Santa Barbara City Council
May 2, 2023

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CITY COUNCIL
Randy Rowse
Mayor
Rebecca Bjork
City Administrator
Alejandra Gutierrez
Mayor Pro Tempore
Oscar Gutierrez
Ordinance Committee Chair
Sarah J. Knecht
City Attorney
Eric Friedman
Finance Committee Chair
Meagan Harmon
Mike Jordan
Kristen W. Sneddon
City Hall
735 Anacapa Street
http://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov
MAY 2, 2023, 2:00 PM
AGENDA
IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT: At the beginning of each meeting of the City Council, Finance Committee, or Ordinance Committee, any member of the public may address the City Council concerning any item not on the Council's agenda. Any person wishing to make such address should first complete and deliver a "Request to Speak" form prior to the time that public comment is taken up by the City Council. 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.

Any member of the public who did not speak during the 2:00 p.m. session but who submitted a request to do so during the 2:00 p.m. 30 minute session may do so at the end of the meeting when the additional “Public Comment (If Necessary)” is announced. The City Council, upon majority vote, may decline to hear a speaker on the grounds that the subject matter is beyond their jurisdiction.

REMOTE 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. The keyboard shortcut for this is Alt+Y for Windows and Option+Y for Macs. City staff will activate the speaker’s microphone when the speaker’s name is called. The speaker will then need to unmute themselves. The keyboard shortcut for this is Alt+M for Windows or Command-Shift-A for Macs.

HOW TO REMOTELY OBSERVE AND/OR SPEAK LIVE AT A MEETING
 Web: https://santabarbaraca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_6qBzhd1OQ_iNFgvfSw-R0Q (Participation via Zoom)
 Telephone: Dial 1-669-900-6833, Enter Webinar ID: 859 7587 0615 (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 8:00 a.m., and in Spanish on Sundays at 3:00 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. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

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.

ORDER OF BUSINESS: Regular meetings of the Finance Committee and the Ordinance Committee begin at 12:00 p.m. The regular City Council meeting begins at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers 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 or raise your hand in Zoom 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. 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. Specialized services, such as sign language interpretation or documents in Braille, may require additional lead time to arrange. 05/02/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 1 MAY 2, 2023 AGENDA
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING - 12:00 P.M. IN THE DAVID GEBHARD PUBLIC MEETING ROOM, 630 GARDEN STREET (120.03)
Subject: Finance Committee Review of the Fiscal Year 2024 Recommended Budget and Cost Recovery and Revenue Policy (230.05)
Recommendation: That Finance Committee hear a report from staff in connection with the Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2024 on proposed changes to General Fund fees and staff’s proposed Cost Recovery and Revenue Policy.

Webinar ID: 822 9813 9212
Passcode: 078178

05/02/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 2 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 2:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

1. Subject: Fair Housing Month 2023 (120.04)

2. Subject: Employee Recognition – Service Award Pins (120.04) 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 May 31, 2023.

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

CONSENT CALENDAR

3. Subject: Minutes
Recommendation: That Council waive reading and approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 28, 2023; March 21, 2023; and the special meetings of March 9, 2023; April 10, 2023; April 18, 2023.

05/02/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 3

4. Subject: Loan Forgiveness for Transition House Homeless Families Shelter Located at 434 East Ortega Street [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution] (660.04)
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Approve a request from Transition House, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, for loan forgiveness on property located at 434 East Ortega Street, which is operating as a family homeless shelter; B. Introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Approving a Second Amendment to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Imposed on Real Property Located at 434 East Ortega Street to Restart a New 90-Year Term of Use as a Homeless Families Shelter;
C. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 22-059, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2023, to Approve an Increase in Fiscal Year 2023 Expenditure Appropriations in the Affordable Housing Fund in the amount of $460,000 to Record Forgiveness of Loans Receivable; and
D. Authorize the Community Development Director to execute such documents as necessary to effectuate Amended Covenant and loan forgiveness, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.

5. Subject: Set a Date for Public Hearing Regarding Renewal of Levy for Fiscal Year 2024 for the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District [Resolution] (520.03)
Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Declaring its Intention to Continue the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment within the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones; Declaring the Work to be of More Than General or Ordinary Benefit and Describing the District to be Assessed to Pay the Costs and Expenses Thereof; Preliminarily Approving the Updated Engineer’s Report; Stating Intention to Continue Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024 and Establishing a Time of 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday June 6, 2023, in the City Council Chambers for a Public Hearing on the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment.

05/02/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 4

6. Subject: Authorization to Amend the Legal Services with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC for Special Counsel Services [Agreement] (160.03) Recommendation: That Council authorize the City Attorney to execute an amended legal services agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC, to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $250,000 to $750,000 for special counsel services related to the P. Boring, et al. v. Cathy Murillo, et al. case.

7. Subject: Adoption of Program Year 2023–2024 Annual Action Plan for Submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (660.01)
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Adopt the City’s Annual Action Plan for Program Year 2023–2024 for submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and
B. Authorize the City Administrator to sign all necessary documents to submit the City’s Annual Action Plan to HUD.

This concludes the Consent Calendar.

PUBLIC COMMENT

PULLED CONSENT ITEMS

REPORT FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE

COUNCILMEMBER COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT REPORTS

CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE AND ATTORNEY REPORTS

CITY ADMINISTRATOR

8. Subject: OIR Group Audit of Santa Barbara Police Department Policies, Procedures, and Practices (520.01)
Recommendation: That Council receive a presentation on the findings and recommendations from the OIR Group Audit of Santa Barbara Police Department Policies, Procedures and Practices.

05/02/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 5

SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE

9. Subject: Extension of Bicycle Share Pilot Program (530.04) Recommendation: That Council:

A. Receive an update on the Bicycle Share Pilot Program; and B. Approve a three-year extension of the Bicycle Share Pilot Program.

COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

COUNCILMEMBER ENGAGEMENTS

PUBLIC COMMENT (IF NECESSARY)

CLOSED SESSIONS

10. Subject: Conference with City Attorney – Existing Litigation – Gov. Code §54956.9(d)(1) (160.03)
Recommendation: That Council hold a closed session to consider pending litigation pursuant to subsection (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code and take appropriate action as needed.

The pending litigation is City of Santa Barbara v. Cynthia Dee Howard, et al. SBSC Case No. 22CV02058.

Scheduling: Duration 15 mins; anytime
Report: None anticipated

ADJOURNMENT

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

MEETING AGENDA
DATE: May 2, 2023 Eric Friedman, Chair
TIME: 12:00 PM Alejandra Gutierrez
PLACE: David Gebhard Public Meeting Room Meagan Harmon
630 Garden Street
Rebecca Bjork Keith DeMartini
City Administrator Finance Director
Members of the public may participate in person or via Zoom. Zoom instructions are below.  Web: (Participation via Zoom)
Register in advance for this webinar:
https://santabarbaraca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_VbkWCnnSTdiSNWbkP2biZg Webinar ID: 822 9813 9212
Passcode: 078178
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
 Telephone: Dial 1-669-900-6833, Enter Webinar ID: 822 9813 9212 (press *9 to raise/lower hand; press *6 to mute/unmute) REMOTE 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. The keyboard shortcut for this is Alt+Y for Windows and Option+Y for Macs. City staff will activate the speaker’s microphone when the speaker’s name is called. The speaker will then need to unmute themselves. They keyboard shortcut for this is Alt+M for Windows or Command-Shift-A for Macs.

For those who need accessibility accommodation in using the “raise hand” function and/or registering to participate in the Zoom session, please contact the Finance Department 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 the item on which they wish to speak.

ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION:

Subject: Finance Committee Review of the Fiscal Year 2024 Recommended Budget and Cost Recovery and Revenue Policy
Recommendation: That Finance Committee hear a report from staff in connection with the Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2024 on proposed changes to General Fund fees and staff’s proposed Cost Recovery and Revenue Policy.

Agenda Item No. 1
File Code No. 120.03

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2023
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Administration Division, Finance Department
SUBJECT: Finance Committee Review of the Fiscal Year 2024 Recommended Budget and Cost Recovery and Revenue Policy
RECOMMENDATION:

That Finance Committee hear a report from staff in connection with the Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2024 on proposed changes to General Fund fees and staff’s proposed Cost Recovery and Revenue Policy.

DISCUSSION:

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023, the Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2024 was submitted to City Council. City Council heard an overview of the budget and approved the Schedule of Council Budget Review Meetings and Public Hearings. The General Fund departmental proposed fee changes will be presented to the Finance Committee.

Staff has drafted a cost recovery and revenue policy and is seeking the Finance Committee’s review. The purpose of the policy is to establish a citywide Cost Recovery and Revenue Policy by identifying cost recovery factors and concepts that should be considered for setting cost recovery target levels for each program offered by the City. The policy allows City services users, staff, and general taxpayers to better understand the philosophy behind pricing of a program or service. The policy is based on the cost recovery goal for the City to provide the established service and whether the service is a public, public and individual, or primarily an individual benefit service.

Establishing a citywide Cost Recovery and Revenue Policy is a best practice in local governments because it increases transparency and standardization among fee setting. It is also in line with the purpose and goals of the City of Santa Barbara’s Vision 2030 Initiative as it ensures adequate and appropriate cost recovery of City services. Staff are requesting the Finance Committee’s feedback on the draft policy and are planning to seek the City Council’s approval of the policy at the same time the budget is adopted in June.

The next meeting for the Finance Committee’s budget review is scheduled on Tuesday, May 9, 2023, from 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m., when the Committee will review and consider proposed changes to fees for Enterprise Funds.

File Code No. 230.05 ile Code No. 230.05
Finance Committee Agenda Report
Finance Committee Review of the Fiscal Year 2024 Recommended Budget and Cost Recovery and Revenue Policy
May 2, 2023

ATTACHMENT: Cost Recovery and Revenue Policy
PREPARED BY: Natalija Glusac, Budget Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Keith DeMartini, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES:

COST RECOVERY & REVENUE POLICY
Policy No.

Issued by: Date:

Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to establish a Citywide cost recovery and revenue policy by identifying cost recovery factors and concepts that should be considered for setting cost recovery target levels for each program offered by the City. This Policy allows the City services users, staff, and general taxpayers to better understand the philosophy behind pricing of a program or service. The policy is based on the cost recovery goal for the service established by the City to provide the service and whether the service is a public, public, and individual, or primarily an individual benefit service.

Background
The City of Santa Barbara is simultaneously accountable for maintaining a sustainable budget that benefits the overall community and one that also responds to the interests of the individuals who live here. While the primary mission of government is to satisfy community needs, many City services solely benefit specific individuals or businesses. It is the intention of this policy to establish cost recovery levels so that the public at large is not subsidizing activities that benefit individual recipients through general tax revenues. The foundation of effective cost recovery is a well-conceived, regularly reviewed policy. Such a policy provides a guideline for setting equitable fees given the full cost of each service, allowing optimum cost-recovery rates for defined services, and alleviating unintended subsidization of these services from General Fund resources.

A cost recovery policy provides guidelines for setting fees given the full cost of service. It does not bind policymakers to increasing or decreasing fees but does provide rationale for doing so. The lower fees are set, relative to full cost recovery, the more General Fund dollars are required to maintain the service. This additional support must then be weighed against the other needs for General Fund resources, including needs which may not have similar cost recovery options.

Cost recovery does not imply that the target is total recovery of the cost; however, a target is established according to a variety of considerations and may range from 0% to more than 100% of direct costs.

Principles, Definitions & Criteria:

The guiding principles for the creation of an effective pricing policy are as follows:
• Accessibility, Fairness and Affordability based on the category of service and benefit level. • Effective and appropriate funding strategies from General Fund, user fees and other sources. • Improved efficiency in the cost of providing programs, services, and facilities. • Financial sustainability by achieving established cost recovery targets.

ATTACHMENT

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES:

COST RECOVERY & REVENUE POLICY
Policy No.

Issued by: Date:

DEFINITION OF TERMS:

Public Services are services the City offers that provide all users the same level of opportunity to access the service. The level of benefit is the same to all users. Public Services normally have low or no user fees associated with their consumption. The cost for providing these services is borne by the General Fund.

Public and Individual Benefit Services are services whereby the user receives a higher level of benefit than the general taxpayer. The taxpayer benefits as a whole because the service provides a more livable community and the service has a good public benefit as well. Public and Individual Services can be priced using either a partial overhead pricing strategy or a variable cost pricing strategy. Partial overhead pricing strategies recover all direct operating costs and some determined portion of fixed indirect costs. Variable cost pricing strategies recover a determined portion of the fixed direct costs by adding a markup to the variable costs. The expectation is that the markup will contribute to meeting all or a part of fixed direct costs and generate some level of indirect cost recovery. The portion of fixed indirect costs not recovered by the price established represents the subsidy. Whatever the level of subsidy, staff needs to inform the users by letting them know that the City is investing a certain dollar amount and/or what percentage level of investment they are making in their experience.

Individual Benefit Services are services where only the user benefits. For these services, the City should implement a pricing strategy to achieve full cost recovery. The price of this service is intended to recover all direct and indirect costs associated with providing the service.

Direct Expenses are City costs associated with staff, materials and supplies and other resources associated with providing the program, service or operating the facility. Direct expenses also include the proportional cost of the program or facility supervisor, coordinator or administrative personnel based on the time required to plan, organize, and direct the operation of that program, service or facility.

Indirect Expenses are the cost of the City Departments to provide the program or facility. Indirect expenses include Department Administration, marketing, information technology, and facility or maintenance staff. Indirect expenses also include citywide functionalities such as Human Resources, Information Technology, Fleet, Facilities, Finance, City Administrator and City Attorney time associated with supporting the operation of the program or facility, among other expenses.

Cost Recovery Percentage outlined in this Policy is based on Direct Expenses only and does not include Indirect Expenses. It is generally recommended that an additional 5%-10% be added to the fees established for Important and Value-Added programs, services and facilities, and 0%-5% for Core Services programs, services and facilities, to attempt to offset some portion of the Indirect Expenses associated with providing those activities.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES:

COST RECOVERY & REVENUE POLICY
Policy No.

Issued by: Date:

CORE SERVICES (0%-20% Cost Recovery)
Core services are those programs, services, and facilities that the City of Santa Barbara must provide and/or are essential in order to capably govern the municipality and operate. The failure to provide a core service at an adequate level would result in a significant negative consequence relative to the City’s health and safety and economic and community vitality. The criteria for a core service are:
• City of Santa Barbara is mandated by law or is contractually obligated by agreement to provide the service.
• The service is essential to protecting and supporting the public’s health and safety. • The service protects and maintains valuable City assets and infrastructure. • The City’s residents, business customers and partners would generally and reasonably expect and support the City in providing the service, and that service is one that cannot or should not be provided by the private sector and provides a sound investment of public funds.

Examples of City functions that are considered Core Services include elections, City Council material distribution, Boards and Commissions, filings, records management, fire services, library services, Parks and Recreation Centers and Community Centers, maintenance of parks, and safety and noise enforcement by Police.

IMPORTANT SERVICES (20%-80% Cost Recovery)
Important services are those programs, services and facilities the City should provide, and are important to governing the municipality and effectively serving its residents, businesses, customers and partners. Providing important services expands or enhances the ability to provide and sustain the City’s core services, health and safety, and economic and community vitality. The criteria for an important service are:
• Service provides, expands, enhances, or supports identified core services. • Services are broadly supported and utilized by the community, and are considered an appropriate, important, and valuable public good. Public support may be conditional upon how the service is paid for or funded.
• Service generates income or revenue that offsets some or all of its operating cost and/or is deemed to provide an economic, social or environmental outcome or result within the community.

Examples of Important Services include water heater installation permits, hazardous materials fees, fire permit/safety inspection/safety plan check fees, Parks & Recreation youth sports leagues, and animal/vehicle impounding.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES:

COST RECOVERY & REVENUE POLICY
Policy No.

Issued by: Date:

VALUE-ADDED SERVICES (80%-100% Cost Recovery)
Value-Added services are discretionary programs, services and facilities that the City may provide when additional funding or revenue exists to offset the cost of providing those services. These programs and services provide added value to the residents, businesses, customers, and partners above and beyond what is required or expected of a municipality. The criteria for added value services are:
• Service expands, enhances, or supports Core or Important services, and the quality of life of the community.
• Services are supported and well utilized by the community and provide an appropriate and valuable public benefit.
• Service generates income or funding from sponsorships, grants, user fees or other sources that offsets some or all of its cost and/or provides a meaningful economic, social or environmental benefit to the community.

Examples of Value-Added Services include Citizen CPR classes, fire extinguisher training, afterschool programs, summer camps, animal vaccination, and dead animal disposal.

ACCESSIBILITY, FAIRNESS AND AFFORDABILITY
This Policy supports equity and fairness because it requires those who personally benefit from a program or service above what the general taxpayer receives to pay for that added benefit.

Affordability should be based on both the level of benefit and ability to pay. For example, the City should not subsidize programs with tax support solely based on the age of the user. The type of service and benefit received will directly determine the cost recovery level or pricing strategy to be used in the pricing of the services and products.

SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
Supplemental funding from user fees and prices charged for programs, activities and services assist in the overall funding of the City’s operations. The revenue produced through supplemental funding provides the City the needed revenue for operations, capital costs and marketing to promote programs and services available to the community. These dollars can come from any source that supports operations and include grants, sponsorships, partnerships, permits, special rental uses, concessions and many other options. The City should identify supplemental funding opportunities whenever possible and where appropriate.

EFFECTIVENESS
City staff can evaluate how the service is delivered and if it is delivered in the most effective and efficient manner based on the cost to deliver the service. Priorities to enhance user or visitor experiences are clearly defined because the services provided are made visible and the priorities are

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES:

COST RECOVERY & REVENUE POLICY
Policy No.

Issued by: Date:
established based on the direct user costs that are associated with the activities that users want. Pricing City services correctly can achieve these positive results:

1. Reduces overcrowding of programs and facilities which enhances supervision and improves visitor experience.

2. Indicates user and visitor demand and support for the service.

3. Increases positive user and visitor feedback.

4. Provides encouragement to the private sector to partner with Departmental programs through contracts that can bring greater revenue to the City.

5. Ensures stronger accountability of staff and management of the service.

6. Creates program choices for those who want a higher level of quality or individual attention. (i.e., private lessons versus group lessons) through differential pricing.

DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE FUNDS TO ACHIEVE COST RECOVERY GOALS Distribution of Revenue means dollars generated from each activity are redistributed back to the area they came from to pay direct and indirect costs in some situations, and for future improvements associated with a facility or activity. The staff will document the cost of services provided through a costing model. The true cost of each activity is designated as direct and indirect costs associated with providing a product or service. An annual review of all prices is recommended to document the changes that have occurred within the products or services provided by City. This will help staff to evaluate which program, product or service should have adjustments based on the Policy.

City of Santa Barbara City Council and staff will set prices for services based on the following assessment:
• What is the cost to provide the service and what is the unit cost per registered participant or attendance at the program or facility?
• Is the program or service core, important or value added based on the criteria established and the level of cost recovery and subsidy?
• What level of benefit does the program provide? Is the benefit public, individual and public or primarily an individual benefit based on the definitions in the pricing policy? • Does this price support the cost recovery goal desired for the program or facility to support sustainability?
Pricing Policies & Procedures:

Key Elements in implementing the Pricing Policy include:
• Create appropriate value based on benefit level and price accordingly.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES:

COST RECOVERY & REVENUE POLICY
Policy No.

Issued by: Date:
• Calculate the costs (direct/indirect) and level of cost recovery goal as established for that service.
• Compare how the program price of facility use cost compares in the marketplace of private and public providers.
• Price services correctly the first time based on cost and target for cost recovery. • Use differential pricing based on participant, product, and times to encourage greater use of the service or facility.
• Educate staff, volunteers, boards, and officials on the methodology to establish cost recovery, level of subsidy and eventual price for program, service, or facility. • Communicate cost of service to program and facility users so they understand how their fees contribute to the total cost of the service and level of subsidy from City.

ESTABLISH PRICING/COST RECOVERY CRITERIA
• Does this program/service align with the Departmental Vision and Mission? • The program/service meets at least one of the City’s strategic directions. • The program has a strong social value that is supportive of an identified strategic direction. • The program, service, or facility is capable of achieving its established cost recovery target. • The program has strong economic appeal and creates a positive return on investment. • The program has a high partnering capability to expand or enhance service and/or offset operational costs.
• The program/service currently meets the capacity performance measures developed by staff. • What classification of Benefit Level does it fall under (Public, Public and Individual or Individual)?
• What is the true cost to provide the service and current level of subsidy? • What is the current price of the service and what level of cost recovery does it support now? What pricing alternatives are currently being used?

PRICING AND COST RECOVERY GOALS
Public Benefit Services = Core Direct Cost Recovery (0%-20%) Core services provide the broadest public and community benefit to the City of Santa Barbara and should be primarily funded by the City’s General Fund and tax support. A higher level of tax support is appropriate as it helps the City achieve key elements of its strategic plan and support the values of the City in serving the public.

Public and Individual Benefit Services = Important Direct Cost Recovery (20%-80%) Important services provide both a public, as well as individual, benefit to the program or service user.

The City should provide these services at a shared funding strategy that requires the participant to pay

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES:

COST RECOVERY & REVENUE POLICY
Policy No.

Issued by: Date:
a portion of the cost through user fees. Additionally, the City may utilize grants or partner funding to augment the cost of the program/service. The City should subsidize these programs/services with the General Fund based on a targeted percentage of cost recovery.

Individual Benefit Services = Value Added Direct Cost Recovery (80%-100%) Value added services primarily provide an individual and private benefit to the program or service user. Consequently, the City should recover the cost of providing these programs and services through user and rental fees. Additionally, the City may provide value added programs when outside funding, grants or sponsorships exist that substantially offset the cost of providing these programs. Pricing for these programs, services or facility use should be established based on a consideration of cost to the City and market rate for comparable programs, services, or facility use.

PRICING METHODOLOGIES
Pricing programs, services, and use of facilities should be based on a consideration of both direct and indirect cost to City of Santa Barbara as well as the “market-based value” of the service. Pricing should be evaluated annually and comparison rates should be considered during that process as needed. Flexibility is needed to maximize Department revenues and to respond to changing market conditions such as demand versus capacity, weather, changes to the cost of providing the service and/or additions or changes to existing programs.

Pricing Options to consider:
• Differential between resident and non-resident rates
• Prime time/non-prime time rates
• Group or Volume Discount rates
• In season/off season rates
• Increase the minimum numbers required to hold the program (low cost-high volume approach) to spread cost to more people while keeping price the same. • Reduce the staffing or material cost or length of a program/service to keep existing price. • Change the City/Contractor percentage split to increase revenue to the City.

NON-RESIDENT FEE DIFFERENTIAL
The criteria for establishing the differential percentage charged for non-residents for programs, services, or facility rentals will generally be as follows:
• A higher general fund subsidy by the City will justify a higher non-resident fee. Conversely, a lower non-general fund subsidy of a program or service will justify a lower or no fee differential.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES:

COST RECOVERY & REVENUE POLICY
Policy No.

Issued by: Date:
• Higher demand by City residents or limitations in capacity will justify higher non-resident fees. Conversely, a low demand or high capacity will justify a lower or no fee differential. • Youth and teens attending schools in City of Santa Barbara should be considered residents.

ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD COST RECOVERY (INDIRECT COSTS)
In addition to the direct cost recovery targets established for individual programs, the City should establish a percentage of cost recovery for programs, services, and facility use. The administrative overhead fee is designed to recover the proportional cost of the administration, marketing and advertising, and general support staff which contribute time and expense in supporting the programs.

In general, this fee should be established to recover an additional 5%-10% of the cost of the programs.

It is important to note this does not address building maintenance, replacement, etc.

FEE CHANGES
On an annual basis, coordinated with the City’s budget process, department staff will propose changes to existing fees, new fees and deleting obsolete fees in line with this policy. The proposed fee changes will be presented to the Finance Committee for initial consideration. Proposed fee changes will also be presented to the City Council as part of the budget review process and adopted along with the annual budget.

Fee changes may be considered as part of a fee study as well as being annually adjusted based on a commonly used index for a specific type of fee or service, such as a consumer price index (CPI) inflationary assumption.

Fee changes can be considered outside of the annual budget review process as necessary and coordinated with the Finance Director and City Administrator.

Proclamation

FAIR HOUSING MONTH
April 2023
WHEREAS, April is National Fair Housing Month, which celebrates the 55th Anniversary of the passage of the Federal Fair Housing Act of April 11, 1968. The enactment of this Act expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, (and as amended) handicap, and familial status; and
WHEREAS, during the month of April, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and fair housing advocates, organizations, and interested parties from both the private and public sectors, participated in a national effort to promote fair housing with a theme, “Choices for All Voices: Building an Equitable Future,” which underscores the Federal Administration’s commitment and progress toward advancing equity in housing and securing equal access to housing opportunities for all; and WHEREAS, according to the 2022 Fair Housing Trends Report, despite the local, state, and federal laws prohibiting discrimination, the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development and partner agencies received more than 11,000 complaints alleging discrimination based on one or more of the Fair Housing Act's seven protected classes: race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), disability, and familial status; and
WHEREAS, in efforts towards advancing equity in housing locally and as a part of the City’s participation in Fair Housing Month, notices will be placed on the City’s website directing residents to information about the Rental Housing Mediation Program and the City’s Fair Housing effort, a Fair Housing display can be viewed in the entrance of City Hall, and an announcement will be placed in the City’s Newsletter;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RANDY ROWSE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor of the City of Santa Barbara, California, do hereby proclaim April 2023 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH, and urge all citizens to understand and exercise their right to equal housing opportunity.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Santa Barbara, California, to be affixed this 2nd day of May, 2023.

Agenda Item No. 1
File Code No. 120.04

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 02, 2023
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 May 31, 2023.

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 May 31, 2023.

ATTACHMENT(S): May 2023 Service Awards
PREPARED BY: Talhia Dorado, Administrative Specialist
SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca Bjork, City Administrator
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office
Agenda Item No. 2
File Code No. 120.04

ATTACHMENT
May 2023 SERVICE AWARDS
May 02, 2023 Council Meeting
5 Years
Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Specialist, Public Works Department Adell Booker, Painter, Airport Department
10 YEARS
Michael -Donovan Maccarone, Laboratory Analyst II, Public Works Department 15 YEARS
Brian Baxter, Fire Captain, Fire Department
Joshua Brousseau, Fire Captain, Fire Department
Paul Spinale, Fire Engineer, Fire Department
Andrew Lee, Fire Engineer, Fire Department
Josef Mairleitner, Fire Engineer, Fire Department
Edmundo Aguilar, Senior Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator, Public Works Department Ernesto Lazaro, Water Distribution Operator Technician II, Public Works Department Anthony Trejo, Water Distribution Operator Technician I, Public Works Department Seth Gelber, Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator III, Public Works Department 20 YEARS
Ramon Bravo, Wastewater Collection System Lead Operator, Public Works Department 02/28/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 1 of 8

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2023
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 735 ANACAPA STREET

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Randy Rowse called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. (The Finance Committee met at 12:30 p.m. The Ordinance Committee, which normally meets at 12:30 p.m., did not meet on this day.)

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Rowse.

ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Eric Friedman, Alejandra Gutierrez, Meagan Harmon, Mike Jordan, Kristen W. Sneddon, Mayor Rowse.

Councilmembers absent: Oscar Gutierrez
Staff present: City Administrator Rebecca Bjork, City Attorney Sarah Knecht, Deputy City Clerk Niko Lopez.

Motion:

Councilmembers A. Gutierrez/Friedman to approve the remote participation of Councilmember O. Gutierrez.

Vote:

Majority roll call vote (Absent: O. Gutierrez).

Councilmember O. Gutierrez was marked present at the meeting at 2:04 p.m.

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

1. Subject: Peace Corps Week February 26 - March 4, 2023 (120.04) Action: Mayor Rowse delivered a proclamation to Charles Feinstein who accepted the proclamation and made a brief statement.

Agenda Item No. 3
02/28/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 2 of 8

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
City Administrator Rebecca Bjork announced that Item #11 will be pulled and heard at a later meeting.

11. Subject: Parking Management Agreement with Republic Parking Systems LLC and Parking Access Revenue Control Systems Replacement with TIBA, LLC [Agreement] (550.08)
Recommendation: That Council find it in the City’s best interest to waive the formal bid procedure as authorized by Municipal Code Section 4.52.070(L), and authorize the Airport Director to execute a three-year professional parking management agreement, with two one-year options, with Republic Parking Systems LLC, for $39,690 annually over the three-year term, with incremental increases if the Airport exercises the additional options, professional parking management services, and leasing, installation and maintenance of parking access revenue control software and equipment (PARCS) the Airport’s short and long-term parking lots, as well as shuttle service and other services as may be required.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public: John Hanna; Stanley Tzankov; Rick Hansen; Kenny Chism; Steve St. Ong; Wendy Santamaria; Patricia Guererra; Marcella Ortiz; Amber Asher; Olivia Asher; Max Golding; Teresa Patiño; Dan Villano.

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 2 – 10, 12)
Motion:

Councilmembers Friedman/A. Gutierrez to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended.

Vote:

Unanimous roll call vote

2. Subject: Minutes
Recommendation: That Council waive reading and approve the minutes of the regular meetings of December 6, 2022; January 24, 2023; January 31, 2023; and February 7, 2023.

Action: Approved the recommendation.

3. Subject: Construction and Operating Agreement and Reciprocal Easements for Chase Palm Park and the Future Waterfront Hotel [Ordinance Adoption; Agreement] (640.08)
02/28/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 3 of 8 Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Authorizing the City Administrator to execute the Declaration of Construction and Operating Covenants and Reciprocal Easements by and between American Tradition LLC, RGC Santa Barbara Hotel, LLC, and the City of Santa Barbara, a Copy of Which is on File with the Parks and Recreation Department.

Action: Approved the recommendation; Ordinance No. 6105; Agreement No. 28,260 (February 28, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

4. Subject: Acceptance of California State Library Infrastructure Grant [Resolution] (570.04)
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Accept a grant in the amount of $1,490,826 from the California State Library to provide support for Library infrastructure improvements; and B. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 22-059, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2023, to Approve an Increase in Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in the Library’s Miscellaneous Grants Fund in the Amount of $1,490,826 from the California State Library.

Action: Approved the recommendation; Resolution No. 23-017 (February 28, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

5. Subject: Contract for Design of the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport Taxiways M, J, and G Pavement Rehabilitation Project [Resolution; Agreement] (560.04)
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute a City Professional Services contract with Mead and Hunt, Inc. in the amount of $262,780 for design services of the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport Taxiways M, J, and G Pavement Rehabilitation Project, and authorize the Public Works Director to approve expenditures of up to $26,278 for extra services of Mead and Hunt, Inc. that may result from necessary changes in the Scope of Work; and
B. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 22-059, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2023, to Appropriate Funds for the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport Taxiways M, J, and G Pavement Rehabilitation Project. 02/28/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 4 of 8 Action: Approved the recommendation; Resolution No. 23-018; Agreement No. 28,261 (February 28, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

6. Subject: Designation of Authorized Agents to Execute Disaster Assistance Applications on Behalf of the City of Santa Barbara for the Purpose of Obtaining Federal and State Financial Assistance [Resolution] Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of the title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara designating the Finance Director, Assistant Finance Director, and Accounting Manager, as the City of Santa Barbara’s Agent for California Governor’s Office of Emergency Management Disaster Assistance for Three (3) years, expiring January 31, 2026.

Action: Approved the recommendation; Resolution No. 23-019 (February 28, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

7. Subject: Bequest from the Peter and Christel Hann Trusts to the City of Santa Barbara for Exclusive Use and Benefit of the Library and Parks and Recreation Departments [Resolution] (570.04)
Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Accepting a Bequest from the Peter and Christel Hann Trust in the Total Amount of $15,640 to the City of Santa Barbara for Exclusive Use and Benefit of the Library, and the Parks and Recreation Department.

Action: Approved the recommendation; Resolution No. 23-020 (February 28, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

8. Subject: January 2023 Investment Report (260.02)
Recommendation: That Council accept the January 2023 Investment Report.

Action: Approved the recommendation.

9. Subject: Fiscal Year 2023 Second-Quarter Review (230.04) Recommendation: That Council:

A. Receive a report from staff on the status of revenues and expenditures in relation to budget for the six months ended December 31, 2022; B. Accept the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Interim Financial Statements for the six months ended December 31, 2022; and
02/28/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 5 of 8 C. Approve proposed Second Quarter (Q2) adjustments to FY 2023 appropriations and estimated revenues as detailed in the attached schedule of Proposed Q2 adjustments.

Action: Approved the recommendation

10. Subject: Professional Services Agreement with Geographic Technologies Group for a Geographic Information System Strategic Plan [Agreement] (170.04)
Recommendation: That Council authorize the Information Technology Director to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Geographic Technologies Group in the amount of $87,000, for a Geographic Information System master plan to include a Geographic Information System needs assessment, systems and program design, and an implementation plan and authorize the Information Technology Director to approve expenditures of up to $8,700 for extra services that may result from necessary changes in the Scope of Work.

Action: Approved the recommendation; Agreement No. 28,262 (February 28, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

12. Subject: Set a Date for Public Hearing Regarding Fire and Police Commission's Denial of Taxicab Driver's Permit for Ryan Mark Wabnitz (520.01)
Recommendation: That Council Set the date of April 25, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. for hearing the appeal filed by Ryan Mark Wabnitz of the Fire and Police Commission's Denial of Taxicab Driver's Permit.

Action: Approved the recommendation.

This concluded the Consent Calendar.

REPORT FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
Councilmember Friedman reported that the Finance Committee reviewed the second quarter financials and staff recommended adjustments and approved both items.

CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE AND ATTORNEY REPORTS

PUBLIC HEARINGS

13. Subject: Designation of State Street Parkway between Mission Street and Constance Avenue as a Landmark [Resolution] (640.06)
02/28/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 6 of 8 Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Designating the State Street Parkway Between Mission Street and Constance Avenue as a City Landmark.

Public Hearing opened: 2:38 p.m.

Documents:
- February 28, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachment(s) Speakers:
- Staff: Project Planner Nicole Hernandez
- Historic Landmarks Commission: Dennis Doordan
- Members of the Public: Erick Couch; Rick Barron; Beth Perry; Pat Saley; Mary Louise Days; Fred Sweeney; Bruce Belfiore.

Discussion:
- Councilmembers’ questions were answered.

Public Hearing closed: 3:16 p.m.

Motion:

Councilmembers Sneddon/Friedman to move forward with the staff recommendation, in addition to maintaining that palms needing replacement only be replaced with Pindo Palms and that ground cover remain as landscape.

Vote:

Unanimous roll call vote; Resolution No. 23-021.

14. Subject: Public Hearing for the 2023 Downtown and Old Town Business Improvement Districts Assessments [Resolution] (290.00) Recommendation: That Council:

A. Conduct a public hearing and consider appropriate protests to the renewal of the Downtown and Old Town Business Improvement Districts Assessments for 2023, as required under the California Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989; and
B. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Confirming the Fiscal Year 2023 Downtown and Old Town Business Improvement District Annual Assessment Report and Renewing the Downtown Business Improvement District and Old Town Business Improvement District Assessments for 2023.

Public Hearing opened: 3:18 p.m.
02/28/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 7 of 8 Documents:
- February 28, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachment(s) Speakers:
- Staff: Senior Assistant to the City Administrator Brandon Beaudette - Downtown Santa Barbara: Robin Elander
- Members of the Public: None.

Discussion:
- Councilmembers’ questions were answered.

Public Hearing closed: 3:18 p.m.

Motion:

Councilmembers Jordan/Harmon to approve the staff recommendation.

Vote:

Unanimous roll call vote; Resolution No. 23-022.

COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

COUNCILMEMBER COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Councilmember Friedman reported on their attendance at the following events or made the following comments: 1. PARC Foundation; 2. Coastal Cities Leadership Group monthly meeting; 3. Coastal Commission local government working group monthly meeting; 4. Alliance for Community Media annual meeting; 5. UCSB economic forecast;

6. Drift Hotel ribbon cutting; 7. Monthly Central Coast Water Authority Meeting; 8. Radius economic forecast; 9. Vigil hosted by the Asian American and Pacific Islander Solidarity Network.

Councilmember Sneddon reported on their attendance at the following events or made the following comments: 1. Historic Landmarks Committee meeting where De La Guerra Plaza was discussed; 2. State Street Advisory Committee; 3. Water Commission where wastewater surveillance was discussed; 4. Cachuma Operations and Maintenance Board; 5. Radius economic forecast; 6. UCSB economic forecast; 7. Coast Geological Society meeting
Mayor Rowse reported on their attendance at the following events or made the following comments: 1. City Leadership group of mayors and city managers of Santa Barbara County; 2. Eastside meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT (IF NECESSARY)

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rowse adjourned the meeting at 3:44 p.m.
02/28/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 8 of 8 Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara on May 2, 2023.

SANTA BARBARA CITY COUNCIL SANTA BARBARA

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
_______________________________ ATTEST: ______________________________

RANDY ROWSE SARAH GORMAN

MAYOR CITY CLERK SERVICES MANAGER
03/21/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 1 of 10

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 21, 2023
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 735 ANACAPA STREET

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Randy Rowse called the meeting to order at 2:01 p.m. (The Finance Committee met at 12:00 p.m. The Ordinance Committee, which ordinarily meets at 12:00 p.m., did not meet this day.)

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Rowse.

ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Eric Friedman, Alejandra Gutierrez (2:47 p.m.), Oscar Gutierrez, Meagan Harmon, Mike Jordan, Kristen W. Sneddon, Mayor Rowse.

Councilmembers absent: None.

Staff present: City Administrator Rebecca Bjork, City Attorney Sarah Knecht, Deputy City Clerk Naomi Kovacs.

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

1. Subject: World Down Syndrome Day March 21, 2023 (120.04) Proclamation presented by Mayor Rowse, received by Melissa Fitch of the Down Syndrome Association of Santa Barbara County.

Speakers:
- Members of the Public: Melissa Fitch.
03/21/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 2 of 10

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
The following item was pulled from the agenda:

12. Subject: Adoption of Resolution of Necessity to Acquire by Eminent Domain Additional Real Property Interests Necessary for the De La Vina Street Bridge Replacement Project [Resolution] (530.03)
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Confirm the prior determination of a Categorical Exemption under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15302 (replacement of existing structures); and
B. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1245.210 – 1245.270 Declaring the Public Interest and Necessity to Acquire by Eminent Domain Real Property Interests for the De La Vina Street Bridge Replacement Project [2717 De La Vina Street (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 051-213-015 and 051-213-019) - Temporary Construction Easement].

CONSENT CALENDAR (Item Nos. 2 – 9)
The titles of the Resolutions and Ordinances were read.

Motion:

Councilmembers Harmon/Friedman to approve the consent calendar as recommended.

Vote:

Unanimous roll call vote. (Absent: Councilmember A. Gutierrez.)

2. Subject: 2022-2025 Fire Management Association Bargaining Unit Memorandum of Understanding [Ordinance Adoption; Agreement] (440.03) Recommendation: That Council ratify the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Santa Barbara and the Santa Barbara Fire Management Association Bargaining Unit, by adoption of, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Adopting the 2022-2025 Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Santa Barbara and the Fire Management Association.

Action: Approved the recommendation; Ordinance No. 6106, Agreement No. 28,267 (March 21, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments). 03/21/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 3 of 10

3. Subject: Amendment to Position Salary Control Resolution 22-064 with Updates to Classification and Compensation for Certain Positions [Resolution] (410.06)
Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution 22-064, the Position Salary Control Resolution for Fiscal Year 2023, to Amend the Established Salary for Positions as Listed and Establish the Assistant City Attorney V Classification.

Action: Approved the recommendation; Resolution No. 23-031 (March 21, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

4. Subject: Santa Barbara Airport Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan Phase A Funding [Resolution; Agreement] (650.04)
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Authorize the Airport Director to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Environmental Services Associates in the amount of $743,000, for planning services for the Santa Barbara Airport Sea-level Rise Adaption Plan and local coastal plan update and authorize the Airport Director to proceed with Phase A of the scope of services for a total not to exceed amount of $280,500, and with further phases subject to budget appropriation; and
B. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 22-059, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2023, to Appropriate Funds for Professional Services Contract Funding Phase A of the Santa Barbara Airport Sea-Level Rise Adaption Plan in the Amount of $280,500.

Action: Approved the recommendations; Resolution No. 23-032; Agreement No. 28,268 (March 21, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

5. Subject: Contract for the Construction of the Santa Barbara Airport South Terminal Apron Redevelopment Project [Resolution; Agreement] (560.04) Recommendation: That Council:

A. Award a contract with Marcon Engineering, Inc. in their low bid amount of $4,527,449 for construction of the South Terminal Apron Redevelopment Project, Bid No. 4089A, and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the contract and approve expenditures up to $452,745 to cover any cost increases that may result from contract change orders for extra work and differences between estimated bid quantities and actual quantities measured for payment;
03/21/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 4 of 10 B. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute the First Contract Amendment to City Professional Services Agreement No. 26,747 with Kimley Horn, Inc., in the amount of $338,540 for construction support services, and approve expenditures of up to $33,854 for extra services that may result from necessary changes in the scope of work; C. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract with Applied Earthworks, Inc., in the amount of $62,782 for construction monitoring services, and approve expenditures of up to $6,278 for extra services that may result from necessary changes in the scope of work; and D. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 22-059, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2023, to Appropriate Funds for the South Terminal Apron Redevelopment Project.

Action: Approved the recommendations; Resolution No. 23-033; Agreement Nos. 28,269, 26,747.1, and 28,270 (March 21, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

6. Subject: Amendments to Professional Services Agreements for Permit, Plan Check, and Inspection Services [Resolution; Agreement] (640.04) Recommendation: That Council:

A. Authorize the Community Development Director to execute the third amendment to increase the amount of Santa Barbara City Agreement No. 26,978 with Bureau Veritas North America, Inc., by $150,000, for a total contract amount of $745,000, to provide permit, plan check, and inspection services;
B. Authorize the Community Development Director to execute the third amendment to increase the amount of Santa Barbara City Agreement No. 26,979 with Interwest Consulting Group, by $200,000, for a total contract amount of $435,000, to provide permit, plan check, and inspection services; and
C. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 22-059, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2023, to Approve an Increase in Fiscal Year 2023 Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in the General Fund in the Amount of $400,000 from Building Permit Revenues Projected to Exceed the Fiscal Year 2023 Adopted Budget Amount by at Least $400,000, to Cover the Costs of Amendments to Santa Barbara City Agreements No. 26,978 and No. 26,979, and an Agreement for Floodplain Review.
03/21/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 5 of 10 Action: Approved the recommendations; Resolution No. 23-034; Agreement Nos. 26,978.3 and 26,979.3 (March 21, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

7. Subject: Fiscal Year 2023 Interim Financial Statements for the Seven Months Ended January 31, 2023 (250.02)
Recommendation: That Council accept the Fiscal Year 2023 Interim Financial Statements for the seven months ended January 31, 2023.

Action: Approved the recommendation (March 21, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

8. Subject: COVID-Related Disaster Recovery Management and Recovery [Agreement] (520.02)
Recommendation: Authorize the Finance Director to amend Agreement 22000266 with AG Witt, LLC for disaster recovery management services related to COVID by $15,000 for a total amount of $49,999.

Action: Approved the recommendation; Agreement No. 28,271 (March 21, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

9. Subject: Set a Date for Public Hearing Regarding Single Family Design Board's Project Design Approval for 3208 Laurel Canyon Road (640.07) Recommendation: Recommendation: That Council:

A. Set the date of June 6, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. for hearing the appeal filed by Marc Chytilo of the Single Family Design Board’s Project Design Approval of a proposal for additions to an existing one-story 1,288 square foot singleunit residence, comprised of 192 square foot first floor addition, a new 758 square foot second floor addition with a second story deck, a new one-car carport, and various site improvements; and
B. Set the date of June 5, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. for a site visit to the property located at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road.

Action: Approved the recommendations (March 21, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments).

This concluded the Consent Calendar.
03/21/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 6 of 10

PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
None.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON PULLED CONSENT ITEMS

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Public: None.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public: Olivia Asher, Aron Ashland, Sister Arthur Gordon, Christine Wagner.

REPORT FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
Councilmember Friedman reported that the Finance Committee met today and considered a short-term rental pilot enforcement program, which was passed to Council on a unanimous vote.

COUNCILMEMBER COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Councilmember Sneddon reported on their attendance at the following events or made the following comments: 1. Sustainability Committee meeting 2. South Coast IEEE meeting, and acknowledged City staff members Alelia Parenteau, Melissa Hetrick, and Dakota Corey for their input and level of expertise and knowledge.

Councilmember Friedman reported on their attendance at the following events or made the following comments: 1. Sustainability Committee meeting; 2. Fighting Back Santa Barbara’s luncheon; 3. Coastal Cities leadership committee meeting.

Mayor Rowse reported on their attendance at the following events or made the following comments: 1. Gary Cunningham Classic at UCSB.

CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE AND ATTORNEY REPORTS

PUBLIC HEARING

10. Subject: Community Development and Human Services Committee Funding Recommendations and 2024 Action Plan Public Hearing (610.05) Recommendation: That Council:
03/21/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 7 of 10 A. Approve the Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025 funding recommendations of the Community Development and Human Services Committee (CDHSC) for use of Human Services funds;
B. Approve the Fiscal Year 2024 funding recommendations of the Community Development and Human Services Committee (CDHSC) for use of Community Development Block Grant funds;
C. Authorize the Community Development Director to negotiate and execute grant agreements implementing the funding recommendations, subject to the review and approval as to form by the City Attorney; and D. Conduct a public hearing to obtain input on the City’s Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2024.

Public Hearing opened: 2:28 p.m.

Documents:
- March 21, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments. - PowerPoint presentation prepared and made by staff.

Speakers:
- Staff: Housing and Human Services Manager Laura Dubbels, Community Development Program Specialist Lindsey Drewes.
- Community Development & Human Services Committee: Chair Jenna Rolle.
- Members of the Public: Andrea Slaby, Jennifer Griffin, Michael Rassler, Kemba Lawrence, Victoria Garfield.

Councilmember A. Gutierrez entered the meeting at 2:47 p.m.

Discussion:
- Councilmembers’ questions were answered.

Public Hearing closed: 3:04 p.m.

Motion:

Councilmembers Sneddon/A. Gutierrez to approve the recommendation.

Vote:

Unanimous roll call vote.

CITY ATTORNEY

11. Subject: Clarifying Amendments to Municipal Code Section 26.50.070 Relating to the Definition of No-Fault Just Cause for Residential Evictions [Ordinance Adoption]
03/21/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 8 of 10 Recommendation: That Council introduce and adopt, as an emergency measure after reading in full, an Emergency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending the Santa Barbara Municipal Code by Amending Section

26.50.070 Pertaining to Just Cause for Residential Evictions.

Documents:
- March 21, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments - PowerPoint presentation prepared and made by staff
Speakers:
- Staff: Assistant City Attorney Dan Hentschke.

Councilmember A. Gutierrez left the meeting at 3:35 p.m. and returned at 3:42 p.m.

RECESS
4:02 p.m. – 4:18 p.m.

Speakers, con’t.:
- Members of the Public: Paul Burns, Susan Jansen, Susan Horne, Loy Beardsmore, Frederick Lang, Teresa Petiña, Nadia Abushanab, Joanna J.

Sanchez, Nick Gonzales, Stanley Tzankov, Estela Montaño, Steven Battaglia, Betty L. Jeppeson, Michael Bruce, Terry A. Bartlett, Patrick Fleming, Shirley Jansen, Daniel Mora, Dora Maria Perez, Patricia Guerrera, James Carbone, Wendy Santamaria, Chelsea Lancaster, Maria Navarro, Amber Asher, SB SURJ, Michele Carbone.

Discussion:
- Councilmembers’ questions were answered.

Motion:

Councilmembers Harmon/Sneddon to move the staff recommendation with the following amendment to Subdivision B. 2. of Section 26.50.070 of Chapter 26.50 of Title 26 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code: “2. No-fault just cause is any of the following: […] b. The owner seeks in good faith to recover possession to permanently withdraw the rental unit from the rental market.”
Vote:

Unanimous roll call vote.

Motion:

Councilmembers Harmon/Sneddon to give staff direction to consider the following list of items, and to come back to Council for more direction:

Language as proposed by Legal Aid in their comment letter; time extension 03/21/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 9 of 10 of renovation notice; the permanent withdrawal of all units on a parcel; and the inclusion of a concept on a right to re-let.

Vote:

Majority roll call vote (Noes: Mayor Rowse).

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

13. Subject: 2022 General Plan Annual Progress Report (650.05) Recommendation: That Council receive the 2022 General Plan Annual Progress Report.

Documents:
- March 21, 2023 Council Agenda Report and any attachments. - PowerPoint presentation prepared and made by staff.

Speakers:
- Staff: Project Planner Rosie Dyste.
- Members of the Public: Cassandra Ensberg, John Campanella.

Discussion:
- Councilmembers’ questions were answered.

COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Rebecca Bjork recognized Tony Ruggieri for his 35 years of service to the City, and his retirement at the end of this week.

COUNCILMEMBER ENGAGEMENTS
Councilmember O. Gutierrez thanked Tony Ruggieri for his decades of service and wish him luck in his retirement.

Councilmember A. Gutierrez recognized Officer Corrales, who was born and raised in Santa Barbara, and is here for his first Council meeting.

Councilmember Harmon recognized Tony Ruggieri.

PUBLIC COMMENT (IF NECESSARY)
None.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rowse adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m.
03/21/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 10 of 10 Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara on May 2, 2023.

SANTA BARBARA CITY COUNCIL SANTA BARBARA

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
_______________________________ ATTEST: ______________________________

RANDY ROWSE SARAH GORMAN

MAYOR CITY CLERK SERVICES MANAGER
03/09/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 1 of 2

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 9, 2023
CARRILLO RECREATION CENTER, 100 E. CARRILLO STREET,
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Randy Rowse called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Rowse.

ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Eric Friedman, Oscar Gutierrez (2:05 p.m.), Meagan Harmon, Mike Jordan, Kristen W. Sneddon, Mayor Rowse.

Councilmembers absent: Alejandra Gutierrez.

Staff present: City Administrator Rebecca Bjork, City Attorney Sarah Knecht, City Clerk Services Manager Sarah Gorman.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Members of the Public: None.

WORK SESSION
Subject: Budget Work Session for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 (230.05) Recommendation: That Council hear a presentation from Staff related to the development of the Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 Budget and provide direction to Staff.

Document:
- March 9, 2023, report from the Finance Department.

Speakers:
03/09/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 2 of 2 - Staff: City Administrator Rebecca Bjork; Assistant City Administrator René Eyerly; Finance Director Keith DeMartini; Public Works Director Cliff Maurer; Human Resources Director Wendy Levy; Senior Assistant to the City Administrator Brandon Beaudette; Budget Manager Natalija Glusac.

Councilmember Harmon was excused at 3:05 p.m.

RECESS
3:05 p.m. – 3:13 p.m.

Discussion:
- Discussion topics include objectives and priorities, budgetary challenges, Vision 2023 overview, CORE performance measures, Revenue Working Group; Operations Working Group; thriving workforce; General Fund multiyear forecast; Enterprise and Internal Service Funds; department priorities; budget instructions, and budget process and calendar. Councilmembers’ questions were answered.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rowse adjourned the meeting at 4:39 p.m.

Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara on May 2, 2023.

SANTA BARBARA CITY COUNCIL SANTA BARBARA

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
_______________________________ ATTEST: ______________________________

RANDY ROWSE SARAH GORMAN

MAYOR CITY CLERK SERVICES MANAGER
03/13/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 1 of 2

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – SITE VISIT
APRIL 10, 2023
1269 FERRELO ROAD

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Randy Rowse called the meeting to order at 1:45 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Rowse.

ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Eric Friedman, Oscar Gutierrez, Kristen W. Sneddon, Mayor Rowse.

Councilmembers absent: Alejandra Gutierrez, Meagan Harmon, Mike Jordan.

Staff present: Assistant City Administrator Rene Eyerly, City Attorney Sarah Knecht.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Members of the Public: None.

SITE VISIT
Subject: 1269 Ferrelo Rd (640.07)
Recommendation: That Council make a site visit to the property located at 1269 Ferrelo Rd; the property on that site is the subject of an appeal set for hearing on April 11, 2023.

Discussion:
- Councilmembers’ questions were answered relating to the proposed project.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rowse adjourned the meeting at 2:19 p.m.
03/13/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 2 of 2 Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara on May 2, 2023.

SANTA BARBARA CITY COUNCIL SANTA BARBARA

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
_______________________________ ATTEST: ______________________________

RANDY ROWSE SARAH GORMAN

MAYOR CITY CLERK SERVICES MANAGER
04/18/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 1 of 2

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 18, 2023
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 735 ANACAPA STREET

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Randy Rowse called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Randy Rowse.

ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Eric Friedman, Oscar Gutierrez, Meagan Harmon, Kristen W.

Sneddon, Mayor Randy Rowse.

Councilmembers absent: Alejandra Gutierrez, Meagan Harmon, Mike Jordan.

Staff present: City Administrator Rebecca Bjork, City Attorney Sarah Knecht, City Clerk Services Manager Sarah Gorman.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Members of the Public: None.

CLOSED SESSION

1. Subject: Conference with Labor Negotiator (440.03)
Recommendation: That Council hold a closed session pursuant to the authority of Government Code Section 54957.6 to consider instructions to City negotiator Wendy Levy, Human Resources Director; Sam Ramirez, Labor Relations Manager; Oliver Yee, Attorney with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore; and Keith De Martini, City Finance Director; regarding negotiations with Santa Barbara City Employees’ Association (General Bargaining Unit) Local 620 Service Employees’ International Union, Service Employees’ International Union, Local 620, Treatment and Patrol Bargaining Units, Fire Management Association, Santa Barbara City Firefighters Association, Police Officers Association, Police Management 04/18/2023 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 2 of 2 Association, Santa Barbara City Supervisory Employees, and Unrepresented Management and Confidential Employees.

Scheduling: Duration, 45 Minutes; anytime
Report: None anticipated
Document:
- April 18, 2023, report from the City Attorney.

Time:
- 11:03 a.m. – 11:24 a.m.

No report made.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rowse adjourned the meeting at 11:24 a.m.

Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara on May 2, 2023.

SANTA BARBARA CITY COUNCIL SANTA BARBARA

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
_______________________________ ATTEST: ______________________________

RANDY ROWSE SARAH GORMAN

MAYOR CITY CLERK SERVICES MANAGER

CITY OF SANTABARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Housing and Human Services Division, Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Loan Forgiveness for Transition House Homeless Families Shelter Located at 434 East Ortega Street [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Approve a request from Transition House, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, for loan forgiveness on property located at 434 East Ortega Street, which is operating as a family homeless shelter;
B. Introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Approving a Second Amendment to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Imposed on Real Property Located at 434 East Ortega Street to Restart a New 90-Year Term of Use as a Homeless Families Shelter;
C. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 22-059, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2023, to Approve an Increase in Fiscal Year 2023 Expenditure Appropriations in the Affordable Housing Fund in the amount of $460,000 to Record Forgiveness of Loans Receivable; and
D. Authorize the Community Development Director to execute such documents as necessary to effectuate Amended Covenant and loan forgiveness, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In the early 1990s, Transition House purchased its shelter property located at 434 East Ortega Street, with the help of funding from both the City of Santa Barbara and the County Agenda Item No. 4
File Code No. 660.04
Council Agenda Report
Loan Forgiveness for Transition House Homeless Families Shelter Located at 434 East Ortega Street [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
May 2, 2023

of Santa Barbara. The City provided Transition House with two loans, both of which are now due. The funding was provided as residual receipts loans, and payments are only made when the project has positive net cash flow. Transition House conducts continual fundraising campaigns and receives charitable donations in order to maintain the shelter and operations. However, since Transition House does not charge rents or fees to its clients, the agency has no permanent source of revenue and, thus, no positive net cash flow.

Transition House is requesting full forgiveness of both loans and any accrued interest so that the shelter can continue to provide programs and services to families experiencing homelessness in our community (Attachment 1). Staff recommends that City Council approve the request for forgiveness of the loans and accrued interest given that the shelter does not have a permanent source of revenue that would allow for payment of debt service and yet provides a vital public service to the community.

DISCUSSION:

Background
Transition House has assisted homeless families in Santa Barbara since 1984. It provides shelter, supportive services, and respite care to homeless residents and provides capable and motivated individuals with programs that lead to permanent housing and selfsufficiency. Each year, Transition House helps 150 homeless families with children and 50 families that are at risk of homelessness to gain self-sufficiency. Ninety percent of the assisted families are from within the City of Santa Barbara, and approximately 70 percent of homeless families who enter their emergency shelter program succeed in transitioning into permanent housing. Attachment 2 includes a complete history of the actions taken by both the City and Transition House to establish and sustain the shelter.

Loan History
On December 15, 1992, the City provided a loan to Transition House totaling $245,000 from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, with a 30-year residual receipts repayment term, maturing on August 15, 2022. On December 3, 1993, the City provided an additional loan of $460,000 sourced from Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Funds, also with a 30-year residual receipts repayment term, maturing on August 15, 2022.

Council Agenda Report
Loan Forgiveness for Transition House Homeless Families Shelter Located at 434 East Ortega Street [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
May 2, 2023

Type/Loan Number Date Recorded Original Amount Balance due with interest Maturity Date CDBG 92-099563 12/15/1992 $245,000 $263,696.20 8/15/2022 RDA 93-096295 12/3/1993 $460,000 $499,546.00 8/15/2022
In 1997, City staff analyzed Transition House’s record of payments and realized there should not have been any payments made due to the lack of positive net cash flow for the shelter. Payments had mistakenly been made based on the entire agency’s cash position instead of just the shelter’s cash flow. Making those payments put a serious strain on Transition House’s operations, and no additional payments have been due or made since then.

On July 30, 1999, City Council amended the two loans per Transition House’s request by setting the interest rates to zero in order to avoid accruing more interest or additional debt. In 2004, the County of Santa Barbara acted as well and approved forgiveness of their $190,000 loan.

Financial Position
The 2021 financial statement for the homeless shelter (Attachment 3) shows a positive year-end cash flow of $24,410. This surplus was used to resurface the shelter’s asphalt parking lot. Every year-end cash balance position differs, some with surpluses and some with deficits, with the overall intent of covering all of the shelter’s expenses each year. Any surplus cash realized in any year is applied towards needed repairs and maintenance.

Attachment 4 provides a 10-year history of year-end cash balances and a breakdown of the repair expenses.

Because Transition House does not charge its clients rent or fees, the shelter has no permanent, ongoing source of funding. Its income is generated solely from federal and state grants, fundraising events, and charitable contributions, with a goal of offsetting required operational expenses. Soon after the shelter’s establishment, City staff acknowledged the shelter’s inability to recognize stable cash flow to pay any debt service on the loans. City staff’s report from 1992 states, “[T]here could be a scenario in which, at the end of ten years, the project does not have a positive cash flow.” To ensure this scenario would not occur, and as part of the original loan agreements with the City in 1992, Transition House was to conduct a capital campaign to raise $500,000 in funds to be put into an investment account that would ensure repayment of the loans; however, the City failed to specify if or when those funds would be paid back to the City.

In the absence of explicit repayment instructions, Transition House proposed using the Council Agenda Report
Loan Forgiveness for Transition House Homeless Families Shelter Located at 434 East Ortega Street [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
May 2, 2023

funding to construct six new transitional affordable housing units at their Salinas Street Apartment Complex located at 320 South Salinas Street, and purchasing property located at 425 East Cota Street with eight apartment units. City Council approved the proposed agreement in 1999, and Transition House built and acquired these 14 additional affordable housing units from the original $500,000 fund. With this agreement, the requirement to maintain the investment fund was removed.

Long-Term Affordability
On September 23, 1992, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Imposed on Real Property (Covenant) was recorded, restricting the property at 434 East Ortega Street for use solely for the purpose of transitional housing and related services for homeless residents for a period of 30 years.

On August 22, 2013, the City recorded a First Amendment to the Covenant extending the affordability period for an additional 50 years to August 15, 2063.

In exchange for the loan forgiveness, an Amended Covenant will be recorded on the Property to restart the 90-year term of use as a homeless families shelter, restricting the property for use solely for the purpose of transitional housing and related services for lowincome households. This will extend the term of use from the current expiration of 2063 to 2113, gaining an additional 50 years of use of this public shelter for homeless families.

Conclusion
Staff supports Transition House’s request for loan forgiveness because it supports the City’s General Plan Housing Element, Housing Opportunities Policy, Section H2, which states, “Promote equal housing opportunities for all segments of the community, with special emphasis given to extremely low, very low, low, moderate, middle income and special needs households.” There is also a public need and benefit to sheltering the City’s homeless population, which directly addresses the steady increase in homelessness counts over the past decade shown in annual County Point-in-Time counts.

On April 11, 2023, the Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend that City Council approve the request for loan forgiveness on the homeless families shelter located at 434 East Ortega Street in order to maintain operations that provide public shelter, family services, and much-needed affordable housing units.

Council Agenda Report
Loan Forgiveness for Transition House Homeless Families Shelter Located at 434 East Ortega Street [Ordinance Introduction; Resolution]
May 2, 2023

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Funding for the original loans totaling $705,000 has already been disbursed, and no further funding is required to forgive the two loans and accrued interest; however, Recommendation D above is necessary to process the accounting entry needed to remove the loan receivable for 434 East Ortega Street from the Affordable Housing Fund’s balance sheet. Transition House is requesting that the original principal loan amounts of $705,000 plus the accrued interest of $58,243, for a total of $763,243 be forgiven. This amount will ultimately be removed from the City’s portfolio of loans receivable and will no longer be available to generate future loan repayments to the Affordable Housing and Community Development Block Grant Funds to be used for future affordable housing projects.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Transition House Request Letters

2. Transition House Historical Work and Funding Efforts

3. Transition House 2021 Financial Statement

4. Transition House 10-Year Reserve Account History
PREPARED BY: Laura Dubbels, Housing and Human Services Manager SUBMITTED BY: Elias Isaacson, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’sOffice
Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Transition House-Shelter 2021
INCOME
4410 ꞏ Churches $                 31,249.00
4420 ꞏ Foundations $               362,500.00
4430 ꞏ Corporations $                 88,818.00
4440 ꞏ Individuals $               423,358.00
4014 ꞏ CDBG-City of S.B. $                 88,251.00
4016 ꞏ CDBG-City of Goleta $                 15,000.00
4030 ꞏ FEMA $                 19,933.00
4105 ꞏ CACFP-Shelter $               103,214.00
4115 ꞏ Daycare-Calworks $                 74,252.00
4120 ꞏ Co. H.S. Shelter $                 84,323.00
4605 ꞏ Auxiliary-Fundraising $               228,535.00 4610 ꞏ No-Ball $               102,674.00
Total Income $ 1,622,107.00

EXPENSE
6018 ꞏ Auxiliary Fundr Exp $ 7,879.00
6012 ꞏ No-Ball $ 6,737.00
6009 ꞏ General Fundraising $                 12,536.00
6101 ꞏ Gross Wages $               901,860.00
6103 ꞏ Benefits-Health $                67,166.00
6107 ꞏ 403b Emplr Contr. $                 13,210.00
6201 ꞏ FICA $                 64,617.00
6202 ꞏ SUI $ 7,022.00
6308 ꞏ Consulting Fees $ 4,079.00
6303 ꞏ Audit Fees $                 10,999.00
6304 ꞏ Payroll 1 Service $ 3,065.00
6309 ꞏ Banking and CC Fees $ 6,364.00
6401 ꞏ Office Supplies $ 8,017.00
6402 ꞏ Postage $ 4,301.00
6403 ꞏ Xerox $ 2,203.00
6404 ꞏ Telephone $                 10,250.00
6515 ꞏ Child Care-Hud Funded $ 1,805.00
6516 ꞏ Drug Screen $ 879.00
6512 ꞏ Volunteer Expense $ 1,413.00
6501 ꞏ Household $               188,899.00
6503 ꞏ Repair & Maint Household $                 59,162.00 6505 ꞏ Laundry Rental $ 4,276.00
6508 ꞏ Client expense $                 11,267.00
6702 ꞏ Bulk Mail $ 4,528.00
6804 ꞏ Web Maintenance $ 4,972.00
6703 ꞏ Printing & Reproduction $                 10,005.00 6802 ꞏ Computer Repairs $ 7,173.00
6803 ꞏ Equipment Repairs $ 5,012.00
6901 ꞏ Workshops, Dues & Subscriptions $                 19,908.00 6902 ꞏ W/C Insurance $                 16,570.00
ATTACHMENT 3
6908 ꞏ Property Insurance $                 18,564.00
6925 ꞏ Mom's LP Rent $                 50,250.00
6921 ꞏ Mortgage Interest Expense $                 24,216.00 6950 ꞏ Gas $                   3,020.00
6955 ꞏ Electric $                   8,722.00
6960 ꞏ Water $                 13,258.00
6965 ꞏ Garbage/Exterminator $                 13,493.00 Total Expenses 1,597,697 $
Difference 24,410 $
Transition House Shelter Budget Year End and Reserve Expenses 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 estimate RESERVE Income 1,764,454.2 $   2 $  1,397,532.29 $  1,535,532.24 $  1,693,272.83 $  1,904,869.37 $  1,978,399.81 $  2,181,629.43 $  1,197,038.08 $  1,220,722.00 $  1,254,164.00 $  1,326,376.00 $  1,430,040.00 $  1,651,467.00 $  1,622,107.00 $           1,700,561.00 Expenses 1,759,675.0 $   7 $  1,430,652.62 $  1,606,664.91 $  1,706,396.93 $  1,910,034.59 $  1,986,722.08 $  2,177,608.00 $  1,205,708.75 $  1,224,982.00 $  1,260,641.00 $  1,330,250.00 $  1,415,872.00 $  1,631,235.00 $  1,597,697.00 $           1,695,746.00Net 4,779.15 $           (33,120.33) $        (71,132.67) $        (13,124.10) $        (5,165.22) $          (8,322.27) $          4,021.43 $           (8,670.67) $          (4,260.00) $          (6,477.00) $          (3,874.00) $          14,168.0 $         0 $        20,232.00 $        24,410.00 $ 4,815.00 $         63,625.00 Replace parking lot asphalt $       (26,990.00)Shelter bathroom remodel $          (9,500.00)Furniture for shelter $          (7,104.00) HVAC replacement (21,000.00) $       BALANCE $             (969.00) ATTACHMENT 4
ORDINANCE NO.____________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT

TO THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS,

AND RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 434 EAST ORTEGA STREET TO RESTART
A NEW 90-YEAR TERM OF USE AS A HOMELESS

FAMILIES SHELTER

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

WHEREAS, Transition House, a California non-profit public benefit corporation, (“Owner”) owns real property providing homeless families shelter located at 434 East Ortega Street in the City of Santa Barbara ("Property); and WHEREAS, by minute action on May 2, 2023, the City Council approved a “Second Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Imposed on Real Property” to restart a new 90-year period in exchange for loan forgiveness in the total amount of $763,243 on the property (“Amended Covenant”); and WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023, the City Council, introduced and subsequently adopted by reading of title only this ordinance approving the Second Amended Covenant; and
WHEREAS, the Second Amended Covenant recorded in the office of the County Recorder on ________, 2023, as Instrument No. __________________of official records for the purpose of securing Owner’s obligations under the City Amended Covenant.

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

In accordance with the provisions of Section 521 of the Charter of the City of Santa Barbara, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara approving the Amended Covenant is hereby approved.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA BARBARA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 22-059,
ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023, TO
APPROVE AN INCREASE IN FISCAL YEAR 2023

EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $460,000 TO
RECORD FORGIVENESS OF LOANS RECEIVABLE.

WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Charter, the City Administrator filed with the Council a proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to adopt a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Charter provides that at any public meeting after the adoption of the budget, the City Council may amend or supplement the budget by motion adopted by the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total members of the City Council; and WHEREAS, as authorized by Resolution No. 22-059, this Resolution approves the amendment to the budget as provided herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA THAT:

In accordance with the provisions of Section 1205 of the City Charter, the budget for the fiscal year 2023, as adopted by Resolution No. 22-059, is hereby amended as follows:

1. The Council approves an increase in Fiscal Year 2023 expenditure appropriations in the Affordable Housing Fund in the amount of $460,000 to record forgiveness of loans receivable.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Fire Prevention Division, Fire Department
SUBJECT: Set a Date for a Public Hearing Regarding Renewal of Levy for Fiscal Year 2024 for the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Declaring its Intention to Continue the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment within the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones; Declaring the Work to be of More Than General or Ordinary Benefit and Describing the District to be Assessed to Pay the Costs and Expenses Thereof; Preliminarily Approving the Updated Engineer’s Report; Stating Intention to Continue Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024 and Establishing a Time of 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday June 6, 2023, in the City Council Chambers for a Public Hearing on the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment.

DISCUSSION:

On July 11, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 06-064 which declared the Council’s intention to order expansion of vegetation road clearance, implementation of a defensible space inspection and assistance program, and implementation of a vegetation management program within the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones of the High Fire Hazard Area. The Resolution described the special benefit to be assessed and approved an Engineer’s Report, confirmed the diagram and assessment, and ordered levy of the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District (District) for Fiscal Year 2007. As required by the Resolution, the assessment must be renewed annually by City Council. The City has renewed the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment for the past fifteen years.

Assessment funds continue to reduce the risk and severity of wildland fires through the reduction of flammable vegetation. The assessment provides three primary services:

1. Vegetation Road Clearance: Each year the assessment provides approximately 14 miles of road clearance. The frequency is such that most roads in the District are cleared of impeding vegetation every three years. Clearing vegetation from the roadways is required of property owners by law and allows for safer egress of residents and ingress of first responders during an emergency. In FY2022, we have cleared 12 Miles of roadways, representing 100 tons of vegetation.

Agenda Item No. 5
File Code No. 520.03
Council Agenda Report
Set a Date for a Public Hearing Regarding Renewal of Levy for Fiscal Year 2024 for the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District
May 2, 2023

2. Defensible Space Inspection and Assistance: This element of the assessment provides assistance to property owners in creating defensible space around their homes. Defensible space is a key element in preventing the ignition of homes during a wildfire by reducing the exposure of the home to burning vegetation. Defensible space assistance will again involve scores of site visits to assist homeowners. In addition, the assessment provides chipping services to residents of the District after the vegetation has been cut. Chipping provides a cost-effective way for homeowners to dispose of cut material. The chipped vegetation may be reused as a ground cover in landscaping. Over 130 tons of vegetation has been chipped and removed in FY2023.

3. Vegetation Management: Vegetation management is the selective removal of flammable vegetation in open land outside of property owner’s defensible space.

The goal is to lessen the severity of a fire, in the event that one occurs, by depriving the fire of a large amount of fuel. This is accomplished by preferentially removing exotic plants, thinning, pruning and limbing vegetation to remove fire ladders, limbing up the canopy and pruning out dead material. Vegetation management retains the overall look of wildland areas and minimizes impacts to natural resources while reducing the amount of flammable vegetation. Vegetation management was successfully completed on eight acres in FY2023. These projects require staff to strengthen the public-private relationship by working with multiple, individual property owners and contract crews to link individual parcels across larger areas of adjacent land. Working in cooperation with multiple property owners, there is a greater impact on reducing the community threat from wildfire.

In addition to vegetation removal, this project also accomplished education, protection of natural resources unique to the area, and outlined individual maintenance programs. The project areas are identified in the Community Wildland Protection Plan (CWPP).

ANNUAL LEVY:

The Wildland Fire Assessment may be annually increased by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in an amount not to exceed 4.0% per year. In adjusting for the CPI, the allowable increase is calculated using the CPI from the past year plus any deferred increases from previous years.

For FY2024, staff and the Assessment Engineer propose a CPI increase of 4.0%. The actual CPI for 2023-24 is 4.926% and the total allowable CPI adjustment for 2023-24 is 4.00%, and the rates have been adjusted, accordingly. The rate for FY2024 as suggested in the Engineer’s Report (see Attachment) will therefore be set at $95.86 per single family home located within the boundary of the Foothill Zone and $118.87 per single family home located within the Extreme Foothill Zone boundary. Total anticipated revenues to be generated from the assessment are $336,143 for FY2024. For comparison, the FY2023 rates were $92.18 and $114.30 respectively, totaling $307,617. The increased revenue anticipated for FY2024 will allow us to continue to provide the same level of service in all three areas.

Council Agenda Report
Set a Date for a Public Hearing Regarding Renewal of Levy for Fiscal Year 2024 for the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District
May 2, 2023

As required in Resolution 06-064, an updated Engineer’s Report has been prepared and includes the proposed budget and assessment rate. The updated Engineer’s Report must be considered by City Council at a noticed public hearing and serves as the basis for the continuation of the assessments.

The updated Engineer’s Report is available for public review by submitting a request via email to [email protected] or [email protected].

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

Vegetation removed through vegetation road clearance and the defensible space chipping assistance program is chipped and spread back on to the ground or in areas of local parks where feasible. The goal is to reuse at least 80% of all chipped material locally avoiding the cost of disposal fees, extra vehicle trips and landfill use. Non-native pest plants are not chipped, but rather hauled off-site to be disposed of properly. In 2023, we exceeded that goal, achieving 100% reuse.

ATTACHMENT: Preliminary Engineer’s Report
PREPARED BY: Ryan DiGuilio, Fire Marshal
SUBMITTED BY: Chris Mailes, Fire Chief
APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
FY 2023‐24
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER’S REPORT
May 2023
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 50078 et seq., and Article XIIID of the California Constitution

ATTACHMENT
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24
Page i

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24
Page ii

City of Santa Barbara
City Council
Randy Rowse, Mayor
Eric Friedman, Councilmember
Oscar Gutierrez, Councilmember
Alejandra Gutierrez, Councilmember
Meagan Harmon, Councilmember
Mike Jordan, Councilmember
Kristen Sneddon, Councilmember
Fire Prevention Bureau
Chris Mailes, Fire Chief
Ryan DiGuilio, Fire Marshal
Chris Braden, Fire Services Specialist
City Attorney’s Office
Ariel Pierre Calonne, City Attorney
Sarah Knecht, Assistant City Attorney
Engineer of Work
SCI Consulting Group
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24
Page iii

Table of Contents
0BIntroduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Proposition 218 ............................................................................................................ 6 Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association v Santa Clara County Open Space Authority ..... 6 Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property ....................................................................... 7 Bonander v. Town of Tiburon ....................................................................................... 7 Beutz v. County of Riverside ......................................................................................... 7 Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego ........................................ 7 Compliance with Current Law ...................................................................................... 8 1BDescription of Services ...................................................................................... 9 2BCost and Budget .............................................................................................. 11 2BMethod of Apportionment ............................................................................. 12 Method of Apportionment ......................................................................................... 12 Discussion of Benefit .................................................................................................. 12 Benefit Factors ........................................................................................................... 13 Benefit Finding ........................................................................................................... 15 General Versus Special Benefit .................................................................................. 15 Calculating General Benefit ........................................................................................ 18 Zones of Benefit ......................................................................................................... 20 Assessment Apportionment ....................................................................................... 22 Method of Assessment ............................................................................................... 23 Criteria and Policies .................................................................................................... 27 4BAssessment ..................................................................................................... 29 5BAssessment Diagram ....................................................................................... 31 5BAppendices ..................................................................................................... 33 Appendix A – Assessment Roll, FY 2023‐24................................................................ 33 Appendix B – California Government Code Section 50078 et. seq. ........................... 34 Appendix C – Article XIIID of the California Constitution ........................................... 37 End Notes ....................................................................................................... 41 City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24
Page iv

List of Figures
Figure 1 – Wildland Fire History in Santa Barbara County .................................................. 1 Figure 2 ‐ Cost and Budget FY 2023‐24 ............................................................................. 11 Figure 3 ‐ Relative Hazard/Risk Scoring for High Fire Hazard Area Zones ........................ 21 Figure 4 ‐ Scoring System .................................................................................................. 21 Figure 5 ‐ Wildland Fire Risk Factors ................................................................................. 22 Figure 6 – Structure Value Factors .................................................................................... 24 Figure 7 ‐ Relative Benefit Factors for Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones .................... 26 0 BIntroduction
The City of Santa Barbara is located about  100 miles northwest of Los Angeles, largely on  the slopes  between  the  Pacific  Ocean  and  the  Santa  Ynez  Mountains.  The  City  of  Santa  Barbara provides fire services throughout the City limits. Fire services include fire suppression, protection, prevention, evacuation planning, and education.

Due  to  topography,  location,  climate  and  infrastructure,  the  Santa  Barbara  community  has  a relatively high inherent risk of wildland fires. Listed below are some of the major wildland fires that have occurred in Santa Barbara County since 1970:

Figure 1 – Wildland Fire History in Santa Barbara County Year  Fire Name  Acres  Homes Lost
1971  Romero Canyon Fire  14,538  4
1977  Sycamore Canyon Fire  805  234
1977  Hondo Canyon Fire  10,000  0
1979  Eagle Canyon Fire  4,530  5
1990  Painted Cave Fire  4,900  524
1993  Marre Fire  43,864  0
2002  Sudden Fire  7,160  0
2004  Gaviota Fire  7,440  1
2007  Zaca Fire  240,207  0
2008  Gap Fire  9,443  0
2008  Tea Fire  1.940  210
2009  Jesusita Fire  8,733  80
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

2016  Sherpa Fire  7,474  0
2016  Rey Fire  32,606  0
2016  Canyon Fire  12,518  0
2017  Thomas Fire  281,893  1,063
2019  Holiday Fire  113  24
2019  Cave Fire  3,126  0
2021  Loma Fire  7  0
2021  Alisal Fire  16,970  12
In  response  to  the  considerable  wildland  fire  risk  in  the  area,  the  City  of  Santa  Barbara  Fire Department prepared a Wildland Fire Plan in January, 2004, in which it identified four High Fire Hazard Zones: The Coastal Zone,  the Coastal Interior Zone,  the Foothill Zone, and  the Extreme Foothill  Zone.  The  two  Zones  with  the  highest  wildland  fire  risk  are  the  Foothill  and  Extreme Foothill Zones (the “Zones”), and these are the Zones that are included in this assessment.

These Zones are at a high risk of wildland fires due to the following factors:
 Climate. The climate consists of cool, moist winters and hot, dry summers. The low humidity and high summer temperatures increase the likelihood that a spark will ignite a fire in the area, and that the fire will spread rapidly.  Topography. Periodic wind conditions known as “Sundowner” and “Santa Ana” winds interact with the steep slopes in the Santa Ynez Mountains and the ocean influence, resulting in an increase in the speed of the wind to severe levels. These two types of wind conditions increase the likelihood that fires will advance downslope towards the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones. In addition, these winds can greatly increase the rate at which a fire will spread.
 Chaparral. Much of the undeveloped landscape is covered with chaparral. Chaparral sheds woody, dead, and organic materials rich in flammable oils, which accumulate over time. Areas covered with chaparral typically experience wildland fires which burn the accumulated plant materials, and renew the chaparral for its next cycle of growth.

Therefore, areas of chaparral which are not thinned, and from which the dead plant City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

materials are not removed or burned off in prescribed fires, provide ample opportunities for wildland fires to occur and to spread.  Road Systems. Many of the roads in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones do not meet current Fire Department access and vegetation road clearance standards, and many are made even more narrow due to the encroachment of vegetation. A number of the bridges have weight requirements that are below Fire Department weight standards. In addition, many driveways are long and steep, posing a safety hazard. All of these factors make it more difficult and more hazardous for the Fire Department to provide fire suppression services in these areas.
 Water Supply. In the Extreme Foothill Zone, the City water supply is limited in some areas, and not available in others. These factors increase the risks associated with fires, due to the reduced availability of water to fight any fires that occur.  Fire Response Time. Much of the Extreme Foothill Zone, and some of the Foothill Zone, is outside the City’s 4 minute Fire Department response time. As a result, fires in these areas may have more time to spread and to increase in severity before fire suppression equipment can reach them.
 Proximity to the Los Padres National Forest. The Los Padres National Forest (LPNF) is a large forest to the north of the Foothill and Extreme Foothill zones.  The LPNF provides a great deal of potential fuel for any wildland fire in the area. Wildland fires that start in the LPNF have the potential to move south toward the Foothill and Extreme Foothill zones.

This Engineer’s Report  (the "Report") was prepared  to: 1) contain  the information  required by Government Code Section 50078.4, including  a) a description of each lot or parcel of property to be subject to the assessment, b) the amount of the assessment for each lot or parcel for the initial fiscal year, c) the maximum amount of the assessment which may be levied for each lot or parcel during any fiscal year, d) the duration of the assessment, e) the basis of the assessment, f) the schedule  of  the  assessment,  and  g)  a  description  specifying  the  requirements  for  protest  and hearing  procedures  for  the  assessment  pursuant  to  Section  50078.6;  2)  establish  a  budget  to provide services to reduce the severity and damage from wildland fires (the "Services") that will be funded by the 2023‐24 assessments; 3) determine the benefits received from the Services by property  within  the  City  of  Santa  Barbara Wildland  Fire  Suppression  Assessment  District  (the "Assessment District") and; 4) assign a method of assessment apportionment to lots and parcels within the Assessment District. This Report and the assessments have been made pursuant to the California Government Code Section 50078 et. seq. (the "Code") and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (the “Article”).

In Fiscal Year 2006‐07, the City of Santa Barbara City Council (the “Council”) by Resolution called for an assessment ballot proceeding and public hearing on the then‐proposed establishment of a wildland fire suppression assessment.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

On May 5, 2006 a notice of assessment and assessment ballot was mailed to property owners within  the proposed Assessment District boundaries. Such notice included a description of  the Services  to be  funded by  the proposed assessments, a proposed assessment amount  for each parcel owned, and an explanation of the method of voting on the assessments. Each notice also included a postage prepaid ballot on which the property owner could mark his or her approval or disapproval of the proposed assessments as well as affix his or her signature.

After  the  ballots  were  mailed  to  property  owners  in  the  Assessment  District,  the  required minimum 45 day time period was provided  for the return of the assessment ballots. Following this 45 day time period, a public hearing was held on June 20, 2006 for the purpose of allowing public testimony regarding the proposed assessments. At the public hearing, the public had the opportunity to speak on the issue. After the conclusion of the public input portion of the hearing, the hearing was continued to July 11, 2006 to allow time for the tabulation of ballots.

With the passage of Proposition 218 on November 6, 1996, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution, the proposed assessments could be levied for fiscal year 2006‐07, and continued in  future years, only if the ballots submitted in  favor of the assessments  were  greater  than  the  ballots  submitted  in  opposition  to  the assessments.  (Each ballot is weighted by the amount of proposed assessment for the property that it represents).

After the conclusion of the public input portion of the Public Hearing held on June 20, 2006, all valid received ballots were tabulated by the City of Santa Barbara Clerk. At the continued public hearing on July 11, 2006, after the ballots were tabulated, it was determined that the assessment ballots  submitted  in  opposition  to  the  proposed  assessments  did  not  exceed  the  assessment ballots submitted in favor of the assessments (weighted by the proportional financial obligation of the property for which ballots are submitted).

As a result, the Council gained the authority to approve the levy of the assessments for fiscal year 2006‐07 and to continue to levy them in future years. The Council took action, by a Resolution passed on July 31, 2006, to approve the first year levy of the assessments for fiscal year 2006‐07.

The authority granted by the ballot proceeding was for a maximum assessment rate of $65.00 per single  family  home,  increased each  subsequent  year  by  the  Los  Angeles  Area  Consumer  Price Index (CPI) not to exceed 4% per year. In the event that the annual change in the CPI exceeds 4%, any percentage change in excess of 4% can be cumulatively reserved and can be added  to the annual change in the CPI for years in which the CPI change is less than 4%.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

In  each  subsequent  year  for  which  the  assessments  will  be  continued,  the  Council  must preliminarily  approve  at  a  public  meeting  a  budget  for  the  upcoming  fiscal  year’s  costs  and services, an updated annual Engineer’s Report, and an updated assessment roll listing all parcels and their proposed assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. A new Engineer’s Report is prepared each year in order to establish the CPI adjustment for that year; the new maximum authorized assessment rate for that year; the budget for that year; and the amount to be charged to each parcel in  the District  that year,  subject  to  that year’s assessment  rate and any  changes in  the attributes  of  the  properties  in  the  District,  including  but  not  limited  to  use  changes,  parcel subdivisions,  and/or  parcel  consolidations.  At  this  meeting,  the  Council  will  also  call  for  the publication in a local newspaper of a legal notice of the intent to continue the assessments for the next fiscal year and set the date for the noticed public hearing. At the annual public hearing, members  of  the  public  can  provide  input  to  the  Council  prior  to  the  Council’s  decision  on continuing the services and assessments for the next fiscal year.

If  the  assessments  are  so  confirmed  and  approved,  the  levies  will  be  submitted  to  the  Santa Barbara County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the property tax roll for Fiscal Year 2023‐24.

The levy and collection of the assessments will continue year‐to‐year until terminated by the City Council.

If the City Council approves this Engineer's Report for fiscal year 2023‐24 and the assessments by Resolution, a notice of assessment levies must be published in a local paper at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing. Following the minimum 10‐day time period after publishing the notice,  a  public  hearing  will  be  held  for  the  purpose  of  allowing  public  testimony  about  the proposed continuation of the assessments for fiscal year 2023‐24.

A Public Hearing is scheduled for June 6, 2023.  At this hearing, the Council will consider approval of a resolution confirming the assessments for fiscal year 2023‐24. If so confirmed and approved, the assessments will be submitted to the Santa Barbara County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the property tax rolls for Fiscal Year 2023‐24.

The  Assessment  District  is  narrowly  drawn  to  include  only  properties  that  benefit  from  the additional  fire protection services  that are provided by  the assessment  funds. The Assessment Diagram included in this report shows the boundaries of the Assessment District.

In  2008  per  California  Public  Resource  Code  4201‐4204 and Government  Code  51175  ‐89,  the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) completed an analysis to identify Local Responsibility Area areas  of  Very  High  Fire  Hazard  Severity  Zones  (VHFHSZ)  within  the  City  of  Santa  Barbara.

Discussions  between OSFM and  the  City  of Santa Barbara Fire Department were  concluded in 2010. As a result, additional parcels have been added to the 2004 City of Santa Barbara high fire hazard  area,  Foothill  Zone.  These  additional  parcels  are  not  included  in  the  Wildland  Fire Suppression  Assessment  District  at  this  time,  and  Services  provided  to  these  parcels  are  not funded from this assessment.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Proposition 218
This assessment was  formed consistent with Proposition 218, The Right  to Vote on Taxes Act, which was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996, and is now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. Proposition 218 provides for benefit assessments to be levied to  fund  the  cost  of  providing  services,  improvements,  as  well  as  maintenance  and  operation expenses to a public improvement which benefits the assessed property.

Proposition  218  describes  a  number  of  important  requirements,  including  a  property‐owner balloting,  for  the  formation  and  continuation  of  assessments,  and  these  requirements  were satisfied by the process used to establish this assessment.

Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association v Santa Clara County Open Space Authority
In  July  of  2008,  the  California  Supreme  Court  issued  its  ruling  on  the  Silicon  Valley  Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (“SVTA vs. SCCOSA”) case.  This ruling is  the most significant legal decision clarifying Proposition 218.  Several of  the most important elements of the ruling included further emphasis that:
 Benefit assessments are for special, not general benefit  The services and/or improvements funded by assessments must be clearly defined  Special benefits are directly received by and provide a direct advantage to property in the Assessment District
This Engineer’s Report is consistent with the SVTA vs. SCCOSA decision and with the requirements of  Article  XIIIC  and  XIIID  of  the  California  Constitution  because  the  Services  to  be  funded  are clearly defined;  the Services are available to all benefiting property in the Assessment District, the benefiting property in the Assessment District will directly and tangibly benefit from improved protection  from  fire damage, increased safety of property and other special benefits and such special  benefits  provide  a  direct  advantage  to  property  in  the Assessment  District  that  is  not enjoyed by the public at large or other property. There have been a number of clarifications made to the analysis, findings and supporting text in this Report to ensure that this consistency is well communicated.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property
On  June 8, 2009,  the Court of Appeal for  the Second District of California amended its original opinion upholding a benefit assessment district for property in the downtown area of the City of Pomona.  On July 22, 2009, the California Supreme Court denied review and the court's decision in Dahms became binding precedent for assessments.  In Dahms, the court upheld an assessment that conferred a 100% special benefit to the assessed parcels on the rationale that the services and improvements funded by the assessments were provided directly and only to property in the assessment  district over  and  above  those  services  or  improvements  provided  by  the  city generally.

Bonander v. Town of Tiburon
On December 31, 2009, the 1st District Court of Appeal overturned a benefit assessment approved by property owners to pay for placing overhead utility lines underground in an area of the Town of Tiburon.  The Court invalidated the assessments on the ground that the assessments had been apportioned  to  assessed  property  based,  in  part,  on  relative  costs  within  sub‐areas  of  the assessment district instead of proportional special benefits.

Beutz v. County of Riverside
On May 26, 2010 the 4th District Court of Appeals issued a decision on the Steven Beutz v. County of Riverside (“Beutz”) appeal.  This decision overturned an assessment for park maintenance in Wildomar, California, primarily because the general benefits associated with improvements and services were not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from the special benefits.

Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego On  September  22,  2011,  the  San  Diego  Court  of  Appeal  issued  a  decision  on  the  Golden  Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego appeal.  This decision overturned an assessment for street and landscaping maintenance in the Greater Golden Hill neighborhood of San Diego, California. The court described two primary reasons for its decision. First, like in Beutz, the court found the general benefits associated with services were not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from the special benefits. Second, the court found that the City had failed to record the basis for the assessment on its own parcels.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Compliance with Current Law
This  Engineer’s  Report  is  consistent  with  the  requirements  of  Article  XIIIC  and  XIIID  of  the California Constitution and with the SVTA decision because the Services to be funded are clearly defined; the Services are available to and will be directly provided to all benefiting property in the Assessment District; and the Services provide a direct advantage to property in the Assessment District that would not be received in absence of the Assessments.

This  Engineer’s  Report  is  consistent  with  Dahms  because,  similar  to  the  Downtown  Pomona assessment  validated  in  Dahms,  the  Services  will  be  directly  provided  to  property  in  the Assessment District.  Moreover, while Dahms could be used as the basis for a finding of 0% general benefits, this Engineer’s Report establishes a more conservative measure of general benefits.

The  Engineer’s  Report  is  consistent  with  Bonander  because  the  Assessments  have  been apportioned based on the overall cost of the Services and proportional special benefit to each property. Finally, the Assessments are consistent with Buetz because the general benefits have been explicitly calculated and quantified and excluded from the Assessments.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

1 BDescription of Services
The City of Santa Barbara Fire Department provides a range of fire protection, prevention, and educational services to the City and its residents.

The following is a description of the wildland fire suppression Services that are provided for the benefit  of  property within  the Assessment District.   Prior  to  the  passage  of  the assessment in 2006, the baseline level of service was below the standard described in the City’s 2004 Wildland Fire Plan.  Due to inadequate funding, the level of service continued to diminish and would have diminished further had this assessment not been instituted.  With the passage of this assessment, the services were enhanced significantly.  The formula below describes the relationship between the final level of improvements, the baseline level of service (pre 2006) had the assessment not been instituted, and the enhanced level of improvements funded by the assessment.

Note: Baseline level of service is pre‐2006.

The services (the “Services”) undertaken by the City of Santa Barbara Fire Department and the cost  thereof  paid  from  the  levy  of  the  annual  assessment  provide  special  benefit  to  Assessor Parcels within the Assessment District as defined in the Method of Assessment herein.  In addition to  the  definitions  provided  by  the  California  Government  Code  Section  50078  et.  seq.,  (the “Code”) the Services are generally described as follows:
 Expansion of the vegetation road clearance program to cover all public roads within the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones. This program reduces fuel, enhance evacuation routes, and decrease fire response times
 Implementation of a defensible space and fire prevention inspection and chipping assistance program for all properties in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones  Implementation of a vegetation management program in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones
As  applied  herein,  “vegetation  road  clearance”  means  the  treatment,  clearing,  reducing,  or changing  of  vegetation  near  roadways  in  the  Foothill  and  Extreme  Foothill  Zones  where vegetation poses a fire hazard and does not meet Fire Department Vegetation Road Clearance Standards within the high fire hazard area (As provided in Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section

8.04).

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

“Defensible space” is a perimeter created around a structure where vegetation is treated, cleared or reduced to slow the spread of wildfire towards a structure, reduce the chance of a structure fire burning to the surrounding area, and provides a safe perimeter for firefighters to protect a structure (As provided in Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Santa Barbara pursuant to Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 8.04). “Vegetation  management”  means  the  reduction  of  fire  hazard  through  public  education, vegetation hazard reduction, and other methods as needed to manage vegetation in areas with unique hazards such as heavy, flammable vegetation, lack of access due to topography and roads, and/or firefighter safety.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

2 BCost and Budget
Figure 2 ‐ Cost and Budget FY 2023‐24
Notes:

1.  Evacuation Planning ‐ Evacuation Roadway Clearing: Staffing costs include City Fire Department staff. Materials Costs includes traffic signage, notification letters, and door hangers to inform homeowners of start dates. Project costs include the utilization of contractors, equipment and manpower required to complete Roadway Clearance.

2.  Defensible Space: Staffing costs include City Fire Department staff and inputting Defensible Space Evaluation reports into Accela.

Materials Costs for Annual Chipping includes traffic signage, notification letters, door hangers and sandwich boards to inform homeowners of start dates. Chipping program includes direct costs to coordinate, communicate and provide equipment and manpower in support of chipping program. This includes the cost of contracting a chipper and truck to dispose of chipped material.

3. Vegetation Management: Staffing costs include City Fire Department staff including the coordination, communication and cooperation of homeowners involved in projects. Project costs include contractor, roll‐off dumpster, porta‐potty, on‐site signage and notification to homeowners on starting dates.

Total
Budget
Services Costs
Evacuation Planning - Evacuation Roadway Clearing1
Staffing $64,000
Materials $5,500
Project Costs $57,000
Defensible Space2
Staffing $48,000
Materials $7,500
Chipping Program $81,170
Vegetation Management3
Staffing $62,000
Project Costs $10,973
Totals for Installation, Maintenance and Servicing $336,143 Less: District Contribution for General Benefits ($25,889) Net Cost of Installation, Maintenance and Servicing to Assessment District $310,254 Incidental Costs:

District Administration and Project Management $6,150
Allowance for County Collection $3,494
Subtotals - Incidentals $9,644
Total Wildland Fire Suppression District Budget $319,898 (Net Amount to be Assessed)
Assessment District Budget Allocation to Parcels
Total Assessment Budget $319,898
Single Family Equivalent Benefit Units in District 3 ,337 Assessment per Single Family Equivalent Unit (SFE) $95.86

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Estimate of Costs
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

2 BMethod of Apportionment
Method of Apportionment
This section includes an explanation of the special benefits derived from the Services, the criteria for  the  expenditure  of  assessment  funds  and  the  methodology  used  to  apportion  the  total assessments to properties within the Assessment District.

The  Assessment  District  area  consists  of  all  Assessor  Parcels  within  the  Foothill  and  Extreme Foothill zones of the High Fire Hazard Area as defined by the 2004 Wildland Fire Plan. The method used for apportioning the assessment is based upon the proportional special benefits from the Services  derived  by  the  properties  in  the  assessment  area  over  and  above  general  benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large.  Special benefit is calculated for each parcel in the Assessment District using the following process:

1. Identification of all benefit factors derived from the Improvements

2. Calculation of the proportion of these benefits that are general

3. Determination  of  the  relative  special  benefit  within  different  areas  within  the Assessment District

4. Determination of the relative special benefit per property type

5. Calculation of the specific assessment for each individual parcel based upon special vs. general benefit; location, property type, property characteristics, improvements on property and other supporting attributes
Discussion of Benefit
California  Government  Code  Section  50078  et.  seq.    allows  agencies  which  provide  fire suppression services, such as the City of Santa Barbara Fire Department, to levy assessments for fire suppression services. Section 50078 states the following:
“Any local agency which provides fire suppression services directly or by contract with the state  or  a  local  agency  may,  by  ordinance  or  by  resolution  adopted  after  notice  and hearing, determine and levy an assessment for fire suppression services pursuant to this article.”
In addition, California Government Code Section 50078.1 defines the term “fire suppression” as follows:
“(c) "Fire suppression" includes firefighting and fire prevention, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal or management undertaken, in whole or in part, for the reduction of a fire hazard.”
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Therefore, the Services provided by the Assessment District fall within the scope of services that may be funded by assessments under the Code.

The  assessments  can  only  be  levied  based  on  the  special  benefit  to  property.    This  benefit  is received by property over and above any general benefits. Moreover, such benefit is not based on  any  one  property  owner’s  specific  use  of  the  Services  or  a  property  owner’s  specific demographic status. With reference to the requirements for assessments, Section 50078.5 of the California Government Code states:
"(b) The benefit assessment shall be levied on a parcel, class of improvement to property, or  use  of  property  basis,  or  a  combination  thereof,  within  the  boundaries  of  the  local agency, zone, or area of benefit.”
“The assessment may be levied against any parcel, improvement, or use of property to which such services may be made available whether or not the service is actually used." Proposition  218,  as  codified  in  Article  XIIID  of  the  California  Constitution,  has  confirmed  that assessments must be based on the special benefit to property:
"No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." Since  assessments  are  levied  on the  basis  of  special  benefit,  they  are  not  a  tax  and  are  not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.

The  following  section  describes  how  and  why  the  Services  specially  benefit  properties.    This benefit is particular and distinct from its effect on property in general or the public at large.

Benefit Factors
In order to allocate the assessments, the Engineer identified the types of special benefit arising from the Services that are provided to property in the Assessment District.  These benefit factors confer a direct advantage to the assessed properties; otherwise they would be general benefit.

The following benefit categories have been established that represent the types of special benefit conferred to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and other lots and parcels resulting from the services to reduce the severity and damage from wildland fires that are provided in the Assessment District. These categories of special benefit are derived from the statutes passed by the California Legislature and other studies, which describe the types of special benefit received by  property  from  the  Services  of  the  Assessment  District.  These  types  of  special  benefit  are summarized as follows:

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Increased safety and protection of real property assets for all property owners within the Assessment District.

As summarized previously, properties in the Assessment District are currently at higher risk for wildland  fires. Uncontrolled  fires would have a devastating impact on all properties within  the Assessment District. The assessments  fund an increase in services to mitigate  the wildland  fire threat, and  thereby can significantly  reduce  the  risk of property damage associated with  fires.

Clearly,  fire mitigation helps  to protect and specifically benefits both improved properties and vacant properties in the Assessment District.
"Fire is the largest single cause of property loss in the United States. In the last decade, fires have caused direct losses of more  than $120 billion and countless billions more in related cost."D
1 “Over 140,000 wildfires occurred on average each year, burning a  total of almost 14.5 million  acres.  And  since  1990,  over  900  homes  have  been  destroyed  each  year  by wildfires.”D
2 “A wildfire sees your home as just another fuel source. The survivable space you construct around your home will keep all but the most ferocious wildfires at bay.”D 3 “A  reasonably  disaster‐resistant  America  will  not  be  achieved  until  there  is  greater acknowledgment of  the importance of  the  fire  service and a willingness at all levels of government to adequately fund the needs and responsibilities of the fire service.”D 4 “The  strategies  and  techniques  to  address  fire  risks  in  structures  are  known.  When implemented, these means have proven effective in the reduction of losses.” D 5 “Statistical  data  on  insurance  losses  bears  out  the  relationship  between  excellent  fire protection…and low fire losses.” D
6 Protection of views, scenery and other resource values, for property in the Assessment District
The Assessment District provides funding for the mitigation of the wildland fire threat to protect public and private resources in the Assessment District. This benefits even those properties that are not directly damaged by fire by maintaining and improving the aesthetics and attractiveness of public and private resources in the community, as well as ensuring that such resources remain safe and well maintained.
“Intensely burned forests are rarely considered scenic.” D 7 “Smoke affects people…for example; in producing haze that degrades the visual quality of a sunny day…The other visual quality effect is that of the fire on the landscape. To many people, burned landscapes are not attractive and detract from the aesthetic values of an area.”D
8 “A visually preferred landscape can be the natural outcome of fuels treatments.”D 9 City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Enhanced utility and desirability of the properties in the Assessment District.

The  assessments  fund  Services  to  reduce  the  severity  and  damage  from  wildland  fires  in  the Assessment District. Such Services enhance the overall utility and desirability of the properties in the Assessment District.
“Residential  satisfaction  surveys  have  found  that  having  nature  near  one’s  home  is extremely important in where people choose to live…This is especially true at the wildland‐ urban interface where some of the most serious fuels management must occur.” D 10 “People are coming to the [Bitterroot] valley in part because of its natural beauty which contributes to the quality of life that so many newcomers are seeking.”D 11 Benefit Finding
In summary, real property located within the boundaries of the Assessment District distinctly and directly benefits from increased safety and protection of real property, increased protection of scenery and views, and enhanced utility of properties in the Assessment District.  These are special benefits to property in much the same way that sewer and water facilities, sidewalks and paved streets enhance the utility and desirability of property and make them more functional to use, safer and easier to access.

General Versus Special Benefit
Article  XIIIC  of  the  California  Constitution  requires  any  local  agency  proposing  to  increase  or impose a benefit assessment to “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.”  The rationale for separating special and general benefits is to ensure that property owners subject to the benefit assessment are not paying for general benefits. The assessment can fund special benefits but cannot fund general benefits.  Accordingly, a separate estimate of the special and general benefit is given in this section.

In other words:

Total
Benefit =
General
Benefit + Special Benefit
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

There  is  no  widely‐accepted  or  statutory  formula  for  general  benefit.    General  benefits  are benefits  from improvements or services  that are not special in nature, are not “particular and distinct”  and  are  not  “over  and  above”  benefits  received  by  other  properties.  SVTA  vs.

SCCOSA provides  some  clarification  by  indicating  that  general  benefits  provide  “an  indirect, derivative advantage” and are not necessarily proximate to the improvements.

The  starting  point  for evaluating general and  special benefits is  the pre  2006  baseline level of service, had  the assessment not  been approved by  the  community.  The assessment will  fund Services “over and above” this general, baseline level and the special benefits estimated in this section are over and above the baseline.

A formula to estimate the general benefit is listed below:

Special benefit, on the other hand, is defined in the state constitution as “a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large.”  The SVTA v. SCCOSA decision indicates that a special benefit is conferred to a property if it “receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g., proximity to a park).”   In this assessment, as noted, the improved Services are available when needed to all properties in the Assessment District, so the overwhelming proportion of the benefits conferred to property is special, and are only minimally received by property outside the Assessment District or the public at large.

Proposition 218  twice uses  the phrase “over and above” general benefits in describing special benefit.    (Art.  XIIID,  sections  2(i)  &  4(f).)    Arguably,  all  of  the  Services  being  funded  by  the assessment would be a special benefit because the Services particularly and distinctly benefit the properties in the Assessment District over and above the baseline benefits.

Nevertheless, arguably some of the Services benefit the public at large and properties outside the Assessment District.  In this report, the general benefit is conservatively estimated and described, and then budgeted so that it is funded by sources other than the assessment.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

(In the 2009 Dahms case, the court upheld an assessment that conferred a 100% special benefit to the  assessed  parcels  on  the  rationale  that  the  services and  improvements  funded  by  the assessments  were  provided directly  and only  to  property  in  the  assessment  district  over  and above those services or improvements provided by the city generally. Similarly, the Assessments described in this Engineer’s Report fund wildland fire services directly and only to the assessed parcels located within  the assessment area.  Moreover, every property within  the Assessment District will receive the Services. While the Dahms decision would permit an assessment based on 100% special benefit and zero or minimal general benefits, in this report, the general benefit is estimated and described and budgeted so that it is funded by sources other than the Assessment.) City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Calculating General Benefit
This section provides a measure of the general benefits from the assessments Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment District
Properties  within  the  Assessment  District  receive  almost  all  of  the  special  benefits  from  the Services  because  the  Services  will  be  provided  solely  in  the  Assessment  District  boundaries.

Properties proximate to, but outside of, the boundaries of the Assessment District receive some benefit  from  the Services due  to some degree of indirectly  reduced  fire  risk  to  their property.

These parcels that are proximate to the boundaries of the Assessment District are estimated to receive less than 50% of the benefits relative to parcels within the Assessment District because they do not directly receive the improved fire protection resulting from the Services funded by the Assessments.

At  the  time  the  Assessment  District  was  formed,  there  were  approximately  550  of  these “proximate” properties.

Although it can reasonably be argued that properties protected inside, but near the Assessment District boundaries are offset by similar fire protection provided outside, but near the Assessment District’s boundaries, we use the more conservative approach of finding that 6.7% of the Services may be of general benefit to property outside the Assessment District.

Benefit to Property Inside the District that is Indirect and Derivative The  “indirect and  derivative”  benefit  to  property within  the Assessment District is  particularly difficult to calculate. A solid argument can be presented that all benefit within the Assessment District is special, because the Services are clearly “over and above” and “particular and distinct” when  compared  with  the  pre‐2006  baseline  level  of  Services,  had  the  assessment  district  not passed.

Assumptions:
550 parcels outside the district but proximate to the District Boundaries 3,550 parcels in the Assessment District.
50% relative benefit compared to property within the Assessment District.

Calculation:

General Benefit to property outside the Assessment District = (550/(550+3,550))*0.5=6.7%
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

In determining the Assessment District boundaries, the District has been careful to limit it to an area  of  parcels  that will  directly  receive  the  benefit  of  the improved Services.  All  parcels will directly benefit from the use of the improved Services throughout the Assessment District in order to  achieve  the  desired  level  of  wildland  fire  suppression  and  protection  throughout  the Assessment District.  Fire protection and suppression will be provided as needed throughout the area.

The SVTA vs. SCCOSA decision indicates that the fact that a benefit is conferred throughout the Assessment District area does not make the benefit general rather than special, so long as the Assessment District is narrowly drawn and limited to the parcels directly receiving shared special benefits  from  the  service.    This  concept  is  particularly  applicable  in  situations  involving  a landowner‐approved assessment‐funded extension of a local government service to benefit lands previously not receiving that particular service.  The Fire Department therefore concludes that, other  than  the  small  general  benefit  to  properties  outside  the Assessment  District  (discussed above) and to the public at large (discussed below), all of the benefits of the Services to the parcels within the Assessment District are special benefits and it is not possible or appropriate to separate any general benefits from the benefits conferred on parcels in the Assessment District.

Benefit To The Public At Large
With  the  type and  scope  of Services  provided  to  the Assessment District, it is very  difficult  to calculate and quantify the scope of the general benefit conferred on the public at large.  Because the Services directly serve and benefit all of the property in the Assessment District, any general benefit conferred on the public at large would be small.  Nevertheless, there may be some indirect general benefit to the public at large.

The public at large uses the public highways and other regional  facilities when traveling in and through the Assessment District and they may benefit from the services without contributing to the assessment. Although the protection of this critical infrastructure is certainly a benefit to all the property within the Assessment District, it is arguably “indirect and derivative” and possibly benefits people rather than property. A fair and appropriate measure of the general benefit to the  public  at  large  therefore  is  the  amount  of  highway,  and  regional  facilities  within  the Assessment  District  relative  to  the  overall  land  area.    An  analysis  of  maps  of  the  Assessment District  shows  that  less  than  1.0%  of  the  land  area  in  the  Assessment  District  is  covered  by highways and  regional  facilities.  This  1.0%  therefore is a  fair and appropriate measure  of  the general benefit to the public at large within the Assessment District Summary of General Benefits
Using  a  sum  of  the  measures  of  general  benefit  for  the  public  at  large  and  land  outside  the Assessment District, we find that approximately 7.7% of the benefits conferred by the Assessment District may be general in nature and should be funded by sources other than the assessment.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

The  Assessment District’s  total  budget  for  2023‐24  is  $336,143.  The  Assessment District must obtain  funding  from  sources  other  than  the  assessment  in  the  amount  of  at  least  $25,883 ($336,143*7.7%) to pay for the cost of the general benefits. This is because the assessments levied by the Fire Department may not exceed the special benefits provided by the Services, and  the Assessment Engineer concluded that a combined total of 7.7% of the cost of Services provide a general benefit to properties outside the Assessment District and a benefit to the public at large.

For Fiscal Year 2023‐24, the City will contribute at least $25,883, or 7.7% of the total Assessment District budget, to the Assessment District from sources other than this assessment to cover the cost of the general benefits.

Zones of Benefit
Initially,  the Fire Department evaluated  the geographic area within and around  the  City limits (including the City of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County, Montecito and National Forest lands) based  upon  three  fire  hazard  risk  variables:  vegetation  (fuel),  topography  and  weather.  This analysis was used to narrowly determine the boundaries of the “high fire hazard area.”  Further, zones  were  narrowly  drawn  within  the  high  fire  hazard  area  and  graded  “extreme,”  “high,” “moderate” or “low”. Next, the Fire Department evaluated the roof type, proximity of structures, road systems, water supply, fire response times and historic fire starts within the high fire hazard area and developed 4 specific zones:
 Extreme Foothill Zone
 Foothill Zone
 Coastal Zone
 Coastal Interior Zone
These zones were used to apply appropriate policies and actions based upon hazard and risk. The results of this analysis were tabulated and presented in Tables 2 through 4 in the 2004 Wildland Fire Plan.

General Benefit Calculation

6.7%  (Outside the Assessment District)
+   0.0%    (Inside the district – indirect and derivative) +  1.0%   (Public at Large)
=  7.7%  (Total General Benefit)
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Accordingly, “Zones of Benefit” corresponding to the fire risk zones are used to equitably assign special benefit, and are used for the basis of the “Fire Risk Factors” discussed below. Each zone was narrowly drawn, and has been given a score, based upon the evaluated risk criteria, as shown in Figure 3. (The assessment provides Services in the Extreme Foothill Zone and the Foothill Zone only.)
Figure 3 ‐ Relative Hazard/Risk Scoring for High Fire Hazard Area Zones Hazard/Risk
Attribute
Extreme
Foothill
Zone
Foothill
Zone
Coastal
Zone
Coastal
Interior
Zone
Combined Hazard
Assessment ‐
vegetation (fuel),
topography,
weather*
40  30  20  10

Roof Type**  1  2  2  3
Proximity  1  3  1  3
Road  3  3  1  1
Water  3  1  1  1
Response  3  2  2  2
Ignitions  1  1  1  1

Total Score  52  42  28  21
* The Hazard Assessment element of this analysis is the most significant. Scores have been “weighted” by a factor of 10.
** In the Extreme Foothill Zone fire retardant roofing materials are more prevalent, resulting in lower risk in this area.

Figure 4 shows the numeric scoring system used to develop the relative total scores.

Figure 4 ‐ Scoring System
Qualititative
Score
Numeric
Score
Very High 4
High 3
Moderate 2
Low 1
The total relative scores for each zone are tabulated and normalized, based up the Foothill Zone, and shown in Figure 5.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Figure 5 ‐ Wildland Fire Risk Factors
Zone  Raw Score  Wildland Fire Risk Factor
Extreme Foothill Zone  52  1.24
Foothill Zone  42  1.00
Coastal Zone**  28  .67
Coastal Interior Zone**  21  .50
**Coastal Zone and Coastal Interior Zone are included in this analysis for clarity; however these zones are not included in the Assessment District.

Assessment Apportionment
In the process of determining the appropriate method of assessment, the Assessment Engineer considered  various  alternatives.  For  example,  an  assessment  only  for  all  residential  improved property was considered but was determined to be inappropriate because vacant, commercial, industrial and other properties also receive special benefits from the assessments.

Moreover,  a  fixed  or  flat  assessment  for  all  properties  of  similar  type  was  deemed  to  be inappropriate  because  larger  commercial/industrial  properties  and  residential  properties  with multiple dwelling units receive a higher degree of benefit than other similarly used properties that are  significantly  smaller.  For  two  properties  used  for  commercial  purposes,  there  clearly  is  a higher benefit provided to the larger property in comparison to a smaller commercial property because  the  larger  property  generally  supports  a  larger  building  and  has  higher  numbers  of employees,  customers  and  guests  that  benefit  from  reduced  wildland  fire  risk.  This  benefit ultimately flows to the property. Larger parcels, therefore, receive an increased benefit from the assessments.

The  Assessment  Engineer  determined  that  the  appropriate  method  of  assessment  should  be based on the type of property, the relative size of the property and the potential use of property by residents and employees. This method is further described below.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Method of Assessment
The next step in apportioning assessments is to determine the relative special benefit for each property.  This  process  involves  determining  the  relative  benefit  received  by  each  property  in relation to a "benchmark" property, a single family detached dwelling on one parcel of one acre or  less  in  the  Foothill  Zone  (one  “Single  Family  Equivalent  Benefit  Unit”  or  “SFE”).  This  SFE methodology  is  commonly  used  to  distribute  assessments  in  proportion  to  estimated  special benefits and is generally recognized as providing the basis for a fair and appropriate distribution of assessments. In this Engineer’s Report, all properties are assigned an SFE value, which is each property’s relative benefit in relation to a single family home on one parcel.

The relative benefit to properties from fire related Services is:

Equation 1 – Relative Benefit to Properties
Benefit   ≈  ∑ (Fire Risk Factors)   ∗ ∑ (Structure Value Factors) That is, the benefit conferred to property is the “sum” the risk factors multiplied by the “sum” of the structure values factors.

Fire Risk Factors
Typical  fire  assessments  (non‐wildland)  are  evaluated  based  upon  the  fire  risk  of  a  certain property type. These evaluations consider factors such as use of structure (e.g. used for cooking), type of structure (centralized heating), etc.

Wildland  fires, on  the other hand, are initiated largely  from external ignitions and are  far less affected by  structural, mechanical and electrical  systems inherent  to  the building  (except  roof type). The principle Wildland fire risk factors are:
 Vegetation (fuel)
 Topography
 Weather
 Roof type
 Proximity of Structure
 Road Systems
 Water Supply
 Response
 Ignitions
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

These  factors  were  fully  evaluated  in  the  2004 Wildland  Fire  Plan  and  are  manifested  in  the relative  zone  scores as  shown in Figures  3,  4 and  5, above. Hence,  the Fire  Risk  Factor  for all properties within the Foothill Zone is 1.00 and the Fire Risk Factor for all properties in the Extreme Foothill Zone is 1.24.

Structure Value Factors
The relative value of different property types was evaluated within the high fire hazard area to determine the Structure Value Factor according to the following formula:

Equation 2 ‐ Structure Value Factors
∑ (Structure Value
Factors)
≈
(Structure Weighting
Factor
∗
Average Improved
Value)
∗
(Land Weighting
Factor
∗
Average Total
Value)
∗ (Unit Density
Factor)
Where:
“Structure Weight Factor” = 10 to “weight” relative importance of structure over land. “Average Improved Value” is average of value of all improvements (e.g. structures), per property type, as provide by County Assessor records.

Land Weighting Factor = 1
“Average Total Value” is average of value of all land + improvements (e.g. structures), per property type, as provide by County Assessor records.  County assessor land values were not used directly because experience has shown total values to be more comprehensive. “Unit Density Factor” corresponds values with units (i.e. “per residential unit” or “per acre”) based upon effective density of structure on parcel.

Figure  6  below  is  a  tabulation  of  the  Structure  values  for  each  property  type  as  defined  by Equation 2, above.

Figure 6 – Structure Value Factors
*For homes on an acre or less. For homes on more than one acre, the Structure Value Factor is increased by 0.0809 per acre
Property Type  Structure Value Factor  Unit
Single Family  1.0000  per each*
Multi‐Family  0.3683  per res. unit
Commercial/Industrial  0.8187  per acre
Office  0.7058  per acre
Institutional  0.3841  per each
Storage  0.0952  per acre
Agricultural  0.0809  per acre
Rangeland  0.0181  per acre
Vacant  0.0324  per each
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Residential Properties
All improved residential properties with a single residential dwelling unit on one acre or less are assigned one Single Family Equivalent or 1.0 SFE in the Foothill Zone. In the Extreme Foothill Zone, all  improved  residential  properties  on  one  acre  or  less  are  assessed  1.24  SFEs  (See  Table  5).

Residential properties on parcels  that are larger  than 1 acre receive additional benefit and are assigned additional SFEs on a “per acre” basis. Detached or attached houses, zero‐lot line houses and town homes are included in this category.

Properties  with  more  than  one  residential  unit  are  designated  as  multi‐family  residential properties. These properties benefit from the Services in proportion to the number of dwelling units that occupy each property. The relative benefit for multi‐family properties was determined as  per  Equation  1  to  be  0.3683  SFEs  per  residential  unit  in  the  Foothill  Zone  and  0.4567  per residential unit in the Extreme Foothill Zone. This rate applies to condominiums as well.

Commercial/Industrial & Office Properties
Commercial  and  industrial  properties  are  assigned  benefit  units  per  acre,  since  there  is  a relationship  between  parcel  size,  structure  size  and  relative  benefits.  The  relative  benefit  for commercial and industrial properties was determined as per Equation 1  to be 0.8187 SFEs per acre in the Foothill Zone and 1.0151 per acre in the Extreme Foothill Zone. The relative benefit for office properties was determined as per Equation 1 to be 0.7058 SFEs per acre in the Foothill Zone and 0.8751 per acre in the Extreme Foothill Zone.

Vacant/Undeveloped, Open Space and Agricultural Properties The relative benefit for vacant properties was determined as per Equation 1 to be 0.0324 SFEs per parcel in the Foothill Zone and 0.04012 per parcel in the Extreme Foothill Zone. Open space and agricultural land have minimal improvements and few, if any; structures that require defensible space, and are assigned benefit “per acre.” The relative benefit  for open space properties was determined as per Equation 1 to be 0.0181 SFEs per acre in the Foothill Zone and 0.0224 per acre in the Extreme Foothill Zone. The relative benefit for agricultural properties was determined as per Equation 1 to be 0.0809 SFEs per acre in the Foothill Zone and 0.1002 per acre in the Extreme Foothill Zone.

Other Properties
Institutional properties, such as publicly owned properties (and are used as such), for example, churches,  are  assessed  at  0.3841  per  parcel  in  the  Foothill  zone  and  0.4762  per  Parcel  in  the Extreme Foothill zone. The relative benefit for storage properties was determined as per Equation 1 to be 0.0952 SFEs per acre in the Foothill Zone and 0.1180 per acre in the Extreme Foothill Zone.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution states that publicly owned properties shall not  be  exempt  from  assessment  unless  there  is  clear  and  convincing  evidence  that  those properties receive no special benefit.

All public properties  that are specially benefited are assessed. Publicly owned property  that is used  for  purposes  similar  to  private  residential,  commercial,  industrial  or  institutional  uses  is benefited and assessed at the same rate as such privately owned property.

Summary of Benefits for Each Property Type
Figure 7 summarizes the relative benefit for each property type.

Figure 7 ‐ Relative Benefit Factors for Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones Foothill Zone
Extreme Foothill
Zone
Property Type
Benefit Factors
(SFEs) Unit
Benefit Factors
(SFEs) Unit
Single Family 1.0000 per each 1.2400 per each
Multi-Family 0.3683 per unit 0.4567 per unit
Commercial/Industrial 0.8187 per acre 1.0152 per acre
Office 0.7058 per acre 0.8752 per acre
Institutional 0.3841 per each 0.4763 per each
Storage 0.0952 per acre 0.1181 per acre
Agricultural 0.0809 per acre 0.1003 per acre
RangeLand 0.0181 per acre 0.0225 per acre
Vacant 0.0324 per each 0.0402 per each
Appeals of Assessments Levied to Property
Any property owner who feels that the assessment levied on the subject property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment may file a written appeal with the Fire Chief of the City of Santa Barbara Fire Department or his or her designee. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then current fiscal year. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the Chief or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the Chief or his or her designee finds  that  the  assessment  should  be  modified,  the  appropriate  changes  shall  be  made  to  the assessment roll. If any such changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County for collection, the Chief or his or her designee is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction. Any dispute over the decision of the Chief or his or her designee shall be referred to the City Council and the decision of the Council shall be final.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Additional Background on Relative Benefit
In  essence,  when  property  owners  are  deciding  how  to  cast  their  ballot  for  a  proposed assessment, each property owner must weigh the perceived value of the Services proposed to them and their property with the proposed cost of the assessment to their property. If property owners of a certain type of property are either opposed or in support of the assessment in much greater percentages than owners of other property types, this is an indication that, as a group, these  property  owners  perceive  that  the  proposed  assessment  has  relatively  higher  or  lower “utility” or value to their property relative to owners of other property types. One can also infer from these hypothetical ballot results, that the apportionment of benefit (and assessments) was too high or too low for that property type. In other words, property owners, by their balloting, ultimately indicate if they perceive the special benefits to their property to exceed the cost of the assessment, and, as a group, whether the determined level of benefit and proposed assessment (the  benefit  apportionment made  by  the  Assessment  Engineer)  is  consistent  with  the  level  of benefits perceived by the owners of their type of property relative to the owners of other types of property.

Duration of the Assessment
The duration of the assessment is one year, and may be continued each year by a vote of the City Council.  The  assessment  cannot  be  increased  in  future  years  without  approval  from  property owners in another assessment  ballot  proceeding, except  for an annual adjustment  tied  to  the change in the Los Angeles‐Riverside‐Orange County Area Consumer Price Index, not to exceed 4% per year.

Criteria and Policies
This sub‐section describes the criteria that shall govern the expenditure of assessment funds and ensures  equal  levels  of  benefit  for  properties  of  similar  type.  The  criteria  established  in  this Report, as finally confirmed, cannot be substantially modified; however, the Council may adopt additional  criteria  to  further  clarify  certain  criteria  or  policies  established  in  this  Report  or  to establish additional criteria or policies that do not conflict with this Report.

Assessment Funds Must Be Expended Within the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones
The net available assessment  funds, after incidental, administrative,  financing and other costs, shall  be  expended  exclusively  for  Services  within  the  boundaries  of  the  Assessment  District, namely, the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Existing General Funds
Prior  to  formation  of  the  assessment,  these  Wildland  Fire  Services  were  funded  with approximately $200,000 from the City of Santa Barbara general fund. A general fund contribution of at least $200,000 has been provided each year, and will continue to be provided in future years by the City, to the extent feasible.

This $200,000+ contribution, which comes in the form of direct funds and manpower, is used to support Wildland Fire Services throughout the City including the Coast area, as well as broad, city‐ wide public outreach, planning and policy etc., and to pay for any and all general benefits from the assessment‐related services, as required and as described on page 18, above.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

4 BAssessment
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara is proceeding with the proposed levy of assessments under California Government Code sections 50078 et seq. (the “Code”) and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (the “Article”);
WHEREAS, the  undersigned  Engineer  of  Work  has  prepared  and  filed  a  report  presenting  an estimate of costs, a diagram for the Assessment District and an assessment of the estimated costs of the Services upon all assessable parcels within the Assessment District; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Code and Article and the order of the Council of said City, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of said Services, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the Assessment District.

The amount  to be paid  for said Services and the expense incidental  thereto,  to be paid by the Assessment District for the fiscal year 2023‐24 is generally as follows:

Summary Cost Estimate FY 2023‐24
An  Assessment  Diagram  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof  showing  the  exterior boundaries of said Assessment District. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in said Assessment District is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.

Evacuation Planning – Evacuation Roadway Clearing $126,500 Defensible Space $136,670
Vegetation Management $72,973
Total for Installation, Maintenance and Servicing $336,143 Less: Contribution for General Benefits ($25,889)
Incidental Costs:

Administration and Project Management $6,150
Allowance for County collection $3,494
Subtotal – Incidentals $9,644
Total Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment Budget $319,898 Budget
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

I  do  hereby  assess  and  apportion said  net  amount  of  the  cost  and  expenses  of  said  Services, including the costs and expenses incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within said Assessment District, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot, from the Services, and more particularly set forth in the Cost Estimate and Method of Assessment hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

The assessment is subject to an annual adjustment tied to the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles‐Riverside‐Orange County Area as of January of each succeeding year, with the maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 4%.

In  the event  that the actual assessment rate  for any given year is not increased by an amount equal to the maximum of 4% or the yearly CPI change plus any CPI change in previous years that was in excess of 4%, the maximum authorized assessment shall increase by this amount. In such event,  the  maximum  authorized  assessment  shall  be  equal  to  the  base  year  assessment  as adjusted by the increase to the CPI, plus any and all CPI adjustments deferred in any and all prior years. The CPI change above 4% can be used in a future year when the CPI adjustment is below 4%. For 2023‐24, the Los Angeles‐Riverside‐Orange County Area CPI increase is 4.926%.

Hence,  the  proposed  rates  for 2023‐24 will  increase  by  4.00%  from  the  2023‐24  rates –  from $92.18 to $95.86 per single family home in the Foothill Zone and from $114.30 to $118.87 per single family home in the Extreme Foothill Zone. The excess, unused CPI of 0.926% will be banked for potential use in future years.  The total revenue derived from the assessment is $319,898 for 2023‐24.

Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the City of Santa Barbara for the fiscal year 2023‐24. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Barbara County.

I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the fiscal year 2023‐24 for each parcel or lot of land within the said Assessment District.

Dated: May 2, 2023
Engineer of Work
By
John W. Bliss, License No. C052091
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

5 BAssessment Diagram
The  Assessment  District  includes  all  properties  within  the  boundaries  of  the  Wildland  Fire Suppression District.  The boundaries of the Assessment District are displayed on the following Assessment Diagram. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are  those lines and dimensions as  shown on  the maps of  the Assessor of  the County of Santa Barbara, for fiscal year 2023‐24, and are incorporated herein by reference, and made a part of this Diagram and this Report.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

5 BAppendices
Appendix A – Assessment Roll, FY 2023‐24
The Assessment Roll is made part of this report and is available for public inspection during normal office hours. Each lot or parcel listed on the Assessment Roll is shown and illustrated on the latest County Assessor  records and  these  records are,  by  reference, made  part  of  this  report. There records shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots of parcels.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Appendix B – California Government Code Section 50078 et. seq. 50078. Any local agency which provides fire suppression services directly or by contract with the state  or  a  local  agency  may,  by  ordinance  or  by  resolution  adopted  after  notice  and  hearing, determine  and  levy  an  assessment  for  fire  suppression  services  pursuant  to  this  article.  The assessment may be made for the purpose of obtaining, furnishing, operating, and maintaining fire suppression equipment or apparatus  or  for  the purpose of paying  the  salaries and benefits of firefighting personnel, or both, whether or not fire suppression services are actually used by or upon a parcel, improvement, or property.
50078.1. As used in this article:
(a) "Legislative body" means the board of directors, trustees, governors, or any other governing body of a local agency specified in subdivision (b).
(b) "Local agency" means any city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, or special district, including a county service area created pursuant to the County Service Area Law, Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 25210.1) of Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 3. (c)  "Fire  suppression"  includes  firefighting  and  fire  prevention,  including,  but  not  limited  to, vegetation removal or management undertaken, in whole or in part, for the reduction of a fire hazard.
50078.2. (a) The ordinance or resolution shall establish uniform schedules and rates based upon the type of use of property and the risk classification of the structures or other improvements on, or the use of, the property. The risk classification may include, but need not be limited to, the amount  of  water  required  for  fire  suppression  on  that  property,  the  structure  size,  type  of construction, structure use, and other factors relating to potential fire and panic hazards and the costs of providing the fire suppression by the district to that property. The assessment shall be related to the benefits to the property assessed.
(b) The benefit assessment levies on land devoted primarily to agricultural, timber, or livestock uses, and being used for the commercial production of agricultural, timber, or livestock products, shall be related to the relative risk to the land and its products. The amount of the assessment shall recognize normal husbandry practices that serve to mitigate risk, onsite or proximate water availability, response time, capability of the fire suppression service, and any other factors which reflect  the  benefit  to  the  land  resulting  from  the  fire  suppression  service  provided.  A  benefit assessment shall not be levied  for wildland or watershed  fire suppression on land located in a state responsibility area as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code. This subdivision is  not  applicable  to  any  benefit  assessment  levied  prior  to  January  1,  1984,  on  land  devoted primarily to agricultural, timber, or livestock uses.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

50078.3.  Any  ordinance  or  resolution  adopted  by  a  local  agency  pursuant  to  this  article establishing  uniform  schedules  and  rates  for  assessments  for  fire  suppression  services  which substantially conforms with the model ordinance which the State Fire Marshal is authorized to adopt  pursuant  to  Section  13111  of  the  Health  and  Safety  Code  shall  be  presumed  to  be  in compliance with the requirements of Section 50078.2.
50078.4. The legislative body of the local agency shall cause to be prepared and  filed with  the clerk of the local agency a written report which shall contain all of the following:
(a) A description of each lot or parcel of property proposed to be subject to the assessment. (b) The amount of the assessment for each lot or parcel for the initial fiscal year. (c) The maximum amount of the assessment which may be levied for each lot or parcel during any fiscal year.
(d) The duration of the assessment.
(e) The basis of the assessment.
(f) The schedule of the assessment.
(g) A description specifying the requirements for protest and hearing procedures for the proposed assessment pursuant to Section 50078.6.
50078.5. (a) The legislative body may establish zones or areas of benefit within the local agency and may restrict the imposition of assessments to areas lying within one or more of the zones or areas of benefit established within the local agency.
(b) The benefit assessment shall be levied on a parcel, class of improvement to property, or use of property basis, or a combination thereof, within the boundaries of the local agency, zone, or area  of  benefit.  The  assessment  may  be  levied  against  any  parcel,  improvement,  or  use  of property to which such services may be made available whether or not the service is actually used. 50078.6. The clerk of the local agency shall cause the notice, protest, and hearing procedures to comply with Section 53753. The mailed notice shall also contain the name and telephone number of  the  person  designated  by  the  legislative  body  to  answer  inquiries  regarding  the  protest proceedings.
50078.13.  The  local  agency  shall  pay  the  county  for  costs,  if  any,  incurred  by  the  county  in conducting the election. An election called by a legislative body pursuant to this article is subject to all provisions of the Elections Code applicable to elections called by the local agency. The local agency may recover the costs of the election and any other costs of preparing and levying the assessment from the proceeds of the assessment.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

50078.16.  The  legislative  body  may  provide  for  the  collection  of  the  assessment  in  the  same manner, and subject to the same penalties as, other fees, charges, and taxes fixed and collected by, or on behalf of the local agency. If the assessments are collected by the county, the county may deduct its reasonable costs incurred for that service before remittal of the balance to the local agency's treasury.
50078.17.  Chapter  9  (commencing with  Section  860)  of Title  10  of  Part  2  of  the  Code  of  Civil Procedure applies to any judicial action or proceeding to validate, attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution levying an assessment or modifying or amending an existing ordinance or resolution. If an ordinance or resolution provides for an automatic adjustment in an assessment, and the automatic adjustment results in an increase in the amount of an assessment, any  action  or  proceeding  to  attack,  review,  set  aside,  void,  or  annul  the  increase  shall  be commenced within 90 days of the effective date of the increase. Any appeal from a final judgment in  the action or proceeding brought pursuant  to  this section shall be  filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment.
50078.19. This article does not limit or prohibit  the levy or collection of any other  fee, charge, assessment, or tax for fire suppression services authorized by any other provisions of law. 50078.20. Any fire protection district may specifically allocate a portion of the revenue generated pursuant to this article to pay the interest and that portion of the principal as will become due on an annual basis on indebtedness incurred pursuant to Section 8589.13 of this code and Section 13906 of the Health and Safety Code.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Appendix C – Article XIIID of the California Constitution Proposition 218 was approved by voters as a Constitutional Amendment on November 6, 1996.

It  became  Article  XIIIC  and  Article  XIIID  of  the  California  State  Constitution  and  has  imposed additional requirements for assessment districts.  Following is a summary of the Article.

SEC.1. Application.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this article shall apply to all assessments, fees and charges, whether imposed pursuant to state statute or local government charter authority. Nothing in this article or Article XIIIC shall be construed to:
(a) Provide any new authority to any agency to impose a tax, assessment, fee, or charge. (b) Affect existing laws relating  to  the imposition of  fees or charges as a condition of property development.
(c) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of timber yield taxes.

SEC. 2. Definitions.  As used in this article:
(a) "Agency" means any local government as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIIIC. (b) "Assessment" means any levy or charge upon real property by an agency for a special benefit conferred  upon  the  real  property.  "Assessment"  includes,  but  is  not  limited  to,  "special assessment," "benefit assessment," "maintenance assessment" and "special assessment tax." (c)  "Capital  cost"  means  the  cost  of  acquisition,  installation,  construction,  reconstruction,  or replacement of a permanent public improvement by an agency. (d) "District" means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property‐related service. (e) "Fee" or "charge" means any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment, imposed  by  an agency  upon a  parcel  or  upon a  person as an  incident  of  property  ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property related service. (f)  "Maintenance  and  operation  expenses"  means  the  cost  of  rent,  repair,  replacement, rehabilitation, fuel, power, electrical current, care, and supervision necessary to properly operate and maintain a permanent public improvement.
(g) "Property ownership" shall be deemed to include tenancies of real property where tenants are directly liable to pay the assessment, fee, or charge in question.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

(h)  "Property‐related  service"  means  a  public  service  having  a  direct  relationship  to  property ownership.
(i)  "Special  benefit"  means  a  particular  and  distinct  benefit  over  and  above  general  benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute "special benefit." SEC. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited. (a) No tax, assessment, fee, or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except: (1) The ad valorem property tax imposed pursuant to Article XIII and Article XIIIA. (2) Any special tax receiving a two‐thirds vote pursuant  to  Section  4  of  Article  XIIIA.  (3)  Assessments  as  provided  by  this  article.  (4)  Fees  or charges for property related services as provided by this article. (b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical or gas service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership.

SEC. 4. Procedures and Requirements for All Assessments. (a) An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special  benefit  conferred  upon  them  and  upon  which  an  assessment  will  be  imposed.  The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to  the  entirety  of  the  capital  cost  of  a  public  improvement,  the  maintenance  and  operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate  the general benefits  from  the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not  be  exempt  from  assessment  unless  the  agency  can  demonstrate  by  clear  and  convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. (b) All assessments shall be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

(c) The amount of the proposed assessment for each identified parcel shall be calculated and the record owner of each parcel shall be given written notice by mail of the proposed assessment, the total amount  thereof  chargeable  to  the entire  district,  the amount  chargeable  to  the  owner's particular parcel, the duration of the payments, the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated, together with the date, time, and location  of  a  public  hearing  on  the  proposed  assessment.  Each  notice  shall  also  include,  in  a conspicuous place thereon, a summary of the procedures applicable to the completion, return, and tabulation of the ballots required pursuant to subdivision (d), including a disclosure statement that the existence of a majority protest, as defined in subdivision (e), will result in the assessment not being imposed.
(d) Each notice mailed to owners of identified parcels within the district pursuant to subdivision (c)  shall  contain  a  ballot  which  includes  the  agency's  address  for  receipt  of  the  ballot  once completed by any owner receiving the notice whereby the owner may indicate his or her name, reasonable  identification  of  the  parcel,  and  his  or  her  support  or  opposition  to  the  proposed assessment.
(e) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed assessment to record owners of each identified parcel. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed assessment and tabulate the ballots. The agency shall not impose an assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. (f) In any legal action contesting the validity of any assessment, the burden shall be on the agency to  demonstrate  that  the  property  or  properties in  question  receive a  special  benefit  over and above  the  benefits  conferred  on  the  public  at  large  and  that  the  amount  of  any  contested assessment is proportional  to, and no greater  than,  the benefits conferred on  the property or properties in question.
(g) Because only special benefits are assessable, electors residing within the district who do not own  property  within  the  district  shall  not  be  deemed  under  this  Constitution  to  have  been deprived of the right to vote for any assessment. If a court determines that the Constitution of the United States or other federal law requires otherwise, the assessment shall not be imposed unless approved by a two‐thirds vote of the electorate in the district in addition to being approved by the property owners as required by subdivision (e).

SEC. 5. Effective Date.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10 of Article II, the provisions of this article shall become effective the day after the election unless otherwise provided. Beginning July 1, 1997, all existing, new, or increased assessments shall comply with this article. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following  assessments  existing  on  the  effective  date  of  this  article  shall  be  exempt  from  the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4:
(a) Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems or vector control.

Subsequent  increases  in  such  assessments  shall  be  subject  to  the  procedures  and  approval process set forth in Section 4.
(b) Any assessment imposed pursuant to a petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment at the time the assessment is initially imposed. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section

4. (c) Any assessment the proceeds of which are exclusively used to repay bonded indebtedness of which the failure to pay would violate the Contract Impairment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
(d) Any assessment which previously received majority voter approval from the voters voting in an election on the issue of the assessment. Subsequent increases in those assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4.

City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

End Notes
1 Insurance Services Offices Inc.

HUhttp://www.rockwall.com/FireDepartment/Insurance%20Services%20Office%20Rating%20Infor mation.pdfU
2 Institute for Business & Home Safety, “Protect Your Home Against Wildfire Damage,” HUhttp://www.ibhs.org/publications/view.asp?id=125U
3 Institute for Business & Home Safety, “Is Your Home Protected from Wildfire Damage? A Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofit,” HUhttp://www.ibhs.org/publications/view.asp?id=130U 4 U.S.  Fire  Administration,  Department  of  Homeland  Security,  “America  Burning, Recommissioned: Principal Findings and Recommendations,” p.1, HUhttp://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/abr‐rep.PDFU
5 U.S.  Fire  Administration,  Department  of  Homeland  Security,  “America  Burning, Recommissioned: Principal Findings and Recommendations,” p.2, HUhttp://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/abr‐rep.PDFU
6 Insurance Services Offices Inc., p. 1,
HUhttp://www.rockwall.com/FireDepartment/Insurance%20Services%20Office%20Rating%20Infor mation.pdfU
7 Renewable  Natural  Resources  Foundation,  “Workshop  on  National  Parks  Fire  Policy:  Goals, Perceptions, and Reality,” Renewable Resources Journal, Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 1993, p. 6 8 Weldon, Leslie A. C., “Dealing with Public Concerns in Restoring Fire to the Forest,” General Technical Report INT‐GTR‐341 The Use of Fire in Forest Restoration, U.S. Forest Service, June 1996, p. 3
9 U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, “Social Science to Improve Fuels Management:

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management,” p. 1, HUhttp://ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc261.pdfU
City of Santa Barbara
Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report, FY 2023‐24

10 U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, “Social Science to Improve Fuels Management:

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management,” p. 25, HUhttp://ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc261.pdfU
11 Weldon, Leslie A. C., “Dealing with Public Concerns in Restoring Fire to the Forest,” General Technical Report INT‐GTR‐341 The Use of Fire in Forest Restoration, U.S. Forest Service, June 1996, p. 2

RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO

CONTINUE THE WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION

ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE FOOTHILL AND EXTREME
FOOTHILL ZONES; DECLARING THE WORK TO BE OF

MORE THAN GENERAL OR ORDINARY BENEFIT AND

DESCRIBING THE DISTRICT TO BE ASSESSED TO PAY
THE COSTS AND EXPENSES THEREOF; PRELIMINARILY
APPROVING THE UPDATED ENGINEER’S REPORT;

STATING INTENTION TO CONTINUE ASSESSMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND ESTABLISHING A TIME OF 2:00
P.M. ON TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2023, IN THE CITY COUNCIL

CHAMBERS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE WILDLAND

FIRE SUPPRESSION ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Barbara is authorized, pursuant to the authority provided in California Government Code Section 50078 et seq. and Article XIIID of the California Constitution, to levy assessments for fire suppression services; WHEREAS, an assessment for fire suppression has been given the distinctive designation of the “Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment” (“Assessment”), and is primarily described as encompassing the Foothill and Extreme Foothill zones as defined in the Wildland Fire Plan of 2004;
WHEREAS, the Assessment was authorized by an assessment ballot proceeding conducted in 2006 and approved by 51% of the weighted ballots returned by property owners, and such assessments were levied by the City of Santa Barbara City Council by Resolution No. 06-064 passed on July 11, 2006;
WHEREAS, although the methodology by which the assessments are applied to properties in the District does not change from year to year, a new Engineer’s Report is prepared each year in order to establish the CPI adjustment for that year; the new maximum authorized assessment rate for that year; the budget for that year; and the amount to be charged to each parcel in the District that year, subject to that year’s assessment rate and any changes in the attributes of the properties in the District, including but not limited to use changes, parcel subdivisions, and/or parcel consolidations; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. SCI Consulting Group, the Engineer of Work, has prepared an engineer’s report in accordance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution.

The Report has been made, filed with the City Clerk and duly considered by the Council and is hereby deemed sufficient and preliminarily approved. The Report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to the foregoing resolution.

SECTION 2. It is the intention of this Council to continue to levy and collect assessments for the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment for fiscal year 2023-

24. Within the Assessment District, the proposed services to be funded by the assessments (“Services”) are generally described as including but not limited to, the following: (1) continuation of the vegetation road clearance program to cover all public roads within the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones (continuing this program will reduce fuel, enhance evacuation routes, and decrease fire response times); (2) enhancing the defensible space fire prevention inspection and assistance program for all properties in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones; and (3) implementation of a vegetation management program in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones. As applied herein, “vegetation road clearance” means the treatment, clearing, reducing, or changing of vegetation near roadways in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones where vegetation poses a fire hazard and does not meet Fire Department Vegetation Road Clearance Standards within the high fire hazard area (as provided in Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section

8.04.020.M). “Defensible space” is a perimeter created around a structure where vegetation is treated, cleared or reduced to slow the spread of wildfire towards a structure, reduce the chance of a structure fire burning to the surrounding area, and provides a safe perimeter for firefighters to protect a structure (as provided in Chapter 49, Section 4907 "Requirements For Wildland-Urban Interface Areas, Defensible Space" as adopted by the City of Santa Barbara pursuant to Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 8.04.010). “Vegetation management” means the reduction of fire hazard through public education, vegetation hazard reduction, and other methods as needed to manage vegetation in areas with unique hazards such as heavy, flammable vegetation, lack of access due to topography and roads, and/or firefighter safety.

SECTION 3. The estimated fiscal year 2023-24 cost of providing the Services is $336,143. This cost results in a proposed assessment rate of NINETY FIVE DOLLARS AND EIGHTY SIX CENTS ($95.86) per single-family equivalent benefit unit in the Foothill Zone and ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN DOLLARS AND EIGHTY SEVEN CENTS ($118.87) in the Extreme Foothill Zone for fiscal year 2023-24. The Assessments include a provision for an annual increase equal to the change in the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area Consumer Price Index (“CPI), not to exceed 4% (four percent) per year without a further vote or balloting process. The actual CPI for 2023-24 is 4.926% and the total allowable CPI adjustment for 2023-24 is 4.00%, and the rates have been adjusted, accordingly.

SECTION 4. The public hearing shall be held, before the City Council in the City

of Santa Barbara City Council Chambers, located at 735 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 as follows: on Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at the hour of 2:00 p.m. for the purpose of this Council’s determination whether the public interest, convenience and necessity require the Services and this Council’s final action upon the Report and the assessments therein.

SECTION 5. The clerk of the council shall cause a notice of the hearing to be given by publishing a notice, at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing above-specified, in a newspaper circulated in the City.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
SUBJECT: Authorization to Amend the Legal Services with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC for Special Counsel Services [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the City Attorney to execute an amended legal services agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC, to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $250,000 to $750,000 for special counsel services related to the P. Boring, et al. v. Cathy Murillo, et al. case.

DISCUSSION:

On January 10, 2023, Council authorized the City Attorney to execute an amended legal services agreement in an amount not-to-exceed $250,000 in the case of P. Boring, et al. v. Cathy Murillo, et al. The City Attorney’s Office is requesting an increase of $500,000 due to the scope and importance of the litigation taking place in federal court.

BUDGETARY IMPACTS:

The cost for legal support and other related costs for this case will be paid from the SelfInsurance Fund (SIF). Adequate expenditure appropriations do not exist to cover the expected costs anticipated under this contract for services in FY2023 at this time.

However, staff will plan to review additional expenditure appropriations required to fund this amendment as well as other SIF-related expenses and will request a budget amendment as part of the Quarter 3 report scheduled to be heard by City Council on May 16, 2023.

SUBMITTED BY: Sarah J. Knecht, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: Sarah J. Knecht, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office
Agenda Item No. 6
File Code No. 160.03

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Housing and Human Services Division, Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Adoption of Program Year 2023–2024 Annual Action Plan for Submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Adopt the City’s Annual Action Plan for Program Year 2023–2024 for submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and B. Authorize the City Administrator to sign all necessary documents to submit the City’s Annual Action Plan to HUD.

DISCUSSION:

The City annually receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds from HUD. In order for the City to receive these funds, HUD requires that a Consolidated Plan be prepared and submitted every five years. The 2020–2024 Consolidated Plan adopted by Council on June 9, 2020, identified the City’s housing and community development needs, and detailed the City’s five-year strategy and goals to address those needs with HUD-allocated funds.

Each year, the City must submit an Annual Action Plan (AAP) identifying the specific activities that will be undertaken to meet the goals stated in the five-year Consolidated Plan. The Program Year 2023–2024 AAP is the fourth program year of the Consolidated Plan, covering July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024, and will incorporate the CDBG funded activities approved by Council on March 21, 2023. Anticipated HOME-funded activities are also identified in the AAP.

CDBG and HOME funds will be used toward activities that satisfy priority areas identified in the City’s Consolidated Plan:

1. Assisting the Homeless
Agenda Item No. 7
File Code No. 660.01
Council Agenda Report
Adoption of Program Year 2023–2024 Annual Action Plan for Submittal to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development
May 2, 2023

2. Decent Affordable Housing

3. Decent Housing Availability

4. Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements

5. Economic Opportunity

6. CDBG Planning and Administration

7. HOME Planning and Administration
Development of the Annual Action Plan
Efforts to encourage citizen participation included online and newspaper notices as well as public hearings. Two required public hearings were held during development of the AAP. The first public hearing was held on October 4, 2022, and the second public hearing to review the draft AAP was held on March 21, 2023.

The draft AAP document was made available on the City website for a required 30-day public review period from March 22, 2023, to April 28, 2023. Notice of the availability of the draft AAP was published in the Voice and Santa Barbara News-Press and was featured on the City website home page. No comments were received.

HUD announced its official allocations on February 27, 2023. The CDBG allocation for the 2023–2024 Program Year was increased by $9,853, and the HOME allocation increased by $29,948. Due to the increase in the CDBG funding allocation, the top five scoring priority one applicants will each receive an additional $295. An additional $6,408 will be added to the amount of funds reserved for covering unforeseen future CDBG capital project expenses.

After Council approval, the final AAP will be submitted to HUD no later than June 15, 2023.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Total funding for Program Year 2023–2024 is approximately $1.9 million. For the CDBG program, the total available amount is $1,252,165, which includes $876,711 in CDBG entitlement funds and $375,454 in CDBG Program Income funds. For the HOME program there is $706,383 available, which includes $606,383 in HOME entitlement funds and $100,000 in Program Income funds.

Each year staff projects level funding will be received from HUD for both CDBG and HOME programs. Actual Fiscal Year 2024 allocations were announced on February 27, 2023, resulting in an increase in CDBG funding of $9,853 and an increase of $29,948 in HOME funding.

Fund Projected Actual Difference
Community Development Block Grant $ 866,858 $ 876,711 $ 9,853 HOME Investment Partnerships Program $ 576,435 $ 606,383 $ 29,948 Council Agenda Report
Adoption of Program Year 2023–2024 Annual Action Plan for Submittal to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development
May 2, 2023

Based on the increased CDBG funding, the following adjustments have been made to each funding category in accordance with the contingency plan established by the Community Development Human Services Committee. The increases within each category comply with HUD limitations regarding how much of the funding may be used.

Grant Type HUD Limitations Action Taken Total Addition
Public Service/Human Service 15% of CDBG funds $295.60 added to each of the top 5 ranked grants
$ 1,478
Capital 65% of total CDBG funds Added to Reserve $ 6,404 Administration/Fair Housing 20% of total CDBG funds Added to Cost Allowance $ 1,971 TOTAL $ 9,853
SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The development of plans, strategies, and administrative and management activities are exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), pursuant to Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations Section 58.34(a)(1) and (a)(3), as well as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15262.

All CDBG/HOME–funded activities identified in the AAP will undergo environmental review in accordance with federal and state requirements.

The Annual Plan is available for review on the Housing and Human Services Division webpage under CDBG Documents located at:
https://santabarbaraca.gov/services/housing-human-services/cdbg-human-services.

PREPARED BY: Laura Dubbels, Housing and Human Services Manager SUBMITTED BY: Elias Isaacson, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: May 2, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Administrator’s Office
SUBJECT: OIR Group Audit of Santa Barbara Police Department Policies, Procedures, and Practices
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council receive a presentation on the findings and recommendations from the OIR Group Audit of Santa Barbara Police Department Policies, Procedures and Practices.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council approved conducting an Audit of the Santa Barbara Police Department on June 6, 2022, as a key component of creating and implementing a new civilian oversight system for law enforcement. The OIR Group, an independent team of police practices experts, was the firm selected to conduct the Audit due to their more than two decades of experience in oversight. The Audit was directed by the City Administrator’s Office and primarily supported by Commander Kasi Corbett of the Police Department’s Community Accountability Team.

The Scope of Work for the Audit included review of: (a) the Department’s complaint process; (b) the need for Executive Development and Leadership training; (c) employee retention and recruiting; (d) Use of Force training and review; and (e) General policy compliance. The Audit was completed in March 2023 and includes 31 recommendations for consideration.

DISCUSSION:

The initiation of the Audit by the City of Santa Barbara was uncommon in that unlike other jurisdictions, the City’s review was not in response to a critical incident or a publicized case of police misconduct. Instead, the City took a proactive step to ensure transparency of the Department’s policies, processes and practices as well as accountability to the highest of standards and best practices.

Agenda Item No. 8
File Code No. 520.01
Council Agenda Report
OIR Group Audit of Santa Barbara Police Department Policies, Procedures, and Practices May 2, 2023

The Audit of the Santa Barbara Police Department by the OIR Group began in the summer of 2022. It was conducted during a transition in Department leadership as Interim Chief Bernard Melekian retired on July 15, 2022 and Chief Kelly Gordon was appointed on August 30, 2022. As expected with new leadership, Chief Gordon also began her own review and assessment of the Department’s policies, procedures and practices.

Therefore, many of the recommendations identified by the OIR Group were also areas of improvement observed by the Chief and already in the process of being implemented before the OIR Group report was finalized.

The OIR Group highlighted several areas of strength in regard to Department leadership, community engagement, as well as the extraordinarily limited number of Use of Force cases. This was especially noteworthy considering the increased demands on the Department to respond to Calls For Service (CFS) relating to individuals in the midst of a mental or behavioral health crises.

Statistically speaking, there were only 147 incidents where use of force was utilized out of 45,111 contacts in 2022. Consequently, 99.67% of contacts did not result in force used.

However, the OIR Group noted opportunities for enhanced review of Use of Force cases as well as providing further detail on de-escalation tactics that are utilized by officers.

OIR Group also highlighted the low number of complaints received by the Department and that the community has been largely supportive of the Department’s work. All of the recommendations OIR made relating to the complaint process have already been implemented by the Professional Standards Unit (PSU). These improvements include enhancement of post-investigation communications, inclusion of all correspondence with complainants as part of the formal investigation file, and establishing an internal standard to complete a majority of investigations within 120 days.

A cross-cutting theme throughout the report is the impact of low staffing levels on the ability of the Department to support and promote professional development opportunities for officers, as well as exceed established training standards, which in turn impacts employee morale, retention, and promotion. Under Chief Gordon’s leadership, Executive Development is being prioritized at the highest level and is one of the CORE1 goals for the Department. The Department is also in the process of updating and improving its employee recruitment and retention strategies.

Next Steps
Of the 31 recommendations from the OIR Group, 19 recommendations have already been implemented and eight recommendations are in process. Three recommendations have been noted for further review.
1 CORE is City Outcomes Reaching for Excellence, a revamped performance measurement program that aligns with the City of Santa Barbara’s new Vision 2023 Initiative.

Council Agenda Report
OIR Group Audit of Santa Barbara Police Department Policies, Procedures, and Practices May 2, 2023

The City Administrator’s Office has retained the expertise of Hassan Aden of The Aden Group, LLC to advise on implementation of recommendations as they relate to the new civilian oversight system.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Many of the Audit recommendations pertain to refinement of policies and procedures as well as adjustments to Department practices of which there are no direct costs.

ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Status of SBPD Audit Recommendations

2. Audit of SBPD Policies, Procedures and Practices
PREPARED BY: Barbara Andersen, Senior Assistant to the City Administrator SUBMITTED BY: City Administrator’s Office
APPROVED BY: Rebecca Bjork, City Administrator
Status of SBPD Audit Recommendations
April 2023 1
Rec # Recommendation Status Notes
1 SBPD should establish mechanisms to ensure that all its personnel, and its supervisors and managers in particular, engage in regular forms of professional development beyond mandatory state training requirements, with an eye toward increasing their own skill and expanding the agency’s
capabilities at the leadership level.

In Process
To be included as section in annual
Management (MGMT) contract.

Track through training for line level
and Professional Standards Unit
(PSU) for managers only. Executive
development is one of the
Department’s CORE goals.
2 SBPD should pursue strategies to help encourage the
involvement of female officers across a range of roles, and to ensure that its selection processes for promotions and special assignments incorporate a range of perspectives.

In Process
To be monitored and addressed as
part of an annual audit process. All
interview panels involve a diverse
set of raters including gender.
3 SBPD should continue to provide organizational support for both the “community-based field training” concept and
initiatives that promote relationship-building with groups that are often marginalized in the justice system.

Implemented
4 SBPD should seek community involvement in reviewing the current grid qualities used to evaluate employee performance and seek input in refining those qualities to match community expectations more closely.

In Process
Update of Performance Evaluation is
in process.
5 SBPD should provide more guidance to reviewers to indicate which qualities should be expressly discussed in the narrative section of employee evaluations. Implemented
Already in practice and includes any
qualities that Exceed Standards or
Need Improvement.
6 SBPD should ensure that a prior supervisor contributes meaningfully to any evaluation of an employee who worked for the supervisor during the evaluation period.

In Process
Will be completed prior to reassignment and captured in Guardian.
7 SBPD leadership should review its mechanism for tracking the dispositions of lower-level performance complaints and nondisciplinary interventions, to ensure that handling supervisors are following through in providing appropriate documentation and tailored interventions as needed.

Implemented
Already completed in Guardian.

Attachment 1
Status of SBPD Audit Recommendations
April 2023 2
8 SBPD should work to enhance its post-investigation
communications with complainants, in order to provide
additional information about the process and a mechanism for further dialogue or feedback where appropriate
Implemented
More detailed disposition letter in
practice as of January 1, 2023.
9 SBPD should include any correspondence with complainants as part of the formal investigation file of every complaint case. Implemented In practice as of July 1, 2022. 10 SBPD should develop internal timelines for completion of investigations (90-120 days) and require a justification and supervisory approval for any extensions.

Implemented
Internal timeline for completion of
investigations is 120 days as of
January 1, 2023.
11 SBPD should continue its efforts toward expanding managerial “ownership” of the discipline process by involving lieutenants in decision-making and equipping all sergeants with the ability to conduct administrative investigations.

Implemented
Already in practice. All Sergeants are
required to attend IA training, IP.

Policy updated in 2022 for
Lieutenant input and
recommendation.
12 SBPD should consider reviewing the “incomplete” complaint designation to reflect its current relevance to Department practice.

Implemented
“Incomplete” designation eliminated
as of July 1, 2022. This is also a
matter of practice with SB2.
13 SBPD should limit its closure of complaint investigations without officer interviews to situations where initially available evidence or analysis leaves no significant factual questions about the possible legitimacy of allegations. Implemented Already in practice. Supervisors
and/or PSU review of Body Worn
Camera (BWC) audio/video footage,
reports and any other additional
information that is available is
included.
14 SBPD should eliminate “Miscellaneous File” as a designation for complaint cases that are clearly lacking in merit based on initial assessment or fact-gathering, and instead utilize one of the standard terms for case disposition that reflects the Department’s conclusions.

Implemented
This is already in practice as of
January 1, 2023.
15 SBPD should promote an “information-gathering” paradigm for its administrative investigators in their intake interviews with complainants from the public, so as not to inadvertently leave an impression of bias or dissuasion
Implemented
This is already in practice through
the Supervisor level communication
with complainant as part of initial
review. Training has been provided.

Status of SBPD Audit Recommendations
April 2023 3
16 SBPD should provide subject officers with sufficient factual detail to know the nature of the allegations against them in the context of a disciplinary investigation.

Implemented
This was a former practice in Internal
Affairs (IA). A more detailed
notification letter is in practice now
by PSU.
17 SBPD should review its approach to disciplinary consequences to make sure that the goals of the process are not being undermined by undue leniency. For Further
Review
The Department utilizes holistic
review in determining discipline.

Recent case law changes are being
considered in relation to disciplinary
consequences on a case-by-case
basis.
18 The Department should ensure that planned changes to its use of force review processes require that the agency looks beyond whether the force complied with policy to identify issues concerning tactics, decision-making, planning and coordination, choice of force options, de-escalation efforts, equipment or supervision.

Implemented
Already in process and included in
the review by supervisors.
19 The Department should revise its force reporting policy to require officers to fully document all efforts to de-escalate a situation or to detail any reasons why they were unable to do so.

Implemented
De-escalation efforts and the results
of, are reported and gathered in the
initial reporting of individual incidents
within the Call for Service (CFS)
report and reviewed by supervisors
through the UOF review process.
20 The Department should revise its policy to require (when feasible) that an officer who was not involved in the use of force be designated for transport, booking and further contact with an arrestee after force has been used to take a person into custody.

Implemented
This is past practice and has been
reinforced through the line level
supervisor.
21 The Department should revise its policy to require an uninvolved sergeant or other supervisor to investigate and review incidents where a sergeant either uses or directs the use of force.

Implemented
This is past practice and has been
reinforced through the line level
supervisor.

Status of SBPD Audit Recommendations
April 2023 4
22 The Department should revise its use of force policy to state that the pointing of a firearm at an individual is a reportable use of force. For Further
Review
The Department is currently
exploring nationally accepted
practices in tracking the pointing of
firearms outside of the Use of Force
reporting system.
23 The Department should revise its policy on the use of canines to ensure that deployments leading to a bite are expressly considered a use of force subject to the same level of review and scrutiny as other uses of force.

Implemented
The K9 UOF investigation process
has been revised.
24 The Department should revise its policy on the use of Tasers to prohibit its use in drive stun mode, except when needed as a supplement to complete the circuit.

For Further
Review
Department will evaluate
recommendation and update policy
and training.
25 The Department should continue to ensure that all its officers have received the 8-hour Crisis Intervention Team training, should prioritize attendance at the longer course in this important topic, and should regularly incorporate aspects of CIT training into its in-service training curricula.

In Process
100% of officers have attended (CIT)
Crisis Intervention Training. The
Department to include ongoing and
regular CIT training within its inservice training curricula as recommended by State POST
standards.
26 The Department should consider using the interim period between when recruits are hired and their academy training begins to assign recruits to work with community-based
programs that provide social services to diverse
neighborhoods.

Declined
Currently hired to work within the
Department for both law
enforcement orientation and
preparation to attend the police
academy.
27 The Department should update its recruitment materials to reflect current workforce dynamics and modern realities of policing by focusing more on the service aspects of a law enforcement career.

In Process
The updating of recruiting material is
currently in process.
28 The Department and the City should continue to seek and embrace creative ways to meet the work-life balance demands of both current and potential employees, such as facilitating a job share option.

In Process
In process and job share/temporary
part-time positions are already
considered.

Status of SBPD Audit Recommendations
April 2023 5
29 The Department should seek community involvement in
reviewing current recruiting strategies.

In Process
Improvement and development of
additional recruiting strategies are
ongoing and utilizing best practice
within industry and State
recommendations. It is one of the
Department’s CORE goals.
30 The Department should seek community involvement in
reviewing current desired criteria for police officer candidates.

Implemented
The Department follows the strict
criteria for police officer candidates
as set by California POST standards
(State standards). The community
has involvement within the interview
process of all candidates.
31 The Department should continue to involve community
representatives on panels conducting interviews of prospective recruits.

Implemented
In practice since 2019.

Michael Gennaco
Stephen Connolly
Julie Ruhlin
City of Santa Barbara
Audit of Santa Barbara Police
Department Policies, Procedures, and
Practices
March 2023
Attachment 2
323-821-0586
7142 Trask Avenue | Playa del Rey, CA 90293
OIRGroup.com
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 7 Department Leadership and Executive Development....................................................... 9 Complaints and Allegations of Misconduct...................................................................... 16 Addressing Public Complaints: Policy and Process ................................................... 16 Addressing Public Complaints: Review of Recent Cases .......................................... 22 Internal Misconduct Investigations: Review of Recent Cases.................................... 26 Use of Force ..................................................................................................................... 30 Enhancing SBPD’s Use of Force Policies.................................................................... 37 Addressing Behavioral Health Issues .......................................................................... 42 Recruiting and Retention.................................................................................................. 45 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 52 Recommendations............................................................................................................ 53

Executive Summary
This audit of the Santa Barbara Police Department (SBPD) was initiated last summer by Department leadership in conjunction with the City Administrator’s Office. Instead of being a response to a controversial incident or an internal crisis of some kind, it was instead a proactive endeavor to gain outside perspective on key elements of the agency’s operations, at a time of dynamic change for national law enforcement.

The audit was conduct by OIR Group, an independent team of police practices experts with more than twenty years of experience in oversight. At the City’s request, it focused on specific areas related to internal review systems and organizational dynamics. Since our initial engagement, the Department has welcomed a new Chief, whose initial efforts to implement change seem to align with our assessment and resulting recommendations in positive ways.

What we found is that the agency has a number of strengths. It is justifiably proud of its efforts to preserve and enhance public safety in Santa Barbara. It appears to enjoy a wide reservoir of community satisfaction, and it shows a commitment to engaging with the public in progressive, constructive ways.

To the extent that Department members shared concerns or challenges with us, the themes were consistent. Staffing shortfalls have strained operations and morale – as compounded by difficulties in recruiting and retention.

Training opportunities and leadership development have not been prioritized in recent years. And, while mechanisms for accountability exist and seem effective in “bottom line” ways, we noted significant room for strengthening the rigor and broader value of these processes.

Accordingly, the Report that follows features 31 recommendations that are intended to be responsive to these issues. Some are meant to reinforce and build upon positive initiatives we observed or learned about, especially with regard to community engagement. Others include enhancing both the capability and responsibility of SBPD’s leadership team, improving internal communication and supports, and making protocols more effective for investigating misconduct allegations and reviewing uses of force. We consider all to be attainable within the context of resources and capabilities SBPD already possesses.
2 | P a g e
Introduction
As with many jurisdictions, the Santa Barbara Police Department has experienced significant change in the two and a half years since George Floyd’s shocking death galvanized a national movement. A series of new state laws has shifted the law enforcement landscape in notable ways – including heightened transparency, increased restrictions on the use of force, and greater accountability to the public regarding police operations.

The Department recently welcomed a new Chief – its third since the summer of 2020 – who comes from outside the agency and accordingly brings a fresh perspective. And the efforts of residents and public officials to strengthen independent oversight of SBPD have culminated in recent structural enhancements to the City’s Fire and Police Commission. That group, with five newly appointed members, will begin its work in early 2023.

In short, SBPD finds itself in the midst of a transitional period for national, state, and local law enforcement. And it is to the organization’s credit that it is treating the moment as an opportunity -- not a reason to “hunker down” or react defensively, but instead to reconsider its systems and approaches with an eye toward embracing contemporary best practices and strengthening policies and internal procedures.

This audit is a function of a commitment toward beneficial reform that is shared by SBPD and City government. Unlike in other jurisdictions, where a controversial incident or clear strains in police-community relations become the impetus for an outside assessment, this project was generated internally and pro-actively at the encouragement of the recently departed Interim Chief and with the support of the City Administrator’s Office.

The Interim Chief, a respected and experienced police leader who served prominently in several different agencies, spent approximately 18 months in his role with SBPD. His impressions of the Department and its P a g e | 3
personnel were very favorable across several important categories. But he also recognized potential growth areas for the agency, and believed that an independent assessment of certain operational features could help better align the Department with best practices in an evolving profession.

The scope of work was produced in conjunction with the City Administrator’s Office, and the audit was authorized in the late summer of 2022.

The work was performed by OIR Group1, a team of police practices experts based in the Los Angeles area. It covered the following topic areas, per the City’s request:
• The Police Department’s complaint process
• The need for Executive Development and Leadership training • Employee retention and recruiting
• Use of force training and review
• General policy compliance.

In learning more about the Department for this audit, some common themes emerged across the different sources of available information.

The agency’s biggest current challenge is staffing-related: for various reasons, SBPD is operating with a number of vacancies relative to its budgeted positions. The implications of this deficit are wide-ranging.

While service to the community remains at effective levels with regard to basic patrol functions, accomplishing that has come at the expense of specialized units and the Detective Bureau, which is presently making do at two-thirds of its authorized capacity. The shift in resources has been appropriate to the Department’s circumstances: prioritization of patrol is fundamental to law enforcement. But these additional assignments help expand the skill set and maintain the motivation of law enforcement personnel, and reduced opportunities become discouraging. Meanwhile, 1 OIR Group has been engaged in the independent oversight of law enforcement since 2001. Led by Michael Gennaco, a former federal prosecutor and nationally recognized leader in the field of police oversight, OIR Group has worked in a variety of jurisdictions throughout California and in several other states. It specializes in the outside monitoring of police internal review systems, with an eye toward both accountability and potential reform. Examples of its many public reports are available at www.oirgroup.com.
4 | P a g e
mandatory overtime shifts have had a negative effect on officer morale.

And each of these realities makes recruiting and retention that much more difficult – thereby compounding the problem.

Budgeting and staffing concerns (some of which extend back to the COVID-driven financial difficulties that many jurisdictions encountered) have also had an impact on training. Keeping up with state minimal requirements (as SBPD has managed to do) has proven to be demanding in and of itself – which means that additional chances for individual officers to enhance their knowledge base or pursue professional interests have been restricted. And the pandemic itself limited the opportunity for officers to engage in hands-on training such as defensive tactics as a result of social distancing mandates.

This phenomenon – in combination with the City’s relative isolation and a culture that has not historically emphasized executive development – has also impeded the growth and “continuous improvement” of the agency’s managers. Fortunately, though, the level of self-awareness in this regard appears to be high. For several months now, there has been a concerted effort to promote attendance at conferences and classes, and thereby encourage supervisors to identify and pursue their own abilities to contribute to the Department.

With regard to internal accountability and review, we found areas in which SBPD’s approach could be strengthened. This was particularly true in relation to the use of force review process.

The Department’s force incidents are limited in number, and in the cases that we reviewed officers were restrained and professional when physical force was required. And with regard to the use of deadly force, SBPD has had very few officer-involved shootings in recent years, with the last one occurring in the spring of 2019. Still, we have long advocated that law enforcement agencies take a “holistic” approach to the supervisory review of such episodes. This entails going beyond the bottom-line question of whether the force was legally justified and consistent with agency policy, to an exploration of tactics, decision-making, communication, equipment, supervision, training, and other performance factors that merit follow-up of some kind.

P a g e | 5
We found that the Department has the capability to offer more thorough assessments on a routine basis, but that existing structures do not require or promote this happening in a formalized, consistent way. We offer some recommendations to address this gap.

As for the complaint process and investigations into alleged officer misconduct, SBPD has an appropriate commitment to accountability in this arena. If there were shortcomings in some of the actual cases we reviewed, these seemed to be more a function of inexperience and technical mistakes than malice or unwillingness to confront problematic behavior. The larger issues seem to be more internal and cultural in nature – that the discipline process has not always been seen as a constructive element of effective operation, but instead as a “siloed,” punitive, and poorly communicated aspect of Department functions.

Again, as with other issues we identified, the organization’s current leadership recognizes this as a reality and that shifts in approach are warranted.

We met several individual members of SBPD who impressed us with their energy and commitment to the City, and we learned about two programs that, in our experience, are distinctive to the Department and reflect well on the agency’s overall engagement with Santa Barbara’s residents. One is the program by which officers newly graduated from the police academy and beginning their formal field training regimen with SBPD spend their first week “on the job” getting to know local service organizations and meeting different community representatives in an effort to become more integrated into the public they are about to begin serving. The other is the “Voices” initiative, started by a SBPD lieutenant, which seeks to bridge some of the common gaps between law enforcement and marginalized individuals or groups within the City. Its essence is the development of relationships and mutual understanding in a structured context that sets aside power dynamics in favor of honest, productive dialogue.

We describe both of these concepts in more detail below; they would be well-worth preserving in Santa Barbara and emulating elsewhere. And our understanding is that other SBPD initiatives are similarly devoted to making a positive impact, such as “coffee with a cop,” its involvement with the "Police Activities League," and other outreach efforts. This emphasis on community trust and connection reflects well on the Department. 6 | P a g e
2020’s nation-wide reconsideration of law enforcement took many forms – including anger, protest, challenge, reckoning, and a significant amount of substantive change. For SBPD, it meant encountering local scrutiny – and some criticism – in a way that officers found hard to reconcile with their own experience of enforcement in the City and their own efforts to serve in fair, equitable ways. But at this snapshot in time, the Department is adapting to new laws and expectations, and is well-positioned to move forward in a new paradigm of accountability.

We were pleased to have the chance to meet with the new Chief during our two-day in-person visit to the Department. She is experienced at the executive level and brings a fresh perspective and her own familiarity with best practices. She has reached out to us in a collaborative way to share her vision for some updated processes and seek our input on various plans for improvement. Ideally, this Report and its attendant recommendations will be useful as a vehicle for assisting in the forward progress within the Santa Barbara Police Department that she has already begun.

P a g e | 7
Methodology
The findings and recommendations that follow came from two primary sources. The first was a request for documents and related materials produced by the Department in the subject areas within the scope of work.

This included the following:
• Case files for recently completed investigations into potential officer misconduct. We looked at a total of 12 separate matters across two categories: complaints that came from outside the Department, and internally generated reviews of potential policy violations by SBPD personnel;
• Reports, evaluations, video recordings, and other relevant information about the Department’s use of force review process; • Information related to Department policy and training in relation to the use of force;
• Reports or other materials relating to the Department’s “debrief” process for recent critical incidents involving its personnel; • Materials relating to the recruiting process, with an emphasis on specific appeals to a diverse pool of applicants;
• Six performance evaluations from the last calendar year; • Materials related to the mechanics of the Department’s promotional and special assignment process; and
• Materials related to the development of supervisors with regard to their managerial roles.

We also took the opportunity to review SBPD’s policy manual, with a special emphasis on the areas highlighted in the scope of work.

After having the opportunity to review those materials as produced by Department representatives, we made a two-day site visit in early November. Apart from our meeting with the new Chief, we sat with her predecessor to discuss his impressions and perspective from 18 months 8 | P a g e
of leading the agency. We also interviewed the current executive team to discuss their overall experiences in the agency and their specific responsibilities within their respective commands. We also met with representatives of the officers’ labor association, the City Administrator and Senior Assistant to the City Administrator, and the Assistant City Attorney. Finally, two of us went out separately on ride-alongs during part of an evening patrol shift.

The last phase of the review was follow-up requests for information or materials based on things we had learned during our site visit; we also arranged to have phone or virtual interviews with key members of the agency whom we hadn’t been able to meet during our time in Santa Barbara.

We take this opportunity to extend our appreciation to SBPD for its complete cooperation during this process. Along with ensuring that we had all of the materials that we asked for, we consistently found the agency’s personnel to be candid, insightful, and receptive to new ideas.

Their constructive approach to our project certainly facilitated it, and we hope the results will be beneficial to the agency as it moves forward.

P a g e | 9
Department Leadership and
Executive Development
In the scope of work established by the City for this audit project, two of the most substantive topics – the Department’s use of physical force and its responses to complaints about officer conduct – were “public facing” in the sense of being directly related to enforcement activity. They are also common focal points for community concern and independent oversight.

Accordingly, later sections of this Report cover both of these areas at length and offer several recommendations in each category.

But others of the designated topics were directed more at internal dynamics within the agency. In meeting with Department personnel during our two-day site visit, we were struck by the gap between the confidence SBPD members showed in the agency’s performance in the field and the doubts or frustrations they expressed about different aspects of work life within the organization. Some of these issues relate to staffing and the “ripple effects” of the current shortages in available personnel.

Others have to do with the perceived advantages and disadvantages of recent leadership styles. But, in different forms and for different reasons, a common sentiment recurred in our various conversations: SBPD is very effective at serving the public, and less effective at maintaining a collegial and constructive internal environment for its employees. Here, we discuss some of the specific dynamics that we heard about and observed, with an eye toward potential avenues of improvement.

The senior ranks of any police agency obviously shape the leadership structure, priorities, and morale of the organization. Our understanding is that SBPD has experienced a range of styles at the executive level in the last several years, and the different Chiefs’ respective “stamps” on the Department are reflected in current paradigms.

Veteran members of the Department members uniformly recalled a more traditional “top-down” model for several years in which control and decision-making were closely maintained at the very highest levels of the 10 | P a g e
agency. Members advised that one by-product of this was that lieutenants were not encouraged in the direction of independent action or true responsibility for their respective commands – and were not mentored in how to develop those skills.

Leadership changes then brought changes in emphasis. Current members shared the sense that officer wellness was promoted in positive new ways, and that the leadership laid groundwork for community outreach that preceded the “post-Floyd” wave and better positioned the agency to adjust to it. Still, lieutenant-level development and empowerment were not perceived strengths, and innovations were not always accompanied by efforts at explaining and securing buy-in throughout the rank and file and management team.

The current Chief advised us that she intends to shape her own leadership style but first wanted to survey the Department as an active listener. Her approach to individually meet with every member of the agency in a structured “interview” setting is an excellent start. And it is directly responsive to the perception that the “Third-Floor”
2 has been too remote at
times in relation to the agency as a whole, with communication, accountability for decisions, and useful feedback suffering as a result. We encourage her inclination to bring a fresh perspective to managerial dynamics that are well-established but not ideal.

A second point of potential emphasis is the cultivation of enhanced outside training for all members, and for supervisors in particular. With some justification, the Department perceives itself as something of a regional law enforcement “island,” and its members do not have a plethora of readily available options and learning opportunities. Nor have all prior leaders made a concerted effort to compensate for this dynamic as a cultural priority.

A Department executive shared with us his own recognition that years had passed without his attending a conference, class, or development opportunity beyond those hours mandated by state standards. He has rectified that situation in his own case, and has made it a goal in his new leadership role to push lieutenant-level personnel toward the selection of 2 This is agency shorthand derived from the literal building location of the office space that is dedicated to most of SBPD’s lieutenants and above.

P a g e | 11
an annual vehicle for professional development. This should become an established, standardized priority in the near future.

RECOMMENDATION 1: SBPD should establish
mechanisms to ensure that all its personnel, and its
supervisors and managers in particular, engage in regular forms of professional development beyond mandatory state training requirements, with an eye toward increasing their own skill and expanding the agency’s capabilities at the leadership level.

The status of women officers in the Department was another topic that generated much discussion in our visits with SBPD personnel – and concerns were expressed across gender lines. It is true that the organization can point to impressive aspects of its demography in this category: the Department’s total number of sworn female officers is uniquely high, and two of the top three executives in the organization are women. But, as we discuss in another section below, retention has been an issue and the sergeant and lieutenant ranks have limited female representation.

Beyond these statistical starting points for assessment, we also heard input about the standing of women in the agency, and some of the perceived problems that go “beyond the numbers.” One very divisive misconduct investigation that we evaluated involved allegations that a male supervisor had discriminated against a female subordinate. The impressions of witness officers in the case were not consistent across the board, but the evidence that emerged was enough to suggest that consideration of underlying issues beyond the disciplinary outcome was amply warranted.

We also heard references to a dearth of mentoring and development of female officers – interventions that might facilitate their participation in new roles. More than one person with whom we spoke mentioned that no woman had ever been chosen for the SWAT team, for example. If the dynamic is not as overt as an “old boys’ network,” neither does it appear to be one where efforts have been focused on overcoming stagnated elements of past history.

We did hear about one small example that we hope will be a precursor of further developments to come. We were told that selections for special 12 | P a g e
assignment positions are being done in a slightly new way – specifically, by adding new voices and decision-makers to a process that was traditionally was dominated by a small panel of sergeants who conducted oral interviews. As one executive put it, the goal is less about checking a specific “box” than about creating dynamics that will introduce new perspectives and insights to things like promotion and selection. Doing so will ideally redound to the agency’s benefit in multiple ways.

RECOMMENDATION 2: SBPD should pursue strategies to
help encourage the involvement of female officers across a range of roles, and to ensure that its selection processes for promotions and special assignments incorporate a range of perspectives.

As for the Department’s policies in the realm of promotions and special assignment selection, guidance provided by the agency meets industry standards. Moreover, and to the Department’s credit, all the processes provide room for involvement in the selection process by members of the Santa Barbara community, who participate as panelists in interview boards that are held for applicants. The fact that SBPD has a legacy of recognizing the value of community input into these critical decisions is an attribute that not all police agencies can claim. And we spoke with one person who had recently participated in the selection process for sergeant; he described his time with the community interviewers as a highlight of his experience.

The commitment to community engagement is also reflected in two concepts that we encountered for the first time through SBPD. A current lieutenant whose deep, longstanding ties to Santa Barbara began with his own upbringing was responsible for developing a program that provides newly graduated recruits with a week’s worth of immersion in the neighborhoods, services, and personalities of the City. These experiences, which he coordinates through his ties with local organizations and businesses, constitute the curriculum for the new officers’ first official week of training. It is time well spent in our view, and SBPD deserves credit for allowing the necessary allocation of resources to facilitate it.

As for the SBPD “Voices” program, it was developed in recent years by another current lieutenant at the agency, based on part on his own P a g e | 13
academic research into “intergroup communication” between the police and the frequent subjects of their enforcement activity. A mutual sense of alienation and distrust can compound existing tensions and perpetuate barriers. In response, “Voices” seeks to identify groups that have been traditionally marginalized in Santa Barbara (and elsewhere) and to cultivate more effective dialogue and understanding – on the parts of the community members and the officers. Accomplishing this can be painstaking. It requires effort to identify group leaders, establish relationships, and provide the structural context for positive engagements in a neutral setting. To the extent it has been successful in Santa Barbara, it is a tribute to the officer who has championed the project and the colleagues who have supported it.

As we mentioned above, we were impressed with both these innovations, and hope the agency will continue to support them going forward.

RECOMMENDATION 3: SBPD should continue to provide
organizational support for both the “community-based field training” concept and initiatives that promote relationshipbuilding with groups that are often marginalized in the justice system.

Finally, we share observations and recommendations with regard to the process of annual employee evaluation as it is executed within SBPD. In our experience, this mandatory exercise is regarded throughout law enforcement as more of a chore to be endured than a meaningful forum for individual or agency improvement. And stories are legion of officers whose annual “evals” are glowing in spite of difficulties that may eventually come to light in the course of a significant performance failure.

For this audit, we were provided with SBPD’s employee evaluation policy and sample evaluations for officers, supervisors, and civilian employees.

The evaluation policy is taken from LEXIPOL and provides basis guidance on the process. SBPD’s Evaluation Form begins with a grid of qualities that the reviewer is expected to grade as exceeding standards, meeting standards, or needs improvement. The qualities range from “physical appearance” to “crisis intervention and conflict resolution.

The Form also requires a Performance Evaluation Narrative where the reviewer provides comments particular to the employee. As opposed to the “check box” grid, we found the evaluation narratives to provide the 14 | P a g e
most helpful insight into the employee’s performance. We also found the “goals” section – in which the employee is asked to list his or her own specific near-term professional aspirations – to be a useful idea that was carried out with varying degrees of effectiveness in the samples we reviewed.3
Again, while the form includes a broad array of qualities to assess an employee’s performance, the Department could benefit from community review and input into the current grid. For example, while there has been increased emphasis in state law to ensure that officers are trained and practice principles of de-escalation, that quality is not specified in the grid.

Moreover, there is no guidance in the narrative about what qualities should be discussed in that part of the form, leaving that decision to the discretion of the reviewer.

Finally, we were advised that there were times when a reviewer was asked to complete a performance evaluation for an employee which the reviewer had rarely supervised. Because of shift changes and supervisory movement, a reviewer might have little familiarity with the employee and must be reliant on prior supervisors to assist in completing the evaluation.

We were told that the quality of assistance from prior supervisors varies from extremely helpful to not much help at all. Command staff responsible for maintaining a meaningful evaluation system should ensure that reviewers receive helpful input from prior supervisors in order to prepare a comprehensive evaluation.

RECOMMENDATION 4: SBPD should seek community
involvement in reviewing the current grid qualities used to evaluate employee performance and seek input in refining those qualities to match community expectations more
closely.
3 Commendably for example, one evaluation featured not only a detailed set of articulated goals, but also documented follow-up regarding the successful attainment of a previously listed goal. This kind of attention helps make the process a more fruitful one for both the reviewer and subject.

P a g e | 15
RECOMMENDATION 5: SBPD should provide more
guidance to reviewers to indicate which qualities should be expressly discussed in the narrative section of employee evaluations.

RECOMMENDATION 6: SBPD should ensure that a prior
supervisor contributes meaningfully to any evaluation of an employee who worked for the supervisor during the
evaluation period.
16 | P a g e
Complaints and Allegations of
Misconduct
A law enforcement agency’s ability to investigate its own personnel with objectivity and rigor, and to address violations of policy or other misconduct with appropriate remedial measures, is critical to its effectiveness. This is true in a couple of fundamental ways.

One is a matter of public legitimacy: a community’s acceptance of, and acquiescence to, police authority is contingent on the trust that it is exercised fairly and in keeping with legal and administrative limits. And the second is internal: a department’s own discipline process is the means by which agency leadership maintains performance standards, reinforces priorities, and addresses violations of policy – largely through remedial action, but also through termination of employment for serious breaches. Ideally, administrative investigations into misconduct also provide a window into operational needs of various kinds. These could include, for example, adjustments to policy or training, and nondisciplinary forms of intervention for involved officers.

The importance, then, is clear. And this has never been more true than amidst the raised expectations that have developed in recent years. In this section, we review SBPD’s approach to the complaint/discipline process in terms of mechanics, culture, and the insights we were able to glean from our evaluation of actual recent investigations.

Addressing Public Complaints: Policy and
Process
California law requires agencies to provide the public a written description of their procedure for investigating misconduct complaints. To SBPD’s credit, its website provides an on-line complaint form accompanied by a P a g e | 17
message from SBPD’s Chief of Police encouraging feedback from community members. The website explains that complaint forms can be submitted electronically; upon receipt of the complaint, an investigation will be initiated, and that the complainant will be notified in writing when the investigation is completed. The complaint form can be submitted anonymously. The Chief’s message and on-line complaint form are translated into Spanish. In addition to on-line accessibility, complaint forms are also available at the Police Department and City Hall.

The Department has a detailed personnel complaint policy that is available on-line as part of the Department’s policy manual. It includes a policy statement that the Department takes seriously complaints about its services and the conduct of its officers. It also states that community members can report misconduct without fear of reprisal or retaliation.

Supervisors have the primary responsibility for receiving complaints and determining whether they can be handled immediately or need further investigation. This triage process is obviously significant – it requires the relevant supervisor to make an initial determination about both the seriousness and nature of the complainant’s concern. (For example, some issues that members of the public bring to the Department’s attention are more akin to “service complaints” about agency practices than they are allegations of misconduct against individual officers.) Importantly, the intake process is documented and tracked, which has two benefits: it gives accountability to the intake supervisor’s decision-making, and allows for even low-level concerns to be monitored in case they become trends or warrant non-disciplinary interventions such as counseling or training. The training manual that is provided for new sergeants includes a reference to the Department’s “Guardian Tracker” software that facilitates this process. Supervisors are urged to consider pro-active responses to “reoccurring issues,” and references to the “benefits of early intervention” are also cited.

Minor performance shortcomings such as mild discourtesy or demeanor concerns – which may prompt complaints but do not rise to the level of formal discipline – will ideally provide a law enforcement agency with opportunities to make constructive modifications before larger problems arise. Taking these steps is a way of maximizing the complaint process as a useful form of feedback. And documenting them is a way of ensuring that follow-through occurs and that future concerns can be placed in 18 | P a g e
context instead of being forgotten. We are unsure about the extent to which SBPD’s sergeants are maximizing the potential of this system, but hope the Department’s regular practice is matching the conceptual framework that clearly exists.

RECOMMENDATION 7: SBPD leadership should review
its mechanism for tracking the dispositions of lower-level performance complaints and non-disciplinary interventions, to ensure that handling supervisors are following through in providing appropriate documentation and tailored
interventions as needed.

For matters that require a formal inquiry, the SBPD policy calls for initial notifications and periodic updates on the status of the investigation.

According to the current lieutenant who oversees the complaint process, the Department recognizes that these obligations are a starting point of effective communication – and that there is value in a commitment to ensuring that individuals who register a complaint have a clear understanding of the different steps as they unfold. This includes information about a case’s disposition within 30 days of its completion.

State law requires agencies to send notification letters to complainants when cases are resolved, and to inform them about outcomes – especially whether any allegations were sustained, refuted, or not definitively supported by available evidence. Based on the cases examples we looked at, SBPD is meeting its obligations here. However, we note here that not all the investigation files we were given included a copy of any notification letter that was sent. This should be a standard part of every case package. Moreover, there is room for the Department to enhance this correspondence with more specific detail and explanation than what we saw.

In our experience, many California departments have been reticent in this arena, deploying a minimalist approach and a reliance on boilerplate language. There are different reasons for this, including simple efficiency, and it is true that officers’ rights to privacy limit some of the details that can legally be shared (including any specific disciplinary consequences that may arise from a finding that policy was violated). But the inclusion of personalized detail that can be provided, such as a recapping of the complainant’s concerns and a description of the investigative steps and P a g e | 19
evidence that led to the outcome, can help establish that the complaint was understood and taken seriously.

Our understanding is that SBPD is committed to reviewing this aspect of the procedure – and to going beyond the letter of the law in its written correspondence and potential follow-up conversations with interested complainants. We are supportive of this inclination.

RECOMMENDATION 8: SBPD should work to enhance its
post-investigation communications with complainants, in order to provide additional information about the process and a mechanism for further dialogue or feedback where
appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION 9: SBPD should include any
correspondence with complainants as part of the formal
investigation file of every complaint case.

The importance of good communication is also true internally – for officers who are subjects of the investigation process. The agency should take steps to ensure that the mechanics of investigations are clear to all participants and that status updates and timeline approximations are shared with subjects during the pendency of open cases.

We were told that this kind of transparency has not always been a priority for SBPD. Whether the reasons for this have been strategic and intentional,4 or simply the inadvertent byproducts of a siloed and confidential process, we consider rectifying this paradigm to be a worthy goal for the agency to continue pursuing.

Per policy, investigators or supervisors assigned to investigate complaints are required to complete the investigation within one year, to fit within the state law’s eligibility period for administering any discipline that may be necessary.5 Again, though, these boundaries are best understood as 4 We heard from more than one SBPD source that prior leadership teams believed that the discipline process should be unpleasant for those who fall under its jurisdiction – perhaps as a collateral motivation to avoid committing a policy violation. 5 This “statute of limitations” is meant to protect officers from having a pending investigation hanging over their head for years and not having to defend themselves 20 | P a g e
starting points, while an effective discipline process values timeliness for reasons that extend beyond satisfaction of this deadline. These include public confidence in the process, consideration of officers who are facing the uncertainty and worry of pending cases, and the prompt redress of any problems that the investigation may reveal.

In the sampling of cases we reviewed, SBPD concluded its work well before the one-year statutory period. Instead, the average seemed to be approximately five months. While this is a solid “turnaround” rate relative to other agencies we have monitored, and while we recognize that a variety of external factors can extend the duration of a given case, the correlation between complexity of allegations and length of completion was not always obvious to us in the small number of matters we assessed.6 We encourage the Department to consider mechanisms for ensuring that the timely conclusion of cases is prioritized, such as setting internal deadlines for completion of administrative investigations and requiring supervisory approval for extensions.

Upon completion of the formal investigation, policy dictates that designated command staff are required to review the investigative report and make recommendations about findings and discipline. Historically, this was done at the highest rank levels of the agency. Now, lieutenants from the respective officers’ units of assignment have been incorporated into the assessment and decision-making – a shift that we heartily endorse. It is consistent with our notion of effective discipline as an organizational priority for which responsibility should be shared within the managerial team, and not the exclusive and secretive purview of top executives.

We have heard about other ways in which the movement toward “rethinking” the discipline process is consistent with this notion. Specifically, the goal of training each sergeant in the agency about the procedures involved in conducting a complaint investigation, and assigning some of against charges that are chronologically distant to the point where memory or other evidence is degraded.
6 Interestingly, one of the more complicated investigation we looked at was an internal matter alleging gender discrimination, retaliation, and other managerial misconduct on the part of a supervisor. It was completed in a relatively prompt three months – but was handled by an outside investigator.

P a g e | 21
the more straightforward allegations to a wider range of supervisors, is one we hope the Department will prioritize under its new leadership.

RECOMMENDATION 10: SBPD should develop internal
timelines for completion of investigations (90-120 days) and require a justification and supervisory approval for any extensions.

RECOMMENDATION 11: SBPD should continue its efforts
toward expanding managerial “ownership” of the discipline process by involving lieutenants in decision-making and equipping all sergeants with the ability to conduct
administrative investigations.

As for SBPD’s complaint policy itself, we suggest the following refinements to what is a generally effective set of guidelines.

The Department should reconsider the category of “incomplete” complaints. The Department’s policy currently classifies complaints as informal, formal, and incomplete. (See 1009.3.1 Complaint Classifications). Incomplete complaints are defined as matters where the complaining party either refuses to cooperate or becomes unavailable. At the discretion of the assigned investigator, such matters may be further investigated, depending on the seriousness of the complaint and information.

This definition implies that a complaint investigation requires a complainant’s cooperation or availability. There are numerous reasons why a complainant may become unavailable or uncooperative.

Nonetheless, the duty to investigate misconduct should not be contingent upon the availability or cooperation of the complainant.7 Moreover, the Department’s approach (and industry standard) is to investigate anonymous complaints which by their very nature requires neither the complainant’s cooperation nor availability. We recommend that the 7 By the same token, an individual complainant’s insistence or persistence should not force the Department to pursue a clearly unsupported complaint past the point of reaching that determination.
22 | P a g e
Department either reconsider whether the category of incomplete complaint is necessary or redefine it.

RECOMMENDATION 12: SBPD should consider reviewing
the “incomplete” complaint designation to reflect its current relevance to Department practice.

And lastly, the Department should review the complaint form’s admonishment once the California Supreme Court has ruled upon this issue in 2023. The Department’s complaint form contains an admonishment derived from California Penal Code §148.6:

It is against the law to make a complaint that you know to be false.

If you make a complaint against an employee knowing that it is false, you may be prosecuted on a misdemeanor charge.

We have generally advised agencies not to include such a warning because of a 2005 Ninth Circuit federal court opinion that concluded that the language impermissibly restricted First Amendment speech. In May 2022, a California Court of Appeals ruled that the admonition is both valid and enforceable, despite the earlier Ninth Circuit precedent. This case is currently pending review before the California Supreme Court. We suggest that the Department review the legality of this admonishment once the California Supreme Court has ruled upon this issue.

Addressing Public Complaints: Review of
Recent Cases
One noteworthy feature of SBPD’s experience of public complaints is that the volume of them is generally low. In recent years, the annual total has been in the 10 to 20 range – and many of these are generated not by sworn patrol officers but by civilian personnel from Animal Control and Parking Enforcement. (These two functions, which are overseen by SBPD, are common sources of public unhappiness in the agencies we have worked around.)
In our experience, low numbers in the complaint arena are not inherently reflective of overall public satisfaction; they could, for example be a function of inaccessibility/unawareness or, worse, a lack of confidence in P a g e | 23
the potential of the process as a fair, objective means of reviewing problematic police conduct. However, in Santa Barbara, mechanisms for intake of complaints seem, for the most part, to be varied, inclusive and appropriate. And there are occasional spikes in the totals from year to year – as in 2020. Overall, the community has been largely supportive of the Department’s work, and our review of actual SBPD operations in the field reflected not only a high degree of competence by the Department’s personnel but also a regard for service and respectful interactions with the public.8
The public complaints we looked at included a range of allegations, which we summarize here for two reasons: to give the public a sense of the types of concerns that are brought to the Department’s attention, and as illustrations upon which we base our broader recommendations to SBPD.

Case allegations included the following:
• A woman questioned the legitimacy of officers’ behavior in the context of their serving a search warrant at the home of a relative. • Parents of teenagers questioned the tone and language of a supervisor who responded to a physical dispute between an adult and their skateboarding sons.
• A woman alleged that an officer had misappropriated the badly damaged cell phone that she had found and turned into the police for its evidentiary value.
• A man who was in a confrontation with store employees over a mask-wearing requirement asserted that responding officers had mishandled his claims against the store.
• A salon owner alleged that an officer had done an inadequate job of investigating and addressing a female customer’s alleged incapacity to safely drive away from his location.
8 As we say elsewhere, it was much more common in our discussions with Department members to hear criticism of internal structures and dynamics than expressions of concern about the quality or effectiveness of policing in the field. This was true at all different rank levels.
24 | P a g e
• A man who had experienced a medical emergency alleged that a responding officer had mishandled property belonging to him. • A man questioned the validity of a speeding ticket he had received.

For the most part, the Department’s investigatory work was suitable to the allegations, and the factual conclusions were justified by the available evidence. (Two of the allegations were sustained, and the involved officers received a disciplinary consequence.) One exception was the search warrant case. While we do not conclude that misconduct occurred, there seemed to be room for more careful scrutiny of the complainant’s different and well-articulated concerns. Specifically, we would like to have seen formal interviews of one or more of the participants in the investigatory search.

We recognize that some cases lend themselves to expedited resolution, and that initially available evidence is often sufficient to establish what occurred in the relevant encounter. This is especially true in the era of body-worn camera recordings, which became standard for SBPD officers in December of 2021 (after the incident that we had further questions about). And it was true in at least a few of the above cases we evaluated.

But, in terms of understanding officer state of mind and decision-making, there is sometimes no effective substitute for a full interview. If the subject officer is able to satisfyingly explain what occurred and the reasons for it – all the better. But speculation or “the benefit of the doubt” should not be utilized as shortcuts for full-fledged fact gathering and analysis when there are questions that other evidence does not answer.

RECOMMENDATION 13: SBPD should limit its closure of
complaint investigations without officer interviews to
situations where initially available evidence or analysis leaves no significant factual questions about the possible legitimacy of allegations.

We also noted a few cases in which complaint allegations that were refuted or otherwise not substantiated were given a disposition of “M-File” (for “Miscellaneous”). They seemed to vary in the amount of investigation and review that preceded the closing of the case, but they shared the common denominators of “no officer
P a g e | 25
misconduct” and the absence of any formal interview of named personnel (as not needed in order to resolve the allegations).

But we have not seen other agencies utilize the “M-File” designation as a category of disposition. In the interest of clarity and consistency, we suggest that the Department utilize the standard outcomes (“Unfounded,” “Sustained,” “Not Sustained” and “Exonerated”) to reflect its findings in a given matter. Per the current lieutenant who is supervising the Professional Standards Unit, that is the agency’s intention going forward.

RECOMMENDATION 14: SBPD should eliminate
“Miscellaneous File” as a designation for complaint cases that are clearly lacking in merit based on initial assessment or fact-gathering, and instead utilize one of the standard terms for case disposition that reflects the Department’s conclusions.

Another phenomenon that we noted in a few cases (and among different investigators) was an inclination toward offering explanation/justification to complainants in the context of an intake interview. There is a fine line here. On the one hand, the investigators seemed sincere in their desire to clarify and assuage complainant concerns, and common sense suggests that simple dialogue at the outset of the process can be efficient and satisfying to both parties.9 On the other, though, this approach can easily leave complainants feeling like the agency’s representative is trying to dissuade them, already has his or her mind up about the veracity of the allegation, or is intent on “covering for” colleagues before an investigation even begins.

Best practice is for initial intake interviews to be as objective, neutral and complainant centered as possible. The goal at this 9 We had this discussion with a Department member who has experience in this arena. He listened politely to our hesitations but asserted his own sense that it is an approach that has worked well for both him and the complainant. We acknowledge the possibility in some cases, and do not dispute his personal experiences or impressions, but still advocate for more investigator reticence as a default setting for this exercise.
26 | P a g e
stage should be to get a detailed sense of the person’s concerns – and not to “solve” the problem. It is often a bad sign, for example, when the investigator is doing much of the speaking. With that in mind, we encourage SBPD to evaluate its protocols for intake interviews and remind investigators of potential pitfalls.

RECOMMENDATION 15: SBPD should promote an
“information-gathering” paradigm for its administrative investigators in their intake interviews with complainants from the public, so as not to inadvertently leave an
impression of bias or dissuasion.

Internal Misconduct Investigations: Review
of Recent Cases
As is often (though not always) true, and perhaps belying common perception, the discipline cases that we reviewed for this audit that were initiated by the Department itself actually involved more severe allegations of misconduct than the publicly generated complaints discussed above. To illustrate that point, and as a foundation for some of the systemic recommendations we provide below, we offer the following brief descriptions of the individual matters we reviewed:
• An allegation of dishonesty against an officer regarding an on-duty, low-speed traffic collision that she had been involved in. • An allegation of dishonesty involved several officers in conjunction with alleged improper dissemination of information about a pending promotional process within the agency.
• An allegation that an officer violated the Department’s vehicle pursuit policy.
• An allegation of improper use of City computers during work time. • An allegation by a civilian employee that co-workers had improperly leaked confidential information about him to the media.

P a g e | 27
• An allegation of mistreatment by a male supervisor toward a female subordinate.
• An allegation that an officer had misrepresented to a supervisor her lack of familiarity with the Department’s on-duty mask-wearing expectations.
• An allegation of improper efforts by a civilian employee to gain favorable treatment regarding a ticket.

We found the investigations themselves to be effective for the most part:
thorough, rigorous, and well-analyzed. Several of them led to sustained charges and significant disciplinary consequences, which speaks to the agency’ willingness to hold its members accountable. At the same time, we had a few different observations about possible improvements to the process going forward.

The first of these relates to the notice letters that SBPD provides to inform officers that they are subjects of a misconduct investigation, and to admonish them about an obligation not to interfere with the confidentiality and integrity of the pending case. Interestingly, though, most of the letters included language that said “specific details of the allegations” would be provided at the time of the employee’s interview and then cited potentially relevant policy sections – but refrained from providing additional information about the particular incident or issues that constituted the gravamen of the case.10
As we mention above, several of the Department members we spoke to expressed their reservations about the agency’s treatment of subject officers – and some spoke from personal experience. This minimalist approach to notification is seemingly – and avoidably – an example of this phenomenon. It strikes us as strategic in ways that lend themselves to uncertainty at best and alienation at worst. We are more familiar with a paradigm that provides the subject with enough information to know the specific alleged conduct at issue, and we think it is both more fair and more consistent with a constructive model of discipline. We hope the Department will move away from its more restrictive approach. 10 State law requires that officers be informed about the “nature of the investigation”. 28 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 16: SBPD should provide subject
officers with sufficient factual detail to know the nature of the allegations against them in the context of a disciplinary investigation.

A second reality that emerged from these cases is that at least two of them appeared to be compromised by supervisory interventions outside the investigative process. By occurring outside the protections to which employees are entitled when misconduct is at issue, these exchanges apparently complicated the Department’s ability to address possible misconduct in appropriately rigorous ways. As such, they reinforced the importance of a point we make above – namely, that all supervisors become well versed in the proper “rules of engagement” and the rights of officers in the discipline process.

Lastly, we noted a couple of instances in which the disciplinary consequence for sustained misconduct was significantly lighter than was warranted. It is true that, with the exception of termination cases, the purpose of any employee remediation is corrective rather than punitive.

However, appropriate proportionality of consequences also helps with maintaining standards and properly shaping incentives for prior and future compliance with policy.

In the case involving the violation of the vehicle pursuit policy, and the one in which a civilian employee was found to have improperly sought an advantage in dealing with her own traffic ticket, the outcomes resulted involved mere “oral reprimands.” This was in spite of the fact that the driving violation was the officer’s third in a relatively short period of time, and that the civilian was found to have made court staff uncomfortable in a way that damaged the Department’s reputation.

Our goal in urging a more exacting “matrix of consequences” for some violations of policy is not to harm officers, but instead to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of the discipline process itself. Overly lenient outcomes – like overly severe ones – undermine those important elements.

P a g e | 29
RECOMMENDATION 17: SBPD should review its
approach to disciplinary consequences to make sure that the goals of the process are not being undermined by undue
leniency.
30 | P a g e
Use of Force
One key area of our review was to examine incidents in which SBPD members used force, and to use those examples to assess how the Department investigates and evaluates such incidents. While most of the force we reviewed was relatively minor and did not result in serious injuries, any use of force is an exercise of police authority deserving of attention and critical review. Thorough scrutiny of these incidents sends a signal to both the public and to officers that the Department is paying attention to how it wields its authority, and provides an opportunity for the Department to address individual accountability as well as broader issues of performance, training, tactics, equipment, policy, or supervision.

The Department provided us with documentation of all use of force incidents from the last quarter of 2021 through the first quarter of 2022.

We reviewed these, then requested the complete file – including all video footage – for a sample of cases, which we selected to be representative of different types of encounters. Our observations and recommendations are based on our review of these files and video recordings.

Overall, the Department does not use force often, and when it does, the type of force used is relatively minor and does not frequently result in injury. A great majority of the force used by SBPD officers is “takedowns” (where officers take resistant subjects to the ground to better control and detain them), with strikes or kicks representing around 13% of the forced used in 2021. SBPD’s 2021 “Year in Summary,” available on the Department’s website, reported force used against 156 arrestees, broken down by type as shown in the following table. This breakdown is consistent with the types of force we saw in our review of incidents from the first part of 2022.

P a g e | 31
2021 Uses of Force
Takedowns 90
Strikes/Kicks 21
WRAP 12
Control Hold 11
Taser 9
OC Spray 5
Leg Restraint 4
K-9 Bite 1
One category of force we examine as part of a typical review of a law enforcement agency – the use of deadly force – happens so infrequently in Santa Barbara that it is not part of this assessment. The last officerinvolved shooting in the City was in 2019, and there have been just two shootings in the past 10 years.

The overall numbers are not surprising given what we heard from several sources during our meetings in Santa Barbara – that there is a culture that supports restraint and de-escalation of conflict rather than a reliance on physically aggressive policing. In many agencies we have worked with, there is an ingrained sense that the regular use of force is “part of the job” and that regular force incidents are to be expected. In Santa Barbara, at least among the officers and supervisors we spoke with, the view is that using force is more the exception than the rule.

Our observations from the review of body-worn camera footage are generally consistent with this view. Even in those situations where officers eventually used force, we heard officers talking calmly and respectfully to subjects as they attempted to negotiate various challenges. In many cases, we observed officers display an impressive amount of patience in encounters with individuals in mental health crisis.

In each of the cases we reviewed, SBPD found the use of force to be consistent with Department policy. We didn’t disagree with these findings, but we did see room for improvement in the way the Department documents supervisory review of these incidents, with an eye toward identifying areas of potential improvement. Even the most minor or 32 | P a g e
seemingly inconsequential use of force is an exercise of police authority that deserves some level of holistic scrutiny that goes beyond legality or technical compliance with policy. The overwhelming majority of the hundreds of force cases we have reviewed for various agencies over the years met these critical legal and policy standards (as they did in the SBPD cases).

At the same time, though, many of those cases raise one or more issues that would benefit from some sort of managerial feedback. This could be related to communication, supervision, officer tactics, teamwork and coordination, choice of force option, equipment, policy, or some combination of these. The simple dichotomy of “in policy or not” is insufficient, in our view, when it comes to an agency’s review of force incidents. The point is not to undermine officers or strain for ways to criticize them, but to consistently reinforce the Department’s training and values.

We saw potential opportunities for this level of holistic review in some of the cases from our audit – issues that do not necessarily render conduct “out of policy” but which nonetheless warranted further discussion. For example:
• In a case involving the use of a canine to assist in apprehending the subject, the dog bit one of the responding officers instead of the subject, and then later was directed to bite the subject at a time when officers appeared to already have the subject largely under control. Some evaluation of the canine handler’s tactics and training would have been appropriate in this scenario.
• In another case, officers were questioning a subject as part of their investigation into a potential violation of a restraining order. The subject was cooperative and polite, but when officers attempted to detain him, he broke free and fled. Officers caught him after a short foot pursuit, then took him to the ground in order to detain him. The force was minor and resulted in no injuries, but more effective control of the subject initially perhaps could have prevented him from fleeing and obviated the need for the pursuit and takedown.

Some discussion of officers’ tactics was warranted.

P a g e | 33
• In a case involving a homeless individual who had been the subject of a citizen’s arrest for battery at a shop, the man became combative when he realized he was being taken into custody. A pair of officers took him to the ground, and he continued to struggle as they attempted to handcuff him. Seeing the man attempting to dig into his own waistband, and concerned about what he might be reaching for, the officer punched him in the side of the face twice with a closed fist, with the man’s head just above the sidewalk. The officer wrote that he was seeking “to disrupt his thought process through pain compliance.” Though the man did not seem to be significantly injured, and while the blows were controlled, it was a tactic that warranted further consideration in relation to other alternatives, such as the use of palm strikes or strikes to other less vulnerable parts of the body.
• In a case involving officers’ attempts to subdue a combative subject in the midst of an apparent behavioral health crisis, one officer deployed a Taser in drive stun mode three times as other officers attempted to handcuff the subject. This Taser use should have been more closely examined for compliance with policy and training, including whether the use of a Taser as a pain compliance tool is appropriate on those in crises.
11 • Following a use of force in another case, the sergeant’s on-site interview of the subject (which is a component of the supervisorial review process) seemed to lack the objectivity that is optimal for this context, in which the goal is getting a detailed statement of the subject’s version of events.12 This issue would ideally have been identified and addressed at the next rank level.

It may be that supervisors did address these issues in an informal, undocumented way. But the Department’s current systems do not provide a clear mechanism for prompting supervisors to consider and record this level of review. Officers document their use of force within an arrest report. Supervising sergeants likewise document their investigation of the 11 We discuss aspects of the Department’s Taser policy below. 12The supervisor began by saying, “I’m here to conduct an administrative interview about fighting with the cops” – an approach that not only assumed a key fact but also had the unsurprising effect of eliciting an angry, reflexive denial. 34 | P a g e
incident – including any interview of the person on whom force was used – in a supplemental report that is part of the general offense report.

Because that document is sent to the District Attorney for potential prosecution of the subject, however, supervisors are constrained in the amount of critical detail they provide in these reports. Sergeants do not currently make any determination or recommendation about whether the force used was in policy.

An officer also prepares a “Use of Force Detail Page” that triggers a Lieutenant and Commander-level review of the incident. If one of these supervisors identifies an issue that calls for formal intervention, they forward the case to Professional Standards for review. But that level of intervention is rare: We asked for any use of force incidents that had been routed to Professional Standards recently and received none.

Our sense is that the current gap in rigorous review of force is more of a structural issue than a lack of potential within the agency’s supervisory ranks. Indeed, we saw direct evidence of this in one of the categories of material that SBPD provided for us.

A Model from within the Agency: SBPD SWAT “AfterAction Reports” We got a window into the agency’s potential for thoughtful, constructive review of officer performance – and the room for expansion and enhancement of those reviews that exists – when we asked for “any documentation showing debriefing of specific incidents and using them as learning opportunities” as one of the line items in our request for Department records. SBPD produced three “packages” of report information from recent deployments of its Special Weapons and Tactics unit (“SWAT”).

This was instructive to us in a few ways. First, it reinforced the reality that SBPD does not commonly experience “critical incidents” arising from deadly force, other force that leads to serious injury or death, or vehicle pursuits and other high-risk activities. (This is of course a positive for many reasons.) It also gave some insight into the Department’s SWAT team operations.

P a g e | 35
Our understanding is that this unit (which is a collateral assignment with significant training obligations) is well-equipped (including with an armored rescue vehicle) and carefully supervised. Staffing remains an issue, as with most specialized units and the Department as a whole. On average, SWAT is deployed approximately 10 to 15 times a year. Some of these are pre-arranged, such as the service of warrants against individuals who meet certain criteria for being potentially dangerous. Others are more spontaneous.

The three incidents we reviewed revolved around apprehension of suspects (including one mutual aid request to assist in taking into custody individuals wanted for murder in another jurisdiction). A particularly impressive operation included the rescue of a mother and daughter from inside their home as SWAT contended with a burglary in progress call and a suspect who was surrounded and refused to come out. Negotiations efforts, a forced entry, and a canine deployment ultimately resolved the matter successfully.

Interestingly, each incident was the subject of a formal “After Action” memorandum that was prepared by a participating SWAT team member and that followed a detailed template that provided details about the nature of the callout, the responsive planning, and a summary of the operation as it unfolded. It also included a “critique” section that looked at the event from various perspectives (including the effectiveness of equipment, communication, planning, and outcomes). Issues needing further attention were identified (along with possible “fixes”) and, importantly, positive aspects of the deployment were reinforced for future reference.

The memos reflect a commitment to continuous improvement – and a recognition that thorough, holistic self-scrutiny is an investment worth making. While SWAT’s mandate and culture are generally unique in our experience (and while we were specifically impressed with the thoughtfulness of the current lieutenant in charge at SBPD), there are ways in which its approach is applicable more broadly to force incidents and other unusual events.
36 | P a g e
Toward a More Complete Review of All Force:

Developing a New Process
Fortunately, the new Chief has identified the Department’s force review process as an area in need of improvement and is already moving to make changes. She consulted with us during the course of our review and gave us the opportunity to provide input on a proposed new format for documenting supervisory review. As we understand it, supervising sergeants will be required to complete a use of force memo that will provide a summary of the incident, document the interviews of the subject of the force and any witnesses, and make findings and recommendations about whether the force was in policy and whether any remedial measures are needed. This form will be routed to a lieutenant and Commander for review and concurrence.

This change to the Department’s existing process is consistent with the type of recommendations we were preparing to make in this report. We acknowledge and credit the new Chief for her proactivity, and appreciate her sharing the proposed forms with us prior to implementation. We made three recommendations for changes to the proposed new forms the Chief shared with us:
• Adding separate explicit categories of findings to account for those situations where an application of force was in policy, but some aspect of the tactics employed was out of policy or otherwise called for some level of remediation (for example, if a pursuit that preceded the force did not comply with training or policy expectations, or officer verbal communication had been notably ineffective).
• Including specific reference to de-escalation tactics or strategies employed – either actions officers took in an attempt to de-escalate, or why they could not make such efforts. (As we discuss more below, this would require officers to fully document de-escalation efforts in their reports.) It would also give the Department the ability to positively reinforce conflict resolution skills and acknowledge personnel who have the capability and temperament to handle difficult situations without resorting to force.

P a g e | 37
• Adding a prompt for supervisors to recommend a commendation to recognize exemplary tactics and performance. In our view, commendations are a valuable tool for reinforcing an agency’s principles and priorities. Acknowledging effective performance, – particularly for things like de-escalating and avoiding the use of physical force – sends a message that can be just as impactful (and perhaps more so) than disciplining or otherwise holding officers accountable for not meeting Department expectations.13 The Chief is also preparing to add another level of managerial review with a quarterly use of force analysis. This is intended to be an executive-level review in which individual incidents are evaluated to identify trends in how officers are using force, as well as the need for any equipment changes, training refreshers or updates, or policy revisions. Again, this is very much consistent with the type of process we regularly recommend to ensure agencies are doing all they can to treat each use of force as a learning opportunity.

RECOMMENDATION 18: The Department should ensure
that planned changes to its use of force review processes require that the agency looks beyond whether the force
complied with policy to identify issues concerning tactics, decision-making, planning and coordination, choice of force options, de-escalation efforts, equipment, or supervision.

Enhancing SBPD’s Use of Force Policies
In our review of use of force incidents, we observed officer and supervisor performance that was consistent with best practices in many ways.

Nonetheless, our review of SBPD written policies revealed some places 13 “Commendable restraint” would be another potential category to identify and affirm. In one of the cases we reviewed, officers responding to a bar fight had a protracted encounter with an intoxicated and belligerent individual who was also in need of medical attention. At one point as they sought to move him to a patrol car, he kicked backward and struck one of the involved officers (who had slipped toward the ground) in the face. (It is believed the officer temporarily lost consciousness.) From what we could glean from the available recordings, the other officers worked as a team and remained controlled in their physical efforts to overcome the man’s resistance.
38 | P a g e
where revisions would be appropriate to align written policy with those practices.

Reporting Uses of Force: Documenting De-Escalation Efforts In the force incidents we reviewed, we found officers’ reports of their actions to be thorough and generally well-written. This is consistent with SBPD’s current Use of Force policy, which directs officers to document all uses of force promptly, completely, and accurately and to explain why they believed the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances.

However, the updated use of force review process that the Chief is planning to implement will benefit from a greater level of specificity in officers’ reporting practices.

Based on the cases we reviewed, de-escalation seems to be a routine part of officers’ approach. We saw examples of officers attempting to deescalate situations prior to the use of force, followed by, in some cases, effective reporting of these attempts.

Nonetheless, reporting on de-escalation techniques is not explicitly required by policy. Expanding the reporting policy to include a mandate that officers document any de-escalation efforts in their incident reports would reinforce the Department’s emphasis in a concrete way, and would make it routine practice for officers to consider each incident through that lens. It will also enhance the Department’s new force review process, which we anticipate will include supervisory review of any attempts to deescalate.

RECOMMENDATION 19: The Department should revise its
force reporting policy to require officers to fully document all efforts to de-escalate a situation or to detail any reasons why they were unable to do so.

Post-Use of Force Procedures: Uninvolved Personnel
When officers use force to take a person into custody, best practice dictates that an uninvolved officer should be designated to transport the person and handle booking responsibilities. This reduces the opportunities for further conflict and better insulates the Department from allegations of inappropriate statements or acts by involved officers during P a g e | 39
transport. In a number of cases we reviewed, we saw SBPD personnel adhere to this practice.14 But it is not an explicit policy requirement.

Likewise, a sergeant or supervisor who uses force or directs officers’ use of force should not be responsible for investigating or reviewing the incident. An involved sergeant’s participation in the review process is an obvious obstacle to objectivity, and an uninvolved supervisor should be assigned to handle the investigation and review. In the cases we reviewed, we saw sergeants very expressly hand these tasks off to others because of their engagement in the incident. But again, it is not expressly required by policy that they do so. We recommend the Department consider formally incorporating these practices into policy.

RECOMMENDATION 20: The Department should revise its
policy to require (when feasible) that an officer who was not involved in the use of force be designated for transport, booking and further contact with an arrestee after force has been used to take a person into custody.

RECOMMENDATION 21: The Department should revise its
policy to require an uninvolved sergeant or other supervisor to investigate and review incidents where a sergeant either uses or directs the use of force.

Reportable Uses of Force: Pointing a Firearm
SBPD’s use of force policy does not specify that the pointing of a firearm is a use of force that requires reporting. The International Association of Chiefs of Police Model Policy on Reporting Use of Force designates the pointing of a weapon at an individual as a reportable use of force, and a number of other agencies likewise consider pointing a weapon at someone reportable as a use of force. This is consistent with federal case law that suggests that the pointing of a firearm at an individual is a seizure that can constitute excessive force depending on the circumstances.

While we did not see this issue raised in any of the cases we reviewed, we 14 In one case, the sergeant made an express decision not to require a “fresh” officer to handle transport; interestingly, it was an involved officer that had raised the issue, which showed effective issue-spotting on his part.
40 | P a g e
nonetheless recommend the Department revise its policy to include this requirement.

RECOMMENDATION 22: The Department should revise its
use of force policy to state that the pointing of a firearm at an individual is a reportable use of force.

Guidance on the Use of Canines
An agency’s canine policy should be consistent with its use of force policy and the agency’s overall policing philosophy. SBPD’s policy includes important features such as the role and duties of a Canine Coordinator, the handler’s selection process and responsibilities, and training requirements. But it does not expressly identify the deployment of a canine as a use of force, and the review process for a dog bite does not match that for a use of force.

Current policy requires a Canine Coordinator to review all canine use reports for policy compliance and training issues. We suggest that in addition to this review, canine deployment should be subjected to the same review and scrutiny as other uses of force.

RECOMMENDATION 23: The Department should revise its
policy on the use of canines to ensure that deployments leading to a bite are expressly considered a use of force subject to the same level of review and scrutiny as other uses of force.

Guidance on the Use of Tasers
SBPD’s policy on Conducted Energy Devices (Tasers) is comprehensive and generally consistent with that of many agencies. Our case review highlighted one area, however, where we believe revision is advisable to address a concern about use of the Taser in “drive stun” mode.15 15 A Taser fires two small electrodes that are intended to penetrate a subject’s skin like probes or darts, but remain connected to the weapon by wires. The darts deliver an electric current and, when both are fully embedded, cause incapacitation of the P a g e | 41
SBPD policy on drive stun mode states:

Because the application of the TASER device in the drive stun mode (i.e., direct contact without probes) relies primarily on pain compliance, the use of the drive stun mode generally should be limited to supplementing the probe-mode to
complete the circuit, or as a distraction technique to gain separation between officers and the subject, thereby giving officers time and distance to consider other force options or actions. (SBPD Policy Manual 304.5.2)
In our view, the distinction between “pain compliance” and “distraction” techniques is too easily blurred, and use of the Taser in drive stun mode should be prohibited except when needed to complete the incapacitation circuit. The one Taser use we reviewed provides a good example of this.

In that case, officers were struggling to restrain a combative subject who was apparently under the influence of narcotics. As other officers held the subject face down on the ground and attempted to gain control of his arms for handcuffing, one officer drive stunned the subject twice to his leg, then once to his lower back. At this third deployment, the subject screamed, and then shortly thereafter relaxed and submitted to handcuffing.

The Taser in this case seems to us to have been used as a pain compliance technique and not used “to gain separation between officers and the subject, thereby giving officers time and distance to consider other force options or actions.” Nonetheless, the Department concluded the force was within policy.
affected muscles. It also causes considerable pain and involuntary muscle contraction that ends after an initial standard five-second cycle.

In drive stun mode, though, officers use the device to make direct contact with a subject without the darts. This causes localized pain but generally not incapacitation.

It is also possible to use drive stun mode to complete the electronic circuit and incapacitate an individual when a single probe has successfully made contact and the other is either ineffective or dislodged. However, the primary use of the Taser in this mode has historically been as a method of “pain compliance” in which the goal is to gain control of a subject by compelling him to surrender to stop the pain. The value of using the Taser in drive stun mode for pain compliance has been questioned and is prohibited by a number of agencies.
42 | P a g e
Since 2011, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) have cautioned that using drive stun mode “to achieve pain compliance may have limited effectiveness and, when used repeatedly, may even exacerbate the situation.”
16 PERF and COPS recommend that
law enforcement agencies discourage use of the Taser as a pain compliance tactic.

Notwithstanding the fact that the third drive stun in the case we reference was apparently successful in helping officers gain control of the subject, its use in these circumstances is not advisable. We recommend the Department modify its policy and provide further limits on the use of the Taser in this mode.

RECOMMENDATION 24: The Department should revise its
policy on the use of Tasers to prohibit its use in drive stun mode, except when needed as a supplement to complete
the circuit.

Addressing Behavioral Health Issues
In reviewing force cases, we were struck by the frequency with which SBPD officers are called on to address issues involving unhoused people or individuals in the midst of a mental or behavioral health crisis. A comprehensive response to those in crisis necessarily involves more than just the Police Department, to include City and County personnel and other public health resources. While assessment of those systems was beyond the scope of this assignment, it was a subject that came up often enough in our discussions to merit attention.

One of the most persistent calls from communities across the country following the murder of George Floyd was a need to “reimagine policing.” At the heart of this demand is the notion that the wide range of problems society has come to rely on the police to address might be better handled by others. This is an area where protesters and police find nearly 16 PERF & COPS, 2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines (March 2011). https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/electronic- control-weaponguidelines-2011.

P a g e | 43
universal agreement. And in many jurisdictions, leaders are developing innovative ways to divert some calls away from a traditional police response entirely, or at least to a collaborative, co-responder model, where social workers and mental health clinicians work together to address various challenges.

These co-response models recognize the complex realities of behavioral health crises that are not easily boxed into one category or another, as the lines between criminal behavior and acting out due to mental illness can be blurry. SBPD has a Joint Co-Response Team that pairs a speciallytrained officer with a mental health professional from the County’s Department of Behavioral Wellness. They respond to calls for service involving people in crisis, and work with individuals (and often, their family members) to connect them with appropriate services.

The County of Santa Barbara has a more established co-response team that pairs Sheriff’s deputies with mental health clinicians. The County program currently has three full-time teams and has plans for expanding, with the goal of offering full-time coverage across all shifts. We understand that the City of Santa Barbara is working with the County to develop a regional MOU to ensure that County teams can respond in the City when the single SBPD team is not available. Given the reported success of the County’s model and limited staffing available at SBPD, this strikes us as an effective way to expand available services in the City.

Another aspect of the County’s Behavioral Wellness program is the provision of Crisis Intervention Team (“CIT”) training. The training is part of a broader CIT program meant to connect law enforcement with a wide network of mental health providers and emergency responders with the goal of keeping people in treatment and out of jail. The training has been around for decades and is widely accepted for its effectiveness in connecting people to services while also improving officer safety. The County offers training to all law enforcement agencies in its jurisdiction, through a one-day, eight-hour course as well as a one-week, 40-hour academy. All SBPD officers have been through the eight-hour training, but fewer have attended the 40-hour academy.

In Santa Barbara, we observed officers display an impressive degree of patience and respect for the challenging individuals they were called on to deal with. This is a credit to the agency’s culture and the effectiveness of officers’ training. Still, the 40-hour CIT training is a best practice in law 44 | P a g e
enforcement that SBPD should strive to have all its officers attend. We understand the challenges of getting officers through such a substantial training program in the face of ongoing staffing shortages, but nonetheless believe it is a worthy goal, particularly in Santa Barbara where such a high percentage of calls involve people in crisis.

RECOMMENDATION 25: The Department should continue
to ensure that all its officers have received the 8-hour Crisis Intervention Team training, should prioritize attendance at the longer course in this important topic, and should
regularly incorporate aspects of CIT training into its inservice training curricula.

P a g e | 45
Recruiting and Retention
Law enforcement agencies across the country are facing unprecedented challenges in hiring and retaining officers. This is due to a few widelyrecognized factors: the impact of the 2020 protest movements that fostered negative portrayals of police, the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic, low unemployment and a generally strong job market, and a generational shift in attitudes and job expectations among millennials and gen-Xers. Even before the pandemic and the 2020 protests, the Police Executive Research Forum published in 2019 a report on the “workforce crisis” for law enforcement,17 detailing how more people are leaving the profession and fewer people are joining than at any other point in history.

Santa Barbara is no exception. The Department reports that the number of people applying to the agency has dropped from around 1,000 six years ago to around 200 in 2021. And the challenges of recruiting for law enforcement jobs in general are exacerbated in Santa Barbara by the high cost of housing coupled with the distance between Santa Barbara and more affordable cities.

SBPD is attuned to this reality, and has taken some steps to address the challenges. We were told the salary and benefits package for new employees was recently raised to become comparable to other agencies in the region. And the City restored the SBPD’s budget for recruiting and retention (after it had been cut during the pandemic), so the hiring team has a greater ability to produce promotional materials and attend job fairs.

The Department also recently re-started its cadet program (which employs 17 Police Executive Research Forum, “The Workforce Crisis, and What Police Agencies Are Doing About It,” Sept. 2019.
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/WorkforceCrisis.pdf
46 | P a g e
college students as professional staff on a part-time basis with an eye toward bringing them on as officers after graduation).

With fewer people naturally gravitating to the profession, however, competition for this limited pool of qualified applicants is intense. And while keeping pace with other agencies in terms of pay and benefits is obviously critical, the Department needs to look beyond those traditional measures of job attractiveness to find ways to distinguish itself with recruits. At the same time, it should consider ways of identifying and attracting non-traditional candidates, or those who might not otherwise have considered a career in law enforcement.

The Department has developed some ways to stand out from other agencies in ways that are meaningful to recruits. For example, SBPD sends trainee officers to a POST-approved academy that is run by another (larger) entity, in this case the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office. For recruits who live in Santa Barbara or are just relocating to the area, finding and paying for housing in Ventura during the course of the 24-week academy can be a hardship. To mitigate this, SBPD provides its recruits with an apartment near the training facility.

Another example of the Department’s seeming recognition of a difficult hiring environment, and its willingness to respond pro-actively and with innovative ideas, is an attempt to streamline the hiring process by creating an “internal background” cadre. Background investigations are a critical part of the hiring process – an in-depth exploration of the applicant’s past history and current standing in a variety of categories. Using detailed information provided by applicants as a starting point, these reviews ensure both the eligibility and suitability of prospective new employees.

Most agencies use an outside contractor to accomplish this laborious task, and the process can be both expensive and time-consuming.

Our understanding is that SBPD’s foray into having its own personnel conduct these investigations was born of necessity – a COVID-era concession to budget difficulties and overall constraints on operations.

The current Professional Standards Unit lieutenant conducted some of these in her prior role as a sergeant, and found that there were benefits to doing so. It allowed the Department to control the timeline a bit more, and gave the management team a much more direct sense of connection to applicants. This helped them realize the ones they were especially committed to, and afforded the agency extra opportunities to show its P a g e | 47
interest and ideally “close the deal” for desirable candidates in a uniquely competitive market.

The idea has since taken hold, with a small group of trained personnel who can conduct the background investigations as a collateral assignment. The agency recognizes that there are potential drawbacks.

For example, the sensitivity of the personal information that is covered could potentially make for awkward future workplace dynamics, and the time that is spent by SBPD members on this process is time they are not spending in other ways, during a period of strained duty rosters. The experiment may not endure. But our understanding is that the insights of the background team have been influential in some recent successful recruiting efforts. And the recognition that unconventional new approaches are worth considering is itself commendable.

Another of the Department’s efforts to streamline the process of bringing new recruits on board is worth noting. One consistent frustration in the hiring process is the wait time between identifying an officer the agency wants to hire and the start of the next available training academy class.18 To ease the financial burden of this delay, the Department offers to employ newly hired but not-yet-trained recruits in temporary civilian assignments.

This program has obvious appeal and seems like a necessary step in securing highly qualified recruits who are likely to have many options for employment in a competitive job market. (And offers the additional benefits of relationship-building and promoting familiarity with the agency and its operations.) The Department could enhance the experience of these recruits during this interim period by assigning them to work with community-based programs that provide social services to diverse neighborhoods instead of being assigned to administrative tasks as they currently are. This allocation of time would reinforce the value SBPD places on community relationship-building and demonstrate to new recruits the importance of those relationships. It also would increase recruits’ knowledge of the City and its neighborhoods through a different 18 Currently, the Department only sends its recruits to the Ventura County Sheriff’s Academy, which runs two classes a year, beginning in April and October. A recruit hired in June, for example, will have to wait four months before beginning training. 48 | P a g e
lens, and encourage them to begin thinking of ways to integrate broader problem-solving strategies at the outset of their law enforcement service. 19 Beyond these few important efforts to meet the new job market realities, SBPD’s recruitment strategies seem like standard fare for law enforcement – attending job fairs, reaching out to those leaving the military, working with local colleges’ and universities’ criminal justice programs. But one aspect of the current hiring crisis in law enforcement is the reality that many young people entering the workforce have different priorities and expectations than prior generations. People no longer expect to stay in one job through their entire career, so pensions do not find as much universal appeal as they once did. And finding a desirable work-life balance is as important to many as a high salary.

The nature of police work has also changed, with many calls demanding more of a social worker’s touch than traditional law enforcement skills.

Historically rich “pipelines” for new officers – retired military, for example – may not provide the ideal recruits for today’s law enforcement, where the emphasis is on communication skills as much or more than physical abilities.

Recruitment strategies likewise should change to meet this reality. For example, police recruitment videos traditionally feature what many see as the most “exciting” aspects of the job. The SBPD’s online recruitment video does a bit of that, featuring the K-9 team and SWAT and motorcycle officers. Besides not accurately representing the actual day-to-day work of a new officer, those videos may appeal less to young job seekers today, and are less likely to attract a non-traditional police recruit – one who is more interested in the service aspects of the job.

The Department’s recruiting efforts – while perhaps in need of some updates – are generally finding success. The numbers of applicants and eventual hires are not as high as they have been historically, but those 19 This would be a natural extension of an existing SBPD practice of having newly graduated officers spend the first full week of field training working in a social service context, prior to their initial forays into patrol. This is an impressive dedication of resources – and one that should pay dividends in the form of the new officers’ heightened understanding of and connections to the public they are entrusted to serve.

P a g e | 49
lower numbers generally align with what other agencies are reporting, so the trend is not a uniquely Santa Barbara problem.

SBPD has also been successful in an area of significant focus in the recruiting arena – attracting a diverse workforce. The racial makeup of the Department hews fairly closely to the City’s demographics.20 This is significant because one important element of a multi-faceted approach to addressing the legacy of discrimination throughout the criminal justice system is to have police agencies reflect the communities they serve. The goal is not only to enhance credibility and relationships with marginalized groups, but also to improve police operations themselves by introducing a greater range of perspectives, life experiences, and cultural insights.

In gender diversity, too, the Department is meeting or exceeding expectations. A national “30 x 30” campaign is providing supports to help achieve the stated goal of having female candidates comprise 30% of the new recruiting classes for all local agencies by 2030. Santa Barbara has already achieved this goal. Among the current officer ranks, 27% are women. But over half of the female officers on the Department were hired in the past five years. Of those hired since 2018 (and who are still with the agency), 35% are women. Retaining those women long into their careers and promoting them to leadership positions presents different challenges.

The difficulty SBPD has had retaining its female officers was a frequently discussed subject during our interviews with Department members. It has led to the related issue of having few women available for promotion to mid-level management. Currently, only one of seven lieutenants and one of 18 sergeants are women. The reasons female officers leave the agency seem obvious enough – a large percentage have departed to take jobs as investigators with the District Attorney’s office, a position that provides predictable work schedules that are particularly attractive to women with young children. The answers are less obvious, but have to be found in creative ways to overcome the barriers that have historically limited the participation of women in the profession.
20 According to the SBPD website and the U.S. Census, 2.6% of the Department’s officers are Black vs. 1.5% of the City’s residents; 25.4% of officers are Hispanic vs.

35.1% of the City; 2.6% are Asian vs. 4% of the City; and 3.5% of officers identify with two or more races, vs. 3.0% of the City’s residents. 50 | P a g e
One idea that has been proposed by SBPD in recent years is a “job share” that would provide greater flexibility for officers who struggle to balance family commitments with the demands of full-time work. We were told the City was not able to accommodate such arrangements. While there are undoubtedly practical obstacles to the job share concept, we credit the Department for even entertaining the idea. These sorts of accommodations are, in our view, an appropriately progressive evolution – one that benefits employees but also reckons constructively with the current hiring and retention challenges.

Addressing the issues that most impact the retention of women may also shift the culture in ways that make the agency more attractive to all recruits, as job seekers are increasingly focused on finding greater balance between work and outside interests. We encourage the Department and the City to continue to think “outside the box” when it comes to these issues. The best way to meet current challenges is with a willingness to be flexible and open-minded while re-considering traditional strategies for hiring and retaining officers.

RECOMMENDATION 26: The Department should consider using the interim period between when recruits are hired and their academy training begins to assign recruits to work with communitybased programs that provide social services to diverse neighborhoods.

RECOMMENDATION 27: The Department should update its
recruitment materials to reflect current workforce dynamics and modern realities of policing by focusing more on the service aspects of a law enforcement career.

RECOMMENDATION 28: The Department and the City should
continue to seek and embrace creative ways to meet the work-life balance demands of both current and potential employees, such as facilitating a job share option.

Community Involvement
A key pillar in former President Obama’s 21st Century Policing Task Force report was a call for more community involvement in the development of policies and traditional police functions. This should include finding ways P a g e | 51
to integrate community involvement in the recruitment and hiring process.

For example, community representatives could be asked to weigh in on recruitment opportunities that may not be part of the current rubric, or to suggest ways to make the agency more appealing to a wider range of potential candidates. Community representatives could also be asked to review the current criteria for selection and make suggestions for qualities the Department should seek in the ideal candidates.

Including a representative of the community in the interviews of prospective recruits is another concrete means of incorporating those voices into the Department’s operations. Our understanding is that SBPD has, to its credit, utilized this concept in recent years. As Santa Barbara transitions into a more structured community oversight model, individuals serving in a new oversight role could be ideal candidates for these responsibilities.

RECOMMENDATION 29: The Department should seek
community involvement in reviewing current recruiting strategies.

RECOMMENDATION 30: The Department should seek
community involvement in reviewing current desired criteria for police officer candidates.

RECOMMENDATION 31: The Department should continue to
involve community representatives on panels conducting interviews of prospective recruits.
52 | P a g e
Conclusion
To remain effective in an evolving social environment, any large organization with complex responsibilities must not only commit to the hard work of preserving its strengths, but must also accept the need to adjust in response to changing circumstances. For American law enforcement, this challenge has been particularly acute in the last several years. A move toward greater scrutiny and new expectations has amounted to a pendulum swing that many agencies and individual officers have struggled to embrace. But, as we say at the outset of this Report, transition can also mean opportunity.

In our view, SBPD is well situated to accommodate – and benefit from – additional public interest in having input and ensuring accountability when it comes to public safety. The Department's standing in the community is justifiably strong, and we recount some of the different ways that it has already prioritized the “two-way street” of engagement with the neighborhoods, businesses, and residents whom it serves. Preserving and building upon these efforts will continue to be of paramount importance, and we encourage SBPD to remain committed to the task.

As for the agency’s operational needs, our Report focuses to some extent on “insider” issues that may not be readily apparent to the public – but that directly or indirectly impact the nature and quality of the Department's performance. We believe significant benefits will arise from greater commitment to executive development, a heightened emphasis on internal communication and officer support, and refinements in the process for personnel investigations and force reviews.

The timing of this audit was auspicious, overlapping as it did with the arrival of an energetic new Chief and the development of new oversight capabilities for the Police and Fire Commission. We are optimistic about the direction of SBPD, and hope our Report will further the momentum created by the developments.

P a g e | 53
Recommendations
1: SBPD should establish mechanisms to ensure that all its personnel, and its supervisors and managers in particular, engage in regular forms of professional development beyond mandatory state training requirements, with an eye toward increasing their own skill and expanding the agency’s capabilities at the leadership level. 2: SBPD should pursue strategies to help encourage the involvement of female officers across a range of roles, and to ensure that its selection processes for promotions and special assignments incorporate a range of perspectives.
3: SBPD should continue to provide organizational support for both the “community-based field training” concept and initiatives that promote relationship-building with groups that are often marginalized in the justice system.
4: SBPD should seek community involvement in reviewing the current grid qualities used to evaluate employee performance and seek input in refining those qualities to match community expectations more closely.
5: SBPD should provide more guidance to reviewers to indicate which qualities should be expressly discussed in the narrative section of employee evaluations.
6: SBPD should ensure that a prior supervisor contributes meaningfully to any evaluation of an employee who worked for the supervisor during the evaluation period.
7: SBPD leadership should review its mechanism for tracking the dispositions of lower-level performance complaints and nondisciplinary interventions, to ensure that handling supervisors are following through in providing appropriate documentation and tailored interventions as needed.
54 | P a g e
8: SBPD should work to enhance its post-investigation communications with complainants, in order to provide additional information about the process and a mechanism for further dialogue or feedback where appropriate.
9: SBPD should include any correspondence with complainants as part of the formal investigation file of every complaint case. 10: SBPD should develop internal timelines for completion of investigations (90-120 days) and require a justification and supervisory approval for any extensions.
11: SBPD should continue its efforts toward expanding managerial “ownership” of the discipline process by involving lieutenants in decision-making and equipping all sergeants with the ability to conduct administrative investigations.
12: SBPD should consider reviewing the “incomplete” complaint designation to reflect its current relevance to Department practice. 13: SBPD should limit its closure of complaint investigations without officer interviews to situations where initially available evidence or analysis leaves no significant factual questions about the possible legitimacy of allegations.
14: SBPD should eliminate “Miscellaneous File” as a designation for complaint cases that are clearly lacking in merit based on initial assessment or fact-gathering, and instead utilize one of the standard terms for case disposition that reflects the Department’s conclusions. 15: SBPD should promote an “information-gathering” paradigm for its administrative investigators in their intake interviews with complainants from the public, so as not to inadvertently leave an impression of bias or dissuasion.
16: SBPD should provide subject officers with sufficient factual detail to know the nature of the allegations against them in the context of a disciplinary investigation.
17: SBPD should review its approach to disciplinary consequences to make sure that the goals of the process are not being undermined by undue leniency.

P a g e | 55
18: The Department should ensure that planned changes to its use of force review processes require that the agency looks beyond whether the force complied with policy to identify issues concerning tactics, decision-making, planning and coordination, choice of force options, de-escalation efforts, equipment, or supervision.
19: The Department should revise its force reporting policy to require officers to fully document all efforts to de-escalate a situation or to detail any reasons why they were unable to do so.
20: The Department should revise its policy to require (when feasible) that an officer who was not involved in the use of force be designated for transport, booking and further contact with an arrestee after force has been used to take a person into custody.
21: The Department should revise its policy to require an uninvolved sergeant or other supervisor to investigate and review incidents where a sergeant either uses or directs the use of force. 22: The Department should revise its use of force policy to state that the pointing of a firearm at an individual is a reportable use of force. 23: The Department should revise its policy on the use of canines to ensure that deployments leading to a bite are expressly considered a use of force subject to the same level of review and scrutiny as other uses of force.
24: The Department should revise its policy on the use of Tasers to prohibit its use in drive stun mode, except when needed as a supplement to complete the circuit.
25: The Department should continue to ensure that all its officers have received the 8-hour Crisis Intervention Team training, should prioritize attendance at the longer course in this important topic, and should regularly incorporate aspects of CIT training into its in-service training curricula.
26: The Department should consider using the interim period between when recruits are hired and their academy training begins to assign recruits to work with community-based programs that provide social services to diverse neighborhoods.
56 | P a g e
27: The Department should update its recruitment materials to reflect current workforce dynamics and modern realities of policing by focusing more on the service aspects of a law enforcement career. 28: The Department and the City should continue to seek and embrace creative ways to meet the work-life balance demands of both current and potential employees, such as facilitating a job share option. 29: The Department should seek community involvement in reviewing current recruiting strategies.
30: The Department should seek community involvement in reviewing current desired criteria for police officer candidates. 31: The Department should continue to involve community representatives on panels conducting interviews of prospective recruits.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Energy and Climate Division, Sustainability & Resilience Department Downtown Team Division, Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Extension of Bicycle Share Pilot Program
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Receive an update on the Bicycle Share Pilot Program; and B. Approve a three-year extension of the Bicycle Share Pilot Program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Bicycle Share Pilot Program (Program) was officially permitted in February 2020 and the first BCycle docks and electric bikes (e-bikes) began operation on January 28, 2021.

The initial launch was only comprised of approximately 75 bikes, but in subsequent years, the Program developed significantly, and system ridership increased in proportion to the number of BCycle e-bikes in service. As of the end of March 2023, 246 BCycle e-bikes and 496 docks were in service at 86 different stations throughout the City of Santa Barbara (City), and over 36,000 BCycle riders have ridden over 896,000 miles on this bike share system. While the Program has experienced some challenges, it continues to solicit positive reviews from users and ridership metrics are promising.

The Program is now a widely utilized public transportation option for the City and furthers City Council’s goals of reaching carbon neutrality by 2035 as well as increasing active transportation opportunities pursuant to the Bicycle Master Plan and the General Plan’s Circulation Element.

City staff are pleased with the Program’s performance and BCycle’s response to operational challenges. City staff continue to work closely with BCycle to evolve and adapt the Program to meet current and forecasted demand within the flexible framework that City Council initially approved.

Given its success, City staff recommend the Program be extended for an additional three years. This extension allows for assessment of the Program’s performance and ridership data without the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and with a fully developed bike share network. This extension will also allow the Program to evolve simultaneously with other Agenda Item No. 9
File Code No. 530.04
Council Agenda Report
Extension of Bicycle Share Pilot Program
May 2, 2023