Cal-State Northridge increases.

City reimbursement will be reduced by any other financial aid that does not have to be repaid (such as the GI Bill, scholarships and grants).

6. Course Approval Reimbursement Process
A participating employee will complete and submit a Master’s Degree Reimbursement Application to their Department Head for approval. Before the course starts and after the Department Head has approved the Application, the Application will be sent to the Human Resources Office for final approval and confirmation that funds are available. The Human Resources Manager or designee has sole approval of courses to reimburse.

Note: Effective July 1, 2005: with the implementation of this new Master’s Degree Reimbursement Program, managers who have received prior approval, through the Educational Reimbursement Program, for a current in-session Master’s Degree-related course in Public or Business Administration will be switched to and covered by this new program. These managers will need to complete the Application related to approval of the degree program.

7. Reimbursement Following Completion of a Course
To be eligible for Reimbursement, the manager must complete approved courses in a satisfactory manner. Proof of course completion is required and a grade of “C” or better or a “pass,” if the course is held in a pass/fail format, is required for reimbursement.

Following the completion of the course, the manager will submit receipts and proof of a completed course with a satisfactory grade to his or her Department Head within 90 days of the approved course completion date. Valid receipts are original receipts from a school or organization approved by the department. The Department Head will send the appropriate form, claim and receipts to the Finance Department.

The manager will be required to re-pay the Master’s Degree reimbursement if they do not complete the following work commitment:
-26-
o If the manager leaves City employment within 12 months or less of completion of the degree they will be required to pay back 100% of the costs;
o If a manager leaves between 13 months to 24 months of completion of the degree they will be required to pay back 75% of the costs; and
o If they leave between 25 and 36 months of completion of the degree they will be required to pay back 25% of the cost.

To be reimbursed for the Master’s Degree, the manager must be a current employee of the City.

6. Taxation
Reimbursements provided by this program may be subject to state and federal income taxes.

More information regarding taxation of these reimbursements should be obtained from a licensed tax professional.
-27-

APPENDIX B

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
MANAGEMENT MASTER’S DEGREE PROGRAM
(Attachment A)

PROMISSORY NOTE
(UNSECURED)
$ XX,XXX Santa Barbara, California
_______________, 200_
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, and in connection with a City of Santa Barbara Master’s Degree Reimbursement Agreement dated _____________, the undersigned, (Employee Name), [hereinafter the “Maker”] promises to pay to the City of Santa Barbara, [“City”] as Holder, [or its order] at City Hall, [De La Guerra Plaza] 735 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101 [or at such other place as the holder may from time to time designate by written notice to Makers], the principal sum of ____________________ Dollars [$XX,XXX,] without interest from this date, as established in more detail specifically in the Master’s Degree Reimbursement Agreement dated ___________ (“The Agreement”).

Unless due earlier by reason of the exercise by the Holder of any remedies on default as set forth below, the principal sum set forth above shall be due and payable in the manner and at the times set forth in the Agreement dated, _____________________between the Maker and the Holder.

Maker agree to pay the following costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees paid or incurred by the City or a subsequent holder of this note, or as may be adjudged by a Court: 1.) reasonable costs of loan collection, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees paid or incurred in connection with the collection or enforcement of this note, whether nor not suit is filed; and 2.) costs of suit and such sum as the Court may adjudge as attorneys’ fees in an action to enforce payment of this note or any part of it.

This Promissory Note is unsecured and Maker is personally liable for any deficiency on this Note.

City may pursue any remedies legally available to it to enforce the provisions of this Note and Agreement to which this Note relates.

The Maker, for him/herself and his/her successors and assigns, waives demand, presentment for payment, notice of dishonor, protest, notice of protest and diligence in collection and all notices or demands whatsoever with respect to this Note and the indebtedness evidenced hereby may be extended from time to time by the Holder and assents to any substitution, exchange or release of collateral permitted by the Holder, all without in any way modifying, altering, releasing, affecting or limiting the liability of the Maker under this Note. No failure of acceptance of a past due payment, or indulgences granted from time to time shall be construed (1) as a notation of this Note, (2) as a reinstatement of the indebtedness evidenced by this Note, (3) as a waiver of such right of acceleration or of the right of the Holder to insist upon strict compliance with the terms of this Note, -28-
or (4) to prevent the exercise of such right of acceleration or any other right granted under this Note or by any applicable law. No extension of time for the payment of this Note, made by agreement with any person now or hereafter liable for the payment of this Note, shall operate to release, discharge, modify, change or affect the original liability of the Maker under this Note, either in whole or in part, unless the Holder agrees otherwise in writing.

This Note is the Note referred to in and is entitled to the benefits of the Agreement. All the duties, responsibilities and obligations of the Maker and the rights of the Payee under the City of Santa Barbara Master’s Degree Reimbursement Agreement shall continue until the principal amount and any other sums due hereunder have been paid in full or as set forth in the Agreement. All rights, benefits and the terms of the City of Santa Barbara Master’s Degree Reimbursement Agreement shall inure to the benefit of any Holder. Any default under the City of Santa Barbara Master’s Degree Reimbursement Agreement shall be an event of default hereunder.

The Maker hereby waives and renounces for him/herself and his/her successors and assignees, all rights to the benefits of any moratorium, reinstatement, marshalling, forbearance, valuation, stay, extension, redemption, appraisement, exemption and homestead now provided, or which may hereafter be provided by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America or of any state thereof, both as to herself and to all of her property, real and personal, against the enforcement and collection of the obligations evidenced by this Note.

Time is of the essence hereunder. The failure or forbearance of the Holder to execute any rights under this Note or under any documents executed in connection with this Note shall not affect or release the liability of any obligor, including guarantors or sureties, or against property securing this Note without enforcing any other rights or remedies against any other obligor, including guarantors or sureties or against property securing this Note. The Maker agrees to pay all costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

This Note may not be changed orally, but only in writing, signed by the party against whom enforcement of any waiver, change modification or discharge is sought.

Any notice required or permitted under this Note shall be given to the Maker or the Holder at the address set forth above (or at such other address as such party shall designated to the other party or parties in writing).

If any of the provisions of this Note shall contravene or be invalid or unenforceable under the laws of any jurisdiction where it is in effect, such contravention, invalidity or unenforceability shall not invalidate this entire Note, and this Note shall be construed as if it did not contain the particular provision or provisions held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, and all the rights of the Holder and obligations of the Maker shall be construed and enforced accordingly; always provided, however, that such invalid provision or provisions do not go to the essence of this Note so that is or their invalidity relieves the Maker from the obligation of rendering substantial performance under this Note.

This Note shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to the conflict of laws provisions of such State. -29-
As used in this Note, the terms "Maker" and "Holder" shall be deemed to include her respective heirs, successors, legal representatives and assigns, whether by voluntary action of the parties or by operation of law.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has executed this Note as of the ___________________________.
[Name of Maker]
____________________________
Signature of Maker
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _____day of_________, 20__.

NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
-30-

APPENDIX C

ICMA CODE OF ETHICS
The mission of ICMA is to create excellence in local governance by developing and fostering professional local government management worldwide. To further this mission, certain principles, as enforced by the Rules of Procedure, shall govern the conduct of every member of ICMA, who shall:

1. We believe professional management is essential to efficient and democratic local government by elected officials.

2. Affirm the dignity and worth of local government services and maintain a deep sense of social responsibility as a trusted public servant.

3. Demonstrate by word and action the highest standards of ethical conduct and integrity in all public, professional, and personal relationships in order that the member may merit the trust and respect of the elected and appointed officials, employees, and the public.

4. Serve the best interests of the people.

5. Submit policy proposals to elected officials; provide them with facts, and technical and professional advice about policy options; and collaborate with them in setting goals for the community and organization.

6. Recognize that elected representatives are accountable to their community for the decisions they make; members are responsible for implementing those decisions.

7. Refrain from all political activities which undermine public confidence in professional administrators.

Refrain from participation in the election of the members of the employing legislative body.

8. Make it a duty continually to improve the member’s professional ability and to develop the competence of associates in the use of management techniques.

9. Keep the community informed on local government affairs; encourage communication between the citizens and all local government officers; emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public; and seek to improve the quality and image of public service.

10. Resist any encroachment on professional responsibilities, believing the member should be free to carry out official policies without interference, and handle each problem without discrimination on the basis of principle and justice.

11. Handle all matters of personnel on the basis of merit so that fairness and impartiality govern a member’s decisions pertaining to appointments, pay adjustments, promotions, and discipline.

12. Public office is a public trust. A member shall not leverage his or her position for personal gain or benefit.

Adopted by the ICMA Executive Board in 1924, and most recently revised by the membership in June 2020.

ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
BARBARA ADOPTING THE 2021-2022 SALARY PLAN

APPLICABLE TO UNREPRESENTED MANAGERS AND

PROFESSIONAL ATTORNEYS (EXCEPT THE CITY
ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CITY ATTORNEY) AND THE 2021-
2022 SALARY PLAN APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN

UNREPRESENTED SAFETY MANAGERS

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The 2021-2022 Management Salary Plan applicable to unrepresented managers and professional attorneys except the City Administrator and the City Attorney and the 2021-2022 Management Salary Plan applicable to certain unrepresented safety managers, effective as of July 1, 2021, and attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B” (hereinafter the “2021-2022 Management Salary Plan”) is hereby approved.

Section 2. During the term of the Salary Plan, the City Administrator is hereby authorized to implement the terms of the 2021-2022 Management Salary Plan without further action by the City Council, unless such further Council action is required by state or federal law. This authorization shall include, but not be limited to, the authority to implement employee salary increases and changes to the salary schedule(s) that were adopted with the annual budget.
2021-2022 Management Salary Plan
Applicable to Unrepresented Managers and Professional Attorneys

1. This Management Salary Plan sets forth a plan for salary and benefit adjustments for certain unrepresented management employees for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.

2. This Salary Plan will apply to all management employees and professional attorneys not represented by a recognized employee organization, except the City Administrator and the City Attorney.

3. Salary Increases:

A. The following across-the-board base salary increases will be implemented for all employees except the City Administrator and City Attorney:

Effective December 18, 2021: 2.5%

4. A Cell Phone Allowance of $50 per month will be provided to those applicable employees who do not have a City issued cell phone.

5. The Management Performance and Compensation Plan and the Professional Attorneys Compensation Plan, will be amended, as necessary, to include these changes and any other language or de minimus changes to compensation and benefits.

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
2021-2022 Management Salary Plan
Applicable to Certain Unrepresented Safety Managers
(“Management Salary Plan 2”)

1. This Management Salary Plan sets forth a plan for salary and benefit adjustments for unrepresented management employees for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.

2. This salary plan will apply only to the following unrepresented safety management employees: Fire Division Chief-Operations, the Fire Chief, and the Police Chief. This salary plan shall not apply to police management employees represented by the Police Management Association, nor to the Fire Division Chief-Prevention or the Fire Battalion Chiefs.

3. Across-the-Board Salary Increases:

A. Effective December 18, 2021: 2.5%

4. A Cell Phone Allowance of $50 per month will be provided to those applicable employees who do not have a City issued cell phone.

5. The Management Performance and Compensation Plan will be amended, as necessary, to include these changes and any other language or de minimus changes to compensation and benefits.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Risk Management, Finance Department
SUBJECT: Employee COVID-19 Testing And Appropriate General Fund Reserves
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

DISCUSSION:

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt normal business operations throughout the region. The arrival of the omicron variant of COVID-19 saw widespread infections throughout the Santa Barbara community. Employees from numerous City operations were infected by COVID-19 in December 2021 with some divisions reaching major outbreak status. The number of reported COVID-19 cases among City staff reached a critical level in late December 2021, and in January 2022 continues to climb.

The surge in reported COVID-19 cases continues throughout the Santa Barbara community and has created a critical shortage of testing. The primary vendor used by the City for employee testing, the MedCenter, was unable to perform testing by January 4, 2022. The Cottage Health System was unable to fill the void for City staff. The Finance Director issued an emergency purchase declaration on January 11, 2022, to procure COVID-19 testing services from South Coast Analytics in an amount not to exceed Agenda Item No. 5
File Code No. 210.01
Council Agenda Report
Employee COVID-19 Testing And Appropriate General Fund Reserves February 1, 2022

Page 2 ends

$100,000 (see attachment) which allows for the anticipated amount of testing through the end of January. The emergency declaration allowed the City to procure the needed testing services to protect the health and safety of the City employees, and the local community we serve while awaiting confirmation from Council for the purchase.

City management recognizes that the testing services within the local medical community cannot handle the testing needs to keep City operations open and functioning. City management took decisive action to procure COVID-19 testing services to serve two main goals: (1) avoid overwhelming the capacity of the local medical community and (2) minimize the operational impacts from COVID-19 on the services staff deliver to the community. The agreement with South Coast Analytics accomplishes both objectives.

Staff selected South Coast Analytics based on several key components: medical qualifications to conduct the testing; possession of adequate testing kits; and the capacity to conduct on-site weekly testing for an extended period. The efforts to identify an alternative vendor for the testing services were unsuccessful – most of the competition lacked the resources and capacity to serve the City’s needs.

South Coast Analytics conducted COVID-19 testing during the month of January at an interval of at least twice weekly under the emergency purchase declaration. The results of testing removed approximately 98 asymptomatic staff from the workplace and into quarantine at home. The pro-active measure to test staff helped minimize the spread of the COVID-19 virus within the workplace and the local community.

The local and statewide figures for positive COVID-19 cases continue to increase without any sign of slowing in the immediate future. Staff recommends entering into a longer-term agreement for on-site testing through the month of March, which is anticipated to cost approximately $300,000.

BACKGROUND:

Cal/OSHA General Industry Safety Orders, §3205.1, defines the COVID-19 testing requirements employers must implement after multiple infections or an outbreak in the workplace. The initial rounds of testing revealed 98 City employees were infected with COVID-19 between December 26, 2021 and January 10, 2022. The pandemic rules require an employer to notify the local health official when the number of active COVID19 infections for staff reach or exceed a baseline level, known as an outbreak. The City notified Santa Barbara County Health about potential outbreaks at 11 separate operational sites.

The pandemic rules require the employer to provide COVID-19 testing to employees within an exposed group. The rules dictate the frequency of testing for all employees in the exposed group at a weekly interval, until there are no new COVID-19 cases detected within an exposed group for a 14-day period. The weekly testing services provided by South Coast Analytics under the emergency purchase declaration was necessary for the Council Agenda Report
Employee COVID-19 Testing And Appropriate General Fund Reserves February 1, 2022

Page 3 ends

City to meet these requirements. South Coast Analytics remains the best option to administer weekly COVID-19 testing for City staff based on its medical qualifications, the expedient necessity of the testing component, and the lack of capacity for COVID-19 testing in the Santa Barbara County medical community.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The procurement of COVID-19 testing services was not included in the City’s adopted FY2022 budget. Staff is seeking the City Council’s approval to appropriate a total of $400,000 of available General Fund reserves into the Human Resources department in FY2022 to be able to pay for these services. General Fund reserves are projected to be below policy target levels of 15% disaster reserves and 10% contingency reserves totaling 25% reserves by the end of FY2022. This appropriation request will further reduce available reserves.

The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was signed in to law on March 11, 2021. ARPA allocated $21.8 Million to the City – the first tranche of $10.9 Million received in May 2021 and the second tranche of $10.9 Million anticipated to be received in May 2022. The City Council took action during the FY2022 budget process to allocate the first tranche to the General Fund to partially offset the revenue lost directly related to economic impacts of COVID. In March 2022, staff will provide recommendations to the City Council and seek the City Council’s approval as to how to appropriate the second tranche. Using the ARPA funds for employee testing services is an allowable and recommended use of these federal funds.

A copy of the contract/agreement is available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office.

ATTACHMENT(S): Emergency Purchase Declaration
PREPARED BY: Mark Howard, Risk Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Keith DeMartini, Finance Director
Wendy Levy, Human Resources Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY PURCHASE PURSUANT TO
SANTA BARBARA MUNICIPAL CODE § 4.52.080
I, Keith DeMartini, Finance Director, declare an operational emergency in order to procure COVID testing services in the timeframe necessary to protect public health.

Work performed under blanket Purchase Order No. 32201029 was recently executed by South Coast Analytics to provide employee COVID-19 testing services in compliance with Cal/OSHA General Industry Safety Orders, §3205.1 as a result of multiple COVID-19 employee infections and outbreak statuses experienced by several City work groups.

The Finance Director has authorized work under an emergency purchase order related to general services of COVID testing.

Due to rising rates of COVID cases throughout Santa Barbara, and the need to ensure the City’s workforce remains healthy and able to perform necessary functions of their job, COVID testing services are considered essential to protect the health of employees and the public.

An operational emergency declaration is warranted because compliance with City bidding procedures would have required additional time to solicit proposals and execute a contract. In addition, the extra time to solicit multiple proposals would have delayed the implementation of offering COVID testing services. Due to the ongoing public health emergency, it is urgent to provide the services without delay.

The work is funded by appropriations that already exist in the City’s General Fund in the FY2022 adopted budget. A report to City Council regarding this emergency purchase order and additional appropriations is scheduled for February 1, 2022.

The declaration shall be reported to the City Council within a reasonable time pursuant to Municipal Code Section 4.52.080E.
__________________________________
Signature
1/11/2022

ATTACHMENT

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
SUBJECT: Authorization To Execute Amended Legal Services Agreement With Best, Best & Krieger, LLP And Related Budget Actions
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

DISCUSSION:

The City relies upon a combination of in-house and outside legal services. We limit the use of outside counsel to four situations where we believe the additional expense to be warranted. These situations include:
 When specialized expertise is needed and it would not be cost effective or timely to develop that expertise in-house;
 When the City needs “marquee talent” due to the importance or complexity of a matter;
 When the City Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interests; and  When workload exceeds the capacity of the City Attorney’s Office.

In this case, the City retained the legal services of Shawn Hagerty from Best, Best & Krieger to assist the City in working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) to address the investigation of PFAS concentrations at the Airport. Investigation of PFAS and coordination with the Water Board as a result of the use of federally Agenda Item No. 6
Council Agenda Report
Authorization To Execute Amended Legal Services Agreement With Best, Best & Krieger, LLP And Related Budget Actions
February 1, 2022

Page 2 ends

mandated firefighting foam requires specialized legal expertise. Mr. Hagerty has extensive experience in both working with the Water Board and PFAS. It is anticipated that the services of Best, Best & Krieger will be needed for at least another 12 months.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The cost for legal support for this case will be paid from the Airport Operating Fund reserves.

PREPARED BY: Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
SUBMITTED BY: Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Facilities Division, Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Contract For Professional Services To Administer The Community Workforce Agreement Associated With The Central Library Renovation Project
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a City Professional Services Agreement with TSG Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $48,552 to administer the requirements set forth in the Community Workforce Agreement for the Central Library Renovation Project, and authorize expenditures of up to $4,855 for extra services that may result from necessary changes in the scope of work.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The City entered into a Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) with the Tri Counties Building & Construction Trades Council beginning on July 20, 2021. This agreement applies when the engineer’s estimate for construction is over $5,000,000. This includes any work done to public buildings, streets, drains, sewers, utilities, parks & playgrounds, Harbor facilities, and Airport facilities. The City will be combining and performing three separately permitted construction projects at the Central Library located at 40 East Anapamu Street in Santa Barbara. Due to a number of factors, including design completion timing (all were completed within weeks of each other), financial efficiencies realized through mobilizing a single construction contractor, and expedited scheduling under a single contractor, City staff has decided to combine the three projects under one master contract. The engineer’s estimate for the combined projects has exceeded the minimum threshold of $5,000,000.

Consultant Services
TSG Enterprises, Inc. (TSG) will provide comprehensive services that administer the duties of the Community Workforce Coordinator as identified in the CWA for the Central Library Renovation project. Duties include payroll requirements monitoring and enforcement, coordinating the local workforce thresholds, overseeing all grievance and Agenda Item No. 7
Council Agenda Report
Contract For Professional Services To Administer The Community Workforce Agreement Associated With The Central Library Renovation Project
February 1, 2022

Page 2 ends

dispute processes, assisting City personnel in responding to inquiries and requests from interested parties, scheduling and managing meetings with the Joint Committee, and general administration of the requirements set in the CWA.

Services will be provided for the duration of the construction of the Central Library project which is anticipated to be 15 months, starting in March of 2022.

Staff sent out a competitive Request For Proposals for professional services of the CWA through PlanetBids and received multiple responses. A five-staff panel thoroughly evaluated all proposals via a Qualifications Based Selection process, as set forth by the Brooks Act, and concluded that the proposal by TSG shows that it is most qualified to complete the work.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The cost for the proposal was in line with market rates for this type of project and within range of the City’s budget estimates. There are sufficient appropriated funds in the Measure C Capital Fund to cover the costs associated with the Project. Failure to acquire professional expertise for the City’s first time administration of a Community Workforce Agreement could result in delays and project work flow inefficiencies that will cause the project costs to escalate well beyond the cost of this requested support contract.

A copy of the contract may be requested from the Public Works Department for public review; please contact [email protected] to request a copy.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is not required for the professional services provided under this Contract.

PREPARED BY: Angela Oslund, Facilities & Fleet Manager/JW/td SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E, Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Facilities Division, Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Contract Amendments For Construction Support Services Associated With The Central Library Renovation Project
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract amendment with Arcadia Studio, a California Corporation, to amend the scope of services to include construction support services associated with the Central Library Renovation Project in the amount of $25,000;
B. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract amendment with LMA Architects, a California Corporation, to amend the scope of services associated with the new Americans with Disabilities Act elevator design included in the Central Library Renovation Project in the amount of $10,359; and C. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract amendment with LMA Architects, a California Corporation, in the amount of $55,215 to amend the scope of services to include construction support services associated with the Central Library Renovation Project and authorize the Public Works Director to approve expenditures of up to $5,522 for extra services as necessary.

DISCUSSION:

Central Library Project: The Central Library, located at 40 East Anapamu Street, has recently completed the design phase for three separately permitted plan sets with three separate scopes of work. Due to a number of factors including design completion timing (all were completed within weeks of each other), financial efficiencies realized through mobilizing a single construction contractor, and expedited scheduling under a single contractor, City staff has decided to combine the three projects under one master contract. The three designs remain independent, which present their own challenges and complexities. Therefore, the Design Professionals currently under contract for design services as described below will need to be retained for architect/engineering services during construction.

Agenda Item No. 8
Council Agenda Report
Contract Amendments For Construction Support Services Associated With The Central Library Renovation Project
February 1, 2022

Page 2 ends

Arcadia Studio, Inc.: On October 23, 2018, the City executed a professional services agreement, contract 26,298, with Arcadia Studio, Inc. in the amount of $84,201 with authorized expenditures of $8,420 for extra services. The original scope of work included services to facilitate the approval process for design and permitting. The permit was approved on October 21, 2021. Due to the complexity of the design, construction support services are deemed necessary and were not included in the original scope of work.

Construction support services will be provided for a Not To Exceed total of $25,0001.

LMA Architects, Inc.: On June 19, 2018, Council awarded a professional services agreement, contract 26,177, with LMA Architects, Inc. in the amount of $106,000 for the design of a new compliant Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) elevator at the Central Library. Council also authorize the Public Works Director to approve expenditures up to $10,600 for extra services that resulted from necessary changes in work. The original scope of work included services to facilitate the approval process for design and permitting. Through the permitting process for the new ADA compliant elevator at the Central Library (approved on November 11, 2021), it was determined that a code alternate was required for final approval; therefore, extra services were deemed necessary. The cost for extra services totaled $19,278. Using the remaining $8,919 of the previously approved $10,600 for extra services, the total outstanding amount being requested is $10,3592.

In addition, due to the complexity of the design, construction support services are deemed necessary and were not included in the original scope of work. Construction support services will be provided for a Not To Exceed total of $55,2153.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Design By Contract (Arcadia Studio) $84,201
Other Design By Contract (Additional Services) $136,287 Contingencies $19,509
Design Subtotal (Arcadia Studio) $239,997
Construction Support Services Amendment $25,0001
TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Arcadia Studio) $264,997
Design By Contract (LMA Architects, Inc.) $106,000
Other Design By Contract (Additional Services) $22,000
Allocated Contingencies $1,681
Design Subtotal (LMA Architects) $129,681
Extra Services $19,278
Previously Approved Contingencies ($8,919)
Subtotal Extra Services Amendment $10,3592
Construction Support Services Amendment $55,2153
TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (LMA Architects) $195,255
Council Agenda Report
Contract Amendments For Construction Support Services Associated With The Central Library Renovation Project
February 1, 2022

Page 3 ends

There are sufficient appropriated funds in the Measure C Capital Fund to cover the costs associated with the Project.

A copy of the contract may be requested from the Public Works Department for public review; please contact [email protected] to request a copy.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is not required for the professional services provided under this Contract.

PREPARED BY: Angela Oslund, Facilities & Fleet Manager/JW/td SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E, Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Water Resources Division, Public Works Department SUBJECT: Sole Source Agreement With Hadronex Inc. For The Purchase And Installation Of SmartCover Level Sensor Units
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Find and determine that SmartCover Level Sensor Units are a sole source product and service and authorize the purchase of SmartCover Level Sensor Units from Hadronex Inc. as the sole source provider pursuant to the Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 4.52.070(K); and
B. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute a sole source services contract with Hadronex Inc. doing business as SmartCover, in the amount of $295,688 for the purchase, installation, and maintenance of 45 SmartCover Level Sensor Units.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The City of Santa Barbara (City) maintains a 256-mile gravity wastewater collection system, including seven lift stations and approximately two miles of force main. To analyze the flows received by El Estero Water Resource Center (EEWRC), the City performed an Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) study in 2003-2004. This study captured wastewater flows in 45 locations throughout the City, which led to the development of the sewer basins we use today. Almost 20 years later, the City plans to mimic the original project to serve as a benchmark study that would analyze the effectiveness of its Rehabilitation Program and any changes in capacity since the original study. New State laws allowing for the creation of additional dwelling units on parcels are anticipated to result in an increase in wastewater flows to EEWRC. The data gathered from this study will support the City’s Master Plan Update and Capital Improvement Programs, including helping to identify any newly arisen capacity issues.

Agenda Item No. 9
Council Agenda Report
Sole Source Agreement With Hadronex Inc. For The Purchase And Installation Of SmartCover Level Sensor Units
February 1, 2022

Page 2 ends

Discussion
To perform this study, the City finds it in its best interest to seek a sole source agreement for the purchase of SmartCover Level Sensor Units, which are a proprietary product of Hadronex Inc. (SmartCover). These units collect level data in the wastewater collection system and transmit this data via the Iridium satellite network. The advantage of a satellite-based network over a cellular-based network is reduced communication interruptions due to natural events (storms, wildfires, network availability, etc.) and complete City-wide coverage under one communications carrier. To get the same cellular coverage, a propagation study would need to be done and the level sensors would need to be outfitted with different cellular carriers based on performance testing. Given the topography of the City, there is also a good chance some areas might not be reachable by a cellular-based network. Furthermore, cellular-based level sensor units require periodic upgrades to keep pace with cellular network upgrades, which can be costly and inconvenient. Operating via a satellite-based network eliminates the need for these periodic upgrades. SmartCover is the only remote sewer level monitor that utilizes the Iridium satellite network for communications in California. SmartCover level sensor configurations are patent protected. SmartCover is a qualified contractor and produces quality equipment.

These units will be used initially for the benchmark I&I study of the wastewater levels throughout the City, ultimately supporting the City’s Master Plan Update and the Capital Improvement Program. In the future, these units will be relocated to manholes adjacent to sewer mains on high-frequency cleaning programs to reduce demand on the Wastewater Collections staff. This will allow staff to refocus their time on other preventative maintenance activities, which supports the goal of preventing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs).

Gold Coast Environmental is the only approved installation subcontractor for SmartCover in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. This contractor will provide installation labor, traffic control as necessary, and a two-year labor warranty for any necessary site visits.

Gold Coast Environmental is a qualified contractor and able to perform level sensor installation efficiently and effectively, which reduces the impact to the public and surrounding businesses. SmartCover will provide a two-year warranty on the level sensor units and two years of active site management, while Gold Coast Environmental, SmartCover’s subcontractor, will perform the installation with traffic control and a twoyear labor warranty for any site visits necessary.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

There are sufficient appropriated funds in the Wastewater Capital Fund in the Fiscal Year 2022 adopted budget to cover the cost of this sole source agreement in the amount of $295,688.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Council Agenda Report
Sole Source Agreement With Hadronex Inc. For The Purchase And Installation Of SmartCover Level Sensor Units
February 1, 2022

Page 3 ends

Monitoring wastewater levels in high-frequency cleaning mains via SmartCover level sensor units will allow City staff to perform cleaning on a higher volume of sewer mains in the system. Cleaning sewer mains is an essential aspect of preventative maintenance of the sanitary sewer system and supports the City’s goal of preventing SSOs.

SmartCover units will provide real-time data and notifications of high wastewater levels.

This allows City staff to respond quickly, therefore reducing the occurrence of SSOs and subsequent cleanups.

WATER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

This item was presented to the Water Commission at its meeting on January 20, 2022, and the Commission voted 4-0 in support of staff’s recommendation.

PREPARED BY: Amanda Flesse, Wastewater System Manager/SE/rb SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Housing and Human Services Division, Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Response To The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report On Housing The Homeless In Santa Barbara County During The Pandemic
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter of response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report titled “Keys to Housing the Homeless.” DISCUSSION:

On November 19, 2021, the City received a letter requesting review of and responses to a Grand Jury report titled “Keys to Housing the Homeless” (Attachment 1), which analyzed countywide efforts to shelter individuals experiencing homelessness during the COVID19 pandemic. The Grand Jury’s report was specific to the County of Santa Barbara, but all the cities in the county were asked to respond to four of the report’s six findings as well as provide a recommendation as to continuing housing programs such as Project Roomkey and Project Homekey. The City must respond to the Grand Jury’s report within 90 days of receipt.

In 2020, the State of California initiated and provided emergency funding for Project Roomkey and Project Homekey to help reduce the transmission of COVID-19 among unsheltered, chronically ill or elderly homeless persons who were particularly at risk of contracting the virus. Specifically, Project Roomkey provided hotel rooms for short-term use, and Project Homekey was subsequently implemented with the goal of rapidly converting existing buildings into permanent housing. The Grand Jury lauded the County and local cities for quickly implementing both programs locally during the height of the pandemic.

By the end of September 2021, Project Roomkey had assisted 88 participants’ transition into permanent housing countywide. Project Homekey then enabled the County, in Agenda Item No. 10
Council Agenda Report
Response To The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report On Housing The Homeless In Santa Barbara County During The Pandemic
February 1, 2022

Page 2 ends

partnership with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara, to acquire and convert an office building in Lompoc into permanent housing, which secured homes for 14 previously homeless individuals along with one manager unit in order to provide oversight.

The Grand Jury notes that the success of these programs helped a fraction of the total countywide homeless population and recommends that the County and cities build on the partnerships established during the pandemic to further identify potential sites and eligible funding to replicate these successes. As a notable highlight, the Grand Jury acknowledged the City of Santa Barbara for initiating a Roomkey-like project at the Rose Garden Inn in order to reduce the threat of fires from homeless encampments in fireprone areas. This project was just a fraction of the overall number of programs and services provided by the City in support of our homeless residents.

The Grand Jury also recognized the challenges faced by the County and cities in securing housing: lack of available property in the County and property owners’ reluctance to allow use of their properties to house the homeless, noting that the sole property converted to housing with Project Homekey funding in Lompoc was County-owned. Other identified impediments include high property values, expensive rents, a steady and recovering tourism business for hotels, and neighborhood resistance.

The Grand Jury concluded that with the infusion of new state and federal funds made available by the Fiscal Year 2021–2022 state budget and the American Rescue Plan, the County, cities, and Housing Authorities should make every effort to secure more housing for individuals experiencing homelessness.

The City largely agrees with the Grand Jury’s findings and, in partnership with the County, has already implemented the recommendations outlined in the report. The City’s response letter to the Grand Jury (Attachment 2) details how city and county agencies are working together to identify potential sites for these type of housing projects.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Grand Jury Report titled “Keys to Housing the Homeless”

2. City of Santa Barbara’s Response to the Grand Jury
PREPARED BY: Liz Stotts, Senior Community Development Programs Specialist SUBMITTED BY: Elias Isaacson, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1D15714-FD3C-4036-904C-2DF1FB089191 ATTACHMENT 1
2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 1

THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS
Two State Programs Offer Rooms and Homes

SUMMARY
In 2020, the State of California (State) proposed two programs to help communities manage their homeless populations: Project Roomkey and Project Homekey. Both programs were also an urgent response to the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent disastrous effects on the homeless.

Roomkey secured short-term hotel rooms for chronically ill elderly homeless who were at risk of catching and spreading the virus. Homekey was intended to house some of that same population through conversion of available buildings to permanent housing. The State offered one-time funding for the communities able to meet specific time sensitive requirements. Santa Barbara County (County) took advantage of the State’s offers to provide temporary and permanent housing to some of the County’s homeless.

The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) studied the two new Projects as they were implemented in Santa Barbara County. The Roomkey funding ended September 30, 2021; the Homekey funding allocation ended December 31, 2020. These time constraints motivated Santa Barbara County agencies to work together quickly to accomplish the housing goals.

The County has found it difficult to duplicate its successes with Projects Roomkey and Homekey. There is a discouraging lack of available property in the County, and property owners are reluctant to turn over what they have for the purpose of housing the homeless. Nor are there identified local funds to sustain the two programs without additional State and Federal grant allocations. The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury looked into the barriers that limit the success of the two homeless programs.

INTRODUCTION
The COVID-19 virus increased the need for homeless services, highlighting the dire conditions for a subset of the unhoused population who were especially at risk of contracting the virus – the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions. In the spring of 2020, hospitals were filling up at a time when people were exposed to the virus. At the same time, homeless shelters were required to implement social distancing, which forced them to reduce their population (at one shelter by more than 60 percent and at another by 13 percent) because of COVID and send some individuals back into the streets. The County needed to determine the best way to protect the homeless.

Confronting this challenge, the State of California initiated a plan with generous funding for the counties struggling with how to protect the homeless from the virus. Using Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) funding, the State offered two programs, Project Roomkey and Project Homekey, to stimulate community participation in these innovative housing programs for the homeless.

In April 2020, Governor Newsom announced Project Roomkey, which would get people experiencing homelessness and at risk of getting COVID into participating hotels or motels on an emergency basis. Roomkey was intended to open underused hotel or motel rooms for the DocuSign Envelope ID: C1D15714-FD3C-4036-904C-2DF1FB089191 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 2
homeless who needed to isolate or quarantine from exposure to COVID-19. The State’s goal was to find up to 15,000 rooms to temporarily shelter these homeless in supervised programs with case management. Jurisdictions who participated also agreed to then re-house them into permanent housing, supported by services.

As a first response to the pandemic, Roomkey was considered an interim response to a public health crisis that had already strained the health care system. The original program termination date was June 30, 2021; it was later extended to September 30, 2021. Statewide, a total of $150 million was dedicated to the initial Project Roomkey in June 2020. The Governor added another $62 million in November 2020 in order to avoid evictions of those homeless in rooms when the program was set to end in December 2020.

Project Homekey was intended to be the next step in the longer term crisis of homelessness by converting hotels and other similar buildings to permanent housing. On June 30, 2020, the State introduced Homekey for homeless housing using $600 million of coronavirus relief funds for the program statewide, and $300 million to help efforts to reduce homelessness. Similar to Roomkey, Homekey was conceived as a State partnership with cities and counties applying for grants, this time to purchase hotels, motels and other appropriate but underused buildings for conversion. The rehabilitated units would provide permanent housing for the homeless. By the end of 2020, more than $846 million had been awarded to 48 jurisdictions for 94 projects across the State.

In the process of tackling homeless vulnerability during the pandemic, Santa Barbara County and its cities made promising steps to address homelessness with the one-time State funding. The County leased rooms in a hotel in South County for Project Roomkey for a limited time and converted an office building in North County for permanent housing using Project Homekey funding. A great deal of collaboration among County agencies went into the accomplishment of these two projects, establishing important groundwork for any future homeless projects. Yet even with outside funding either ending or being time-restricted, the long-term future of Projects Roomkey and Homekey, including property acquisition and conversion, in Santa Barbara County is uncertain.

METHODOLOGY
The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury interviewed representatives from homeless assistance programs across the County, Santa Barbara County Housing and Community Development Division, and the City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department.

The Jury also interviewed representatives from the Santa Barbara County Public Health and Santa Barbara County Behavioral Wellness Departments, as well as the Santa Barbara City and County Housing Authorities. The Jury met with an affordable housing contractor, a homeless shelter case manager, and a homeless shelter executive director. Additionally, numerous news articles, local city and County agenda letters, and State public information posts were reviewed.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C1D15714-FD3C-4036-904C-2DF1FB089191 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 3

OBSERVATIONS
Project Roomkey
In February 2020, the Santa Barbara County Housing and Community Development Division reported a total of 1,897 homeless county wide, of which 1,223 were unsheltered, 674 in emergency shelters or transitional housing. One month later, the Board of Supervisors declared a local emergency for the pandemic. County officials quickly formed a COVID-19 Homeless Task Force Response Team and devised emergency solutions to strategic problems hitting the homeless population. With shelters needing to minimize occupancy and various agencies closing down, the homeless lost access to beds and to such services as showers and meals. The Santa Barbara County Task Force devised alternative sites for beds and services. One first step was the opening of the gym at Santa Maria High School; it was converted to a shelter for 71 homeless individuals for two months. Concurrently, the Public Health Department began by securing a limited number of rooms as emergency shelters in hotels in North and South County in order to protect those at risk of contracting COVID-19.

The Task Force also initiated steps that led to participation with the State in Project Roomkey.

By the end of April 2020, the County was able to open rooms at a hotel in South County. The City of Santa Barbara and People Assisting the Homeless (PATH) helped organize this novel response to the pandemic. Roomkey in the County began with 40 homeless individuals. In Santa Barbara County, county officials prioritized individuals over age 65 with a serious health condition, then those under 65 with a serious health condition, and lastly those over 65. The age qualification was later lowered to 55. FEMA later made these criteria for Roomkey housing official for all the chronically homeless in the State.

Santa Barbara County Public Health did a medical review to establish adherence to Center for Disease Control guidelines for those who were invited to join the program. The homeless came from the hospital emergency rooms and shelters, but mostly from the streets. Originally, they were invited to stay 90 days, but extensions were allowed. At its peak, there were 70 occupants participating in Project Roomkey. By October 2021, the Project had sheltered over 190 individuals.

While not all seniors with chronic illnesses chose to take advantage of the Roomkey housing continuum due to program restrictions (curfew, and no noise, smoking, visitors, alcohol, or drugs, etc.), the Jury learned the target population is more likely to move into a hotel room rather than into congregate shelters.

Locally, it was difficult to find hotels to participate in Project Roomkey. Hotel owners were hesitant to house a high-risk population. The County was unable to find a willing participant in North County, and only one hotel in South County agreed to rent one wing for a limited period of time. Even the drop in hotel occupancy during the pandemic was not enough to entice hotel owners to turn over their rooms to a county-run program for the homeless. The original Roomkey hotel returned to tourism at the beginning of 2021. Fortunately, the County was able to lease another hotel in South County with rooms for 80 individuals and rent as many as ten hotel rooms in Santa Maria.

One intention of the Roomkey program was to house individuals until they could transition into permanent housing, a process estimated to take 90 days. Successfully staying in a hotel room was considered a stepping-stone to independent living. By the end of September 2021, eightyDocuSign Envelope ID: C1D15714-FD3C-4036-904C-2DF1FB089191 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 4
eight individuals were able to make the transition. The most vulnerable were the first to be rehoused with services.1 With the fortunate timing of units becoming available in newly opened apartment complexes with the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara, nine formerly homeless moved into existing available units. Others “voluntarily or involuntarily exited” the program, according to the County. At the one-year mark, program administrators within the County reported to the Jury that 56 percent of Roomkey participants had left the streets and moved into housing. The rate dropped slightly by the program’s end in September due to a lack of available units, reducing the ability to re-house clients. 2 It has been estimated that the cost of housing one person in a hotel room with provided services is $180 per night. Services include security, staff, meals, transportation, and supplies. FEMA will reimburse the County only up to $90 per night, and the County must make up the difference.

FEMA reimbursement is expected to end in December 2021. Behavioral Wellness and Public Health continue to provide wraparound services, which include case management and medical and mental health care. To date, the County has been able to tap into CARES funds and homeless program funds from the Department of Social Services to pay the extra room and service costs. With Roomkey, local hospitals, County, and municipal public services were spared some heavy recurring costs and services related to caring for this dependent population.

The first Project Roomkey in Santa Barbara County received more than $1 million in State funding. Project Roomkey is dependent on funding from the State and Federal government, and the program cannot continue unless the County identifies another revenue source. The 2021-22 California State budget is maintaining $150 million in funding for a modified Project Roomkey and Rehousing Strategy, with the intention of allowing residents of Roomkey to stay until they can find permanent housing. From that, Santa Barbara County will receive a baseline allocation of $772,384 for the work of transitioning the formerly homeless. That money will be used to rehouse at least 40 of those remaining in the Roomkey motel.

Project Roomkey has been a model for other programs in the County. City Net in the City of Santa Barbara has been inviting homeless individuals to stay in 15 different motels located around the city for six months. City Net’s program, known as the scattered model, is being considered for future hotel/motel leasing in the County because of its reduced impact on surrounding businesses and neighborhoods. City Net also established a temporary Roomkey-type program in Santa Barbara. After the Loma Fire within city limits in May 2021, the Santa Barbara City Council voted to pay for a program to shelter those living in encampments through the fourmonth fire season. Full-service motel rooms are expensive,3 but the City of Santa Barbara felt it
had to do something to reduce the threat of fires from homeless encampments in fire-prone areas.

Roomkey has served as a stimulus for thinking creatively about homeless issues and for opening doors to homeless housing. Overall, Project Roomkey motivated the County to find a quick and easily accomplished solution for the most vulnerable homeless at a critical time.

1 This follows the National Alliance to End Homelessness, Housing First protocol of housing the most vulnerable first.
2 The Housing Authorities of Santa Barbara County and the City of Santa Barbara have several affordable housing projects in progress now. Each development includes some units for formerly homeless clients. There should be a greater movement through the housing continuum again once the Housing Authority units are available, which will increase the re-housing rate percentage again.
3 The daily cost of the room was estimated at $109/day, plus $157/day for services. (Nick Welsh. “Upper State Street Motel May Rent All Rooms to Homeless.” Santa Barbara Independent. June 26, 2021.) DocuSign Envelope ID: C1D15714-FD3C-4036-904C-2DF1FB089191 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 5
Project Homekey
Project Homekey is California’s evolutionary next step after Project Roomkey. The State hoped that some of the Roomkey hotels would become part of Homekey’s permanent housing program.

While none of the hotels were willing to sell to the County, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara (HASBARCO) applied for and received one grant award of $3.12 million to acquire an office building in Lompoc and repurpose it to permanent housing with supportive services for its residents. The County added $1.5 million. The building had originally been an apartment building and then was converted to an office building used by the County’s Behavioral Wellness Department. Some remodeling was needed to create apartments again.

The State not only challenged jurisdictions to find buildings to rehabilitate for the homeless, but it also imposed tight time restrictions in the application process. Project Homekey was announced June 30, 2020. Local governments had to identify properties, have remodeling plans, partners, and a proposal in place by August 13, five weeks after the announcement of funding.

They then needed to purchase the properties, revitalize them, and, finally, occupy them by the end of the year. In Lompoc, 14 residents and one manager moved into their new homes just before and just after the deadline of December 31, 2020. All in all, this was a five-and-a-halfmonth process.

With news of the Homekey grant program, the director of HASBARCO called emergency meetings with the County and its agencies. The County assembled a task force from all involved agencies to break down bureaucratic walls and speed up the process. 4 One advantage that the
County had was that the office building to be converted was already owned by the County. The Planning and Development Department was able to self-permit and do its own inspections, and regulations such as land use, zoning, and building codes could be streamlined. HASBARCO engaged a developer who was familiar with the most efficient ways to get things done and who worked up to seven days a week. The City of Lompoc contributed to the teamwork. The State also cooperated in easing certain deadlines, understanding the imposition of the short timeline.

Construction projects in this County typically take three to four years. The spirit of collaboration moved this project forward in less than six months, an unparalleled accomplishment in recent Santa Barbara County building history.

The Homekey Project is meant to be an economical way to house the homeless. State officials have estimated that the state average for the cost of purchase and rehabilitation of existing buildings in Project Homekey came to $147,974 per unit (including an average local match of $23,987), while the cost of building from the ground up comes to $400,000 per unit.5In an expensive county such as Santa Barbara, the Jury was told the per unit cost is considered to be around $200,000-$250,000 to convert and a minimum of $450,000 per unit to build from the ground up.

Clients moving in to the Homekey units were vetted by the County’s Coordinated Entry System (CES), which assesses clients and matches them with services. Still being a time of a pandemic, clients were selected with the first criteria of protecting them from COVID-19. They also had to

4 Expediency minimizes costs during construction. That way, more money can be spent on the purchase of buildings.
5 Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. “Governor Newsom Announces Major Homekey Milestone: All 94 Sites Closing Escrow Ahead of Deadline.” December 29, 2020. In another estimate made on April 5, 2021, Lou Hirsh of Co-Star News quoted the conversion estimate to be $138,513, and the building average was $400,000 per unit.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C1D15714-FD3C-4036-904C-2DF1FB089191 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 6
be able to live responsibly and independently. Homeless officials have told the Jury that many homeless no longer want to live in a congregate setting; they want their own space, and this often helps their stability. All supportive housing includes services (e.g., health care, mental health, and case management), which are considered essential for their success in independent living.

As permanent residents, the clients have to pay rent. Typically, the formerly homeless are issued a Section 8 voucher.6This Federal program allows clients to pay only 30 percent of their income (often Social Security or Disability Benefits) toward rent. The Federal government pays the rest.

VA Supportive Housing (VASH) is available to take care of rent payments for veterans.

While the COVID-19 pandemic depressed hotel demand from tourism, no owners were willing to sell their properties for the purpose of being transformed to homeless housing. Acquiring hotels will only be more difficult when tourism is flourishing again. The Jury was told that local officials have “scoured the universe” looking for available properties that were willing to sell to the County, yet could find only one pre-owned possibility in North or South County for the Homekey project. In the end, the site selected for Homekey was offered by a County department, Behavioral Wellness.

For Project Homekey, there are local impediments inherent in buying hotels in local communities: limited available real estate, high property values, expensive rents, a steady and recovering tourism business for hotels, and neighborhood resistance. Often in planning housing for the homeless, there is a need for negotiations with neighborhoods. The Jury heard that the onset of the pandemic temporarily fostered a more tolerant view of housing the homeless. There were no protests against the Homekey project. HASBARCO’s goal is to be a good neighbor. In addition to hosting neighborhood forums, both Housing Authorities address community concerns in all its housing projects. Their housing developments are landscaped, maintained well, and have onsite supervision for the security of neighbors, as well as its clients. Moreover, the Department of Behavioral Wellness provides case management services for every resident.

The County hopes to create Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with cities, which could consolidate funding and foster regional cooperation. Santa Barbara City and County Housing Authorities have worked with corporations and banks to gain their investment in community housing, mostly through tax credits. Local leaders have approached church organizations and school districts for support. More housing alliances could be forged with hospitals and service organizations to apply for Homekey funds, for example. County departments such as Behavioral Wellness, Public Health, and Social Services could band together to apply for funding for projects. While these concepts can help, funding for housing for the homeless continues to be dependent upon State and Federal money.

Homekey funding comes at a time when the State is contributing extraordinary amounts of money to solve homelessness. The 2021-22 State budget earmarked $1.45 billion for Homekey, Round 2, and an additional $1.3 billion the following year. The State is allowing more flexibility in the criteria in the types of buildings to convert and the amount of time to convert them.

Jurisdictions have between the end of September 2021 and the beginning of May 2022 (or until all funds are exhausted) to submit an application. Once funding is awarded, jurisdictions have eight months to expend the funding and 12 months to complete construction. The building must

6 The County estimates 80% of those transitioning into permanent housing require a subsidy. The County’s Phase II Community Action Plan to Address Homelessness calculated a need for a total of 531 long-term subsidies and 835 permanent supportive housing units for the County.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C1D15714-FD3C-4036-904C-2DF1FB089191 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 7
be fully occupied within 90 days after completion. However, there is no guarantee of receiving an award from the State. Santa Barbara County must apply and compete with other California counties and jurisdictions for these limited-time funds.

As of September 2021, no sites had been identified for homeless projects. There is no line item in the budget for acquisition of property to house the homeless at the County level or within city jurisdictions. To qualify for more state Homekey funding, the County must be ready with a site, partners, and its own complementary funding.7 Given the temporary nature of the State funding, agencies need to apply the lessons from the first Homekey success in terms of quick acquisition of a site, ready funding, and inter-departmental cooperation. The County has created a “strike team,” but other jurisdictions could also help prepare plans to take advantage of funding opportunities. Identifying possible sites and opening negotiations with the owners ahead of funding announcements remains a critical component to success. Above all, to secure the legacy of the Homekey program, the County and its cities and agencies need to work together to put plans in place.

CONCLUSION
The confluence of a pandemic and a State budget surplus created an exceptional opportunity for those that work with the homeless population. The cost and magnitude of the homeless issues must be addressed with the cooperation of the Federal, State, and local governments. For 2021- 22, there is $150 million in State funding available for Roomkey and $1.45 billion for Homekey.

The County and cities would not be able to consider leasing or purchasing buildings for these homeless programs and providing services without this funding.

The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury concluded that the County, cities, and Housing Authorities would do well to make every effort to secure more housing for the homeless at this time when State and Federal money is available. Incentives that the County offers community partners now could produce more positive outcomes than at any other time. In the long run, extra funds spent on homeless housing now can reduce the millions of dollars being absorbed as collateral homeless expenses by county or city agencies such as fire, police, ambulance, public and environmental health, hospitals, jails, parks, libraries, mental health clinics, public works, street maintenance, and more. In the future, savings from these respective departments could be combined for homeless projects.

While Roomkey and Homekey have only helped a fraction of the total homeless in the County, the two projects have set a precedent and illuminated the way for similar projects to house the homeless. County agencies can work together to accomplish rapid results. It took a global emergency to bring community partners to the table with a true sense of collaboration. Now that those alliances are established, these agencies can more effectively coordinate the work to purchase and convert buildings for formerly homeless residents. Santa Barbara County and its cities must continue to work together and devise incentives and methods of funding to further the successes of Projects Roomkey and Homekey.

7 In the meantime, County, state, and Federal funds are being allocated to other forms of homeless housing:
$1,935,000 over three years for an encampment response program, and $4,935,560 over three years for a new shelter, pallet homes, and a tiny home project. The County hopes to add 100 available beds with these three programs. It also hopes that Project Homekey will add the same number of beds for the homeless. Only the first year is considered for funding now. Without state funding and Federal grants, these programs would have to be curtailed also.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C1D15714-FD3C-4036-904C-2DF1FB089191 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 8

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
During the COVID-19 pandemic Project Roomkey demonstrated the value of providing rooms, with appropriate services, for the vulnerable elderly homeless with underlying health conditions.

Recommendation 1
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County establish programs similar to Roomkey in both North and South County to continue to provide rooms, with appropriate services, for vulnerable elderly homeless with underlying health conditions.

Finding 2
Few hotels and motels throughout Santa Barbara County were willing to participate in Project Roomkey.

Recommendation 2
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department to form an alliance with all city councils within the County to develop a roster of hotels and motels willing to participate in a Roomkey-type program.

Finding 3
Buildings for Homekey conversion have been difficult to locate and acquire.

Recommendation 3
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County identify possible Homekey sites including government owned properties in each jurisdiction.

Finding 4
Project Homekey called upon various Santa Barbara County departments to work together creatively, quickly, and economically to transform a County owned office building into housing for the homeless.

Recommendation 4
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department to solidify a team to replicate the successful efforts in converting buildings efficiently into housing for the homeless.

Finding 5
Both Project Roomkey and Project Homekey are reliant on short-term or one-time funding from the State and Federal governments.

Recommendation 5
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County develop and implement a plan for funding Roomkey and Homekey-type programs.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C1D15714-FD3C-4036-904C-2DF1FB089191 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 9
Finding 6
The Roomkey and Homekey programs require funding to provide wraparound services for the homeless.

Recommendation 6
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Public Health, Behavioral Wellness, and Social Services Departments, along with the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department, to explore options for funding for wraparound services.

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

Responses to Findings shall be either:
 Agree
 Disagree wholly
 Disagree partially with an explanation
Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following:
 Has been implemented, with brief summary of implementation actions taken  Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule
 Requires further analysis, with analysis completion date of no more than six months after the issuance of the report
 Will not be implemented, with an explanation of why
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
City of Buellton – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
City of Carpinteria – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
City of Goleta – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1D15714-FD3C-4036-904C-2DF1FB089191 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 10
City of Guadalupe – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
City of Lompoc – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
City of Santa Barbara – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
City of Santa Maria – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
City of Solvang – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: C1D15714-FD3C-4036-904C-2DF1FB089191  Please consider the environment before printing this letter.

February 1, 2022
Gustavo Lavayen
Presiding Judge
Santa Barbara County Superior Court
312 E. Cook St.

Santa Maria, Ca. 93454
Reference: Response to Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report titled, “Keys to Housing the Homeless” received November 19, 2021.

Honorable Gustavo Lavayen and Grand Jury Foreperson:

Please find attached the City of Santa Barbara’s response to the above referenced Grand Jury report. As directed by the Grand Jury, all responses are provided in accordance with Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code.

Should the Grand Jury have any questions regarding the City’s response, or wish to follow up with the City, please contact me, or Interim City Administrator Rebecca Bjork, or City Attorney Ariel Calonne.

Sincerely,
Randy Rowse
Mayor
Cc: Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
City Councilmembers
Rebecca Bjork, Interim City Administrator
Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
Elias Isaacson, Community Development Director
Laura Dubbels, Housing and Human Services Manager
Attachment
ATTACHMENT 2
1 City of Santa Barbara’s Response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury report:

The Keys to Housing the Homeless
The City of Santa Barbara’s responses below are only to the findings and recommendations that pertain to the City of Santa Barbara as identified in the Grand Jury’s Report. • Finding 1: During the COVID-19 pandemic Project Roomkey demonstrated the value of providing rooms, with appropriate services, for the vulnerable elderly homeless with underlying health conditions.

Response to Finding 1: The City agrees with this finding. As the Grand Jury report noted, by October 2021 Project Roomkey had sheltered more than 190 vulnerable individuals to reduce their risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19. The report also acknowledged that 56 percent of the participants transitioned into permanent housing as a result.

Recommendation 1: That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County establish programs similar to Roomkey in both North and South County to continue to provide rooms, with appropriate services, for vulnerable elderly homeless with underlying health conditions.

Response to Recommendation 1: Recommendation has been implemented, but is challenged by insufficient funding allocated directly to the City.

As the Grand Jury report observed, the City of Santa Barbara (City) recognizes the importance of using non-congregate shelter as a tool in addressing homelessness; however, the City does not receive direct funding from federal or state sources to support homeless programs such as Project Roomkey. Rather, state and federal homelessness funds are allocated to the County of Santa Barbara, then shared among the County and all of the jurisdiction cities, leaving North and South County with funds sufficient only for a one-time effort and a single project in their respective regions. Due to the lack of sustained funding allocated directly to the City, it is difficult to establish ongoing programs of this nature. In cases of urgent public safety, the City has used one-time funding to provide Project Roomkey-type interim housing through City Net, a qualified homeless services provider.

However, providing the required shelter and support services for such programs is extremely costly, and is impossible to sustain without a steady, ongoing source of direct funding. • Finding 2: Few hotels and motels throughout Santa Barbara County were willing to participate in Project Roomkey.

Response to Finding 2: The City agrees with this finding. As stated in the report, the County was able to find only one willing hotel owner despite the pandemic-driven drop in hotel occupancy and the potential to recover lost revenue through Project Roomkey funding. In South County, a small handful of hotel owners have agreed to lease a few rooms for continued interim non-congregate shelter, but have shown no interest in participating in a larger Project Roomkey operation.

Recommendation 2: That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department to form an alliance with all city councils within the County to develop a roster of hotels and motels willing to participate in a Roomkey-type program.
2 Response to Recommendation 2: Recommendation has been implemented. Members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors as well as councilmembers and housing staff from each city are participating in a newly formed Elected Leaders Forum to Address Homelessness. Focusing on issues pertaining to regional homelessness, each group is charged with researching and providing information to the other members of the Elected Leaders Forum. Most recently, staff members from each jurisdiction were asked to create an inventory of properties that could be converted to non-congregate shelter for possible Homekey projects. Although City staff partnered with the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara (Housing Authority) to secure potential properties, they were unsuccessful.

Hotel owners remain reluctant to provide rooms or sell their property, and there is a general lack of available real estate inventory on the market.
• Finding 3: Buildings for Homekey conversion have been difficult to locate and acquire.

Response to Finding 3: The City agrees with this finding. Available properties that meet the requirements for a Homekey conversion are extraordinarily rare, sale prices are set at a premium, and multiple bidders compete for available property. Despite these obstacles, the City continues to partner with the Housing Authority to identify sites that could facilitate Project Homekey conversion projects, and communicates with many other developer partners who present viable projects.

Local commercial real estate data provided by the Radius Commercial Real Estate Group for Santa Barbara properties has shown “for the first three quarters [of 2021], sales were up 31% over the same period in 2020.” Residential real estate data retrieved from CoreLogic by Compass Real Estate shows “as of October 2021, the median residential sales price in the City of Santa Barbara is $1,600,000 (up 7.2% from 2020).” Such high median prices far exceed Project Homekey’s allowance per unit/door.

Given the low inventory coupled with some of the highest property prices in the nation, 1 securing property in Santa Barbara has proven extremely difficult. Moreover, developing a financially feasible project with Project Homekey funding is even more challenging in the City of Santa Barbara, where the property-acquisition price comprises the total project cost, with only a portion of the project covered by the funding.

Recommendation 3: That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County identify possible Homekey sites including government owned properties in each jurisdiction.

Response to Recommendation 3: Recommendation has been implemented. The County and the cities have actively participated in a Project Homekey work group to identify sites that can be converted into housing with state Project Homekey funding. Additionally, the City of Santa Barbara actively worked with the Housing Authority to identify sites that could be acquired and converted into housing under the Project Homekey guidelines; unfortunately, 1 According to an article dated November 9, 2021, on PropertyShark.com used by real estate professionals, “California has 89 of the 127 most expensive median priced sales’ ZIP codes in the country. Santa Barbara has four of the pricey ZIPS’s with Montecito’s 93108 ZIP coming in at #7 nationally.” Last year, Santa Barbara added three of the ZIP codes that fall within the top 95 of the nation (not just California) to this list.
3 the Housing Authority’s bids were not accepted. The City and its partners will continue to seek Homekey housing-development opportunities, including on City-owned property; however, it is difficult for City staff to maintain a continual presence in the fast-moving real estate market. Real estate industry personnel are most knowledgeable about properties currently for sale and have access to potential properties coming to market. • Finding 5: Both Project Roomkey and Project Homekey are reliant on short-term or one-time funding from the State and Federal governments.

Response to Finding 5: The City of Santa Barbara agrees with this finding. The City has no other funding source that has been established or earmarked for ongoing projects of this nature.

Recommendation 5: That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County develop and implement a plan for funding Roomkey and Homekey-type programs.

Response to Recommendation 5: Recommendation has been partially implemented due to the lack of available and eligible funding. Local governments have not been given a direct source of funding to implement an ongoing plan for funding Project Roomkey and Homekey programs. The County and the cities are participating in the Elected Leaders Forum to Address Homelessness, whose top priority is identification of funding sources, and members of the City Council are present at all meetings.

The financial impact of the COVID19 pandemic on the City’s budget cannot be understated.

The City has experienced a significant decline in major revenue sources, including sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and various departmental revenues. Since the pandemic, the City has had to reduce operating expenses, reprioritize major initiatives and capital projects, and redesign and implement new ways to continue serving the public.

The City Council of Santa Barbara does recognize the urgency of the homelessness crisis and has approved several one-time funding allocations from City reserves in the past year (totaling more than $3.3 million) to provide shelter for homeless individuals:
• On April 13, 2021, the City Council approved $480,000 for a six-month scattered-site, bridge housing project to address public safety concerns related to homeless encampments in areas such as highway off-ramps and public waterways; • On June 29, 2021, the City Council approved $1,600,223.74 as a safety measure for a 120-day bridge housing project with a master lease at the Rose Garden Inn in order to provide shelter for encampment inhabitants in areas deemed high-risk, fire-prone areas by the City Fire Department;
• On October 19, 2021, Council approved an additional $1,242,987 to extend the Rose Garden Inn project for 90 days with a goal of permanently housing the participants as they have become housing-ready through City Net’s program.

In order to implement a continual plan for sustaining these types of programs, the City requires an ongoing funding source, such as a grant entitlement like the HOME Investment Partnerships Program or Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlements, which could be relied upon for an annual allocation.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Community Development Department, Streets Operations & Infrastructure Management Division, Public Works Department SUBJECT: Adoption Of Resolution Setting The Date For A Public Hearing Regarding Declaration Of A Public Nuisance From Traffic Impacts Of The Chick-Fil-A Restaurant
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopt, by reading of title only, A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Santa Barbara Setting March 1, 2022 As The Time And Date Of A Public Hearing To Consider The Declaration Of A Public Nuisance Arising From The Operation Of A DriveThrough At The Restaurant Located At 3707 State Street (APN 051-590-024).

DISCUSSION:

Over the years, the City of Santa Barbara (City) has received numerous complaints regarding the traffic back-up onto State Street for the Chick-Fil-A drive-through at 3707 State Street. The City’s Traffic Engineer, Police Chief, and Community Development Director have evaluated the situation and believe that the persistent traffic back-up onto State Street is a public nuisance and that the nuisance is caused by the operation of a drive-through at the Chick-Fil-A restaurant. Therefore, staff is recommending that City Council initiate the process to declare public nuisance arising from the operation of the drive-through facility and to order an abatement of the nuisance.

The proposed resolution will initiate the process by setting a public hearing at the Council meeting of March 1, 2022, at 4:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider the declaration of a public nuisance at 3707 State Street for the reasons described in this resolution. The public hearing will be held according to the procedures applicable to quasi-judicial hearings set forth in Section 4.14 of the City Council Procedures. Under the proposed resolution, the order of proceeding will be generally as follows:
 Staff presentation – 30 minutes;
 Owner/operator presentation – 30 minutes;
 Public comment – 2 or 3 minutes per speaker;
Agenda Item No. 11
Council Agenda Report
Adoption Of Resolution Setting The Date For A Public Hearing Regarding Declaration Of A Public Nuisance From Traffic Impacts Of The Chick-Fil-A Restaurant February 1, 2022

Page 2 ends

 Owner/operator response/closing – 20 minutes;
 Staff response/closing – 20 minutes; and
 Council deliberations and decision.

After the public hearing, the Council may determine whether a public nuisance exists, and if so, may order the appropriate abatement thereof, including but not limited to, alteration of operations or revocation of nonconforming use status for the drive-through facilities, operations, and uses at 3707 State Street. The proposed resolution requires public notice by publication in the newspaper and mailed notice to Chick-Fil-A. In addition, Chick-Fil-A was sent a copy of this Agenda Report before this meeting.

Previous attempts to remedy the situation informally have been unsuccessful. It is unlawful to stop in the travel lane, and there are traffic control signs posted advising motorists not to stop in the travel lane, but Chick-Fil-A customers routinely ignore those signs. Posting a police officer and citation of motorists is not an effective remedy, creating its own problems and requiring a substantial expenditure of public resources. In January and March of 2020, the Public Works Director sent letters to Chick-Fil-A directing the abatement of the traffic nuisance. (Copies attached.) Chick-Fil-A has tried various methods of reducing the traffic back-ups by reconfiguring its on-site queuing and stationing mobile order takers, but none have appeared to work, and traffic back-ups on State Street persist. Chick-Fil-A, on January 11, 2021, submitted a development application to the Community Development Department to expand their drive-through from one lane to two lanes to increase the capacity. However, Chick-Fil-A has been operating the drive-through with two lanes for several years by manually taking orders.

Despite the two-lane drive-through operations, the queuing persists. Staff believes that a permanent two-lane drive-through will not eliminate queuing.

The City Traffic Engineer analyzed the situation and issued an engineering report concluding that the operation of the drive-through causes persistent back-ups of traffic on State Street. A copy of that report is attached.

The City’s Zoning Ordinance has prohibited new drive-through restaurant facilities for many years. Current drive-through operations exist as legally existing, non-conforming uses. But, there is no right to operate legally existing use in a manner that creates a public nuisance. The law authorizes a city council to declare and order the abatement of a local public nuisance. However, before declaring a nuisance, the city must provide the owner with due process notice and an opportunity to be heard. The public hearing contemplated by the proposed resolution will provide that opportunity, and also will be the opportunity for public comment.

For these reasons, staff recommends the adoption of the proposed resolution. Because the proposed action is only to consider setting a public hearing, public comment should be limited to that issue. Persons desiring to comment regarding the conditions at 3707 State Street should provide those comments at or before the public hearing.

Council Agenda Report
Adoption Of Resolution Setting The Date For A Public Hearing Regarding Declaration Of A Public Nuisance From Traffic Impacts Of The Chick-Fil-A Restaurant February 1, 2022

Page 3 ends

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Traffic Engineer Report

2. Letters to Chick-Fil-A Directing Abatement of Traffic Nuisance

3. Santa Barbara Police Chick-Fil-A Traffic Recommendation PREPARED BY: Jim Dewey, Streets Operations and Infrastructure Manager/DB/em SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director Elias Isaacson, Community Development Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
City of Santa Barbara
Public Works Department
Memorandum
DATE: January 11, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Derrick Bailey, Principal Transportation Engineer SUBJECT: Traffic Conditions Associated with Chick-fil-A Queuing The purpose of this memorandum is to document the traffic conditions associated with queuing for the Chick-fil-A restaurant drive-through at 3707 State Street and provide a professional opinion on the effects the queuing has on traffic safety and operations.

Executive Summary and Professional Opinion:

Queuing from the Chick-fil-A drive-through is routinely observed blocking the sidewalk, bike lane, and number two (outside) traffic lane of eastbound State Street. The location and typical queuing area are illustrated in attachment #1.

I have reviewed traffic data and conditions caused by queuing from the Chick-fil-A drivethough. The queuing increases the risk of collisions and injuries, and decreases mobility for all modes of travel by creating a condition that State Street was not intended to accommodate. Based on observations, the queue blocks the number two traffic lane of State Street an average of 70 minutes per day on weekdays, and 92 minutes per day on Saturdays. Chick-fil-A is closed on Sundays.

The queuing is also routinely blocking access to adjacent businesses, which affects the ability for customers and deliveries to access these businesses. For example, the driveway for Rusty’s Pizza Parlor (115-feet west of the Chick-fil-A driveway) is blocked an average of 15 times per day.

As a principal arterial street, State Street is intended to provide the highest level of mobility within the City’s street network for all modes of travel. The effects of queuing on each mode of travel and the effect on adjacent businesses is described in more detail below in the Analysis section.

Based on the existing environment, I do not believe that a reasonable solution exists to safely accommodate the queue within the public right of way. Further, I do not believe that on-site improvements can be made that will prevent the queue from blocking State Street.

ATTACHMENT 1
Traffic Conditions Associated with Chick-fil-A Queuing
January 11, 2022

Page 2 ends

Discussion - Analysis
Staff set up video recording cameras near the Chick-fil-A drive-through entrance every three months beginning in the spring of 2021. For each video data collection period, two weekdays and Saturdays were recorded (Chick-Fil-A is closed on Sunday). Staff played back the video recordings and noted each time a queue began to form in the street, the time the queue in the street ended, and the maximum length of each queueing event.

Below is an analysis of the following:
 Traffic safety and operations
 Pedestrian safety and mobility
 Cyclist safety and mobility
 Transit safety and operations
 Access to adjacent businesses
Traffic Safety and Operations
Mobility of traffic is negatively affected by queuing onto State Street. Each time a queue forms in the street, the eastbound number two traffic lane is blocked and the capacity of that lane effectively becomes zero, thus traffic has only one lane available. The capacity of the number two lane is zero regardless of the length of the queue. In other words, the effect on roadway capacity is the same when a queue has one vehicle in length compared to a queue of ten or more vehicles. In addition, longer queues affect access to adjacent businesses which is described in more detail below.

Findings for the duration of queues blocking the number two lane are summarized below.

Summary of Observed Duration of Lane Blockage (In Minutes) Average Daily Duration of Blockage Maximum Daily Duration of Blockage Weekdays 70 minutes 91 minutes
Saturday 92 minutes 155 minutes
The average weekday cumulative duration of queuing onto the street is illustrated in attachment #2. Also shown in attachment #2 is the hourly weekday traffic volumes.

The graph in attachment #2 demonstrates the traffic volumes on eastbound State Street are above 1,000 vehicles per hour between 12:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. during typical weekdays. The majority of queuing onto State Street coincides with the busiest travel times of typical weekdays.

Traffic Conditions Associated with Chick-fil-A Queuing
January 11, 2022

Page 3 ends

The average Saturday cumulative duration of queuing onto the street is illustrated in attachment #3. Also shown in attachment #3 is the hourly Saturday traffic volumes.

The graph in attachment #3 demonstrates the traffic volumes on eastbound State Street are above 800 vehicles per hour between 11:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. on a typical Saturday. The majority of queuing onto State Street coincides with the busiest travel times of typical Saturdays.

In addition to the negative effects on mobility, queuing into the street increases the risk of collisions, particularly rear-end collisions and side-swipe collisions. During the review of video of the queuing, erratic and last second lane changes were observed. Drivers were also observed getting stuck in the queue because they were unable to change lanes. There has been one reported collision to the Santa Barbara Police Department (SBPD) involving a rear end collision with a queued vehicle (11/5/2018).

Pedestrian Safety and Mobility
Attachment #4 illustrates what typically happens during queuing on pedestrian access.

Queued vehicles persistently block the sidewalk and pedestrian path of travel, thus pedestrians have to deviate from their normal path of travel and maneuver through tightly spaced queued vehicles. This increases the risk of collisions involving pedestrians and also creates a challenging condition for pedestrians with disabilities and mobility challenges. Photos of the sidewalk blockage are contained in attachment #8.

There have been no collisions reported to SBPD associated with queued vehicles involving pedestrians.

Cyclists Safety
The State Street bike lanes are one of the most important cycling facilities in the City’s cycling network. The 2016 Bicycle Master Plan described State Street as the north/south spine of the City’s network.

Attachment #5 illustrates what typically happens during queuing on cycling access.

One of two scenarios typically happens:

1. Some drivers waiting in the queue will pull to the right, blocking both the bike lane and the number two (outside) traffic lane. This forces cyclists to merge out of the bike lane and into vehicle traffic to bypass the queue. This maneuver puts cyclists at increased risk of collision due to the frequent, erratic and last second lane changing near the queue.

2. Some drivers do not block the bike lane, and instead queue only in the number two traffic lane. Cyclists can ride past the queue in the bike lane up to the Chickfil-A driveway, but are exposed to right hook collisions at the driveway entrance.

Both scenarios create dangerous conditions for cyclists. Of all the increased risks of collision and injury to the various modes of travel, I believe that risks to cyclists is Traffic Conditions Associated with Chick-fil-A Queuing
January 11, 2022

Page 4 ends

highest due to the persistent queues. It is likely that some cyclists have stopped using State Street due to the conditions created by queuing.

There have been no collisions reported to SBPD associated with queued vehicles involving cyclists.

Transit Safety and Operations
Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (Santa Barbara MTD) lines 3, 6, and 11 provide service along this section of State Street. During daytime service hours, there are six scheduled buses that pass Chick-fil-A per hour. Buses generally stop at the Hitchcock bus stop, which is about 260-feet west of the Chick-fil-A driveway.

When there is a queue backing onto State Street, buses must change lanes to bypass the queue. Buses are more difficult to maneuver than passenger vehicles, which increases the risk of collision. The erratic and last second lane changes mentioned above increase the challenges maneuvering transit vehicles through the queueing area.

Depending on traffic conditions, the queue can also cause delays to transit vehicles.

Santa Barbara MTD has communicated to City Staff that queuing from the Chick-fil-A parking lot and drive-through creates adverse conditions for transit operations.

Attachment #6 illustrates the location of the Hitchcock bus stop and the proximity to the lane changing zone when queues are present.

Access to Nearby Driveways
The driveway to Rusty’s Pizza Parlor is located 115- feet west of the Chick-fil-A driveway. A queue that is approximately five vehicles long blocks access to the Rusty’s Pizza Parlor driveway.

The driveway to the Educated Car Wash is located 180-feet west of the Chick-fil-A driveway. A queue that is approximately eight vehicles long blocks access to the Educated Car Wash driveway.

The exit driveway for the Jack In The Box drive-through is located 240-feet west of the Chick-fil-A driveway. A queue that is approximately ten vehicles long blocks access to the exit driveway of the Jack In The Box drive-through.

Attachment #7 illustrates the locations of nearby private driveways, and the length of queue that blocks access to these driveways.

As part of Staff’s data collection, the maximum queue lengths were noted for each queueing event. The table below summarizes the average number of queuing events that block access to the neighboring businesses’ driveways.

Traffic Conditions Associated with Chick-fil-A Queuing
January 11, 2022

Page 5 ends

Average Number of
Times Per Day That
Queues Block Jack In
The Box Driveway
Average Number of
Times Per Day
Queues Block
Educated Car Wash
Driveway
Average Number of
Times Per Day
Queues Block Rusty’s
Pizza Parlor Driveway
Weekday 4 7 15
Saturday 5 6 16
Conclusion
Queuing for the Chick-fil-A drive-through increases the risk of collisions and injuries, with the highest risk of injury being for cyclists. Mobility is negatively affected for all modes of travel due to decreased roadway capacity and decreased safety.

As a principal arterial street, State Street is intended to provide the highest level of mobility within the City’s street network. Persistent queuing onto State Street is a condition that State Street was not intended for, nor a condition that drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians expect to encounter.

The queuing is also routinely blocking access to adjacent businesses, which affects the ability for customers and deliveries to access these businesses.

Based on the existing environment in the vicinity of Chick-fil-A, I do not believe that a solution exists to safely accommodate the queue within the public right of way.

Further, I do not believe that on-site improvements can be made that will prevent the queue from blocking State Street. Chick-fil-A has proposed to physically reconfigure their onsite circulation to create a dual lane drive-through. Chick-fil-A has been operating a make-shift dual lane drive-through throughout most of the pandemic, and while throughput is likely significantly higher, the queues persist. As Chick-fil-A improves onsite capacity, it appears they are attracting more customers, meaning the queue persists.

Attachment #8 are photographs illustrating queuing conditions.

Attachments

1. Site Location and Typical Queue Location

2. Average Weekday Cumulative Queuing Duration

3. Average Saturday Cumulative Queuing Duration

4. Typical Effect of Queuing on Pedestrian Access

5. Typical Effect of Queuing on Cycling Access

6. Bus Stop Location and Typical Bus Weaving Due to Queuing

7. Location of Nearby Private Driveways Affected by Queuing

8. Photographs Illustrating Queuing Conditions
Attachment #1 - Site Location and Typical Queue Location State Street
Hitchcock Wy
Chick-Fil-A
3707 State St
Rusty’s Pizza
3731 State St
Educated Car
Wash
3735 State St
Jack In The Box
3747 State St
Chick-Fil-A
Parking Lot and Drive Through Entrance
Queuing Zone
ATTACHMENT 1
Attachment #2 Average Weekday Cumulative Queuing Duration Hour of
Day
Minutes of Queue Per Hour (Weekday)
Average Observed Lowest Observed Highest Observed
9:00 1.4 0.0 8.5
10:00 1.8 0.0 5.5
11:00 5.7 0.6 17.9
12:00 13.2 7.2 17.7
13:00 3.6 0.3 12.1
14:00 4.8 1.5 11.4
15:00 3.6 0.0 8.2
16:00 1.8 0.0 4.0
17:00 8.2 0.0 18.8
18:00 10.4 0.0 32.5
19:00 4.1 0.1 10.6
20:00 3.8 0.0 11.0
21:00 8.6 0.6 18.5
22:00 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 5
10 15
20 Hourly Eastbound Weekday Traffic Volume Minutes of Queueing onto Street Time Of Day
Weekday Queueing Duration vs. Time of Day Traffic Volume Average Minutes Per Hour Queuing onto Street Hourly Eastbound Traffic Volume Attachment #3 Average Saturday Cumulative Queuing Duration Hour of
Day
Minutes of Queue Per Hour (Saturday)
Average Observed Lowest Observed Highest Observed
9:00 2.0 0.0 6.1
10:00 6.7 0.4 11.4
11:00 3.4 2.6 5.0
12:00 13.0 2.0 25.7
13:00 11.4 3.5 23.8
14:00 14.7 3.5 36.7
15:00 7.7 0.5 22.1
16:00 3.7 0.0 10.5
17:00 4.5 2.1 7.0
18:00 4.2 0.7 10.5
19:00 5.1 0.0 11.4
20:00 4.7 3.0 6.5
21:00 11.2 0.0 31.5
22:00 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200 Minutes of Queuing onto Street
Time of Day Hourly Eastobund Saturday Traffic Volume
Saturday Queuing Duration vs. Time of Day Traffic Volumes Average Minutes Per Hour Queuing onto Street Hourly Eastbound Traffic Volume Attachment #4 - Typical Effect of Queuing on Pedestrian Access State Street
Chick-Fil-A
3707 State St
Rusty’s Pizza
3731 State St
Chick-Fil-A
Parking Lot and Drive Through Entrance
Sidewalk
Typical Queue Condition
Vehicle Queued Across Sidewalk
See Photos
Queue for Parking Lot and Drive Through
Attachment #5 - Typical Effect of Queuing on Cycling Access State Street
Chick-Fil-A Parking Lot
and Drive Through Entrance
Bike Lane
Typical Queue Condition
Vehicle Queued In Bike Lane
Scenario 1: Queue in Bike Lane and #2 Traffic Lane
Scenario 2: Queue in #2 Traffic Lane Only
Cyclists must weave
around queue
Bike Lane
Chick-Fil-A Parking Lot
and Drive Through Entrance
Typical Queue Condition
Vehicle Queued In #2 Lane
Potential for “Right Hook”
Vehicle on Cyclist Collision
State Street
Attachment #6 - Bus Stop Location and Typical Bus Weaving Due to Queuing State Street
Chick-Fil-A Parking Lot
and Drive Through Entrance
Buses must weave
around queue
Hitchcock Bus Stop
Hitchcock W
y
Chick-Fil-A
3707 State St
Rusty’s Pizza
3731 State St
Educated Car
Wash
3735 State St
Jack In The Box
3747 State St
Queuing Zone
Attachment #7 - Location of Nearby Private Driveways Affected by Queuing Chick-Fil-A
3707 State St
Rusty’s Pizza
3731 State St
Educated Car
Wash
3735 State St
Jack In The Box
3747 State St
Chick-Fil-A Parking Lot
and Drive Through Entrance
115’ - 5 vehicle queue blocks driveway
180’ - 8 vehicle queue blocks driveway
240’ - 10 vehicle queue blocks driveway
State Street
Hitchcock W
y
Average Number of
Times Per Day That
Queues Block Jack In
The Box Driveway
Average Number of
Times Per Day
Queues Block
Educated Car Wash
Driveway
Average Number of
Times Per Day
Queues Block Rusty’s
Pizza Parlor Driveway
Weekday 4 7 15
Saturday 5 6 16
Attachment #8 - Photographs Illustrating Queuing Conditions Queue Blocking #2 (Outside) Traffic Lane
Access to Rusty’s Pizza Parlor Blocked (Shown
In Foreground)
Queue Blocking Bike Lane and Sidewalk
Bus Weaving Around a Single Vehicle in Queue Bus and Cyclist Weaving Around Queue Sidewalk is Blocked
Attachment #8 - Photographs Illustrating Queuing Conditions Main Office
630 Garden Street
P. O. Box 1990
Santa Barbara, CA
93102-1990
Tel: (805) 564-5377
Fax: |805| 897^613
Engineering
Tel: (805) 564-5363
Fax; (805) 564-5467
Facilities & Energy
Management
Tel: |805| 564^5583
Fax; (805) 897^2577
Fleet Management
Tel; (805) 564-5402
Fax: (805) 897-2515
Streets Operations
& Infrastructure
Management
Tel; (805) 564^5454
Transportation Planning
& Parking
Tel; (805) 564-5385
Fax:(805] 564-5467
Water Resources
Tel; (80S) 564-5387
Fax; (805) 897-1991
City of Santa Barbara
Public Works Department SantaBarbaraCA. gov
March 31, 2020
Chick-fil-A, Inc.

Jennifer M. Daw
Principal Development Lead - West Region Development & Construction 15635 Alton Parkway, Suite 350
IrvineCA, 92618
SUBJECT: Drive-Through Queuing onto State Street at Chick-fil-A, 3707 State Street Dear Ms, Daw,
I received your letter dated March 25, 2020. I appreciate that you have been working with Mr. Dayton and our team to resolve the public nuisance caused by patrons of your drive-through queuing into the street right of way, blocking traffic, and creating safety issues for all modes of transportation using State Street. Although you expressed concerns about the ability of security personnel being able to control traffic outside the Chick-fil-A parking lot, we appreciate Chick-fil-A's willingness to move forward with the use of security personnel on location. That way, your patrons can be instructed by the security personnel to move on and not block traffic in the right-of-way. We hope that this will be effective. It is critical for your team to eliminate queuing into the right-of-way immediately.

During the COVID-19 crisis, your operator's strategy of a dual lane drive through seems to be working well. We are hopeful that this operational strategy will keep the queue out of the right-of-way following the crisis and return of normal traffic,
Finally, you mention that Mr. Dayton and Mr. Wei "seemed to be in agreement with us regarding our revised plan. " I have confirmed with Mr. Dayton and Mr. Wei that they expressed no formal opinion on the revised plans and reiterated that Chick-fil-A is responsible for conducting its operations in a manner that does not constitute a public nuisance. Your organization has the expertise to accommodate them and your drive-through generates. We will process any permit you submit, but our approval of any plans submitted will be limited to typical planning and permitting standards.

Chick-fil-A has the sole responsibility for operating in a manner that eliminate this public Nuisance.

I would be happy to discuss or answer any questions you have by phone.

Sincerely,
Rebecca J.

Public Works Director
ec:

Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney
George Buell, Community Development Director
Lori Luhnow, Chief of Police
Paul Casey, City Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer
Rob Dayton, Transportation Planning & Parking Manager
ATTACHMENT 2
Ctty of Santa Barbara
Public Works Department SantaBarbaraCA. gov
Main Office
630 Garden Street
RO. Bo> 1990
Santa Barbara, CA
93102-1990
Tel: (805) 564-5377
Fax: (805] 897-2613
Engineering
Tel: (805) 564-5363
Fax:(805] 564-5467
March 9, 2020
Chick-fil-A, Inc.

Jennifer M. Daw
Principal Development Lead -West Region Development & Construction 15635 Alton Parkway, Suite 350
IrvineCA, 92618
SUBJECT: Chick-fil-A Queuing On Upper State Street
Facilities & Energy
Management
Tel; (805) 564-5583
Fax: (805) 897-2577
Fleet Management
Tel: (805) 564-5402
Fax; [805) 897^2515
Streets Operations
& Infrastructure
Management
Tel: (805) 564-5454
Transportation Planning
& Parking
Tel: (805) 564-5385
Fax: (805) 564^5467
Water Resources
Tel: (805) 564-5387
Fax; (805) 897^1991
Dear Ms. Daw,
On January 23, 2020 I sent you a letter regarding the nuisance created by the failure of Chick-fil-A to adequately manage the queue for the drive-through. In that letter I suggested that Chick-fil-A hire a security firm to manage the parking queue in such a manner as to prevent vehicles, from waiting in the street; either by periodic closure of the drive-through lane, or by directing drivers into parking spots when there is no room to safely wait in the drive-through lane or simply by moving people along when there is no space in your restaurant. You have not only failed to hire a firm to perform this operational function as suggested, nor have you taken any actions to address the offsite nuisance you are creating.

Pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vehicles are all at risk from the queue that forms on State Street. We have heard reports of accidents and near misses. I am 'extremely concerned that it is just a matter of time until there is a serious accident or worse Therefore, the City staff are recommending that the City Council hold a council hearing to consider the evidence to declare Chick-fil-A's operations, a public nuisance.

I strongly encourage you to take immediate actions. The life safety of your customers and the general public are at risk. Waiting for changes to the configuration of your drive-through lane and parking lot is not an acceptable approach. While this may resolve issues in the long term, as previously expressed, this change alone may not meet the latent demand for your drive-through services and ongoing on-site operational management of the queue may be required to prevent the public nuisance.

As before, I am available to discuss this by phone or in person if you would like.

Sincerely,
Rebecca BJork
Public Works Director
ec:

Paul Casey, CityAdministrator/Clerk/Treasurer
Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
Lori Luhnow, Chief of Police
George Buell, Community Development Director
Rob Dayton, Transportation Planning & Parking Manager
Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney
City of Santa Barbara
Public Works Department SantaBarbaraCA. gov
Main Office
630 Garden Street
RO. Box 1990
Santa Barbara, CA
93102-1990
Tel: (805) 564^5377
Fax: (805) 897-2613
Engineering
Tel: (805) 564-5363
Fax: (805) 564-5467
Facilities & Energy
Management
Tel: (805) 564^5583
Fax: (805] 897-2577
Fleet Management
Tel: (805) 564-5402
Fax; (805] 897-2515
Streets Operations
& Infrastructure
Management
Tel: (805) 564-5454
Transportation Planning
& Parking
Tel; (805) 564-5385
Fax: (805) 564-5467
Water Resources
Tel: (805) 564-6387
Fax: (805) 897-1991
January 23, 2020
Chick-fil-A, Inc.

Jennifer M. Daw
Principal Development Lead - West Region Development & Construction 15635 Alton Parkway, Suite 350
IrvineCA, 92618
SUBJECT: Chick-fil-A Queuing On Upper State Street
Dear Ms. Daw,
Thank you for taking the time to again meet with City staff in an attempt to correct the drive-through queuing out onto State Street at your Chick-fil-A restaurant located at 3707 State Street. The reoccurring drive-through queue onto State Street is both a safety hazard and traffic congestion generator for many more people than are served by your restaurant. State Street is a central arterial roadway and bike lane for this portion of our City. The continued queuing onto State Street blocking the bike lane and/or the number 2 lane of traffic is a serious safety and traffic congestion concern that cannot continue.

The City appreciates that Chick-fil-A has acknowledged its responsibility to make changes to its operations to address the queuing problem. I understand that you have discussed with City staff a new short-term operational strategy and a plan for a longer-term reconfiguration of the drive-through queuing line that will increase its capacity. But, I am also informed that while you have been attempting operational changes to solve the problem, some of those attempts have actually exacerbated the frequency and extent of the queuing on the sidewalk, bike lane and street. Thus, I am writing to emphasize both the urgency of the matter and that immediate steps must be taken to prevent queuing onto State Street on a temporary basis while work on a permanent solution continues.

I also understand you have expressed willingness to fund the stationing of police officers near your restaurant to move people along. However, I do not believe this is an effective use of our very limited police resources. Rather, the funding you offered should be used to hire your own permanent, official and uniformed security detail to manage the entrance to your driveway in such a manner that customers are directed into the parking lot if there is not sufficient room for them in the queue. Importantly, the security detail should prevent people from queuing on the street, much in the same manner that airport patrol officers move cars along in front of the airport. May I also suggest that you physically close access to the driveway apron when a vehicle cannot enter because of drive-through queuing. Whatever it takes, this situation is not safe for motorists or cyclists on our streets and you need to take action now to eliminate the issue to prevent further liability exposure to Chick-Fil-A.

I want to also point out that my staff has advised that your restaurant may have latent drive-through demand that is not coming onto the site because of the current queuing onto State Street. Queuing on State Street is a vehicle code violation. Some drivers who are not willing to make an unsafe, illegal maneuver to access your restaurant are likely bypassing the queue altogether. Please be aware that regardless of any site adjustments that are made, the City has an ongoing legal and ethical responsibility to pursue remedial actions if the on-street queueing continues unabated.

Thank you again for your collaboration and willingness to respond thus far. The significance of risk to the public's safety is such that I feel Chic Fil A must take immediate actions while pursuing a long term modifications. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have questions.

Sincerely,
vt^, a^t^\^\
Rebecca J. Bjork
Public Works Director
ec:

Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
Dan hlentschke, Assistant City Attorney
George Buell, Community Development Director
Lori Luhnow, Chief of Police
Paul Casey, City Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Santa Barbara
Police Department
Memorandum
DATE: January 17, 2022
TO: Santa Barbara City Council
FROM: Chief Bernard Melekian
SUBJECT: Santa Barbara Police – Chick-Fil-A Traffic Recommendation Traffic-related issues pertaining to the Chick-fil-A restaurant drive-through, located at 3707 State Street, Santa Barbara have been a concern for the police department for several years. Since 2013 when the business first opened, the department has conducted several enforcement campaigns in an effort to mitigate the specific problems during peak business hours.

Specifically, vehicles are impeding the flow of traffic while waiting to enter the restaurant’s drive-through lane. This traffic impediment is a violation of California Vehicle Code 22400(a). These vehicles are also creating a back-up of traffic in the #2 eastbound lane and create a hazardous traffic situation, especially for bicyclists traversing east in the 3700 block of State Street in the marked bike lane.

This traffic congestion also creates a hazard for other motorists attempting to drive in the area as well as pedestrians who are forced to walk around the vehicles when they block the sidewalk.

Attempts at educating the public about these safety concerns has also had no effect on solving this problem. There are several large, clearly posted signs explaining the legal ramifications for blocking traffic or stopping on the sidewalk, and drivers still fail to obey the educational signage.

As mentioned, Santa Barbara Police Officers have conducted enforcement activities specifically dealing with these violations. Though Officers have issued warnings and citations to drivers for the above-mentioned vehicle code infractions, the enforcement has had little to no effect on solving the issue. Additionally, ticketing the customers frequenting the drive-through makes them feel targeted for a problem they did not create. It is the position of the department that this problem cannot be solved solely by enforcement unless such enforcement were to be constant. 1 RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
BARBARA SETTING MARCH 1, 2022 AS THE TIME AND DATE OF A

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE DECLARATION OF A PUBLIC

NUISANCE ARISING FROM THE OPERATION OF A DRIVE-THROUGH
AT THE RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 3707 STATE STREET (APN 051- 590-024)
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Barbara has precluded the operation of drive-through windows at restaurants within in the City for many years; and WHEREAS, restaurants currently operating drive-through windows within the City do so as legally existing, non-conforming uses; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance precludes operation of any use, including an existing non-conforming use, in a manner that constitutes a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized to determine and declare the existence of a public nuisance and to order the abatement thereof pursuant to California Constitution article XI, §§ 5 and 7; California Government Code § 38771; California Code of Civil Procedure § 731; and City Charter §§ 400, 505, 511, and 512; and WHEREAS, the City has received numerous citizen complaints regarding the chronic adverse impact to traffic on State Street resulting from the operation of the drivethrough restaurant located at 3707 State Street; and WHEREAS, the City’s Traffic Engineer has provided information indicating that the chronic adverse traffic impact resulting from the operation of the drive-through restaurant located at 3707 State Street creates a threat to pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists; and WHEREAS, the Police Chief has provided information indicating that motorists stopping in the travel way or bicycle path front on or adjacent to 3707 State Street while waiting to turn into the drive-through restaurant located at 3707 State Street are violating traffic laws; and
WHEREAS, the City Administrator has provided information that City staff has sought to work with the owners and operators of the restaurant to abate the nuisance cause by the drive-through operation at 3707 State Street, but that the nuisance activities continue; and
2 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to conduct a public hearing to determine whether to adopt an ordinance declaring the existence of a public nuisance and, if so, the appropriate abatement, including, but not limited to, alteration of operations or revocation of non-conforming use status for the drive-through facilities, operations, and uses at 3707 State Street;
WHEREAS, the agenda for the meeting at which this resolution was considered along with a copy of this resolution and the agenda report were mailed to the business at 3707 State Street at the time the agenda was posted and made available to the public;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council will conduct a public hearing at its regular meeting of March 1, 2022, at 4:00 p.m, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider the declaration of a public nuisance at 3707 State Street for the reasons described in this resolution, and if such a nuisance is declared, to order the appropriate abatement thereof, including but not limited to, alteration of operations or revocation of non-conforming use status for the drive-through facilities, operations, and uses at 3707 State Street.

2. The public hearing will be held according to the procedures applicable to quasi-judicial hearings set forth in Section 4.14 of the City Council Procedures. The order of proceeding will be generally as follows:
 Staff presentation – 30 minutes
 Owner/operator presentation – 30 minutes
 Public comment – 2 or 3 minutes per speaker
 Owner/operator response/closing – 20 minutes
 Staff response/closing – 20 minutes
 Council deliberations and decision

3. The City Clerk is directed to give notice of the public hearing by mail and publication as follows:
a. Mailed notice by first class mail postage prepaid at least 15 calendar days before the date of the public hearing to the owner of the restaurant located at 3707 State Street, and the franchise operator of the restaurant located at 3707 State Street applicant and the owner of the subject property.
b. Placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing.

The display advertisement may include the contents of this resolution.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Streets Operations & Infrastructure Management, Public Works SUBJECT: Establish An Ad Hoc Committee For Conceptual Design Of Pedestrian And Bicycle Paths Across Mission Canyon Bridge
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council establish an ad hoc committee, with administrative and technical support from the Public Works Department, in order to interact with and represent community stakeholders to determine a project concept that will address pedestrian and bicycle path of travel safety concerns across the Mission Canyon Bridge. Council should establish a date-certain requirement for the ad hoc committee to report back within nine months with a concept that has compelling stakeholder support.

DISCUSSION:

On August 10, 2021, Council rejected the project options to address the Mission Canyon Bridge (Bridge) structural vulnerability, and roadway and hydrological deficiencies. Staff was directed to provide process and funding options for improved pedestrian and multimodal access on both sides of Mission Canyon Road in the vicinity of the Bridge.

Staff proposes the formation of an ad hoc committee to discuss and evaluate options for a new multiuse path for pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-motorized device users located on each side of the existing Bridge and separated structurally from the existing Bridge. The four-member ad hoc committee could include: a City Council member, a Historic Landmarks Commission representative, a representative from the Mission Trail Heritage Association “Safe Passage”, and a member representing the Coalition to Preserve Mission Canyon.

Staff recommends that the ad hoc committee should meet once a month for a term of seven to nine months, with a non-partisan professional consultant to facilitate the discussions.

Agenda Item No. 12
Council Agenda Report
Establish An Ad Hoc Committee For Conceptual Design Of Pedestrian And Bicycle Paths Across Mission Canyon Bridge
February 1, 2022

Page 2 ends

At the completion of the ad hoc committee’s term, it will report to Council on the conceptual design options. The objective of the committee is to interact with community members and stakeholders most affected by this initiative and develop a practical concept to address the mobility concerns that has broad community support.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

A Request for Proposal for Professional Services will be required to hire a professional facilitator. The contract amount is anticipated to be approximately $30,000. This would include meeting preparation, facilitation, notes, coordination with City staff, and addressing public comments. The contract will be funded through Measure C with funds budgeted for pavement maintenance, reducing the scope of street maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022.

Estimated staff time to support this effort will be approximately 120 hours each for the Transportation Planning Supervisor and the City Traffic Engineer. This time commitment may delay work on other critical transportation projects, including seven funded Active Transportation Program and Highway Safety Improvement Program projects that are required to be in construction within the next three to six months. There are a number of other transportation projects in design, new grant applications to be completed by next summer, and the planned relocation of the Farmer’s Market that will be impacted.

PREPARED BY: Jim Dewey, Streets Operations & Infrastructure Manager/ns SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Administration Division, Finance Department
SUBJECT: Execute Agreement With OpenGov, Inc., For On-line Digital Budget Book And Appropriate General Fund Reserves In Fiscal Year 2022 RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Authorize the Finance Director to execute a five year agreement with OpenGov, Inc., for a total of $647,481 to transition from a printed budget document to an on-line, interactive digital format for the City’s budget; and
B. Appropriate available General Fund Reserves in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 in the amount of $91,511 in the Finance Department.

DISCUSSION:

The City’s annual budget is available on the City’s website as well as printed in hardcopy for elected officials and a select number of staff. Staff recommends transitioning from the printed budget document to an interactive, digital budget book, which would be presented in a more understandable way, broaden citizen engagement, and strengthen public trust.

The platform is a product of OpenGov Inc., whom the City currently contracts with for their transparency platform. The addition of two platforms, Budgeting & Planning, and Reporting & Transparency, would allow staff to create a more collaborative experience, budget process automation, managerial reporting, and public transparency.

The City would access an online budget book tool using the “story” module from OpenGov. This module allows staff to present financial information, performance objectives, and department information in an easy to understand format while still maintaining many characteristics in the current book. The Workforce Planning module will allow staff to more easily create scenario analysis that will save time over current calculation methods. It will also allow for a more centralized process with departments during the budget development process as it integrates with the City’s current financial management system.

Agenda Item No. 13
File Code No. 210.01
Council Agenda Report
Execute Agreement With OpenGov, Inc., For On-line Digital Budget Book And Appropriate General Fund Reserves In Fiscal Year 2022
February 1, 2022

Page 2 ends

The system could potentially replace other databases for the City, such as the Capital Improvement Plan and Performance Objectives databases. The system can also replace existing, static reports with interactive, virtual reports that members of the public will have greater access to view and learn about a variety of City functions.

Staff presented an overview of the proposed online budget tool to the Finance Committee on December 14, 2021, and the Finance Committee voted unanimously to support this initiative and bring the item to the City Council for consideration and approval of the agreement.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The project is proposed to be implemented over the next two years for a total agreement term of five years:

Item FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 Total
Phase 1: Reporting &
Transparency Platform $91,511 $74,129 $74,129 $74,129 $74,129 $388,027 Phase 2: Budgeting &
Workforce Planning Suite 0 77,351 60,701 60,701 60,701 259,454 Total $91,511 $151,480 $134,830 $134,830 $134,830 $647,481 Staff is recommending implementing the Reporting and Transparency platform for the online budget book for the FY2023 budget which will be published in April 2022.

Implementing this tool was not a project included in the FY2022 adopted budget; however, staff recommend proceeding with implementing this platform for the FY2023 budget process. This strategy will allow the City to have the platform in place for a year, give staff time and experience using the new tool, and be fully prepared to utilize this platform in preparing for the next 2-year financial plan process for the FY2024 & FY2025 budget.

Staff is seeking the City Council’s approval of an appropriation request of available General Fund Reserves of $91,511 in the Finance Department. General Fund reserves are projected to be below policy target levels of 15% disaster reserves and 10% contingency reserves totaling 25% reserves by the end of FY2022. This appropriation request will further reduce available reserves.

Additionally, staff is estimating approximately 200 staff hours could be diverted to other activities, such as budgetary analysis or quality control as a result of efficiencies. There will also be expenditure savings in printed document costs for paper, binders, toner, and other items totaling approximately $5,000 annually. It is anticipated that many more staff hours could be diverted across all departments in future years as additional process and reporting efficiencies are achieved once the systems have been fully utilized.

Council Agenda Report
Execute Agreement With OpenGov, Inc., For On-line Digital Budget Book And Appropriate General Fund Reserves In Fiscal Year 2022
February 1, 2022

Page 3 ends

The five year agreement provides the City with the ability of fully implementing the budgeting and workforce planning suite beginning in FY2023 in preparation for the FY2024 budget cycle. The Finance Department’s FY2023 proposed budget will include the necessary appropriations to implement this suite, which will require funding from all City departments to proportionately fund a share of the total cost of the suite. Budget appropriation will be necessary for each subsequent contract year.

The City’s budget documents can be accessed here, and the online financial transparency tool can be accessed here.

SUSTAINABIILTY AND RESILIENCE IMPACT:

Implementing this project is in line with greater sustainability and resilience goals of the City through leveraging technology to disseminate information to a broad audience and minimizing the use of paper and other materials.

A copy of the contract/agreement is available for public review in the Finance Department by contacting Keith DeMartini, Finance Director, at [email protected].

PREPARED BY: Brandon Beaudette, Acting Assistant to the City Administrator SUBMITTED BY: Keith DeMartini, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
SUBJECT: Report On Rent Control Issues And Request For Rent Control Consultant Funding
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Receive the attached report discussing rent control issues and models; B. Authorize the City Administrator to negotiate and enter into a consulting contract, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for rent control economic analysis services; and
C. Increase expenditure appropriations in the Fiscal Year 2022 City Administrator’s Office budget in the amount of $200,000 funded from the General Fund reserves.

DISCUSSION:

On December 7, 2021, Council directed preparation of an interim residential rent control ordinance which would apply while additional study is undertaken. In addition, Council directed preparation of an economic study of the impacts of various levels of rent control and consideration of a rental registry ordinance. Finally, Council requested a survey and analysis of rent control systems, focusing on the City of Beverly Hills.

This office has completed an extensive survey of many of the issues surrounding residential rent control (Attachment). In particular, the attached memorandum prepared with the assistance of our City Attorney Legal Intern, United States Air Force Captain Agenda Item No. 14
Council Agenda Report
Report On Rent Control Issues And Request For Rent Control Consultant Funding February 1, 2022

Page 2 ends

Joshua Verceles, does an extraordinary job of explaining the law, costs, benefits, processes, and details of rent control, particularly as it evolved in Beverly Hills. Captain Verceles’s work also informed our cost estimates for consulting assistance.

Rent Control Program Development
Beverly Hills recently retained HR&A Advisors, Inc. to help redesign its rental stabilization program at a cost of about $197,000. Beverly Hills had the following startup budget:

Category FY 2017 (8-month start-up) FY 2018 (first full year) Salaries and Benefits
(Deputy Director plus 7 staff) $787,700 $1,123,200
Materials, Supplies, and Training
(Office functions, mailing, etc.) $80,000 $75,000
Capital Outlay
(Furniture, computers, etc.) $77,000 $0
External Contracts
(3Di, Management Partners,
etc.)
$472,500 $376,000
Contingency
(Reserve fund for unexpected
expenses with maturing
program)
$75,000 $150,000
Total $1,492,200 $1,724,200
Council should also be aware that rent control regulation systems require substantial ongoing funding to develop and to maintain. Our report showed the following expenditures and staffing levels in three California cities similar to Santa Barbara. (Attachment 1, p. 21.)
City Population Rental Stock FY2017 Budget Full-time
Employees
Santa Monica 92,000 27,542 $5,181,693 25
Berkeley 121,000 19,093 $5,243,029 22
Richmond 108,565 10,469 $2,425,355 7
Rental Registry
We found that Beverly Hills views its rental registry as the key to enforcement of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The registry includes rental registration of all eligible units.

Landlords may lawfully accept rent of a given property only after full registration of that Council Agenda Report
Report On Rent Control Issues And Request For Rent Control Consultant Funding February 1, 2022

Page 3 ends

same property. Once registered, maximum rent charged for each unit in accordance with BHMC Title 4 must be certified by the Rent Stabilization Division, which is in turn, pursuant to the 1986 Petris Act (Civ. Cod, §§ 1947.7 - 1947.8). Tenants and landlords may appeal rent established upon registration if not mutually approved. Postcertification, the Petris Act outlines the process for tenant and landlord appeal regarding established rents.

As of December 2021, rental registration in Beverly Hills is required, but at no cost to the landlord, and can be accomplished completely online through a city website.

Despite relative leniency towards a predominantly “mom-and-pop” landlord population, Beverly Hills maintains 99.8% registration of all eligible properties. Beverly Hills estimates that it could cost-justify registration fees of up to as much as $197 per unit, if so required, as a revenue source for the program.

AB 838 – New Mandatory Substandard Building Inspection Duties The legislature has amended the California Health & Safety Code to create extensive new substandard building inspection requirements that the City will be required to fund and enforce, effective July 1, 2022. The cost and workload implications of this bill should be understood in the context of potential rent control systems.

New Section 17970.5 applies when the City receives a complaint from a “tenant, resident, or occupant, or an agent of a tenant, resident, or occupant” regarding a substandard building condition or lead abatement. Upon receipt of the complaint, and at least as promptly as the City provides final building inspections, the City must do all of the following:
 Inspect the building or portion thereof intended for human occupancy, including any dwelling unit, guestroom, or suite of rooms, or the premises on which it is located, that may be in violation;
 Document any lead violations that would be discovered based upon a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property and identify any building or portion thereof intended for human occupancy, including any dwelling unit, guestroom, or suite of rooms, or the premises on which it is located, that is determined to be substandard
 As applicable, advise the owner or operator of each violation and of each action that is required to be taken to remedy the violation and schedule a reinspection to verify correction of the violations; and
Council Agenda Report
Report On Rent Control Issues And Request For Rent Control Consultant Funding February 1, 2022

Page 4 ends

 Prepare an inspection report and “provide free, certified copies of an inspection report and citations issued pursuant to this section, if any, to the complaining tenant, resident, occupant, or their agent,” as well as any other tenants, occupants or residents who are affected by the substandard condition.

AB 838 also provides that the City “shall not unreasonably refuse to communicate with a tenant, resident, occupant, or the agent of a tenant, resident, or occupant regarding any matter covered by this section.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 17970.5(h).) Fortunately, AB 838 does not impose a mandatory duty that would expose the City to tort liability, nor does it remove any existing City immunities from liability. (Health & Saf. Code, § 17970.5(i).)
AB 838 could have a significant cost impact on the City, depending, in part, how many inspections and reports are required. AB 838 states that the City cannot collect a fee from the property owner for the mandatory inspection unless lead or substandard building conditions are found, and the building is declared substandard. However, AB 838 allows the City to create a generally-applicable rental inspection program and fee, as follows:
“Nothing in this sections limits or alters the existing authority of a city, county, or city and county to impose fees on rental property owners to support a rental property inspection program, or to otherwise impose generally applicable charges, fees, or assessments to cover the costs of inspections or inspection reports required by this section.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 17970.5(f); emphasis added.)
Council should be aware that AB 838 appears to require the City Council, ultimately, to make a difficult choice: Either i) subsidize the cost of mandatory inspections that do not reveal lead or substandard conditions, or ii) create a generally applicable rental inspection program and fee. Rental inspection programs were discussed by Council extensively in 2017, and rejected at that time.

We expect AB 838 to generate significant new workloads for City staff. Any consideration of rent control should take into account the costs associated with this new state-mandated program.

Council Agenda Report
Report On Rent Control Issues And Request For Rent Control Consultant Funding February 1, 2022

Page 5 ends

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

In addition to the $200,000 cash expenditure requested in this report, we estimate the complete project would require about 80 to 240 hours of legal staff time and 120 to 360 hours of operating department staff time. We estimate that ongoing operation of a rent stabilization program could require 3 to 7 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. General Fund reserves are projected to be below policy target levels of 15% disaster reserves and 10% contingency reserves totaling 25% reserves by the end of FY2022. This appropriation request will further reduce available reserves.

ATTACHMENT: Memorandum, Rent Stabilization Ordinance Issues, Calonne & Verceles, February 1, 2022.

PREPARED BY: Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
SUBMITTED BY: Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

MEMORANDUM

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
740 State Street | Suite 201 | Santa Barbara |California | USA | 93101 | T(805) 564-5326 | F(805) 564-5426 1301-210073
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
Joshua Verceles, City Attorney Legal Intern
SUBJECT: Rent Stabilization Ordinance Issues
On December 7, 2021, the City Council asked us to prepare a review of rent control systems, focusing specifically on Beverly Hills. This memorandum provides that review.

We have concluded the City of Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Ordinance provides a viable template for an interim rent stabilization ordinance for the City of Santa Barbara, subject to very substantial start-up costs and ongoing budget impacts.

BRIEF ANSWER
The Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Ordinance is a solid framework for a new local rent stabilization ordinance. However, its two-part structure and other provisions reflect historical and, to an extent, demographic considerations particular to Beverly Hills. The specific provisions in a Santa Barbara Rent Stabilization Ordinance should be crafted independently and deliberately address the unique requirements, demographic or otherwise, of the City. Beverly Hills’ programmatic implementation of its rent stabilization ordinance, which was characterized by administrative efficiency, concerted planning and action, as well as a focus on continuous ordinance improvement, is an excellent system model.

INTRODUCTION
On December 7, 2021, the Santa Barbara City Council approved 4-3 a motion to direct further consideration of a temporary decrease in the city’s annual rent increase limit from the state-mandated 5% plus the current annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) to 2% plus the same. This motion was accompanied by direction to consider establishment of a rental

ATTACHMENT
2 1301-210073
registry, commencement of a long-term economic study, and drafting of a comprehensive interim ordinance subject to future review.

Council suggested we review the City of Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Ordinance as a potential applicable case study.

DISCUSSION
Rent Control and Rent Stabilization
Affordable housing for residents is a central issue many municipalities have in common.

Where they often diverge is in how they attempt to solve this problem, either by instituting control measures to place a ceiling on rising rents or by increasing the supply of housing, whether directly through public programs or indirectly by non-profit endeavor and private commercial enterprises. While the debate persists inconclusively about which method is most effective in providing affordable housing, general findings often show rent control producing positive effects for current tenants in controlled properties (at least in the shortterm), but potentially negative externalities in uncontrolled areas that may lead to decreases in long-term affordability due to limited supply.1 Further complicating the issue are state statutes that not only supersede municipal ordinances, but also curb local authority to control rent prices. Despite California’s 2019 passage of Assembly Bill 1482 (California Civil Code § 1946.2, Tenant Protection Act of 2019) which established annual rent increases at 5% plus the rise in CPI (capped at 10%), cities remain restricted by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 (California Civil Code § 1954.50 et seq.). Costa-Hawkins preserves the landlord’s right to establish rental rates for dwellings built and certified for occupancy after February 1, 1995 (Cal. Civ. Code § 1954.52(a)(1)), among other rent control exemptions that restrict universal application of the Tenant Protection Act.
1 See Diamond, What Does Economic Evidence Tell Us about the Effects of Rent Control? (Oct. 18, 2018) Brookings Institution https://www.brookings.edu/research/whatdoes-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/ (as of Dec. 10, 2021) and Rajasekaran et al., Rent Control: What Does the Research tell Us about the Effectiveness of Local Action? (January 2019) Urban Institute https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99646/rent_control._what_does_the _research_tell_us_about_the_effectiveness_of_local_action_1.pdf (as of Dec. 10, 2021).
3 1301-210073
Rent control is by no means a novel concept. In the early 1940s, diversion of resources from construction to war production coupled with mass influx of labor caused affordable housing availability crises in many urban industrial centers. Unable to affect supply, the federal government turned to rent control, freezing prices nationwide to keep wage demands in check and labor from leaving, through wartime agencies such as the Office of Price Administration (OPA).
2 With the advent of the post-war suburban housing boom, these stabilization measures receded in the following decades.

But in 1970s California, increased building, zoning, and environmental regulations contributed to rising construction costs and a new decline in affordable housing supply3 during a time of rising inflation and population growth. Rents consequently rose and the federal government again intervened with a price control program from 1971 to 1973.

State involvement followed as Proposition 13 placed limits on real estate taxation in 1978, with many hoping landlord savings would translate to lower rents. But when rents increased despite these measures, a wave of tenants’ rights movements in cities across the state campaigned—and won—adoption of moderate rent controls at the municipal level.4
The resulting measures were distinct from the earlier generation of rent control. Dubbed rent stabilization, they allowed for rent increase but at a limited rate and market rate resets after unit vacancy. Also permitted was transfer, or pass-through, of certain landlord costs onto tenant rents (e.g., capital expenditure, utilities) as surcharges. Ordinance adoption by Santa Monica and Berkeley presaged successive adoption by other satellite cities and their major population centers of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose. 5 Today, the
2 Fetter, The Home Front: Rent Control and the Rapid Wartime Increase in Home Ownership (Oct. 23, 2013) Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, pp. 5-8 https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/home-front-rent-control-and-rapidwartime-increase-home-ownership (as of Dec. 14, 2021). 3 See Taylor, California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences (Mar. 17, 2015) Legislative Analyst’s Office https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housingcosts/housing-costs.pdf (as of Dec. 14, 2021). 4 Pastor et al., Rent Matters: What Are the Impacts of Rent Stabilization Measures? (October 2018) USC Dornsife Program for Environmental and Regional Equity https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/242/docs/Rent_Matters_PERE_Report_Web.pdf (as of Dec. 14, 2021).
5 Id.
4 1301-210073
list of municipalities continues to grow as the housing crisis persists, with twenty currently participating in a state-wide Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) consortium. 6 Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Ordinance: Chapters 5 and 6 The City of Beverly Hills adopted its own Rent Stabilization Ordinance in 1978 and incorporated it into the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) in 1982. 7 Applicable to
dwelling units with rents of $600 or less, what is now known as Chapter 5 Rent Stabilization, Part I, limits annual rent increases to 8% or annual CPI difference (Los Angeles Area, Urban All Items), whichever is lower.
8 Chapter 6 Rent Stabilization, Part II,
pertaining to units with rents greater than $600 was adopted in 1986, and now caps rents at 3% or annual CPI difference, whichever is higher.
9 Recent Ordinance Adoption and Codification
At the end of 2014, the City of Beverly Hills Human Relations Committee (HRC) identified from the Community Preservation Program, the city’s primary code enforcement authority, an extensive list of rent stabilization issues as common causes of tenantlandlord disputes. Over 80% of filed complaints in the 2014 calendar year were related to sub-standard rental property conditions in which a tenant could withhold money from rent paid in return for landlord repair, but also leave themselves vulnerable to eviction for failure to pay rent in the event of landlord dispute.10 To mitigate the potential for increased civil action between the two parties, the HRC sought a venue where landlords and tenants could publicly express their respective issues, which the commission could then proactively address. The devised solution was the Tenant Landlord Forum, an intended primary recourse for dispute prevention. The city council approved the establishment of the Forum under the aegis of the HRC in 6 Video Interview with Helen Morales, Deputy Director of Rent Stabilization, City of Beverly Hills Community Development Administration (Dec. 10, 2021). 7 Human Services Administrator James R. Latta, City of Beverly Hills, mem. to Human Services Division, City of Beverly Hills, Sept. 19, 2019). 8 Beverly Hills Mun. Code, tit. 4, ch. 5, art. 3 § 4-5-303. 9 Id. ch. 6, § 4-6-3.
10 Human Services Administrator James R. Latta, City of Beverly Hills, mem. to Human Relations Commission, City of Beverly Hills, Jan. 15, 2015. 5 1301-210073
January 2015.
11 It would not officially launch until nine months later.12 Furthermore, after a year of operation, the HRC had only received 25 Forum complaint forms by October 2016.
13 But there was a steady stream of weekly telephone inquiries from tenants about potential claims, many of whom had been uncomfortable asking publicly. Through issues identified from both phone calls and forms, the HRC deduced that many month-to-month tenants declined to elevate disputes publicly due to fear of retaliatory eviction through then-existing 60-day no-cause notice or having already experienced it. Other concerns included rent exploitation of seniors and lack of relocation assistance for them (whether after a voluntary move or post-eviction), reasonableness of what was then a 10% cap on annual rent increases, and no accountability mechanism for universal landlord RSO compliance.
14 The HRC recommended to the city council the establishment of relocation fees for tenants evicted under no-cause circumstances and a rental registry program in response to these concerns in January 2017.
15 Within weeks, the city council responded with an urgency ordinance to establish both, including a reduction of the 10% annual rent increase cap, with a code amendment unanimously adopted in April 2017.16 The city council has continued attempts to improve the RSO through a series of ordinances addressing loopholes and follow-on rent-related issues. Indeed, an ordinance was eventually adopted in October 2018 that prevented no-cause evictions altogether under Chapter 6.17 11 Human Relations Commission Staff Liaison James R. Latta, City of Beverly Hills, mem. to Human Relations City Council Ad Hoc Committee, City of Beverly Hills, Feb. 4, 2015.
12 Human Services Administrator James R. Latta, City of Beverly Hills, mem. to Human Relations Commission, City of Beverly Hills, Oct. 15, 2015. 13 Human Services Administrator James R. Latta, City of Beverly Hills, mem. to Human Relations Commission, City of Beverly Hills, Oct. 20, 2016. 14 Human Services Administrator James R. Latta, City of Beverly Hills, mem. to Human Relations Commission Council Liaisons, City of Beverly Hills, Jan. 12, 2017. 15 Id.
16 City of Beverly Hills Ordinance No. 17-O-2729, amending § 4-5-102 of the Beverly Hills Mun. Code.
17 City of Beverly Hills Ordinance No. 18-O-2762, amending § 4-6-6 of the Beverly Hills Mun. Code.
6 1301-210073
Beverly Hills Municipal Code Title 4
Both Chapter 5 and 6 reside under Title 4 of the BHMC and adhere to a similar code structure with overlapping guidance as seen below (exceptions to which will be annotated in each of the following sections):

Application and Exemptions18
While Chapter 5 encompasses “all dwelling units in the city designed for rental use or actually rented” (BHMC § 4-5-101) and Chapter 6 is restricted to “all multiple residential dwellings consisting of two (2) or more units” (BHMC § 4-6-1), these applications are ultimately equivalent in practice.19 Exemptions are also the same between the two chapters, save the September 20, 1978 new construction date for Chapter 5 contained therein versus the February 1, 1995 date for Chapter 6 stipulated by Costa-Hawkins, occupancy after which the owner of a real property may charge rent outside of provisional controls.20
Waiver Prohibited21
These sections prohibit any provision within an applicable lease or rental agreement from waiving any Chapter 5 or 6 provisions, particularly with respect to rent paid. Such agreements are considered “to be against public policy” and are voided, “unless expressly authorized by State law” (BHMC §§ 4-5-103(A), 4-6-4(A)). Paragraph B of both sections also reference a 2001 amendment that made the current waiver prohibition applicable only to landlord-tenant agreements executed on or after December 29, 2000.

Base Rent22
These sections establish the maximum rent chargeable by a property owner: monthly rental charged on April 30, 1986 plus permissible increases for Chapter 6; and for Chapter 5, any rent charged on May 31, 1978 or any tenancy thereafter which followed a voluntary vacancy. Section 4-5-302 also specifies the annual rent re-computation (for increases) period as one year from the later date between commencement of tenancy and last re- 18 Beverly Hills Mun. Code, tit. 4, ch. 5, §§ 4-5-101, 4-5-102 and ch. 6. § 4-6-1. 19 Rent Stabilization Division, City of Beverly Hills Community Development Administration, Rent Stabilization Ordinance: Basics and Updates (Nov. 10, 2021). 20 Civ. Code § 1954.52, subd. a, para. 1.
21 Beverly Hills Mun. Code, tit. 4, ch. 5, § 4-5-103 and ch. 6, § 4-6-4. 22 Id. ch. 5, § 4-5-302 and ch. 6, § 4-6-2.
7 1301-210073
computation. Of note, voluntary vacancies enable landlords to set new a base rent outside of the title provisions until tenancy resumes (BHMC §§ 4-5-312 (A), 4-6-5 (A)).

Annual Rental Increases23
Apart from stipulating the percentage caps for Chapter 5 (lower of 8% and 12-month composite CPI difference24) and Chapter 6 (higher of 3% and annual May CPI difference) previously mentioned, proper rental registration is also made a prerequisite for landlords to be eligible for annual rent increases (see Rental Registry, p. 8). Landlords may increase rent according to these provisions if they have not already done so after the expiration of a one-year lease.

Surcharges25
Pursuant to Chapter 5, a landlord may pass through certain expenses to the tenant upon base rent re-computation. These include:
- property owner capital expenditure (e.g., permanent improvement, renovation) for the benefit of the building or unit (capped at 4% of base rent), or else mandated by law
- basic and essential utilities
- additional tenant surcharge
- 90% of water service penalty costs, if landlord is compliant with water conservation requirements in BHMC § 9-4-1 or avails of other qualifying voluntary water saving measures (BHMC § 4-5-308(A))
- city refuse fees
- hardship rent adjustments due to necessary relief or property tax increases Chapter 6 is much more restrictive, allowing base rent surcharges only for:
- water service penalties as outlined in Chapter 5
- city refuse fees
- rent adjustments on substantive grounds outlined in § 4-6-11 (B) Chapter 5 also allows imposition of surcharges from capital expenditure or utility provision during a one-year lease upon its expiration. It is necessary here to clearly differentiate 23 Id. ch. 5, § 4-5-303 and ch. 6, § 4-6-3.
24 See Id. ch. 5 § 4-5-303, subsec. A (explaining the proper method for CPI increase computation).
25 Id. ch. 5, §§ 4-5-304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 402 and ch. 6, §§ 4-6-7, 8, 11. 8 1301-210073
between a surcharge and an annual increase. Whereas annual increases are restricted to CPI differences and respective percentages for both chapters, surcharges are based upon offsetting costs to landlords and tied to re-computation of base rent. These two separate additions to total rent are independently derived and not intended to be recomputed within the same one-year window.

Rental Registry26
Rental unit registration with the city is a prerequisite for tenant payment of rent increases.

Failure to register, subjects landlords to citations and fines under BHMC Title 1, Chapter

3. Landlords must within thirty (30) days:
- register every applicable unit upon city notice of required registration - register a previously exempt unit after the end of that exemption - re-register any applicable unit upon re-rental after vacancy - file a registration amendment upon any change in an applicable unit’s ownership/management or the owner’s/manager’s contact information Hearing Officers27
The city manager is responsible for designating a hearing officer to adjudicate on certain matters between landlords and tenants with respect to the RSO. Chief among their duties is to receive hardship applications for special rent adjustments based on Chapter 5 necessary relief or Chapter 6 substantive grounds. In this capacity, a hearing officer renders binding decisions, which are subject to appeal to the city council. A hearing officer has additional jurisdiction over landlord or tenant applications regarding:
- status of a tenant as a building manager
- validity or amount of property owner capital expenditure surcharge - validity and/or amount of utility surcharge
- relocation fee disagreements
- reconsiderations on previous decisions on these four preceding matters due to incorrect information or erroneous data, when unable to be appealed to the city council
26 Id. ch. 5, § 4-5-801 and ch. 6, § 4-6-10.
27 Id. ch. 5, art. 4 and ch. 6, §§ 4-6-6, subsec. K, ¶ 1 et seq.; 4-6-9, subsec. D, ¶ 2; 4-6-

11. 9
1301-210073
Chapters 5 and 6 can be referenced directly for an exhaustive list of baseline costs for notices, relocation fees, moving expenses, and minimum qualifying major remodeling; filing windows, action deadlines, and expiration dates; and special age considerations for evictions and amortization schedules for government-mandated building improvements, all of which can inform hearing officer decisions.

Evictions28
Pursuant to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Cal. Civ. Code § 1946.2), landlords no longer have the right to evict tenants with 12 months occupancy without just cause. Just causes in Chapter 5 and 6 include:
- failure to pay rent
- violations of obligations
- maintenance of nuisances
- illegal uses (e.g., excess occupancy)29
- refusal to execute leases
- refusal to provide access
- unapproved subtenants
- use by landlords (90 days’ notice and no like vacancy) - change in building manager
- demolition or condominium conversion (90 days’ notice) - major remodeling (1 year’s notice)30
- withdrawal of residential real property from rental market, in accordance with the 1985 Ellis Act31 (120 days’ notice)
Relocation Fees32
Initially instituted as landlord compensatory relief for tenants evicted with no cause, relocation fees now apply to six of the listed causes:
- use by landlords
28 Id. ch. 5, art. 5 and ch. 6, § 4-6-6.
29 See id. ch. 5, § 4-5-505, subsec. B and ch. 6, § 4-6-6, subsec. D, ¶ 2 for occupancy limitations.
30 See id. ch. 5, § 4-5-512, subsec. L and ch. 6, § 4-6-6, subsec. K, ¶ 12 for minimum amount spent requirements.
31 Gov. Code ch. 12.75, § 7060 et seq. 32 Beverly Hills Mun. Code tit. 4, ch. 5, art. 6 and ch. 6, § 4-6-9. 10 1301-210073
- demolition or condominium conversion
- major remodeling
- withdrawal from rental market (Ellis Act)
- refusal to execute lease (Chapter 6 only)
- change in building manager (Chapter 6 only)
Relocation fees are held in escrow so long as the tenant has not vacated the unit or its recipients have not been properly identified. As with Chapter 6 annual rent increase recomputations (every May), they are also adjusted dependent on yearly difference in CPI for the Los Angeles region (every July). Relocation of any minor, disabled person, or senior results in an additional two thousand dollars ($2,000) in fees (BHMC §§ 4-5-605, 4-6-9(E)). Ultimately, the landlord retains the option of finding a comparable unit approved by the relocating tenant in lieu of paying fees.

Remedies33
Article 7 of Chapter 5 and Section 4-6-12 of Chapter 6 outline actions after landlord noncompliance due to excess rent, withholding of relocation fees, rental non-registration, and reduction of housing services. They also permit the tenant to refuse payment of a rent increase that violates either chapter and make landlords liable for no less than $500 in the event of tenant civil action. Finally, violation of any provision therein subjects landlords to citations and fines in accordance with Title 1, Chapter 3 of the BHMC.

Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Infrastructure
Although Beverly Hills had adopted rent stabilization measures as far back as 1978, no formalized city program for its administration existed at the beginning of 2017. After the adoption of the new RSOs early that year, the HRC began to work with the Beverly Hills Community Development Administration (due to its existing code enforcement capacity regarding tenant and landlord complaints) on development and oversight of the resulting Rent Stabilization Program (RSP).

Rent Stabilization Division
In May 2018, the City of Beverly Hills announced the hiring of Dr. Helen Morales as the head of the new program.
34 The scale of the RSP has since led to the establishment of a 33 Id. ch. 5, art. 7 and ch. 6, § 4-6-12.
34 City of Beverly Hills, City of Beverly Hills Hires New Head of Rent Stabilization Program (Press Release, May 21, 2018).
11 1301-210073
separate Rent Stabilization Division (RSD), one of six under Community Development, where Dr. Morales manages the program and four staff as Deputy Director of Rent Stabilization (under the Director of Community Development). Main duties of the RSD consist of registration of and rent certification for all eligible Beverly Hills rental properties, and investigation of RSO violation claims. The RSD also works closely with code enforcement under the sister Community Preservation Division to investigate habitability concerns and facilitate tenant relocations.35
Rent Stabilization Commission
The Beverly Hills City Council adopted an April 2019 ordinance36 establishing the city’s Rent Stabilization Commission within § 2-2-501 of its Municipal Code. This six-member commission is composed of two tenants, two landlords, and two at-large members who are neither tenant nor landlord. Three alternates are also mandated, one for each group.

All members serve four-year terms, staggered two years between members within the same group. Two members from each group must be present to form a quorum, with alternates eligible to sit in for their respective groups. The Deputy Director of Rent Stabilization functions as the Secretary of the Commission, which is headed by an atlarge Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson alternating between tenant and landlord.

In opting for a mixed-composition commission versus a tenant-dominated board, Beverly Hills considers its rent stabilization administration more “pro-ordinance” than “pro-tenant”.

This simply means that while the Rent Stabilization Commission naturally strives to achieve equitable rent within the city, it does so through its main duty of ordinance improvement37 inclusive of landlord concerns rather than direct tenant advocacy.38 Rental Registry
Key to enforcement of the RSO is rental registration of all eligible units geared towards full landlord accountability. Landlords may lawfully accept rent of a given property only after full registration of that same property. Once registered, maximum rent charged for each unit in accordance with BHMC Title 4 must be certified by the RSD, which is in turn pursuant to the 1986 Petris Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1947.7, 1947.8). Tenants and landlords may appeal rent established upon registration if not mutually approved. Post-certification, 35 Id. note 6.
36 City of Beverly Hills Ordinance No. 19-O-2776, amending tit. 2, ch. 2, art. 5 of the Beverly Hills Mun. Code.
37 Beverly Hills Mun. Code, ch. 2, § 2-2-502.
38 Id. note 6.
12 1301-210073
the Petris Act outlines the process for tenant and landlord appeal regarding established rents.

As of December 2021, rental registration in Beverly Hills is at no cost to the landlord and can be accomplished completely online through a city website. Despite relative leniency towards a predominantly “mom-and-pop” landlord population, Beverly Hills maintains

99.8% registration of all eligible properties.39
The registry itself is a database management system tailored to rent stabilization, developed by subject matter specialist 3Di Systems. Apart from maintaining accurate property inventory, the system also provides reporting and analytics on registry data, a secure tenant-landlord portal with mobile app functionality, and payment processing. 3Di is the rental registry system provider for no less than 21 rent-stabilized municipalities nationwide.
40 Partner Agencies
The City of Beverly Hills also works with external parties to facilitate tenant-landlord relations within the framework of the RSP. As a resource for limited-income seniors, Beverly Hills has partnered with legal non-profit Bet Tzedek (House of Justice) to provide free legal assistance to seniors and their caregivers through the Older Americans Act (42 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.). It has been the primary source of this service for the City and County of Los Angeles for over 30 years.41 This partnership is notable due to the high percentage of seniors within the Beverly Hills population, the vulnerability of whom was a major impetus in the very adoption of the RSO.

Additionally, landlord-tenant disputes are a main focus area of the Loyola Center Conflict Resolution of the nearby Loyola Law School. Landlords and tenants alike may contact the center to speak with a counselor who can advise them on dispute resolution options, one being a dedicated mediation program with the City of Beverly Hills.42 39 Id.
40 3Di Systems, Rental Property Registry (2021) https://3disystems.com/rental-propertyregistry (as of Dec. 20, 2021) 41 Human Services Administrator James R. Latta, City of Beverly Hills, mem. to Human Relations Commission, City of Beverly Hills, Apr. 20, 2017. 42 Loyola Center for Conflict Resolution, Loyola Law School, LCCR Service Sheet 2020 (2020).
13 1301-210073
External government partners include Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs (for issues outside the scope of the RSO), County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health,
43 and the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (for Section 8 matters).
44 RSO Implementation and Impact
Implementation of the Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Program was not a seamless undertaking. Saliently, the lack of independent infrastructure from 1978 to 2017 speaks to the general complacency, and at times outright opposition, surrounding the RSO in Beverly Hills. Whether by citizen or government inertia, nearly 40 years elapsed before the city established an RSO accountability mechanism through a rental registry. Adoption of the registry as the first component of a revamped RSO triggered three weights of effort:
a public information campaign on the city’s part, a one-year drive for tenant-landlord certification in compliance with the 1986 Petris Act, and a joint endeavor towards ordinance and program improvement.

To the first, the city had a head start after having hitherto regularly communicated provisions of previous RSO iterations through periodic flyers, mailers, and information packets, such as the comprehensive Tenant Landlord Rights and Responsibilities handbook.45 Informative town hall sessions, community education workshops, and the Tenant-Landlord Forum were also notable city initiatives for public interface. The city persisted with these measures after the 2017 RSO adoption and continue to do so today, diligently conducted by the RSD.

With regards to the registration and certification process, Beverly Hills had limited control over several factors. The no-earlier-than January 1, 1987 ordinance adoption date stipulated in the Petris Act previously shielded the 1978 Chapter 5 and 1986 Chapter 6 ordinances from complying with the Act’s certification mandate. Adoption of the January 2017 urgency RSO meant that all units to be registered would also need to establish certified rents within one year, in accordance with the Petris Act and in order to lawfully enforce the RSO.
43 Id. note 19.
44 Id. note 6.
45 See Rent Stabilization Division, Tenant Landlord Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, City of Beverly Hills for latest version (February 2020) http://www.beverlyhills.org/departments/communitydevelopment/rentstabilizationdivision /beverlyhillsresourcesformsanddocuments/web.jsp (as of Dec. 20, 2021). 14 1301-210073
While a continued public information campaign aimed to allay tenant and landlord concerns (especially of the latter) regarding registration and certification, competing interests between the two groups began to breed skepticism about the program. Half a year into the one-year registration period, no more than 51% of eligible properties were completely registered.46 To help bridge the gap and accelerate the process, the city council prescribed a series of tenant-landlord discussions designed to develop rent stabilization policy with wider appeal. These discussions were facilitated by a professional mediator hired by the city council, Dr. Sukhsimran Jit Singh of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution of the Caruso School of Law at Pepperdine University, and were effective at generating bilateral buy-in towards the registry. They also brought the groups closer to agreement on rent increase calculations and relocation fees, while calling attention to shared follow-on concerns about mediation avenues and habitability enforcement.
47 By November 2017, registration was up to 80%,48 and today, all but three eligible units remain outside the city’s 99.8% registration rate.49 Even after the one-year certification window, RSO and registry opposition persisted. The most prominent was in the form of an August 2018 federal suit against the city by landlord Orit Blau, who together with the Apartment Association of the Greater Los Angeles Area (AAGLA) claimed infringement of Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They argued that disclosure of landlord rental property data constituted a trespassory government search irrespective of a landlord’s expectation of privacy regarding their business records and without a means of pre-compliance review. Further, they alleged the ordinance was a per se government taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, through what they deemed unconstitutional conditions brought about by requiring a landlord to relinquish a constitutional right to records privacy in order to receive rent amounts they had previously been able to charge. Finally, they claimed that because of the “arbitrary and capricious unconstitutional conditions” of the ordinance and its discrimination towards apartment landlords versus “similarly situated” hotels and motels,
50 Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were also violated. Plaintiffs filed an initial Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and Second Amended Complaint, as the City of Beverly Hills filed three corresponding motions to 46 Director of Community Development Susan Healy Keene, City of Beverly Hills, presentation to City Council of Beverly Hills, Sept. 5, 2017. 47 Human Services Administrator James R. Latta, City of Beverly Hills, mem. to Human Relations Commission, City of Beverly Hills, Sept. 28, 2017. 48 Director of Community Development Susan Healy Keene, City of Beverly Hills, report to City Council of Beverly Hills, Nov. 21, 2017.
49 Id. note 6.
50 City of Los Angeles v. Patel (2015) 576 U.S. 409.
15 1301-210073
dismiss. The US District Court granted the latter two motions by the city and denied Plaintiffs leave to further amend in July 2019, stating they had yet to make a valid claim.

Plaintiffs filed for appeal a month after district court judgment, and in December 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the previous in similar fashion.51 Despite the inevitable challenges, Beverly Hills has always invested in the development of its rent stabilization program. From the program’s inception, the city utilized over two years’ worth of data from internal studies to identify its core rent-related issues. It then recruited leading experts to advise policy formulation and organizational structuring, HR&A52 and Management Partners,
53 respectively. And perhaps most importantly, it
never ceased engaging the public, including both tenants and landlords in continuous ordinance and program improvement. Recent developments have seen the rent stabilization program as just one of several city efforts towards fair housing. In December 2019, the city unanimously adopted an ordinance requiring residential development projects to provide a minimum percentage of units to be affordably price-restricted for lower-income renters as inclusionary housing.54 And just last month, Deputy Director Morales presented major recommendations to the Rent Stabilization Commission to address habitability standards across the city rental stock, to include proactive versus reactive inspections, establishment of a mediation board to hear habitability matters, and an RSO amendment to restrict rent increases for habitability-violating landlords.55 What began as an urgency measure to address a relative slice of the Beverly Hills population appears to be maturing into a full-fledged, equity-driven, inclusionary program.

Analysis
Whether the City of Santa Barbara can attain similar success by employing the same rent stabilization methodologies as Beverly Hills is the central question. A comparative analysis of situational contexts is helpful here, which demographic data, respective Housing Elements, and advisory reports can inform.
51 Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA) v. City of Beverly Hills (C.D.

Cal., Apr. 17, 2019, No. CV 18-6840 PSG (EX)) 2019 WL 1930136 52 HR&A Advisors, Inc., Rent Stabilization Analysis: Data Brief (and others), Oct. 3, 2018.
53 Perkins and Jay, Staffing Plan and Program Costs to Implement the Amended Rent Stabilization Ordinance, Management Partners, July 11, 2017. 54 Ordinance No. O-19-2797, City of Beverly Hills, Dec. 17, 2019. 55 Deputy Director of Rent Stabilization Helen Morales, Community Development Administration, City of Beverly Hills, mem. to Rent Stabilization Commission, City of Beverly Hills, Nov. 3, 2021.
16 1301-210073
Demographic Data
The starkest difference between Santa Barbara and Beverly Hills are their respective population sizes. Indeed, with a population of 91,376, Santa Barbara almost triples the 34,186 population of Beverly Hills. This proportion clearly reverses eight-fold when comparing the Santa Barbara and Los Angeles regions, which is significant, considering the greater potential for housing availability conferred by larger metropolitan areas.

Nevertheless, both have maintained low-growth stable populations over the past five years.56
Delving into demographics, Beverly Hills possesses a higher percentage of both minors and seniors than Santa Barbara, albeit by less than 5% for each group. Interestingly, both cities fall below state figures for people under 18, and above for those 65 years old and over. This data pattern underlies a recurring theme of the two cities’ distinction from many other municipalities more representative of statewide (at times even countywide) data, which may evince a perception of them as somewhat twinned.

Table 1
California Santa Barbara Beverly Hills
Total population 39,283,497 91,376 34,186
Under 18 years 9,022,146 23.0% 15,413 16.9% 6,936 20.3% 65 years and over 5,486,041 14.0% 17,058 18.7% 7,302 21.4% (Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey)57
However, a deeper dive into the data suggests that the slight difference in age composition between the two cities is only the root of two diverging tines. Below is a nonexhaustive list of prominent quantitative differences between the two populations.

Table 2
California Santa Barbara Beverly Hills
Total population 39,283,497 91,376 34,186
Total households 13,044,266 37,333 14,769
Income below $75K
(household) 6,503,901 49.9% 18,256 48.9% 5,397 36.5%
Income above $100K
(household) 4,919,899 37.7% 14,927 40.0% 7,828 53.0%
56 U.S. Census, Table C1 Summary Population and Housing Data, Demographics Research Unit, Department of Finance (2017-2021).
57 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Dec. 10, 2020).
17 1301-210073
Median income
(household) $75,235 $76,606 $106,936
Employed in
management, business,
science, and arts
7,297,519 39.3% 23,174 45.4% 10,063 62.1%
Employed in natural
resources, construction,
maintenance,
production,
transportation, and
material moving
3,912,179 21.0% 6,456 12.7% 784 4.9%
Percentage of all people
under the poverty level a 13.4% 12.5% 8.3%
Percentage of all
families under the
poverty level with
children under 5 years
only b

11.4% 8.0% 0.0%
Unemployed individuals 1,199,233 2,043 1,025
Homeless individuals58 161,548 914 19
Not reported as citizens
(18 and over) c 4,766,968 15.8% 12,368 16.3% 2,319 8.5% (Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey, unless otherwise indicated)59 a – In the past 12 months
b – In the past 12 months, children are of householder
c – Difference between total 18 and over and citizens reported These data points illustrate a sharp contrast in an extensive list of important demographic factors. Moreover, most of these factors are face-value vulnerability markers for housing insecurity. Key differences between Santa Barbara and Beverly Hills are the differences in below $75,000 household income, employment in labor-intensive occupations, percentage of families in poverty with young children, and number of unemployed, homeless, and non-citizens. These relative disadvantages paint a distinct demographic context in which Santa Barbara must tackle the issue of fair housing. While there is some alignment in metrics such as percentage of all families (7%) and all seniors (10%) under the poverty level,60 many of the challenges facing Santa Barbara are nearly non-existent in the overwhelmingly high-income, white collar environment of Beverly Hills. 58 See County of Santa Barbara, Point-in-Time Count (2020); Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, Homeless Count by Community (2020); U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations (2020)
59 Id. note 56.
60 Id.
18 1301-210073
Housing Elements and RHNAs
To further grasp how each city addresses equitable housing amid unique circumstances, their respective Housing Elements are critically informative. They are unfortunately offset by two years. The current City of Santa Barbara Housing Element was adopted in 2015 and is being supplemented by annual progress reports until the end of the planning period in 2023. In contrast, the City of Beverly Hills adopted its 2021-2029 Housing Element this past October. Up to date US Census61 and Bureau of Labor Statistics62 data will be used to bridge the gap.

Two main goals of the 2015 Santa Barbara Housing Element were the ensuring of housing opportunities and production of new housing developments for lower-income households. Other target groups included special needs population, the homeless, and seniors. In prioritizing lower-income housing for over two decades,63 increasing housing supply has been the City’s long-term solution.

As of 2019, the City of Santa Barbara maintained an occupied rental inventory of 22,153 units, a median rent of $1,786, and a 1.7% vacancy rate; home ownership was at 15,180 units, a median mortgage of $3,193, and a .6% vacancy rate. 64 Fair Market Rent, the 40th
percentile rent values adjusted for CPI (the same for both cities) and upon which Section 8 Housing vouchers are based, shows a value of $2,478 for a two-bedroom unit in Santa Barbara for the 2022 fiscal year.65 Juxtaposed with the income referenced in Table 2,

55.3% of all Santa Barbara tenants spent approximately a third of it on rent, with 51% of homeowners paying a quarter of theirs on mortgages.
66 This data appears to reinforce
the existence of a housing affordability crisis within the City not isolated to lower-income demographics.

The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) share for the City of Santa Barbara in 2014 was 4,099 future units.67 Despite being a mature city in terms of land availability (among a number of constraints),68 the City identified more than enough opportunity sites 61 Id.
62 U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Market Rents (2022). 63 City of Santa Barbara, 2015-2023 Housing Element (2015) p. 51. 64 Id. note 57.
65 U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Market Rents: Santa Barbara County (2022).
66 Id. note 57.
67 2015 SB Housing Element p. 78.
68 Id. at p. 71.
19 1301-210073
for potential development to fulfill the 2014 RHNA, specifically 164% of it.69 At the onset of the current planning period, 292 units had been at least approved for construction.70 Approximately 1,000 more units have been completed as of the 2020 Annual Progress Report, leaving 2,772 yet to be built.71 At the current pace of roughly 214 units per year, this would result in only under half of the RHNA prescription by the projection period’s end in 2022, with the lower-income allocations being particularly shortchanged. This is not for lack of the City trying, having incentivized accessory dwelling unit (ADU) construction, adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance, and devised efficient ways to produce more housing stock through commercial zone residences and infill development, all in the hope of wider affordability. In the end, the 2015 Housing Element says it best:
“However, given land costs, construction costs and other market conditions, simply providing higher density zoning may not result in housing affordable to very low and low-income households in Santa Barbara… Unfortunately [regardless of previous success with community partnerships and public subsidies]… construction costs can be prohibitive.”72
There is thus not only a dearth of availability of affordable housing, but also of the means to produce housing in general. It is as well worth noting that production of new housing will become progressively critical in a city where a majority of existing housing is fast approaching 100 years old.73
Turning to this year’s Beverly Hills Housing Element, similar goals regarding shared target populations can be found. Though there are mentions of special needs populations, lower-income inclusion, and homelessness prevention, seniors are by far the main focus of the city’s affordable housing efforts. A major difference in this Housing Element is evidently the inclusion of the Rent Stabilization Program and the prospect of proactive, periodic rental inspections.74
The occupied rental inventory for Beverly Hills in 2019 was 8,641 units, a median rent of $2,244, and a 5% vacancy rate; home ownership was at 6,128 units, a median mortgage of over $4,000, and a 3% vacancy rate.75 Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom unit in 69 Id. at p. 89.
70 Id. at p. 58.
71 City of Santa Barbara, General Plan Annual Progress Report (2020), p. 3-2. 72 2015 SB Housing Element p. 89.
73 Id. note 57.
74 City of Beverly Hills, 2021-2029 Housing Element (Oct. 12, 2021), p. 469. 75 Id. note 57.
20 1301-210073
Beverly Hills for the 2022 fiscal year was $2,044.
76 53% of all Beverly tenants spent
approximately a third of it on rent and 59.6% of homeowners paying a quarter of theirs on mortgages, which though similar to Santa Barbara proportions, does result in a great dollar amount.
77 This data may reflect a housing affordability crisis, but perhaps of a different hue, considering the much higher earnings of the general population.

For its 2013 RHNA, Beverly Hills enjoyed an enviable target of 3 units and overproduced by 205 units.78 The RHNA for the current projection period is 3,104 units.79 Although it has identified more than twice as many sites, disproportionately towards moderateincome housing,80 Beverly Hills faces similar constraints as Santa Barbara. However, land cost and availability are the primary impediment versus construction costs.81 Also like Santa Barbara, Beverly Hills has promoted ADU construction and inclusionary housing. Additionally, it too will have to soon address the third of its aging housing stock built before 1939,82 whether by continuing a renewed focus on historic preservation or pursuing new developments entirely.

Regarding the Rent Stabilization Program’s effect on Housing Element issues, Deputy Director Morales believes it’s improved the climate in the local rental community and opened the door for both tenants and landlords to participate directly in the city mission for affordable and fair housing.
83 Policy, Infrastructure, and Finance
In crafting the specific provisions of the ordinance, the Beverly Hills City Council hired real estate and affordable housing experts HR&A as advisors. Among the issues to be addressed were how to calculate maximum rent increases, relocation fee details, additional RSO exemptions, no-cause evictions, and Ellis Act considerations. The firm conducted facilitated dialogue sessions for tenant and landlord input, an extensive inventory of the city’s housing stock, and a comparative analysis on regional apartment rentals and operating expenses. It then provided three to six policy recommendations for 76 U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Market Rents: Los Angeles County (2022).
77 Id. note 57.
78 2021 BH Housing Element, p. D-2.
79 Id. at p. A-24.
80 Id. at p. C-2.
81 Id. at p. B-3.
82 Id. note 57.
83 Id. note 6.
21 1301-210073
each issue post-analysis, city tenant and landlord advantages and disadvantages for each, as well as administrative considerations. No particular recommendation was favored or endorsed for any issue. Among several outcomes informed by this advisory work, a major development was the nearly immediate elimination of Chapter 6 no-cause evictions in October 2018. Conversely, the city council also acted outside of mainline HR&A recommendations by adopting CPI-based relocation fees, which was largely influenced by tenant feedback in the dialogue sessions.84 After addressing the contents of the RSO itself, Beverly Hills then needed to build an infrastructure to effectively administrate it. The city hired municipal government consulting firm Management Partners in 2017 to advise on program implementation, staffing, costs, and project management.85 Based on the staffing of other rent-stabilized cities applied to the context of Beverly Hills unit volume and RSO specifications, the firm recommended a staff of eight full-time employees and an additional code enforcement officer. It then proposed placement of this new staff as a separate division in either the Community Development Administration or Community Services Department, owing to their respective existing infrastructure for the program. Finally, it produced an exhaustive tabulation of projected costs of staffing, contracts, internal services, and fees from FY 2017 to FY 2021. With these recommendations, the city council soon hired Dr. Helen Morales as Deputy Director of Rent Stabilization, who now manages the current RSP with a four-person Rent Stabilization Division staff within the Community Development Administration. Management Partners’ cost projections were also highly valuable and have since informed major disbursements and budget allotments. Below is a nonexhaustive version of the firm’s tabulations for the first two fiscal years. 84 Compare issues identified in Director of Community Development Susan Healy Keane and Deputy Director of Rent Stabilization Helen Morales, City of Beverly Hills, report to City Council of Beverly Hills (Oct. 16, 2018) with current RSO. 85 Id. note 53.
22 1301-210073
Table 3
Category FY 2017 (8-month start-up) FY 2018 (first full year) Salaries and Benefits
(Deputy Director plus 7 staff) $787,700 $1,123,200
Materials, Supplies, and Training
(Office functions, mailing, etc.) $80,000 $75,000
Capital Outlay
(Furniture, computers, etc.) $77,000 $0
External Contracts
(3Di, Management Partners,
etc.) a
$472,500 $376,000
Contingency
(Reserve fund for unexpected
expenses with maturing
program)
$75,000 $150,000
Total $1,492,200 $1,649,200
(Source: Management Partners, 2017)86
a – Does not include the estimated $198,700 for HR&A advisory work87 The firm had also anticipated internal legal, enforcement, and IT costs totaling $437,700 for the initial period and $512,600 for the full fiscal year.88 The city council had already appropriated $250,000 from the General Fund to initiate the RSP in April 2017.89 By FY 2018, the Rent Stabilization Division had been incorporated into the city budget and posted the following figures:

Table 4
Category Expenditures
Salaries and Benefits $597,495
Materials and Supplies $9,000
Contractual Services $194,230
Capital Outlay $8,361
Total $800,725
(Source: Beverly Hills FY 2018/19 Operating Budget)90
It is important to note that the Rent Stabilization Program is not fully encompassed by Rent Stabilization Division and relies on the Community Preservation Division for enforcement. These figures, consequently, do not constitute the entirety of the program’s cost. The Rent Stabilization Division, in and of itself, has no source of revenue besides 86 Id. note 53.
87 Director of Community Development Susan Healy Keen, City of Beverly Hills, report to City Council of Beverly Hills, Oct. 16, 2018.
88 Id. note 53.
89 City Council of Beverly Hills Meeting, Item F-1, Apr. 20, 2017. 90 City of Beverly Hills, FY 2018/19 Adopted Operating Budget (June 2018), p. 166. 23 1301-210073
that of the Community Development Administration, largely through the General Fund.

Analogous divisions in other municipalities are able to generate independent revenue through charging rental registration fees.91 Beverly Hills currently charges no fees for its rental registry, but Deputy Director Morales did reference exploratory studies into a potential future fee that have led to a figure of approximately $197.92 With even an annual turnover rate of 50% across an inventory of 8,641 units, this could recoup $851,040 in revenue, covering division expenditures and substantially offsetting total RSP costs.

Applicability
The history, content, and implementation of the current Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Program were collectively presented as a potential template for Santa Barbara in its own initiation of rent stabilization measures. A comparison between the two cities’ population and housing situations, along with Beverly Hills’ groundwork in program establishment, have now been outlined as possible contributing factors to applicability of such a template.

It is critical to note that Beverly Hills has had some form of rent stabilization since 1978.

Beverly Hills therefore has longstanding administrative and public exposure in this arena, which Santa Barbara does not similarly enjoy. As a result, Beverly Hills has had over three decades to develop enforcement mechanisms, multilateral buy-in, and citywide awareness towards rent stabilization. Perhaps it was this head start that led to the relative efficiency of initial program implementation that by-and-large continues to ordinance improvement today. Indeed, in research done for this memorandum, all rent stabilization matters encountered were unanimously adopted by the Beverly Hills City Council, save one involving an increase in retainer fees for outside counsel. It was also able to stave off opposition by actively developing its ordinance with advisory and tenant-landlord inputs.

In a matter of two years, it developed a full-fledged program complete with an independent administrative division and city commission. Whether Santa Barbara can replicate this feat using Beverly Hills as an example but without the stated advantages remains an open question.

To draw content from the Beverly Hills RSO does seem to confer some benefit. First, the current RSO iteration has already been subject to several rounds of amendments aimed at strengthening the ordinance by closing initial loopholes and furthering tenants’ rights.

Incorporating its provisions as they are now in a future Santa Barbara RSO would be to 91 Director of Community Development Susan Healy Keene, City of Beverly Hills, report to City Council of Beverly Hills, Feb. 21, 2017.
92 Id. note 6.
24 1301-210073
adopt a statute likely more mature than one built from the ground-up. Second, the Beverly Hills RSO has already held up to a degree of judicial review,93 and it may behoove the City to follow that lead. Ultimately, though legal action has been a constant companion of rent control policies and produced decades of pro-stabilization precedent, it is difficult to know how subject to litigation any RSO will be, as evidenced by recent (as well as notso-recent) municipal and statewide cases.94 If there is a lesson to be taken from Beverly Hills’ RSO per se, it’s that initial implementation will be far from perfect and likely require corrective measures (as it did by incorporating landlord concessions) when issues arise in the early stages.

A thorough review of the economic and fiscal impact of a Santa Barbara Rent Stabilization Program, as directed by City Council, is beyond the scope of this memorandum. However, a summary of established programs in several potentially comparable rent-stabilized cities, as shown below, may provide some context.

Table 5
City Population Rental Stock FY2017 Budget Full-time
Employees
Santa Monica 92,000 27,542 $5,181,693 25
Berkeley 121,000 19,093 $5,243,029 22
Richmond 108,565 10,469 $2,425,355 7
(Source: Management Partners, 2017)95
These figures suggest that rental stock and staff numbers may be more determinant than population in calculating program cost. What other factors contribute to these programs’ budget calculus are a topic of future study. Equally, existing Santa Barbara infrastructure dealing with rent-related issues is worth investigating as a potential foundation for a future program, which could defray some initial outlays. One notable feature is the City’s longserving internal Rental Housing Mediation Program (RHMP), which has precursor 93 See AAGLA v. Beverly Hills (2018).
94 See Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2021, No. 220CV04479ODWJEMX) 2021 WL 2460634; California Rental Housing Ass’n, et al. v. Newsom, et al., 2021 WL 3470081; Kavanau v. Santa Monica Control Bd. (1998) 522 U.S. 1077 [118 S.Ct. 856, 139 L.Ed.2d 755]; and Edevane, “Major Victory”: Landlord Group Drops Rent Control Lawsuit Against Richmond, Mountain View, NBC Bay Area (May 8, 2017)
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/major-victory-landlord-group-drops-rentcontrol-lawsuit-against-richmond-mountain-view/18616 (as of Dec. 27, 2021). 95 Id. note 53.
25 1301-210073
elements96 to a more empowered Mediation Board to officially hear rent-related matters.

Beverly Hills, in contrast, relies on external mediation and counseling, and is currently exploring establishment of such an internal board. The RHMP further lends credence to the Housing and Human Services Division of the Community Development Department being a suitable home for a rent stabilization program, especially considering its current work in fair housing enforcement and affordable housing.97 Additionally, many — if not all — of the tenant protection recommendations presented by this Office in 201798 have already been adopted, whether locally or statewide. Therefore, some of the resource-consuming considerations Beverly Hills had to invest in no longer apply. No-cause evictions, for example, will not be an issue requiring administrative deliberation or external advisory recommendations for the City. More resources can today be devoted to actual program implementation versus navigating since-defined policies.

As a final caveat, any notion of a one-size-fits-all ordinance must be instantly dismissed.

An ordinance that is suitable for the people of Beverly Hills cannot be assumed to be similarly suitable for the people of Santa Barbara, particularly in light of major disparities in demographic and housing situations. Data has shown Beverly Hills to be an outlier among outliers when it comes to combined age and income statistics. Beyond that, Santa Barbara possesses a unique set of population considerations—namely, income and density extremes combined with a sizeable immigrant and homeless population—distinct from Beverly Hills, even most other major metropolitan satellite cities.

Future Direction
Overall, the current Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Ordinance can be best characterized as a good place to start for a future Santa Barbara RSO. Its provisions have been shown to be legally sound and its infrastructure adept at ensuring its improvement. However, it may (and likely will) require further tailoring to fit the population and housing needs of the City. Rent increase percentage limits and their relationship to CPI—currently at an annual difference of 16.7%—seem to be a ripe point of consideration. A slight dichotomy in 96 See Housing and Human Services Division, Rental Housing Mediation Program, City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department Administration (2021) https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/services/home/rhm/default.asp (as of Dec. 27, 2021). 97 Housing and Human Services Division, City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department Administration (2021)
https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/cd/ahhs.asp (as of Dec. 27, 2021). 98 City Attorney of Santa Barbara Ariel Pierre Calonne, report to City Council of Santa Barbara, Mar. 21, 2017.
26 1301-210073
policies between lower and higher rents, as it exists between Chapter 5 and 6 of the BHMC, may too be a target of opportunity.

The overall intent of the Santa Barbara RSO will also be informative to its provisions. Will it be meant to simply augment an expanding array of city initiatives towards increasing housing stock, alongside average unit-size density incentives, streamlined building standards, and ADU construction? Or is it meant to be an unequivocal signal of intent to address an ongoing housing crisis, safeguard tenants’ rights, and maximize affordability for all residents? The answer will determine the focus and vigor of the ordinance, as well as the perspective of its governing infrastructure, such as whether it chooses to establish a “pro-ordinance” commission or a “pro-tenant” board.

Regardless of what direction the Santa Barbara RSO vectors, the City should continue to investigate other rent stabilization programs for lessons learned and additional insight.

Upon cursory inspection, Santa Monica and Berkeley offer promise for future study. The City might also seek to join them and the eighteen other municipalities in the statewide RSO consortium. The City should as well look inward to proactively prepare a suitable location for an inevitable program and its staff.

CONCLUSION
Rent stabilization measures were enacted in the first half of the previous century due to crises that would have otherwise made availability of affordable housing close to impossible. Crushing economic circumstances in the 1970s saw their reemergence after three decades of waning demand. Today, amid a continued housing crisis, a lingering global pandemic, and rising price inflation, they appear to be growing in necessity yet again.

The City of Santa Barbara, despite its efforts at producing housing stock, has now turned to rent stabilization to help address the crisis in affordable housing by which it has been long been affected. While the City of Beverly Hills is not the perfect template for Santa Barbara in developing a related ordinance and program, it does offer valuable lessons in proactive improvement and collaborative action. Should Santa Barbara follow its lead, the City must craft a comprehensive ordinance that encompasses the needs of the entirety of its diverse population. The resulting program must not only strive to make housing more available and affordable for many, but also make it more accessible and secure for the most vulnerable.

JV/APC/lp

Santa Barbara City CouncilFebruary 1, 2022

Santa Barbara City Council
February 1, 2022