Santa Barbara City Council
June 6, 2023

Revised YTD Encum- Remaining Percent of Previous
Budget Actual brances Balance Budget YTD

REVENUES
Vehicle Rental Charges 3,182,866 2,472,871 - 709,995 77.7% 2,515,713 Investment Income 204,248 255,334 - (51,086) 125.0% 109,731 Rents & Concessions 107,553 85,978 - 21,576 79.9% 99,668 Miscellaneous 68,000 164,537 - (96,537) 242.0% 82,232
Operating Transfers-In 222,649 222,649 - - 100.0% 29,000 TOTAL REVENUES 3,785,316 3,201,368 - 583,948 84.6% 2,836,343

EXPENSES
Salaries & Benefits 231,260 149,061 - 82,200 64.5% 149,523 Materials, Supplies & Services 21,038 3,953 - 17,085 18.8% 17,830 Debt Service 606,371 303,186 104,408 198,778 67.2% -
Capital Outlay Transfers - - - - 0.0% 883,336
Capitalized Fixed Assets 3,310,615 718,499 1,502,795 1,089,322 67.1% 1,603,566 TOTAL EXPENSES 4,169,284 1,174,698 1,607,202 1,387,384 66.7% 2,654,255 Revenue Less Expense (383,968) 2,026,670 (1,607,202) (803,436) 182,088

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Interim Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
For Ten Months Ended April 30, 2023 (83.3% of Fiscal Year)

FLEET REPLACEMENT FUND

Revised YTD Encum- Remaining Percent of Previous
Budget Actual brances Balance Budget YTD

REVENUES
Vehicle Maintenance Charges 3,161,802 2,615,949 - 545,853 82.7% 2,427,412 Reimbursements 5,000 4,167 - 833 83.3% 4,167
Miscellaneous 60,000 75,531 - (15,531) 125.9% 59,854
TOTAL REVENUES 3,226,802 2,695,647 - 531,155 83.5% 2,491,432

EXPENSES
Salaries & Benefits 1,698,636 1,260,606 - 438,029 74.2% 1,186,121 Materials, Supplies & Services 1,463,788 1,150,066 192,853 120,869 91.7% 1,153,692 Special Projects 64,994 31,109 37,468 (3,584) 105.5% 65,104 Capital Outlay Transfers 1,467 1,223 - 245 83.3% 31,445 Equipment 7,884 1,492 - 6,392 18.9% 17,214
Capitalized Fixed Assets 30,275 - 30,275 - 100.0% 16,213 Appropriated Reserve 15,000 - - 15,000 0.0% -
TOTAL EXPENSES 3,282,043 2,444,496 260,596 576,951 82.4% 2,469,789 Revenue Less Expense (55,241) 251,151 (260,596) (45,796) 21,643

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Interim Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
For Ten Months Ended April 30, 2023 (83.3% of Fiscal Year)

FLEET MAINTENANCE FUND

Revised YTD Encum- Remaining Percent of Previous
Budget Actual brances Balance Budget YTD

REVENUES
Insurance Premiums 7,658,599 6,382,166 - 1,276,433 83.3% 4,213,995 Workers' Compensation Premiums 4,572,008 3,807,715 - 764,293 83.3% 3,470,083 OSH Charges 292,974 244,145 - 48,829 83.3% 241,859
Unemployment Insurance Premium 427,559 341,888 - 85,672 80.0% 231,274 Investment Income 40,800 39,635 - 1,165 97.1% 30,266
Miscellaneous - - - - 0.0% 4,502
Operating Transfers-In 4,075,825 4,063,188 - 12,638 99.7% 494,687 TOTAL REVENUES 17,067,765 14,878,736 - 2,189,029 87.2% 8,686,667

EXPENSES
Salaries & Benefits 928,263 673,340 - 254,923 72.5% 636,156 Materials, Supplies & Services 13,272,541 10,566,656 297,600 2,408,285 81.9% 8,833,854 Capital Outlay Transfers 409 341 - 68 83.3% 682
Equipment - 479 - (479) 100.0% -
TOTAL EXPENSES 14,201,213 11,240,816 297,600 2,662,797 81.2% 9,470,691 Revenue Less Expense 2,866,552 3,637,920 (297,600) (473,767) (784,025) The Self Insurance Trust Fund is an internal service fund of the City, which accounts for the cost of providing workers' compensation, property and liability insurance as well as unemployment insurance and certain self-insured employee benefits on a city-wide basis. Internal Service Funds charge other funds for the cost of providing their specific services.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Interim Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
For Ten Months Ended April 30, 2023 (83.3% of Fiscal Year)

SELF INSURANCE TRUST FUND

Revised YTD Encum- Remaining Percent of Previous
Budget Actual brances Balance Budget YTD

REVENUES
Service charges 5,261,982 4,288,603 - 973,379 81.5% 3,738,319 Operating Transfers-In - - - - 0.0% 35,000
TOTAL REVENUES 5,261,982 4,288,603 - 973,379 81.5% 3,773,319

EXPENSES
Salaries & Benefits 3,420,556 2,386,570 - 1,033,986 69.8% 2,066,305 Materials, Supplies & Services 1,918,280 1,708,605 43,295 166,380 91.3% 1,507,549 Special Projects 200 632 - (432) 316.0% 9,382
Capital Outlay Transfers 131,677 113,064 - 18,613 85.9% 201,773 Equipment 12,640 16,645 - (4,005) 131.7% 6,878
TOTAL EXPENSES 5,483,353 4,225,516 43,295 1,214,542 77.9% 3,791,886 Revenue Less Expense (221,371) 63,087 (43,295) (241,163) (18,567) NOTE-These figures reflect the operating fund only. Though the capital fund is excluded, the current year contribution from the operating fund is shown in the Capital Transfers.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Interim Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
For Ten Months Ended April 30, 2023 (83.3% of Fiscal Year)

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND

Revised YTD Encum- Remaining Percent of Previous
Budget Actual brances Balance Budget YTD

REVENUES
Leases - Commercial 2,000,000 1,888,106 - 111,894 94.4% 1,859,176 Leases - Food Service 3,100,000 2,970,045 - 129,955 95.8% 2,892,097 Slip Rental Fees 5,070,940 4,316,181 - 754,759 85.1% 4,085,236 Visitors Fees 750,000 609,745 - 140,255 81.3% 653,333
Slip Transfer Fees 1,100,000 993,100 - 106,900 90.3% 1,268,350 Parking Revenue 3,254,325 3,016,510 - 237,815 92.7% 2,705,882 Wharf Parking 220,000 233,631 - (13,631) 106.2% 230,452 Grants - 26,127 - (26,127) 100.0% 12,752
Other Fees & Charges 252,630 209,356 - 43,275 82.9% 207,744 Investment Income 112,700 205,713 - (93,013) 182.5% 90,620 Rents & Concessions 392,316 382,148 - 10,168 97.4% 359,406 Miscellaneous 783,220 796,902 - (13,682) 101.7% 397,097 TOTAL REVENUES 17,036,131 15,647,564 - 1,388,567 91.8% 14,762,146

EXPENSES
Salaries & Benefits 8,297,772 6,301,584 - 1,996,187 75.9% 6,072,704 Materials, Supplies & Services 6,062,350 4,382,117 791,197 889,036 85.3% 3,848,449 Special Projects 296,875 186,514 28,875 81,486 72.6% 126,740 Debt Service 2,036,965 2,036,965 - (0) 100.0% 2,038,500 Capital Outlay Transfers 2,250,000 1,916,667 - 333,333 85.2% 418,616 Equipment 147,075 37,250 961 108,863 26.0% 30,490
Capitalized Fixed Assets 83,840 22,796 13,847 47,197 43.7% - Other 2,375 2,513 - (138) 105.8% 2,513
Appropriated Reserve 100,000 - - 100,000 0.0% -
TOTAL EXPENSES 19,277,251 14,886,405 834,880 3,555,966 81.6% 12,538,012 Revenue Less Expense (2,241,119) 761,159 (834,880) (2,167,399) 2,224,134

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Interim Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
For Ten Months Ended April 30, 2023 (83.3% of Fiscal Year)

WATERFRONT OPERATING FUND
NOTE - These figures reflect the operating fund only. Though the capital fund is excluded, the current year contribution from the operating fund is shown in the Capital Transfers.

Revised YTD Encum- Remaining Percent of Previous
Budget Actual brances Balance Budget YTD

REVENUES
Service Charges 34,000,000 24,966,910 - 9,033,090 73.4% 4,704,176 Investment Income - - - - 0.0% 73
Operating Transfers-In - - - - 0.0% 1,550,532
TOTAL REVENUES 34,000,000 24,966,910 - 9,033,090 73.4% 6,254,780

EXPENSES
Salaries & Benefits 177,610 143,824 - 33,786 81.0% 118,510 Materials, Supplies & Services 31,880,601 27,020,380 1,203,304 3,656,918 88.5% 5,757,099 Special Projects 1,110,847 864,748 38,609 207,489 81.3% 482,310 Other 311,368 - - 311,368 0.0% -
TOTAL EXPENSES 33,480,425 28,028,952 1,241,912 4,209,561 87.4% 6,357,919 Revenue Less Expense 519,575 (3,062,043) (1,241,912) 4,823,530 (103,139)

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Interim Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
For Ten Months Ended April 30, 2023 (83.3% of Fiscal Year)

SANTA BARBARA CLEAN ENERGY FUND

Revised YTD Encum- Remaining Percent of Previous
Budget Actual brances Balance Budget YTD

REVENUES
Service charges 2,577,568 2,127,140 - 450,428 82.5% 1,974,226 Grants 93,600 78,600 - 15,000 84.0% 169,601
Miscellaneous - 10,493 - (10,493) 100.0% 1
TOTAL REVENUES 2,671,168 2,216,233 - 454,935 83.0% 2,143,827

EXPENSES
Salaries & Benefits 812,036 519,862 - 292,173 64.0% 412,410 Materials, Supplies & Services 2,024,878 1,281,801 146,167 596,911 70.5% 1,066,751 Special Projects 192,778 6,247 51,744 134,787 30.1% 9,402 Debt Service 24,140 20,117 - 4,023 83.3% 20,117
Capital Outlay Transfers 435 363 - 73 83.3% 84,058
Equipment 9,471 12,120 - (2,649) 128.0% -
Capitalized Fixed Assets 78,600 78,600 - - 100.0% 91,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 3,142,338 1,919,109 197,911 1,025,318 67.4% 1,683,738 Revenue Less Expense (471,170) 297,125 (197,911) (570,384) 460,089 NOTE-These figures reflect the operating fund only. Though the capital fund is excluded, the current year contribution from the operating fund is shown in the Capital Transfers.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Interim Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
For Ten Months Ended April 30, 2023 (83.3% of Fiscal Year)

ENERGY AND CLIMATE MANAGEMENT FUND

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Strategic Operations, Police Department
SUBJECT: Amendment to Professional Services Contracts with Norman A. Traub Associates and Joe Mar Polygraph & Investigations, Inc. for Background Investigation Services and Polygraph Examinations [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

A. Authorize the increase of the professional service agreement with Norman A. Traub & Associates by $16,000 and extend the contract term by 5 months, expiring June 30, 2023, for background investigation services of Police Department employment candidates.

B. Authorize the increase of the professional service agreement with Joe Mar Polygraph & Investigations, Inc. by $35,000 for polygraph examination services of Police Department employment candidates.

DISCUSSION:

The Santa Barbara Police Department conducts extensive background investigations and polygraph examinations on all employment candidates seeking work with the Department.

For the positions of Police Officer and Public Safety Dispatcher, background investigators must have specialized training as dictated by the California Police Officer Standardized Training (P.O.S.T) Bureauas, as well as, a valid California Department of Consumer Affairs Private Investigator License.

Norman A. Traub & Associates was hired in February 2021 to provide staff assistance with conducting background investigations and Joe Mar Polygraphy & Investigations, Inc. has been contracted since 2014 to conduct polygraph examinations for all Department candidates.

Agenda Item No. 11
File Code No. 520.04
Council Agenda Report
Amendment to Professional Services Contracts with Norman A. Traub Associates and Joe Mar Polygraph & Investigations, Inc. for Background Investigation Services and Polygraph Examinations [Agreement]
June 6, 2023

This is the fourth amendment of the professional service agreement with Norman A.

Traub & Associates, LLC bringing the total value to $126,000 and extending the contract term through June 30, 2023.

This is the second amendment of the professional service agreement with Joe Mar Polygraph & Investigations, Inc. bringing the total value to $65,000.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

There are funds available in the Fiscal Year 2023 Police Department expenditure budget to support these professional service agreement increases.

PREPARED BY: Kenneth Kushner, Assistant Chief of Police SUBMITTED BY: Kelly Gordon, Chief of Police
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Treasury Division, Finance Department
SUBJECT: Agreement with First Data Merchant Services, LLC, for Electronic Payment Acceptance Services [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize the Finance Director, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, to execute an agreement with First Data Merchant Services, LLC (First Data), for credit card and e-check payment processing services through June 1, 2027.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The City accepts credit cards for a wide array of fees and through various payment channels. The City has intentionally expanded opportunities for customers to pay with a credit card over the last fifteen years in response to customer expectations of additional payment options. The City now accepts credit cards at most City counters where customers can walk in and make a payment. In addition, the City has implemented a number of online payment systems to enhance payment options for City customers. In general, the acceptance of credit cards is worthwhile enhancement of payment options for City customers, and has proven especially fruitful over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, when remote payments through credit cards and e-checks became standard.

In order to accept credit card payments from customers, the City must engage with a credit card payment processor. Payment processors primarily coordinate the movement of funds between the customer’s bank and the City’s bank, and provide other services such as payment processing equipment, rules for payment dispute resolution, etc.

First Data has been providing payment acceptance services to the City for over 15 years and is currently one of several payment processors that the City partners with. Generally, point of sale systems may have certain features or requirements that function better with certain payment processors than others. In addition, some point of sale systems, for example those that offer an online credit card payment option, work exclusively with specific payment processors. Consequently, the City currently has a number of payment processors in place.

Agenda Item No. 12
File Code No. 210.01
Council Agenda Report
Agreement with First Data Merchant Services, LLC, for Electronic Payment Acceptance Services [Agreement]
June 6, 2023

Agreement with First Data
Our current agreement with First Data is unique in that it takes advantage of the State of California’s Master Services Agreement (MSA) with First Data. State law and the City’s Municipal Code allows the City to utilize an existing State MSA with a vendor. This arrangement allows the City to avoid the time and effort associated with a City solicitation process. In addition, as is the case here, the City is able to take advantage of the State’s superior leverage and buying power, gaining access to more favorable pricing than the City would likely be able to solicit on the open market.

One of the limitations of using the State MSA is the flexibility in negotiating our own terms and conditions—the City must use the State MSA as agreed to, with little ability to negotiate its own terms—including length of term, pricing, or other terms.

On December 11, 2018, City Council authorized the Finance Director to execute an agreement with First Data for credit card payment processing services. As authorized by Section 4.52.140 of the City’s Municipal Code, the City can participate in cooperative purchasing agreements with another local, state, or the federal government. In this case, the City participated in the state’s California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) contract with First Data, which the City was able to extend through May 31, 2023, in line with the State’s agreement schedule.

Staff asks that Council authorize the Finance Director to execute an agreement with First Data Merchant Services, LLC (First Data) for credit card payment processing services, through June 1, 2027.

BUDGETARY SECTION:

For the current fiscal year, the City is expected to pay First Data approximately $225,000. This amount includes fees for credit card transactions for Downtown Parking, Waterfront, Library, Community Development, Police Department, and Finance Department. While the exact amount of fees to be paid under the proposed agreement depends on underlying economic activity, and is difficult to calculate with any certainty, staff believe annual average fees would likely be approximately $225,000/year.

In any case, the credit card fees from First Data (and from the City’s agreements with other credit card processors) have already been accounted for in the expenditure budgets of those departments that accept credit card payments. As such, no additional expenditure appropriations are currently requested. Expenditure appropriation authority for future years will be requested during the regular budget process.

During the FY2023 budget process, Council gave direction to staff to explore the ability of passing along the processing fees for utility bills to the card holders. This project is an initiative the Finance Department will explore after this new agreement is put in place.

PREPARED BY: Salvatore Parrilla, Treasury Analyst
Council Agenda Report
Agreement with First Data Merchant Services, LLC, for Electronic Payment Acceptance Services [Agreement]
June 6, 2023

SUBMITTED BY: Lyndsay Maas, Assistant Finance Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Energy and Climate Division, Sustainability & Resilience Department SUBJECT: Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for the Climate Action Plan Update [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Sustainability and Resilience Director to execute an amendment to Professional Services Agreement Number 27026 with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for the Climate Action Plan Update increasing the amount of the contract by $57,352.

DISCUSSION:

In 2012, the City adopted its first Climate Action Plan (CAP). In 2020, Council adopted the aspirational climate goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2035. An updated CAP is being developed that provides a roadmap of specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to achieve our new targets.

On August 17, 2021, Council approved Professional Services Agreement Number 27026 with Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) for $360,970 for preparation of a Housing Element General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the CAP Technical Report. These projects are closely related as they both require analysis of cumulative development, vehicle miles travelled, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The original contract included $102,319 for work on the CAP Technical Report. The proposed amendment to the contract of $57,352, is for additional work associated with the CAP.

The original contract with Rincon included preparation of a CAP Update Technical Report that includes an emissions inventory, emissions forecast, and detailed analysis of the costs, benefits, economic impacts, and effectiveness of various GHG emission reduction measures. The comprehensive Technical Report will be an appendix to a shorter, userfriendly CAP document that will be prepared by staff and will highlight the highest priority emission reduction measures and the City’s plan for implementation.

Agenda Item No. 13
File Code No. 630.02
Council Agenda Report
Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for the Climate Action Plan Update [Resolution]
June 6, 2023

Rincon has completed the emissions inventory and forecast and developed a draft list of emission reduction measures that has been extensively reviewed by all City departments, project stakeholders, and the Sustainability Council Committee. Rincon is currently in the process of conducting additional analysis of the draft measures needed for the Technical Report; including quantification of greenhouse gas reductions associated with each measure.

It is anticipated that the draft CAP will be available for public review in Fall 2023. In addition to bilingual information on our website, staff will be conducting public bilingual workshops and stakeholder meetings. Following the public review period, the CAP will be reviewed and revised by all City departments, Sustainability Council Committee, and Planning Commission and forwarded to City Council for approval in either late 2023 or early 2024.

The proposed contract amendment will fund the completion of the CAP report and begin the implementation process, including the following tasks:
 Economic and cost analysis of additional key GHG reduction measures.

Additional measures were identified as part of the strategy scoping phase of the project.
 Staffing key stakeholder meetings. Given the complexity of certain legal and technical aspects of the CAP Technical Report, it is imperative to have Rincon staff at key interdepartmental and public meetings.
 Preparing documents for CEQA compliance. The amendment also includes funding for Rincon to prepare a negative declaration for the CAP. Originally it was anticipated that the Housing Element General Plan EIR could also be used for CEQA compliance for the CAP. However, due to differences in project processes and deadlines, staff believe it will be more efficient to prepare a separate negative declaration for the CAP that builds on the cumulative impacts analysis developed for the Housing Element EIR.
 Additional project management hours. The contract amendment will cover additional project management hours given that the project schedule has been extended almost a year from the original completion date. Additionally, departures of key City staff involved with the CAP, Housing Element, and traffic model caused significant delays in all three interrelated projects. The Energy and Climate Division, though, is now fully staffed and able to complete the CAP by the end of the year.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The proposed amendment, which is only for the additional work on the CAP portion of Rincon’s work, increases contract authority by $57,352, with a new overall not-to-exceed Council Agenda Report
Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for the Climate Action Plan Update [Resolution]
June 6, 2023

contract authority of $418,322 for Agreement 27026. There are sufficient expenditure appropriations in the Fiscal Year 2023 Adopted Energy and Climate Management Fund Budget to fund the additional contract costs.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The CAP provides a roadmap for the City to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the City’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2035.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

As part of this agreement, Rincon will prepare a negative declaration for the CAP to satisfy the requirements of CEQA.

A copy of the amendment is available for public review by request to [email protected].

PREPARED BY: Melissa Hetrick, Resilience Program Supervisor SUBMITTED BY: Alelia Parenteau, Sustainability and Resilience Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Engineering Division, Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Updated Accessibility Surveys at Eight City Facilities [Agreement] RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a City Professional Services contract with Sally Swanson Architects, Inc. in the amount of $117,600 for updated accessibility surveys at eight City facilities, and authorize $9,900 for potential extra services, for a total expenditure authority of $127,500.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law on July 26, 1990. The ADA is a comprehensive civil rights law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. The ADA broadly protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in employment, access to state and local government services, places of public accommodation, transportation, and other important areas of American life. The ADA also requires newly designed and constructed or altered state and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

Title II of the ADA, which became effective on January 26, 1992, applies to state and local government entities, and protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability in all services, programs, and activities provided by state and local government entities, regardless of whether these entities receive federal financial assistance. Key requirements outlined in Title II include: Prohibition of Discrimination, Reasonable Modifications, Effective Communication, Physical Accessibility, Emergency Preparedness, and Program Access.

The ADA regulation requires all public entities, regardless of size, to evaluate all of their services, policies, and practices and to modify any that did not meet ADA requirements.

In addition, public entities with 50 or more employees are required to develop a transition plan (ADA Transition Plan) to identify barriers to accessibility in the government's facilities, programs, and services, and to establish a plan for removing those barriers over time. Key elements of an ADA Transition Plan include: Self-Evaluation, Identification of Agenda Item No. 14
File Code No. 530.01
Council Agenda Report
Updated Accessibility Surveys at Eight City Facilities [Agreement] June 6, 2023

Barriers, Prioritization and Schedule, Public Input, Barrier Removal Strategies, Implementation and Monitoring, and Periodic Updates. While the ADA does not specifically require public entities to conduct a new self-evaluation or develop a new transition plan, they are encouraged to do so.

Project Description
Following the enactment of the ADA, the City of Santa Barbara (City) oversaw the completion of an initial ADA Transition Plan including a Self-Evaluation Report (1992 ADA Transition Plan). In 2008, an ADA Transition Plan Update Report (2008 Update) was completed. The 2008 Update included detailed accessibility surveys of physical barriers for nine priority general fund buildings and facilities and a general evaluation for other selected general fund and enterprise facilities.

The 2008 Update included detailed accessibility surveys at the following locations:

1. City Hall and City Hall Annex

2. Central Library

3. Eastside Library

4. Cabrillo Pavilion Arts Center and Eastside Bath House

5. Community Development/Public Works

6. Westside Community Center

7. Mackenzie Park (including lawn bowls)

8. Alice Keck Park Memorial Garden

9. Police Station
In accordance with the ADA recommendation for periodic updates to ADA Transition Plans, staff discussed options and estimated costs with the Access Advisory Committee (AAC) at a Special Meeting in January 2023. Options presented included a complete update to the City’s ADA Transition Plan (estimated cost of $500,000), selection of new priority locations and accessibility surveys (estimated cost of $150,000), or updated accessibility surveys for the existing nine priority locations (estimated cost of $100,000).

The AAC voted unanimously for staff to proceed with an update for the existing priority locations.

The scope of work excludes the existing Police Station as plans are nearing completion to construct a new Police Station headquarters. The updated accessibility surveys are required to be completed by a Certified Access Specialist. The accessibility surveys consist of an evaluation of the exterior and interior portions of the property and adjacent public right-of-way locations for compliance with applicable state and federal accessibility laws and regulations. The evaluations include but are not limited to parking spaces, ramps, stairs, public spaces, restrooms, signage, and employee workspaces. The final work product will be a listing of recommended physical alterations for each location. The listing will support programming future accessibility-related capital improvements and can be maintained to reflect work progress.

Council Agenda Report
Updated Accessibility Surveys at Eight City Facilities [Agreement] June 6, 2023

Design Phase Consultant Engineering Services
In February 2023, the City issued a Request for Proposals for updated accessibility surveys for the priority locations. Proposals were received in early April and evaluated independently by a panel of staff. Following a review of the seven proposals that were received, Sally Swanson Architects, Inc. (SSA) was selected as the top-ranked consultant. Staff subsequently worked with SSA to finalize the scope and fee for this project.

Staff recommends that Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract with SSA in the amount of $117,600 for updated accessibility surveys at eight City facilities, and authorize $9,900 for potential extra services, for a total expenditure authority amount of $127,500.

Community Outreach
Extensive community outreach was conducted as part of the 1992 ADA Transition Plan as well as the 2008 Update. Community input was an essential element in the selection of the nine priority locations that were evaluated in detail as part of the 2008 Update.

Limited additional community outreach is planned as part of the updated accessibility surveys.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

There are sufficient expenditure appropriations in the ADA Transition Plan Project in the Measure C Capital Fund in Fiscal Year 2023 to cover the proposed contract, including extra services, with SSA for the updated accessibility surveys.

A copy of the contract may be requested from the Public Works Department for public review by contacting [email protected].

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed action is not a project subject to environmental review. California Environmental Quality Act compliance will be determined as part of the design process for any individual task listed in the accessibility reviews and selected for construction.

PREPARED BY: Brian D’Amour, P.E., City Engineer/sk
SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Engineering Division, Public Works Department
SUBJECT: El Estero Water Resource Center Ocean Outfall Monitoring [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract with Aquatic Bioassay and Consulting Laboratories, Inc. in the amount of $60,966 for ocean outfall monitoring services and authorize $6,100 for potential extra services, for a total expenditure authority of $67,066.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The City of Santa Barbara’s (City) El Estero Water Resource Center (EEWRC) operates through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which allows for the discharge of treated water to the Pacific Ocean. A condition of this permit requires the City to conduct ocean outfall (Benthic) monitoring studies every five years in the area of the ocean where water is discharged. This monitoring study provides the NPDES permitting agency, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, with longterm data on the effect of treated water on the receiving waters. This year’s reporting is due by December 31, 2023.

Project Description
The scope of work is to collect and analyze sediment and marine life near the EEWRC ocean outfall location, and a control location, as required by the City’s NPDES permit.

Once analyzed, the City must submit a report to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board with the results of the analysis. The consultant will collect samples and test them in accordance with the following sections of the NPDES permit:
 Benthic Sediment Monitoring;
 Benthic Biota Monitoring; and
 Chemical Analysis of Biota.

Agenda Item No. 15
File Code No. 540.13
Council Agenda Report
El Estero Water Resource Center Ocean Outfall Monitoring [Agreement] June 6, 2023

Upon completion of the analysis, the consultant will provide a report containing their results to show how EEWRC’s discharge may or may not be affecting the ecology around the outfall.

Consultant Engineering Services
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract with Aquatic Bioassay and Consulting Laboratories, Inc. (ABC) in the amount of $60,966 for these ocean monitoring services, and authorize $6,100 for potential extra services, for a total expenditure authority amount of $67,066. ABC was selected to complete these services through a competitive Request for Proposals process. City staff selected ABC as the most qualified consultant to perform these services based on their proposal, which demonstrated their detailed understanding of the required process and testing procedures. They also have a long-standing history of meeting the needs of the City and other treatment plants that follow similar reporting requirements.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

There are sufficient appropriated funds in the Wastewater Operating Fund in Fiscal Year 2023 to cover the proposed contract, including extra services, with ABC for ocean monitoring services.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

These permit-required monitoring services ensure the City’s environmental permitting compliance for ongoing EEWRC operations.

WATER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

This item was presented to the City's Water Commission at its meeting on May 18, 2023, and the Commission voted 5:0:0 in support of staff’s recommendations.

A copy of the contract may be requested from the Public Works Department for public review by contacting [email protected].

PREPARED BY: Brian D’Amour, P.E., City Engineer/EP/rl
SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Engineering Division, Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Increase in Design Support Extra Services for the Cater Water Treatment Plant Reservoir Resiliency Project [Agreement] RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize an increase in the extra services amount with Carollo Engineers, for design services for the Cater Water Treatment Plant Reservoir Resiliency Project, Contract No. 26,976, in the amount of $436,000, for a total project expenditure authority of $1,338,506.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The existing Cater Water Treatment Plant (Cater) Clear Well was constructed in 1962.

The Clear Well is a reservoir that stores filtered water and allows for sufficient chlorine contact time for disinfection. The Clear Well also provides storage capacity to accommodate changing water system demands. The existing Clear Well is a buried concrete structure with a maximum operating storage volume of approximately five million gallons. The Cater Water Treatment Plant Reservoir Resiliency Project (Project) will install an approximately 2.5-million-gallon second reservoir as a chlorine contact basin adjacent to the existing Clear Well. The Project will address several operational concerns, including improving chlorine contact time for the disinfection process, providing the ability to bypass the existing Clear Well for maintenance purposes, and enhancing the system’s resiliency by improving storage and supply balancing capabilities.

Current Status
In June 2021, Council approved Professional Services Agreement No. 26,976 with Carollo Engineers (Carollo) for the Project’s design. In October 2022, Council authorized staff to submit an application for a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund installment agreement to fund the Project’s planning, design, and construction. Council determined the Project to be exempt under California Environmental Quality Act guidelines in February 2023. The Project’s design is currently 60% complete. Through the preliminary design phase, multiple changes were identified and added to the scope of the Project.

These changes and additions include the design of seismic retrofits to the existing Clear Agenda Item No. 16
File Code No. 540.1
Council Agenda Report
Increase in Design Support Extra Services for the Cater Water Treatment Plant Reservoir Resiliency Project [Agreement]
June 6, 2023

Well, modifications to the distribution system connective piping, coordination with ongoing projects, additional stormwater design, additional modifications to other concrete structures, and the design of a new solar power installation. As a result, additional design services by Carollo are needed to complete the Project’s design.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Funding
The following summarizes all Project design costs and estimated construction costs.

ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST
*Cents have been rounded to the nearest dollar in this table.

Design (by Carollo) $902,506
Design Management (by City Staff) $174,000
Increased Design Costs (by Carollo) $436,000
Design Subtotal $1,512,506
Construction (estimated) Subtotal $25,000,000
Project Total $26,512,506
If the recommendation is approved, the total design services contract expenditure authority will be increased to $1,338,506. There are sufficient expenditure appropriations in the Water Capital Fund in Fiscal Year 2023 to cover remaining Project design costs, including the proposed increase in the extra services amount with Carollo for design services for the Project. A Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loan is anticipated to fund the Project’s construction and to reimburse the City for planning and design costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

On February 14, 2023, Council determined that the Project is California Environmental Quality Act exempt under Guidelines § 15301 and § 15302.

WATER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

This item was presented to the Water Commission at its meeting on May 18, 2023, and the Commission voted 5:0:0 in support of staff’s recommendations.

PREPARED BY: Brian D’Amour, P.E., City Engineer/PM/rl
SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Downtown Team, Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Barbara Unified School District for Crossing Guard Services [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council ratify and authorize the City Administrator to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Barbara Unified School District, including Peabody Charter School, for crossing guard services from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023.

DISCUSSION:

To ensure the safety of local children commuting to school, the City of Santa Barbara (City) partnered with the Santa Barbara Unified School District (SBUSD) to provide crossing guard services for local schools. In 2019, the responsibility for hiring and training crossing guards and administering the Crossing Guard Program (Program) was transferred to the Downtown Parking Program (DTP) from the Police Department. DTP is well equipped to onboard hourly staff, and the Program aligns with the City’s Vision Zero Strategy led by the Downtown Team.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed and implemented on behalf of the SBUSD in 2022. The proposed action will ratify the one-year agreement with status quo funding levels for Fiscal Year 2023. Funding levels will be re-evaluated for future years to account for increased staffing costs. The SBUSD will reimburse the City for one half of the cost of staffing and administering the Program.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The expected costs for Fiscal Year 2023 total $108,574, and under the terms of the MOU, the SBUSD will reimburse the City for a total amount equal to half of the cost for the school crossing guards assigned to the district and any related administrative fees. The SBUSD agreement also includes the costs for providing school crossing guard services for Peabody Charter School. Below are the proposed annual costs:

Agenda Item No. 17
File Code No. 150.05
Council Agenda Report
Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Barbara Unified School District for Crossing Guard Services [Agreement]
June 6, 2023

SBUSD Peabody
July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 $45,897 $8,390
The balance of the Program costs is funded by a transfer from the General Fund to the Downtown Parking Fund budget. There are sufficient expenditure appropriations in the Downtown Parking Operating Fund budget in Fiscal Year 2023 to fund the proposed MOU for crossing guard services.

A copy of the agreement may be requested from the Public Works Department for public review by contacting [email protected].

PREPARED BY: Sarah Clark, Acting Downtown Team Manager/JB/nv SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Business Services Division, Waterfront Department SUBJECT: Proposed Assignment of Lease Agreement No. 27,073 – Anchor Rose Lounge, Located Downstairs at 113 Harbor Way [Agreement] RECOMMENDATION:

Pursuant to a recommendation from the Harbor Commission that the City Council approve the assignment of Lease Agreement No. 27,073 from Co-Owners Ms. Amy Rose, Mr. Bryan Deminie, and Mr. Dennis Longaberger, to Captain’s Cove LLC, for the Anchor Rose Lounge, located downstairs at 113 Harbor Way.

BACKGROUND:

On May 18, 2022, Ms. Amy Rose, Mr. Bryan Deminie, and Mr. Dennis Longaberger assumed Lease Agreement No. 23,073 from the previous owner, Aaron Petersen, who operated Chomp on the Rocks. Since then, the space has been rebranded as the Anchor Rose Lounge and is currently under renovation.

The three business partners are tenants in good standing and have done an outstanding job as members of the harbor community. Ms. Rose is an experienced businesswoman who has been involved in the restaurant business since she was a child. Ms. Rose is currently the Director of Operations for seven family-owned Black Bear Diners. Her business partner, Mr. Deminie, is a licensed contractor who specializes in restaurant development and restaurant renovation, having completed over 70 projects in this regard.

Mr. Longaberger has been a business owner in the Waterfront for many years.

DISCUSSION:

In late-2022, Ms. Amy Rose, Mr. Bryan Deminie, and Mr. Dennis Longaberger informed Waterfront staff of their desire to form an LLC as part of their business plan to move forward with their business partnership. At that time, staff provided them with the Waterfront Department’s lease assignment requirements. Since then, the Department Agenda Item No. 18
File Code No. 330.04
Council Agenda Report
Proposed Assignment of Lease Agreement No. 27,073 – Anchor Rose Lounge, Located Downstairs at 113 Harbor Way [Agreement]
June 6, 2023

has received all the required documentation relevant to the proposed lease assignment.

The lease is proposed to be assigned to Captain’s Cove LLC.

Captain’s Cove LLC will continue the plan for a complete renovation of the space, currently underway, in a design that will be warm and inviting to the local community as well as visitors and, at the same time, recognize the Waterfront and Santa Barbara culture. The theme will feature classic mahogany wood accents, cozy booths, historical memorabilia, and a vibrant bar with craft cocktails, exquisite wines, and locally sourced seafood.

In accordance with the Department’s lease assignment procedure, no changes to the business terms of the leases will occur as part of this lease assignment. The basic terms of the Anchor Rose Lounge lease (Lease No. 27,073) are as follows:
 Remaining Term: Initial term expires December 31, 2025, with three five-year options extending to December 31, 2040.
 Base Rent: $12,684.30 per month
 Percentage Rent: 10% up to and including $1,250,000. 11.4% in excess of $1,250,000
 Annual Rent Adjustment: Cost of Living increases based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The lease revenue has been incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2023 revenue appropriations in the Waterfront’s operating budget. No additional appropriations are required.

A copy of the proposed lease assignment is available for public review in the Waterfront Department Office located at 132-A Harbor Way.
.

The Harbor Commission recommended approval of the proposed lease assignment at their February 16, 2023, meeting.

A copy of the lease assignment is available for public review from the Waterfront Department; please email [email protected] to request a copy.

PREPARED BY: Cesar Barrios, Waterfront Business Manager SUBMITTED BY: Mike Wiltshire, Waterfront Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Business Services Division, Waterfront Department SUBJECT: Proposed Assignment of Lease Agreement No. 23,328 – Anchor Rose Restaurant, Located Upstairs at 113 Harbor Way [Agreement] RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Harbor Commission’s recommendation that City Council approve the assignment of Lease Agreement No. 23,328 from Co-Owners Ms. Amy Rose, Mr. Bryan Deminie, and Mr. Dennis Longaberger, to Captain’s Cove LLC, for the Anchor Rose Restaurant, located upstairs at 113 Harbor Way.

BACKGROUND:

On May 18, 2022, Ms. Amy Rose, Mr. Bryan Deminie, and Mr. Dennis Longaberger assumed Lease Agreement No. 23,328 from the previous owner, Aaron Petersen, who operated Salty at the Beach restaurant. Since then, the space has been rebranded as the Anchor Rose Restaurant and has become a very popular establishment among locals and visitors.

The three business partners are tenants in good standing and have done an outstanding job as members of the harbor community. Ms. Rose is an experienced businesswoman who has been involved in the restaurant business since she was a child. Ms. Rose is currently the Director of Operations for seven family-owned Black Bear Diners. Her business partner, Mr. Deminie, is a licensed contractor who specializes in restaurant development and restaurant renovation, having completed over 70 projects in this regard.

Mr. Longaberger has been a business owner in the Waterfront for many years.

DISCUSSION:

In late-2022, Ms. Amy Rose, Mr. Bryan Deminie, and Mr. Dennis Longaberger informed Waterfront staff of their desire to form an LLC as part of their business plan to move forward with their business partnership. At that time, staff provided them with the Waterfront Department’s lease assignment requirements. Since then, the Department Agenda Item No. 19
File Code No. 330.04
Council Agenda Report
Proposed Assignment of Lease Agreement No. 23,328 – Anchor Rose Restaurant, Located Upstairs at 113 Harbor Way [Agreement]
June 6, 2023

has received all the required documentation relevant to the proposed lease assignment.

The lease is proposed to be assigned to Captain’s Cove LLC.

Under Captain’s Cove LLC, the Anchor Rose Restaurant will continue to cater to the entire marina community, embracing the California ocean-minded lifestyle.

In accordance with the Department’s lease assignment procedure, no changes to the business terms of the leases will occur as part of this lease assignment. The basic terms of the Anchor Rose Restaurant lease (Lease No. 23,328 ) are as follows:
 Remaining Term: Initial term expires December 31, 2025, with three five-year options extending to December 31, 2040
 Base Rent: $14,999.35 per month
 Percentage Rent: 10% up to and including $1,250,000. 11.4% in excess of $1,250,000
 Annual Rent Adjustment: Cost of Living increases based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The lease revenue has been incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2023 revenue appropriations in the Waterfront’s operating budget. No additional appropriations are required.

A copy of the proposed lease assignment is available for public review in the Waterfront Department Office located at 132-A Harbor Way.

The Harbor Commission recommended approval of the proposed lease assignment at their February 16, 2023, meeting.

A copy of the lease assignment is available for public review from the Waterfront Department; please email [email protected] to request a copy.

PREPARED BY: Cesar Barrios, Waterfront Business Manager SUBMITTED BY: Mike Wiltshire, Waterfront Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Business Services Division, Waterfront Department SUBJECT: Waterfront Department Proposed Lease Agreement with the Chamber of Commerce of the Santa Barbara Region [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That pursuant to Harbor Commission’s recommendation that the City Council approve and authorize the Waterfront Director to execute a five-year lease agreement with the Chamber of Commerce of the Santa Barbara Region for the 400 square-foot Visitor Center located at 1 Garden Street.

DISCUSSION:

The Chamber of Commerce of the Santa Barbara Region (Chamber) has leased the Visitor Center site from the Waterfront Department since January 1988. The current lease expired on March 31, 2023. The lease specifies that the use of the site is primarily for a non-profit visitor information center, but also permits the sale of incidental items such as educational books, literature, periodicals, directories, and logo shirts. The Chamber also sells advertising space on the bulletin board behind the front counter and tickets for various visitor-related businesses such as the Santa Barbara Sailing Center and the Santa Barbara Trolley Company.

There is no base rent for the site. In lieu of base rent, the Visitor Center is required to be open to the public, at minimum, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. daily, 360 days a year. The lease does, however, have a percentage rent requirement. The Chamber is required to pay 10% of gross sales in excess of $70,000 in a year.

Except for the building structure, and any repairs or maintenance supporting the structure, the Chamber is responsible for all maintenance, repair and staffing of the site. The Waterfront Department, in turn, has no maintenance responsibility and incurs no costs from the Visitor Center operation. The Waterfront Department maintains and operates the heavily used public restroom facility on the site.

Agenda Item No. 20
File Code No. 330.04
Council Agenda Report
Waterfront Department Proposed Lease Agreement with the Chamber of Commerce of the Santa Barbara Region [Agreement]
June 6, 2023

The basic terms of the proposed lease are as follows:
 Term: Five years;
 Base rent: None (no change);
 Percentage rent: 10% of retail sales in excess of $70,000 in a year; Tenant’s percentage rent shall be calculated based on the net income to Tenant from ticket sales; and,
 Exclusions from gross sales: Sales of third-party tickets such as the trolley tickets, and revenue from the advertising board.

The lease is intended to enable the Chamber to operate the Visitor Center as a public service and was never intended to be a revenue generator for the City. The Visitor Center is open daily from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Visitor Center staff estimate that they served approximately 200,000 visitors this year. The staff consists of one full-time and 12 part-time members, as well as 35 volunteers who also assist with cruise ship visits.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The lease revenues are assumed in the Waterfront Department’s Fiscal Year 2023 operating budget, and will be included in future budgets.

The Harbor Commission recommended approval of the proposed lease assignment at their May 18, 2023, meeting.

A copy of the lease assignment is available for public review from the Waterfront Department; please email [email protected] to request a copy.

ATTACHMENT: Site Plan
PREPARED BY: Cesar Barrios, Waterfront Business Manager SUBMITTED BY: Mike Wiltshire, Waterfront Director
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

ATTACHMENT

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Parks Division, Parks and Recreation Department
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase Turf Renovation Materials for City Parks RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Find it in the City’s best interest to waive the bidding process as authorized by Municipal Code 4.52.070(L) and authorize the General Services Manager to issue as needed Purchase Orders to Santa Barbara Sand and Topsoil for the purchase of the 50/50 Sand-Soil Blend;
B. Find it in the City’s best interest to waive the bidding process as authorized by Municipal Code 4.52.070(L) and authorize the General Services Manager to issue as needed Purchase Orders to Sierra Pacific Turf Supply and Stover Seed Company for the purchase of specialty turf seed; and
C. Find it in the City’s best interest to waive the bidding process as authorized by Municipal Code 4.52.070(L) and authorize the General Services Manager to issue as needed Purchase Orders to Agromin for the purchase of the Lawn Top Dressing.

DISCUSSION:

Background
On March 8, 2022, City Council approved $750,000 of the City’s $10.9 million of Round Two American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) towards turf and irrigation renewals in up to 11 parks. ARPA funding was made available for programs and services that were heavily impacted by the pandemic. Santa Barbara’s public outdoor spaces saw a huge surge in use during the pandemic as outdoor recreation areas were seen as the safest space to socialize and recreate, making renovations a good candidate for ARPA funding. Thus far, this funding has allowed the Parks and Recreation Department (Department) to renovate Alameda Park, Alice Keck Park Memorial Garden, and Chase Palm Park Field. Additional Agenda Item No. 21
File Code No. 570.05
Council Agenda Report
Authorization to Purchase Turf Renovation Materials for City Parks June 6, 2023

upcoming renovations are planned for parks including Mission Historic Park, Oak Park, and Stevens Park, among others.

In addition to these special renovations, the Department funds annual renovations at the City’s ten official sports fields. Official sports fields are closed for renovations several times each year to maintain healthy and stress-free turf that provides high quality and safe playing fields for sports use throughout the year.

To successfully complete turf renovations, the Department must purchase high-quality materials including soil, turf seed, and top dressing.

Soil
One of the first steps in turf renovation is the creation of a level soil surface which requires the addition of soil to fill in low spots and areas. The levelling of the turf surface is one of the most important aspects of this work as it not only enhances the user experience but reduces the potential for injury on uneven surfaces. Due to the constraint that there is only one local vendor that can supply the soil needed, staff finds it in the best interest of the City to work solely with Santa Barbara Sand & Topsoil.

Specialty Turf Seed
Turf seed is another critical input in the renovation process. Parks staff selected specific varieties of seed for their high tolerance to wear and tear, disease resistance, drought tolerance, high salt tolerance, vigorous growth, and growth pattern (for example, dense upright growth or increased blade flexibility). Parks staff identified two vendors that sell the selected seed varieties: Sierra Pacific Turf Supply (for ‘Double Down’ and ‘Manzana’) and Stover Seed Company (‘New Millenia’, ‘Triple Crown Extreme’, ‘Pro Sports Big Blue’, and ‘Grand Slam Saline’).

It is difficult to find these high quality, specialty turf seeds from other companies. Staff recommend that Council find it in the City’s best interest to contract through purchase orders solely with Sierra Pacific Turf Supply and to Stover Seed Company for the seed varieties required.

Top Dressing
Applying top dressing is one of the final steps in turf renovation. Top dressing is an organic material that protects and seals in the other materials that have been applied, especially the seed. It is an important aspect of successful seed germination and early growth.

The Parks Division has had great success with past use of Agromin’s Lawn Top Dressing as it is formulated from a mixture of fine organic material and sand and created specifically for use on sports fields and parks. Agromin’s Lawn Top Dressing also does not contain human or animal waste, making it a safe option for recreational activity. Staff recommends Council Agenda Report
Authorization to Purchase Turf Renovation Materials for City Parks June 6, 2023

that Council find it in the City’s best interest to contract with Agromin for their proprietary organic material.

Section 4.52.070 (L) of the Municipal Code authorizes Council to purchase supplies, equipment, and services without complying with the formal bid procedure, when it is found to be in the best interest of the City. The Department recommends that Council authorize the purchase of these standardized products as needed for amounts budgeted per fiscal year for the next five years expiring on July 1, 2028.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Because turf renovation is a very labor-intensive process and requires highly skilled equipment operation, it is important to select high quality products that will have a greater likelihood of success. Purchasing standardized products from local vendors also allows for smaller shipments of product as needed rather than one delivery requiring a large amount of storage space.

The Parks Division expenditure for all products stated above shall not exceed amounts the Council has approved in the budget. The Department has controls in place to ensure pricing on the purchases remains fair and reasonable. These controls include random and periodic in-depth price analyses.

PREPARED BY: Simόn Herrera, Parks Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Jill E. Zachary, Parks and Recreation Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Fire Prevention Division, Fire Department
SUBJECT: Renewal of Levy for Fiscal Year 2024 for the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District [Resolution]
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 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; 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; Approving the Updated Engineer’s Report; Confirming Diagram and Assessment; and Ordering Continuation of the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2024.

DISCUSSION:

On July 11, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 06-064 which declared the Council’s intention to order the expansion of vegetation road clearance, the implementation of a defensible space inspection and assistance program, and the 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, approved an Engineer’s Report, confirmed the diagram and assessment, and ordered levy of the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District (District) for FY2007. As required by the Resolution, the assessment must be renewed annually by Council. The City has renewed the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment for the past eleven 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 FY2023, the Fire Department cleared 12 Miles of roadways, representing 100 tons of vegetation.

Agenda Item No. 22
File Code No. 520.04
Council Agenda Report
Renewal of Levy for Fiscal Year 2024 for the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District [Resolution]
June 6, 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 involves many site visits to assist homeowners. In addition, the assessment provides chipping services to residents of the District after the vegetation is 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 200 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 8 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 accomplishes 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% 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 Fiscal Year 2024, staff and the Assessment Engineer propose a CPI increase of 4.0%. The actual CPI for 2023-24 is 4.926%. The total allowable CPI adjustment for 2023-24 is 4.00%.The rate for FY2024 as suggested in the Engineer’s Report (see Attachment) will 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 in 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 the Fire Department to continue to provide the same level of service in all three areas.

Hearing
Council Agenda Report
Renewal of Levy for Fiscal Year 2024 for the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District [Resolution]
June 6, 2023

On May 2, 2023, the Council adopted Resolution No. 23-053 to declare its intent to renew the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District within the Foothill and Extreme Foothill Zones and to set a date of Tuesday, June 6, 2023, anytime after 2:00 p.m. at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting for a public hearing on the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District and levy. Staff recommends that the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District be continued for FY2024 to fund and deliver these successful mitigation programs.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The estimated $336,143 cost of providing services in FY2024 is recovered through the resident-approved Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment levied on the annual property tax bills of property owners within the Assessment district boundaries. Both the cost of providing the services and the assessment district revenue have been included in the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District Fund budget for FY2024. No additional budget appropriations are necessary.

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, thus avoiding the cost of disposal fees, extra vehicle trips and landfill use. In FY2023 Fire exceeded that goal, achieving 100% reuse. Non-native plants are not chipped, but rather hauled off-site to be disposed of properly.

ATTACHMENT: Final Engineer’s Report for FY 2024
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
FINAL 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 0B Introduction
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

1BDescription 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

2B Cost 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
S ingle Family E quivalent B enefit Unit s in Dis t ric t 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

2BMethod 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 wildlandurban 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, citywide 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

4BAssessment
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

5BAssessment 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

5BAppendices
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=125 U
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=130 U 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 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; 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; APPROVING
THE UPDATED ENGINEER’S REPORT; CONFIRMING
DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT; AND ORDERING

CONTINUATION OF THE WILDLAND FIRE

SUPPRESSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL
YEAR (FY) 2024
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2006, by its Resolution No. 06-064, after receiving a weighted majority of ballots in support of the proposed assessment, this Council ordered the formation of and levied the first assessment within the City of Santa Barbara Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment, pursuant to the authority provided in California Government Code Section 50078 et seq. and Article XIIID of the California Constitution; WHEREAS, , 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;
WHEREAS, 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 47 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; WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 23-053 the City Council preliminarily approved the Engineer’s Report for said District and set a date for a Public Hearing; WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was held on June 6, 2023;
WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the City Clerk and duly considered by this Council and found to be sufficient in every particular, whereupon it was determined that the report should stand as the Engineer’s Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, and that June 6, 2023, at the 2:00 p.m. regularly scheduled City Council Meeting in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 735 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, were appointed as the time and place for a hearing by this Council on the question of the levy of the proposed assessment, notice of which hearing was given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place the hearing was duly and regularly held, and all persons interested and desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the levy were fully heard and considered by the Council, and all oral statements and all written protests or communications were duly heard, considered and overruled, and this council thereby acquired jurisdiction to order the levy and the confirmation of the diagram and assessment prepared by and made a part of the Engineer’s Report to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The public interest, convenience and necessity require that the levy be made.

SECTION 2. The Assessment District benefited by the fire suppression services and assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and the exterior boundaries thereof, are as shown by a map thereof filed in the office of the City Clerk, which map is made a part hereof by reference thereto.

SECTION 3. The Engineer's Report as a whole and each part thereof, to wit:
(a) the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of the fire suppression services and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith;

(b) the diagram showing the assessment district, plans and specifications for the fire suppression services and the boundaries and dimensions of the respective lots and parcels of land within the Assessment District; and (c) the assessment of the total amount of the cost and expenses of the proposed fire suppression services upon the several lots and parcels of land in the Assessment District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by such lots and parcels, respectively, from the maintenance, and of the expenses incidental thereto; are finally approved and confirmed.

SECTION 4. Final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as contained in the report as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to the report, or any portion thereof as amended, modified, or revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in accordance with, any resolution or order, if any, heretofore duly adopted or made by this Council.

SECTION 5. The assessments for fiscal year 2023-24 shall be continued at the 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 per single family equivalent benefit. The estimated fiscal year 2023-24 cost of providing the Services is $336,143.

SECTION 6. The assessment to pay the costs and expenses of the fire suppression services for fiscal year 2023-24 is hereby continued.

SECTION 7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, including the Engineer's Report, offered and received at the hearing, this Council expressly finds and determines (a) that each of the several lots and parcels of land will be specially benefited by the fire suppression services at least in the amount if not more than the amount, of the assessment apportioned against the lots and parcels of land, respectively, and (b) that there is substantial evidence to support, and the weight of the evidence preponderates in favor of, the aforesaid finding and determination as to special benefits.

SECTION 8. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, but in no event later than the third Monday in August following such adoption, the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of the diagram and assessment and a certified copy of this resolution with the Auditor of the County of Santa Barbara. Upon such filing, the County Auditor shall enter the County assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the assessment. The assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments, After collection by the County, the net amount of the assessments, after deduction of any compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City of Santa Barbara Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District.

SECTION 9. Upon receipt of the moneys representing assessments collected by the County, the County shall deposit the moneys in the City Treasury to the credit of the improvement fund previously established under the distinctive designation of the Assessment District. Moneys in the improvement fund shall be expended only for the maintenance, servicing, construction or installation of the fire suppression services.

SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Environmental Services Division, Sustainability & Resilience Department
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to Solid Waste Rates RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Hold a public hearing, consider all protests, and determine if there is a majority written protest regarding proposed increases to solid waste rates for Fiscal Year 2024, as required by California Constitution art. XIII D, § 6; and B. If there is no majority written protest, direct staff to prepare a rate schedule to set the solid waste rates for Fiscal Year 2024 and include the schedule within the City of Santa Barbara Schedule of Penalties, Fees, Rates, and Service Charges for consideration by Council in connection with the final adoption of the operating budget.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Solid waste management is essential to maintaining Santa Barbara as a beautiful and environmentally responsible city. Each year, staff propose changes to the rates paid by solid waste customers that pay for hauling, processing, disposal, and other City costs.

Additionally, the City utilizes collected funds to implement strategic programs to ensure compliance with State regulations and to support local community health and safety.

Pursuant to California Constitution Art. XIII D, § 6, Council is required to consider all protests against proposed rate changes at a public hearing. If a majority of parcel owners present protests against a proposed fee or charge at or before the hearing, the City may not impose the rate, fee, or charge. On June 6, Council will hold a public hearing, consider all protests, and determine if there is a majority written protest regarding the proposed increases to solid waste rates for Fiscal Year (FY) 24.

DISCUSSION:

Solid Waste Rate Changes for Fiscal Year 2024
Several factors inform the proposed FY 24 rates, as outlined below.

Agenda Item No. 23
File Code No. 630.01
Council Agenda Report
Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to Solid Waste Rates June 6, 2023

Waste Processing and Disposal
In 2016, the County of Santa Barbara and the Cities of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Buellton, and Solvang worked together to develop and build the ReSource Center at the Tajiguas Landfill.

The ReSource Center is a state-of-the-art resource management facility that significantly increases the diversion of trash from landfill disposal, thereby extending the life of Tajiguas, and providing a long-term waste management solution for the South Coast.

The ReSource Center consists of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) that sorts trash and recovers recyclable commodities, as well as an Anaerobic Digester that converts organics recovered from the MRF into compostable material and biogas. In December 2018, the City executed a 22-year Materials Delivery Agreement (MDA) with the County that commits the City’s waste and associated tipping fees for processing at the ReSource Center. The County is increasing tipping fees from $170 per ton in FY 23 to $176 per ton in FY 24 to keep up with inflation and other cost increases.

Waste Collection and Hauling
The City is preparing for the expiration of its current solid waste franchise hauler agreement with MarBorg Industries (MarBorg) on June 7, 2023. As directed by Council on July 19, 2022, staff negotiated the terms and conditions of a new exclusive franchise agreement (New Agreement) with MarBorg. Negotiations began in August 2022 and were substantially concluded in January 2023. The New Agreement was adopted by City Council on April 18, 2023 and will go into effect on June 8, 2023.

As part of the New Agreement, MarBorg’s base compensation for curbside cart collection and other collection services is remaining flat in FY 24. The base compensation will be flat again in FY 25 except for a one-time adjustment based on fuel costs. Thereafter, increases to compensation will be based on inflation.

Franchise Fees and Utility Users Taxes
Franchise fees are paid by MarBorg to the City for the use of the City’s rights-of-way and impact of the solid waste service on municipal infrastructure. These fees are part of the negotiated franchise agreement and represent costs the City incurs for the right of use of City infrastructure. As part of the proposed New Agreement, the City and MarBorg negotiated a substantial increase in the franchise fees paid by MarBorg that better reflects the costs to the City and aligns with best franchise fee practices statewide. Franchise fees are incorporated into the rates.

Utility Users Taxes (UUT) are general taxes paid by the customer based on the consumption of utility services. The City has historically levied a 6% tax on sanitation services to solid waste customers in the City. Customers pay solid waste UUT on their utility bill once their charges have been calculated each month. UUT are not incorporated into rates. To better align with best practices statewide, the City is discontinuing the collection of solid waste UUT as of July 1, 2023.

Council Agenda Report
Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to Solid Waste Rates June 6, 2023

The net effect for ratepayers of increasing the franchise fee through rates and discontinuing the UUT is net neutral. A typical customer will not see any additional cost related to the franchise fee increases and UUT decreases.

City Programs
In addition to paying for waste hauling and disposal, solid waste rate revenue also pays for various City programs managed by the Environmental Services Division. These programs include abandoned waste removal in the public rights-of-way, maintenance of public containers (i.e., public trash cans), clean-up and abatement of encampments throughout the City, public education and outreach, compliance with City reserve policies, and other environmental programs that ensure the City complies with rapidly developing State regulations and maintains its status as an environmentally forward City.

Fiscal Year 2024 Rate Increase
Several factors inform the proposed FY 24 rates. As mentioned above, the increase of County tipping fees to $176 per ton in FY 24 will increase overall solid waste rates by 3.1%.

Additionally, changes to the solid waste collection services under the New Agreement will increase overall rates by 5.2%. Changes to Environmental Services program fees and billing administration will increase overall rates by 1.6%.

The combination of these adjustments results in a 9.9% total increase for solid waste rates.

However, the impact of this increase is largely mitigated by the discontinuation of the 6.5% solid waste UUT charge. The proposed rate increase combined with the discontinuation of the UUT charge, produce an effective net increase in costs of 3.4% for a typical ratepayer, as shown in the table below.

Santa Barbara Rate Increases Effective July 1, 2023
Hauler (MarBorg) Base Compensation 5.2%
Tipping Fee Increase (County) 3.1%
Other City Programs 1.6%
Subtotal: Change to Solid Waste Rates 9.9%
Discontinuation of Utility User Taxes -6.5%
TOTAL Change to Customer Charges 3.4%
Public Hearing
On April 11, 2023, the solid waste rate increase was presented to Finance Committee, which unanimously approved the staff recommendation to notice proposed rates to customers and set a public hearing date of June 6, 2023.

Pursuant to California Constitution Art. XIII D, § 6, Council is required to consider all protests against the proposed rates at a public hearing. If a majority of parcel owners Council Agenda Report
Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to Solid Waste Rates June 6, 2023

present written protests against a proposed fee or charge at or before the hearing, the City may not impose the rate, fee, or charge. One written protest per parcel or service address may be counted. Oral protests are not counted but must be considered.

A notice of public hearing was mailed on April 21, 2023, to all active account holders who receive solid waste service from the City. The notices were mailed to the addresses at which active account holders regularly receive their paper bills. The City’s contractor for mail services provided proof of mailing.

On May 9, 2023, it was brought to staff’s attention that a typographical error in the mailed notice indicated that rates would increase July 1, 2024, when it should have stated July 1, 2023; the correct date was used elsewhere in the notice. A correction was mailed on May 15, 2023, to all customers who received the initial notice.

As of May 23, 2023, the City has received zero protests relating to solid waste rate changes.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

Under the proposed solid waste rates, the City will fulfill its contractual obligations to the County for waste processing and to MarBorg for franchised waste hauling services. The proposed rates also enable compliance with new State regulations and fund additional management of encampment and community cleanups. The proposed changes are included in the Fiscal Year 2024 Solid Waste Fund Budget that has been presented to Council.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The City’s participation in the ReSource Center is integral to managing our solid waste responsibly. It is a local solution that reduces transportation-related carbon emissions while producing renewable energy from the anaerobic digestion facility. It also extends the useful life of the Tajiguas landfill, diverts more recyclable materials for reuse, and turns organic material into an agricultural input rather than a source of difficult to capture landfill-generated greenhouse gas emissions.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed rate action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080(b)(8) and CEQA Guidelines § 15273— exemption for establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates and charges for the purpose of meeting ongoing operation, maintenance, and capital expenses necessary to maintain service within existing service areas.

ATTACHMENT: Notice of Public Hearing for Proposed Changes to City of Santa Barbara Solid Waste Rates
Council Agenda Report
Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to Solid Waste Rates June 6, 2023

PREPARED BY: Lorraine Cruz Carpenter, Environmental Services Manager SUBMITTED BY: Alelia Parenteau, Sustainability and Resilience Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office

PROPOSED TRASH & RECYCLING
RATE CHANGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024
You are receiving this Notice because our records indicate that you are a City of Santa Barbara utility customer. This Notice describes the proposed trash and recycling rate changes, and explains how you can file a protest and participate in the process. Some customers are billed by the City for some, but not all services. This notice applies only to the services that appear on your bill from the City.

Trash & Recycling Revenue Requirement Increases
The proposed July 1, 2024 2023 rate schedule increase for all sectors is 9.9%. To satisfy the Material Delivery Agreement contract with the County, there will be a 3.1% rate increase for processing and disposal fees.

Environmental Services Division programs require a 1.3% rate increase, to account for inflation and to meet the fund reserve policy. The service charge for City Billing will increase rates by 0.3% to account for inflation. The 2023 Franchise Agreement negotiated with MarBorg, the City’s waste hauler, will result in a 5.2% rate increase.

Changes to the Franchise Fees and Utility Users Taxes
Franchise Fees are fees paid by MarBorg to the City for the use of the City’s rights-of-way. As part of the 2023 Franchise Agreement, to align with best practices statewide, the City and MarBorg negotiated a substantial increase in the Franchise Fees paid by MarBorg, to better reflect the costs to the City, which includes street repair, maintenance, and other costs. To mitigate the overall costs to ratepayers, and to align with best state practice, the City is discontinuing the 6% Utility Users Tax (UUT) for solid waste charges. The UUT was formerly levied after the solid waste charges were calculated, rather than incorporated directly into the rates.

The negotiated increase to franchise fees and the discontinuation of the UUT should be net neutral for the typical city ratepayer. The net change in charges, after accounting for County fees, City programs, MarBorg compensation, Franchise Fee changes, and the elimination of the solid waste UUT, is a 3.4% increase.

How can I lower my trash bill?
In general, some customers may be able to lower their bills by “right-sizing” their service. Customers can make sure that they are diverting lower-cost recyclables from their higher-cost trash containers, increasing recycling service while decreasing trash service, if possible. Many Business and Large Residential (5+ unit) customers are also subscribed to more greenwaste service than they need, especially if they have landscapers that can selfhaul trimmings instead of using greenwaste containers for disposal.

When do the new rates take effect?
City Council will consider adopting these rates on June 13, 2023 (one week after the public hearing). The new rates will be effective starting July 1, 2023.

How do I stay informed?
• Watch City Council meetings live online at SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CityTV or tune in to City TV Channel18. • Attend City Council meetings; Visit SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP for meeting participation details. • Explore updated information on recycling, waste reduction, and program enhancements at www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/Recycling
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:

PROPOSED CHANGES TO CITY OF SANTA BARBARA TRASH & RECYCLING RATES Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2023—2:00 p.m.

Place: City of Santa Barbara Council Chambers, City Hall, 735 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara.

Social Distancing orders may require the hearing to be held electronically. Meeting details will be posted no less than 72 hours prior to the start of the Public Hearing on the City Council meeting agenda located at SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP How will the proposed changes impact my monthly trash & recycling bill? Representative trash & recycling service levels are demonstrated in the table below.

To preview your July 2023 estimated bill please visit our Trash & Recycling Bill Calculator at www.SBRecycles.org or call City Trash & Recycling at (805) 564-5631.

Customer Profile Representative
Service
Current
Rates*
Proposed
Rates % Change
1 Unit
Small Residential
65 gal trash,
65 gal greenwaste,
65 gal recycle,
1x/week
$57.70 $59.82 3.67%
2-4 Unit
Small Residential (Cart/Can Service)
3-65 gal trash,
95 gal greenwaste,
3-95 gal recycle,
1x/week
$102.30 $106.06 3.68%
5+ Unit
Large Residential (Cart/Can Service)
5-95 gal trash,
95-gal greenwaste,
5-95 gal recycle,
1x/week
$406.83 $468.85 15.24%
5+ Unit
Large Residential
(Small/Medium Dumpster Service)
4 yard trash,
2 yard recycle,
1x/week
$536.40 $618.20 15.25%
Business
(Cart/Can Service)
3-95 gal trash,
3-95 gal recycle,
2x/week
$574.20 $621.87 8.30%
Business
(Dumpster Service)
4 yard trash,
4 yard recycle,
2x/week
$1615.20 $1749.26 8.30%
* Not including 6% utility tax on trash/recycling collection, as applicable. This 6% utility tax is being discontinued in FY24.

How can I get more information and copies of the proposed rate schedules? See www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/UtilityBilling or call (805) 564-5631 for trash & recycling questions.

How do I protest?
If you wish to submit a written protest of any of the above increases, your protest must be received by the City Clerk of the City of Santa Barbara at 735 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, CA, 93101, prior to the City Council’s consideration of this item on June 6, 2023. Protests must include your name, service address, and whether you are protesting the amount of the fee increase, the basis for calculation of the fee, or both. In the event that social distancing practices remain in place, mailed protests are encouraged. Written protests may be delivered in-person at the address above, deposited in the bill payment drop box slot located on the exterior of the building on the De La Guerra Plaza side. Only protests received before the close of the public hearing on June 6, 2023, will be counted. During the hearing, the City Council will consider all written protests and public testimony. Protests are public records. The public hearing may be conducted via teleconference or other electronic meeting format. Submission of written protests by personal delivery during the meeting may not be permitted. Submission of written protests by personal delivery during the meeting may not be permitted. One written protest per parcel or service address will be tabulated. If you challenge the City's rate setting action in court, you may be limited to the issues and grounds raised in a written protest or in public testimony during the publichearing.

CHECK OUT THE TRASH & RECYCLING RATE CALCULATOR AT:

CAMBIOS PROPUESTOS A LAS TARIFAS DE BASURA Y
RECICLAJE PARA EL AÑO FISCAL 2024
Está recibiendo este aviso porque nuestros registros indican que usted es un cliente de servicios públicos de la ciudad de Santa Bárbara. Este aviso describe los cambios propuestos en las tarifas de basura y reciclaje, y explica cómo puede presentar una protesta y participar en el proceso. Algunos clientes reciben facturas de la Ciudad por algunos servicios, pero no por todos. Este aviso se aplica sólo a los servicios que aparecen en su factura de la Ciudad.

Aumento de los ingresos necesarios para la basura y el reciclaje El aumento propuesto para todos los sectores a partir del 1 de julio de 2024 2023 es del 9.9%. Para satisfacer el contrato de Acuerdo de Entrega de Materiales con el Condado, habrá un aumento de tarifas del 3.1% para las tasas de procesamiento y eliminación. Los programas de la División de Servicios Medio Ambientales requieren un aumento de tarifas del 1.3%, debido a la inflación y para cumplir con la políza de reserva de fondos. El cargo por servicio de facturación de la Ciudad aumentará las tarifas en un 0.3% debido a la inflación.

El acuerdo de franquicia de 2023 negociado con MarBorg, el transportista de residuos de la Ciudad, supondrá un aumento de tarifas del 5.2%.

Cambios en las Tasas de Franquicia y los Impuestos de Usuarios de Servicios Públicos Las tasas de franquicia son tasas que paga MarBorg a la Ciudad por el uso de los derechos de paso de la Ciudad. Como parte del Acuerdo de Franquicia 2023, para alinearse con las mejores prácticas a nivel estatal, la Ciudad y MarBorg negociaron un aumento sustancial en las tasas de franquicia pagadas por MarBorg, para reflejar mejor los costos para la Ciudad, que incluye la reparación de calles, mantenimiento y otros costos.

Para mitigar los costes globales para los contribuyentes, y para alinearse con las mejores prácticas estatales, la Ciudad está descontinuando el Impuesto de Usuarios de Servicios Públicos (UUT) del 6% para los cargos de residuos sólidos. Anteriormente, este impuesto se recaudaba después de calcular las tasas de residuos sólidos, en lugar de incorporarse directamente a las tarifas. El aumento negociado de las tasas de franquicia y la discontinuación de la UUT deberían ser neutros en términos netos para el contribuyente típico de la ciudad.

El cambio neto en los cargos, después de contabilizar las tasas del Condado, los programas de la Ciudad, la compensación a MarBorg, los cambios en las Tasas de Franquicia y la eliminación del UUT de residuos sólidos, es un aumento del 3.4%.
¿Cómo puedo reducir mi factura de la basura?
En general, algunos clientes pueden reducir sus facturas "dimensionando" su servicio. Los clientes pueden asegurarse de que están desviando los materiales reciclables de menor costo de sus contenedores de basura de mayor costo, aumentando el servicio de reciclaje y reduciendo el servicio de basura, si es posible. Muchos clientes de empresas y grandes residencias (más de 5 unidades) también están suscritos a más servicio de residuos verdes de lo que necesitan, especialmente si tienen jardineros que se encargan de transportar los recortes en lugar de utilizar los contenedores de residuos verdes para su eliminación. ¿Cuándo entran en vigor las nuevas tarifas?
El Ayuntamiento considerará la adopción de estas tarifas el 13 de junio de 2023 (una semana después de la audiencia pública). Las nuevas tarifas entrarán en vigor a partir del 1 de julio de 2023. ¿Cómo puedo mantenerme informado?
• Vea las reuniones del Ayuntamiento en directo a través de Internet en SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CityTV o sintonice City TV canal 18.
• Asista a las reuniones del Ayuntamiento; visite SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP para obtener detalles de participación en las reuniones.
• Obtenga información actualizada sobre los programas en www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/Recycling.

ANUNCIO DE AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA: CAMBIOS PROPUESTOS A LAS TARIFAS DE

BASURA Y RECICLAJE DE LA CIUDAD DE SANTA BARBARA
Fecha: Martes, 6 de junio de 2023 — 2:00 de la tarde
Lugar: Ayuntamiento de Santa Bárbara, 735 Anacapa Street, Santa Bárbara.

Las órdenes de distanciamiento social pueden requerir que la audiencia se realice electrónicamente. Los detalles de la reunión se publicarán al menos 72 horas antes del inicio de la audiencia pública en el programa de reuniones del Ayuntamiento, en SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP.
¿Cómo afectarán los cambios propuestos a mi factura mensual de basura y reciclaje? En la tabla siguiente se muestran los niveles de servicio representativos de basura y reciclaje.

Para previsualizar su factura estimada de julio de 2023, visite nuestra calculadora de facturas de basura y reciclaje en www.SBRecycles.org o llame a City Trash & Recycling al (805) 564-5631.

Perfil del cliente Servicio
representativo
Tarifas
actuales*
Tarifas
propuestas % Cambio
1 Unidad
Residencial pequeño
Basura 65 galones,
Residuos verdes 65 gal,
Reciclaje 65 gal,
1x/semana
$57.70 $59.82 3.67%
2-4 Unidades
Residencial pequeño
(servicio de carritos/botes)
3 – Basura 65 gal,
Residuos verdes 95 gal,
3 – Reciclaje 95 gal,
1x/semana
$102.30 $106.06 3.68%
5+ Unidades
Residencial grande
(servicio de carritos/botes)
5 – Basura 95 gal,
Residuos verdes 95 gal,
5 – Reciclaje 95 gal,
1x/semana
$406.83 $468.85 15.24%
5+ Unidades
Residencial grande (Servicio de
contenedor pequeño/mediano)
Basura de 4 yardas,
Reciclaje de 2 yardas,
1x/semana
$536.40 $618.20 15.25%
Negocio
(Servicio de carros/botes)
3 – Basura 95 gal,
3 – Reciclaje 95 gal,
2x/semana
$574.20 $621.87 8.30%
Negocio
(Servicio de contenedor)
Basura de 4 yardas,
Reciclaje de 4 yardas
2x/semana
$1615.20 $1749.26 8.30%
* No incluye el impuesto del 6% de la recolección de basura/reciclaje, según corresponda. Este impuesto del 6% se suprimirá en el año fiscal 2024.
¿Cómo puedo obtener más información y copias de las tarifas propuestas? Visite www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/UtilityBilling o llame al (805) 564-5631 si tiene preguntas sobre basura y reciclaje.
¿Cómo protesto?
Si desea presentar una protesta por escrito de cualquiera de los aumentos anteriores, su protesta debe ser recibida por el Secretario Municipal de la Ciudad de Santa Bárbara en 735 Anacapa Street, Santa Bárbara, CA, 93101, antes de la consideración de este tema por el Ayuntamiento el 6 de junio de 2023. Las protestas deben incluir su nombre, dirección de servicio, y si usted está protestando la cantidad del aumento de la tarifa, la base para el cálculo de la tarifa, o ambos. Se recomienda enviar las protestas por correo. Las protestas por escrito pueden entregarse en persona en la dirección indicada anteriormente, depositándolas en el buzón de pago de facturas situado en el exterior del edificio, en el lado de la plaza De La Guerra. Sólo se tendrán en cuenta las protestas recibidas antes del cierre de la audiencia pública el 6 de junio de 2023. Durante la audiencia, el Ayuntamiento considerará todas las protestas escritas y el testimonio público. Las protestas son registros públicos. La audiencia pública podrá realizarse por teleconferencia u otro formato de reunión electrónica. No se permitirá la presentación de protestas por escrito mediante entrega personal durante la reunión. No se permitirá la presentación de protestas por escrito mediante entrega personal durante la reunión.

Se tabulará una protesta escrita por parcela o dirección de servicio. Si usted impugna ante un tribunal la medida de fijación de tarifas de la Ciudad, puede verse limitado a las cuestiones y motivos planteados en una protesta por escrito o en un testimonio público durante la audiencia pública.

CONSULTE LA CALCULADORA DE TARIFAS DE BASURA Y RECICLAJE EN:
www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/Recycling

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Clerk’s Office, City Administrator’s Office
SUBJECT: Interviews for City Advisory Groups
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Hold interviews of applicants to various City Advisory Groups (Est. time 4:00 p.m.); and
B. Continue interviews of applicants to June 13, 2023 (Est. time 6:00 p.m.).

DISCUSSION:

Interviews of applicants for various positions on City Advisory Groups are to be held on June 6, 2023, at an estimated time of 4:00 p.m. Applicants will also have the option to be interviewed on June 13, 2023 at an estimated time of 6:00 p.m.

There are currently 43 vacancies. A list of eligible applicants and pertinent information about the City Advisory Groups is attached. Applicants were notified that to be considered for appointment, they must be interviewed. Applicants were requested to prepare a two to three minute verbal presentation in response to a set of questions. Those questions are specific to the group for which they are applying. Applicants applying to more than one advisory group may have up to five minutes for their presentation.

Appointments are scheduled to take place on June 27, 2023.

ATTACHMENT: List of Applicants
PREPARED BY: Niko Lopez, Deputy City Clerk
SUBMITTED BY: Sarah Gorman, MMC, City Clerk Services Manager APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office
Agenda Item No. 24
File Code No. 140.05

ATTACHMENT
1 Semiannual Recruitment 2023

ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW
 One vacancy
 Term Expiration: December 31, 2026
 Qualifications/Category: Can be licensed architect or possess professional qualifications (professional experience in related fields, including but not limited to, landscape architecture, building design, structural engineering or industrial design.)
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Deedee Calderwood n/a
Qualifies as a licensed
architect, also has professional
qualifications
See notes
Carolyn Adams n/a
Qualifies as a licensed
architect, also has professional
qualifications
2 ARTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
 One vacancy
 Term Expiration: December 31, 2025
 Qualifications/Category: Appointee may be qualified elector of the City or be a resident inside the South Coast area of Santa Barbara County, and shall have acknowledged accomplishments in the arts, and demonstrate an interest in and commitment to cultural arts and activities.  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Genevieve Assili n/a Qualified elector of the City
Teri Ball n/a South Coast area resident
Elizabeth Gallery n/a Qualified elector of the City
Tayllor Johnson n/a South Coast area resident
Diane Mackenzie n/a Qualified elector of the City
Nicholas Ragheb n/a Qualified elector of the City
Sophia Rasura n/a Qualified elector of the City
George Yatchisin n/a Qualified elector of the City
1 Vacancy
Chryss Yost n/a Qualified elector of the City
3 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
 Three vacancies.
 Term Expiration: June 30, 2027
 Qualifications/Category: Member shall be a resident of the City or adjoining unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County, and shall demonstrate knowledge and expertise in specialty areas governed by the construction and fire codes of the City. Per Santa Barbara Municipal Code Sections 22.04.020 (H) (113.1.2) & 8.04.020 (E) (114.1.2), the composite of the board must have at least 3 members that are physically handicapped in order to hear items that involve Chapter 11 of the California Building Code and Chapters 11A and 11B of the California Fire Code.  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
City resident (3)
4 CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
 Two vacancies.
 Term Expiration: December 31, 2026
 Qualifications/Category: Qualified electors of the City of Santa Barbara. One member must be a representative of the Hospitality community.
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Qualified elector of the
City (1)
Barbara Silver n/a
Does not qualify as member of
Hospitality community; only qualifies
as elector
Member of the
Hospitality Community
(1)
5 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
 One vacancy.
 Term Expiration: December 31, 2026
 Qualifications/Category: Qualified electors of the City of Santa Barbara.  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Qualified elector of the
City (1)
6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
 Seven vacancies.
 Term Expirations:
 December 31, 2026 (Westside/Lower Westside Neighborhood, Oak Park Neighborhood, Latino Community, Human Services Organization, Homeless-related services organization)  June 30, 2026 (Business Community/Economic Development)  December 31, 2024 (Disabled Community)
 Qualifications/Category: Must be residents or employees of the designated organizations, and must represent one of the specified categories or organizations:
 Westside/Lower Westside;
 Oak Park Neighborhood;
 Latino community;
 Human services organization;
 Homeless-related services organization; and
 Disabled community;
 Business Community/Economic; and
Development
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Westside/Lower Westside
Neighborhood (1)
Angelica Diaz n/a Qualified elector of the City
Oak Park Neighborhood (1)
Zachary Kramer n/a Qualified elector of the City; Also qualifies as member of the Business Community/Economic Development
Latino community (1) Melissa Villa n/a Qualified elector of the County Human services organization (1) Shakti Belway n/a Qualified elector of the City Homeless-related services
organization (1) Lyiam Galo n/a Qualified elector of the City Disabled community (1) Jacob Lesner-Buxton n/a Qualified elector of the City Business Community/Economic
Development (1)
7 COMMUNITY EVENTS AND FESTIVALS COMMITTEE
 One vacancy.
 Term Expirations: December 31, 2026
 Qualifications/Category: One representative of the cultural arts.  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Teri Ball n/a County resident
Kim Cochran n/a City resident
Dacia Harwood n/a County resident
Sophia Rasura n/a City resident
Cultural arts (1)
Sara Wylder n/a City resident
8 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
 One vacancy.
 Term Expiration: June 30, 2024
 Qualifications/Category: Must be a resident of the City of Santa Barbara  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
City resident (1) Caitlin Swalec n/a
9 CREEKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
 Two vacancies
 Term Expiration: One term expires December 31, 2023; One term expires December 31, 2026  Qualifications/Category: City or non-City resident who represents any of the following categories:
 Representative of the hotel/lodging industry;
 Representative with experience in environmental/land use issues (e.g., land use planning, environmental/natural resource protection/preservation, habitat restoration, water specialist, biologist, or hydrologist, etc.);
 Representative with experience in ocean use (e.g., recreational user or commercial fisherman, etc.), business, environmental issues; or
 Public at-large.
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Anne Burdette n/a

1. Experience in environmental/land use issues (e.g., land use planning, environmental/natural resource
protection/preservation, habitat restoration, water
specialist, biologist, or hydrologist, etc.);

2. City resident
Stephanie Moret n/a

1. Experience in environmental/land use issues (e.g., land use planning, environmental/natural resource
protection/preservation, habitat restoration, water
specialist, biologist, or hydrologist, etc.)

2. Experience in ocean use (e.g., recreational user or
commercial fisherman, etc.), business or environmental
issues;

3. City resident
2 Vacancies
Wendy Wittl n/a

1. Experience in environmental/land use issues (e.g., land use planning, environmental/natural resource
protection/preservation, habitat restoration, water
specialist, biologist, or hydrologist, etc.);

2. City resident
10 HARBOR COMMISSION
 One vacancy.
 Term Expiration: December 31, 2025
 Qualifications/Category: Qualified elector of the City or qualified elector of the County  Can appoint a qualified elector of the City OR a qualified elector of the County for this vacancy so long as the qualified elector of the County (if chosen) remains a qualified elector of the County throughout their term.
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Elizabeth Cramer n/a Qualified elector of the City
Jeff Escola n/a Qualified elector of the City
Kate Ford n/a Qualified elector of the City
Conrad Metzenberg n/a Qualified elector of the City
Amber Noelle n/a Qualified elector of the City
Qualified elector (1)
Richard Smalldon n/a Qualified elector of the City
11 LIBRARY BOARD
 One vacancy.
 Term Expiration: December 31, 2025
 Qualifications/Category: Qualified elector of the City  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Brian Barnwell n/a
Amber Caldwell n/a
Nancy Henderson n/a
Qualified elector of the
City (1)
David Jimenez n/a
12 LIVING WAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
 Three vacancies.
 Term Expirations: One term (Public at-large) expires June 30, 2026. Two terms (Owner/Manager of a Service Contractor; Employee of Local Non-Profit Entity) expire June 30, 2027.  Qualifications/Categories: Members must represent one of the specified categories:
 A member representing the public at large
 A member who is either an owner or a manager of a service contractor subject to the City’s Living Wage Ordinance; or
 An employee of a local non-profit entity.
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Public at large (1)
Owner or a manager of a
service contractor (1)
Employee of Local Non-Profit
Entity (1) Lynn Goebel n/a Qualified elector of the City 13 MOSQUITO AND VECTOR MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BOARD
 One vacancy.
 Term Expiration: January 5, 2025
 Qualifications/Category: Qualified elector of the City  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Qualified elector of the
City (1) Teri Jory
12/8/2020
(2 years, 6 months)
14 NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL
 Six vacancies.
 Term Expirations: Five terms expire December 31, 2026. One term (public at large) expires December 31. 2023.  Qualifications/Categories: Members must be residents of the following neighborhoods (as those neighborhoods are described in the General Plan Land Use Element). No more than three members can represent one specific neighborhood. Members who do not reside in the specified neighborhoods, but are City residents, may represent the public at large:
 Eastside (no more than 1)
 West Downtown
 Lower Eastside
 Laguna
 Westside; and
 Public at Large (1 opening)
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Public at-large (1) Zachary Kramer n/a
Neighborhood
representative (5)
15 RENTAL HOUSING MEDIATION BOARD
 Three vacancies.
 Term Expiration: December 31, 2026
 Qualifications/Categories: The majority of members (8) must be residents of the City of Santa Barbara. Non-City resident members must reside in a jurisdiction which contracts with the Rental Housing Mediation Program for services (currently Goleta and Carpinteria). Members must represent one of the following categories:
 Two Tenant Mediators (a Tenant Mediator must rent or lease his or her residence and may not own residential property)
 One Homeowner Mediator (a Homeowner Mediator must own his or her residence and may not own any other residential property)
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Heather Smith n/a Qualified elector of
the City
Homeowner (1)
Bruce Wollenberg 12/11/2018
(4 years, 6 months)
Qualified elector of
the City
Tenant (2)
16 SANTA BARBARA YOUTH COUNCIL
 Ten vacancies.
 Term Expirations: June 30, 2025
 Qualifications/Categories: Members must be between the ages of 13-19 years and may be from the City or County. Majority of members must be City residents. Members must represent the following:
 Six members must be from students attending a Santa Barbara Union School District high school;  Two members from local alternative, community, or continuation high schools  One member must be a student attending a Local Private School or independent studies; and  One member representing the Public at Large.
 Note: Six new members MUST be City residents.
 Note: All applicants also fit the category of Public at Large.

Applicants must appear for an interview before the Santa Barbara Youth Council and City Council.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Kaarlo Anderson n/a Also qualify for public at-large; County Resident Gwen Chenoweth 6/29/2021
(2 years) Also qualify for public at-large; City Resident Elly Cuevas n/a Also qualify for public at-large; City Resident Sagarika Manian 6/29/2021
(2 years) Also qualify for public at-large; County Resident Evan Pinsker n/a Also qualify for public at-large; County Resident Gabriel Scussat n/a Also qualify for public at-large; County Resident Jeremy Solano
Beltran n/a Also qualify for public at-large; City Resident Kavya Suresh 12/7/2021
(1 year, 6 months) Also qualify for public at-large; County Resident Alok Thakrar 12/7/2021
(1 year, 6 months) Also qualify for public at-large; County Resident SBUSD High School (6)
Amelia Vander May 6/29/2021
(2 years) Also qualify for public at-large; County Resident 17 Carlos Vazquez n/a Also qualify for public at-large; City Resident Lucia Camp n/a Also qualify for public at-large; City Resident Local Private High School (1) Sophia Probstel n/a Also qualify for public at-large; City Resident Sophia Cruz 6/29/2021
(2 years) Also qualify for public at-large; City Resident Public at-large (2)
Local alternative, community,
or continuation high schools
(2)
18 SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD
 One vacancy.
 Term Expirations: June 30, 2027
 Qualifications/Categories: Members must be residents of the County of Santa Barbara. Appointee may be any of the following:
 Licensed Architect
 Member possessing Professional Qualifications in fields related to architecture, including, but not limited to, building design, structural design, structural engineering, industrial design, or landscape  Member of the public at-large
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Notes
Leslie Collasse
12/8/2020
(2 years, 6 months)
Also qualifies for professional
qualifications and public at-large
Licensed Architect (1) categories
Joseph Moticha n/a Also qualifies for public at-large
Professional
qualifications (1)
Public at-large (1) Danny Seigle n/a
*Qualified elector means a United Stated citizen 18 years of age or older

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Planning Division, Community Development Department SUBJECT: Appeal of the Single Family Design Board’s Project Design Approval of Development at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Consider the appeal from the Law Office of Marc Chytilo on behalf of Anita Williamson of the Single Family Design Board’s Project Design Approval of a development at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road; and
B. Direct staff to return to Council with a Decision and Findings Resolution reflecting the outcome of the appeal.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On February 27, 2023, the Single Family Design Board (SFDB) granted Project Design Approval (PDA) to construct additions to an existing single-unit residence and associated site improvements.

On behalf of Anita Williamson (owner of the adjacent property to the east at 3210 Laurel Canyon Road), Marc Chytilo filed an appeal of the SFDB’s approval on March 9, 2023.

The appellant’s letter asserts that the project poses inconsistencies with the City’s Single Family Residence Design Guidelines (SFR Guidelines), the Single Family Design Board Guidelines and Meeting Procedures (SFDBG), and the required findings for the Neighborhood Preservation Findings. The letter details specific concerns about solar access and compatibility, including building size, bulk, and scale, and the Good Neighbor Guidelines pertaining to privacy, landscaping, and lighting. (See Attachment 1 – Appellant Letter.)
City Council will decide the appeal based on the information provided to the Single Family Design Board (SFDB). Council’s purview is limited to the approved project and the required Findings.

Agenda Item No. 25
File Code No. 640.07
Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Single Family Design Board’s Project Design Approval of Development at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
June 6, 2023

New evidence should not be considered as part of this appeal unless City Council determines that it could not have been produced or was improperly excluded from the Single Family Design Board’s review.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that City Council deny the appellant’s appeal and uphold the Single Family Design Board’s Project Design Approval.

The applicant’s team thoroughly responded to SFDB recommendations and requirements by shifting the second-story massing away from the street and proposing a more cohesive addition, reducing the architectural tower feature of the residence, lowering the overall height of the residence, and providing additional and sufficient proposed landscaping/screening along interior property lines for privacy.

The project is a typical and acceptable floor-to-lot area ratio (FAR), 92 percent, for a modern day four-bedroom residence that can accommodate multi-generational living spaces if desired. While Laurel Canyon Road is predominantly single-story residences, the immediate neighborhood is a mix of single-story and two-story residences. The project is designed in a ranch/traditional style to be compatible with the existing residences on the street and maintain the harmonious character of the neighborhood. Exterior colors were approved to be earth toned and neutral to blend in with the scenic character of the neighborhood.

In an effort to be transparent and follow the Good Neighbor Guidelines, specifically Good Neighbor Tips, the applicant created a webpage where neighbors could review project drawings and related information being presented to the SFDB.

Staff believes that the Board addressed the appellant’s key issues related to neighborhood compatibility and the Good Neighbor Guidelines, and agrees with the Board’s analysis and approval of the project and reasons for making the required neighborhood preservation ordinance findings.

DISCUSSION:

Project Description
The subject parcel is developed with a one-story, 1,288-square-foot single-unit residence, and a 241-square-foot attached one-car garage.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Single Family Design Board’s Project Design Approval of Development at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
June 6, 2023

The project proposes a 192-square-foot first-floor addition and a 758-square-foot secondstory addition. The project also includes an interior remodel; a new 200-square-foot carport; a 345-square-foot first-floor covered patio; two second-story decks totaling 106 square feet; removal of the existing concrete driveway and replacement with permeable paver system; new landscape; and associated mechanical, electrical, and plumbing upgrades. A 241- square-foot attached garage will remain. The proposed total of 2,679 square feet on a 6,892- square-foot lot is approximately 92 percent of the maximum required floor-to-lot area ratio (FAR) or maximum floor area allowable on-site.

Design Review
Review by the SFDB is required per Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 22.69.020.C.3 when a project proposes to construct a residential unit that is two or more stories tall or greater than 17 feet in height.

The purpose of the SFDB is “to promote the general public welfare, protect and preserve the City’s natural and historical charm, and enhance the City’s aesthetic appeal and beauty.

The goal of the SFDB shall be to ensure that single-unit residential projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in size and design, public visual resources are protected, and promote the ecological sustainability of the City’s built environment through the design review process.”1 The SFDB purview is limited to design and neighborhood compatibility.

Potential project aspects like parking, protecting private views, zoning code compliance, and any land use decisions are not under the SFDB’s purview.

The project was reviewed by the SFDB on four occasions: October 10, 2022, January 17, 2023, February 13, 2023, and February 27, 2023. See Attachment 2 for a copy of the SFDB meeting minutes, including Board recommendations, directives, and findings, from the initial concept hearing through PDA. The project was noticed as required for the October 10, 2022, and January 17, 2023, hearings.
1 Santa Barbara Municipal Code, Section 22.69.010.A. stating the purpose of the SFDB.

Additional Site Information
Parcel Number: 055-180-002 Zoning: RS-7.5 – Residential Single Unit Lot Area: 0.16 acres/6,892 sq. ft. General Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential; Maximum five dwelling units per acre
Existing/Proposed Use: Single Family High Fire Area: Foothill High Fire Hazard Area Topography - Slope: 10 percent All Adjacent Land Uses: Residential Single Unit (RS-7.5 & RS-1A)
Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Single Family Design Board’s Project Design Approval of Development at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
June 6, 2023

Appeal Issues
The appellant’s letter contends that project inconsistency issues specific to the City’s Single Family Residence Design Guidelines (Attachment 3 – SFR Guidelines) impact the Board’s ability to make the required Neighborhood Preservation Findings (Attachment 4 – Required Findings). The SFR Guidelines are intended to help applicants design additions/homes that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and that are sensitive with respect to size, architectural design/style, and overall siting. The guidelines serve as a tool to help Board members determine if the required Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance Findings can be made. The appeal issues are discussed below, as are the Single Family Design Board hearings, iterative project changes, and required findings that were made.

Appeal Issue 1 – Consistency and Appearance, Compatibility, and Quality Architecture Size, Bulk, Scale
The applicant initially proposed a second-story addition with a mass toward the front of the existing residence and a mass toward the rear of the existing residence, leaving only a single-story mass of the existing residence in the center. The goal of the initial design was to preserve the existing interior vaulted ceiling of the living room. The Board directed the applicant to restudy the proposed two-story elements to be more connected and consistent or consider a different location. The project was considerably revised to relocate the entire second-story addition as one mass toward the rear of the existing residence.2 The second-story addition is stepped back from the first story to reduce the scale and appearance from the public right-of-way.

The applicant also lowered the first-floor plate height to nine feet, and the easterly rear corner of the second-floor plate height will meet the required eight feet to provide privacy for the easterly neighbor (i.e. the appellant) and to minimize looming impacts.

The appellant’s residence is uphill of the existing project; therefore, the project’s secondstory addition impacts the view less than if the properties were on the same grade.

The SFDB determined that the proposed development is compatible with the neighborhood, and its size, bulk, and scale are appropriate to the site and neighborhood because the applicant has adjusted the heights a few times and decreased the height of the tower.

The applicant lowered the height of the tower element by one-foot and six-inches (approved at 23’-10”) and lowered the overall residence height by six-inches (approved at 22’-9”).
2 SFR Guidelines, Two-Story Design Concepts, page 39-TA #19, guide applicants to set back taller portions of the structures from the lot lines to reduce the appearance of height.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Single Family Design Board’s Project Design Approval of Development at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
June 6, 2023

The Board stated that the proposed development is consistent with the scenic character of the City and will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. They noted that the applicant provided multiple studies and images of the FAR, materials, and heights of the surrounding neighborhood. They determined that the proposed FAR is supportable based on the Board’s review of neighborhood FARs and the fact that approximately 200 square feet of the floor area affecting the FAR calculation is a result of the new one-car carport.

The Municipal Code includes covered parking, both garages and carports, in FAR calculations. If this project excluded the new one-car carport from the project, the FAR would equal 85 percent.

The SFR Guidelines encourage applicants to strive for a project that does not exceed 85 percent of the maximum FAR (SFR Guidelines, page 21-C). FARs are a useful indication of a structure’s bulk relative to its site. For this project, FAR is a requirement because the residence is more than one story on a lot less than 15,000 square feet (Santa Barbara Municipal Code 30.20.030 Development Standards). When a project exceeds 85 percent of the required FAR, the FAR Supplemental Application (neighborhood data and visual aids) are required by the City, unless waived by the SFDB.

The Board initially waived the FAR Supplemental Application at the first conceptual hearing, however, later in the design review process, the Board requested and subsequently received additional neighborhood data and visual aids. Please see 3-D renderings, 20-closest lots, and photos (Attachment 5 – Approved Drawings) and neighborhood study and project website (Attachment 6 – Supplemental Materials).

The project owner created a public-facing project website to demonstrate neighborhood outreach, transparency, and compliance with the Good Neighbor Guidelines.

Quality Architecture and Materials
The Board determined that the proposed building and structures are designed with quality architectural materials and details and that the materials and colors maintain the natural appearance of the ridgeline or hillside. The Board conditioned the proposed color of the fencing to be earth-tone and neutral in color, like a tan. Project colors and materials can be seen in Attachment 5 – Approved Drawings. As noted in the drawings, the fencing will be lighter than the trim color.

During the design review process, the Board requested that the applicant consider a traditional architectural design style in order to be more consistent with the neighborhood.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Single Family Design Board’s Project Design Approval of Development at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
June 6, 2023

The applicant returned with a further developed traditional architectural design and provided additional details.

SFDB’s approval appropriately considered guidelines for the Neighborhood Preservation Findings with specific concerns about compatibility, including building size, bulk, and scale; consistency and appearance; and quality architecture and materials.

Appeal Issue 2 – Good Neighbor Guidelines (Privacy, Landscaping, and Lighting) The Good Neighbor Guidelines (Attachment 3 – SFR Guidelines, pages 67-N through 86- N) provide considerations for designing projects that are mindful of neighbors with respect to privacy, landscaping, and lighting. The Board’s motion stated that the project generally complies with the Good Neighbor Guidelines regarding privacy, landscaping, noise, and lighting because the applicant made changes to the windows, relocated rooms, and added trees of a significant size for privacy (Attachment 2 – SFDB Meeting Minutes).

Existing mature perimeter and front yard landscaping will remain on site, with minimal landscape removal, and new landscaping will be installed along the westerly and easterly lot lines to provide privacy screening and to reduce the potential for lighting nuisance.

During the SFDB review process, the heights of the new trees were increased by the applicant from approximately 15 to 20 feet with mature olive trees to screen the rear yard, second-story element, and westerly deck for privacy. The applicant also proposed to install a twelve-foot hedge3 at the easterly corner of the property to screen the rear yard, second-story element, and easterly deck, and to mitigate expressed privacy concerns from the appellant. The Board directed the applicant to add more trees of a significant size for privacy and conditioned the mature olive trees to be a minimum of 20 feet in height from top of canopy to finished grade. Standard tree protection measures will be issued as a condition of approval with the building permit.

The project includes two second-story decks4. The total second-story deck square footage was reduced from 134 square feet at the initial concept review to 106 square feet as approved. The Good Neighbor Guidelines for privacy encourage decks to be screened (Attachment 3 – SFR Guidelines page 68-N, 36.2.2) and to be set back 15 feet from interior lot lines when possible (Attachment 3 – SFR Guidelines page 68-N, 36.2.4).

The easterly deck is approximately 57 square-feet, is located approximately 18 feet and six-inches from the easterly property line, is located more than 15 feet from the southerly 3 Hedges exceeding 8’-0” in height within an interior setback require a Minor Zoning Exception (MZE) per SBMC 30.140.110.2.a.iii, and are allowed an additional six feet. The MZE requires noticing and will need to be requested and approved by the appropriate design review body (SFDB) during final approval.

Otherwise, the project must comply with the 8’-0” requirement. 4 If these decks were proposed at this parcel with an existing two-story residence, this scope of work might qualify for administrative approval from the SFDB (staff liaison) and potentially would not require a public hearing.

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Single Family Design Board’s Project Design Approval of Development at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
June 6, 2023

property line, and only a portion projects past the exterior of the residence by approximately three feet in depth and nine feet and six inches in width.

The westerly deck is approximately 49 square feet, is located approximately seven feet from the westerly lot line, is located more than 15 feet from the southerly lot line, and is screened on the east side by the exterior of the residence. The Board stated that the westerly deck is supportable due to its diminutive size. (See Attachment 5 – Approved Drawings.)
SFDB’s approval appropriately considered guidelines for the Neighborhood Preservation Findings and the good neighbor guidelines, particularly, privacy, landscaping, and lighting.

Appeal Issue 3 – Solar Access
The appeal letter contends that the project would block sunlight from, and shade windows of, appellant’s property to the east at 3210 Laurel Canyon Road. The SFR Guidelines provide suggestions for designing projects to achieve maximum passive and active solar design (Attachment 3 – SFR Guidelines pages 8 and 9-SP). The SFDB did not express concern about the development and potential for blocking sunlight or shading windows.

The City’s Solar Access Height Ordinance is regulated by Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 30.140.070 Solar Access Height Limitations. The ordinance ensures a building does not cast a significant shadow on a neighboring building, ensuring adequate access to direct sunlight. The project is exempt from this ordinance because the two north-facing boundaries of the parcel are either not a true north as qualified, or an exception applies as the boundary is adjacent to a street.

SFDB’s approval appropriately considered guidelines for the Neighborhood Preservation Findings with specific concerns of solar access.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The project was found to be categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), which allows for additions to existing structures. No significant project-specific or cumulative environmental impacts are expected as a result of the project. The project does not have the potential to damage scenic highways or historic resources, and the project site is not identified as a hazardous waste site; therefore, none of the exceptions apply (per Guidelines Section 15300.2).

Council Agenda Report
Appeal of the Single Family Design Board’s Project Design Approval of Development at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
June 6, 2023

CONCLUSION:

If City Council agrees with the Staff recommendation and the SFDB’s decision to grant Project Design Approval and that the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance criteria have been met, then the appeal should be denied. If this is the case, Council should state they deny the appeal and uphold the Single Family Design Board’s approval of the project and corresponding findings.

If Council does not agree with staff’s recommendation and the SFDB’s decision to grant Project Design Approval, the appeal may be upheld, and Council should identify the reasons that the Neighborhood Preservation Findings cannot be made .

Staff also recommends that Council direct staff to return with a Decision and Findings Resolution reflecting the outcome of the appeal.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Appeal Letter

2. SFDB Meeting Minutes Dated October 10, 2022,
January 17, 2023, February 13, 2023, and February 27, 2023

3. SFR Guidelines - Single Family Residence Design Guidelines

4. Required Findings - SFDB Neighborhood Preservation Findings

5. Approved Drawings

6. Supplemental Materials (neighborhood study and project website)
PREPARED BY: Holly Lynn Garcin, Assistant Planner
SUBMITTED BY: Elias Isaacson, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
SANTXf BXRBARA
CPiMUNLTY

DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
630 GARDEN ST. SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
Plann;ng: (805) 5S4-5578 ! Building & SsR'F
SantaBarbf'aCA. gov
MAR -9 2023
crrr CLERK'S OFRCE
An appeal is hereby made to Your Honorable Body from the decision of thesANTA BARBARA, CA Architectural Board of Review
D Building Official / Fire Code Official
Community Development Director
Floodplain Administrator
D Historic Landmarks Commission
Planning Commission
D Parks & Recreation Commission
Sign Committee
Single Family Design Board
Staff Hearing Officer
Which was taken on the 27th day of February , 2023_
1/We, the appellant(s), hereby respectfully request that Your hlonorable Body reject the decision and Approve / B Deny the application or permit in question.

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Project Address: 3208 Laurel Canyon Rd, Santa Barbara, CA APPELLANT'S INFORMATION - Appealed by Applicant? Q Yes Q No Name: Law office of Mare chyiiio, representing Anita wiiiiamson Organization [if representing)'.

Address: p.o. Box 92233, Santa Barbara, CA
Email: [email protected]
zlp:93190
Phone: sos 682-0585
REASONS FOR APPEAL:

Explain specifically what actions you are appealing, and attach a copy of the protested notice, if applicable Please see attached.

Describe the reasons or grounds why you believe the action should be reversed, modified, or otherwise set aside.

Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. j Please see attached.

Signature: Date: 3/9/2023
Community Development Department I Information & Application Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT 1

LAW OFFICE OF MARC CHYTILO

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
March 9, 2023
Mayor Rowse and Members of City Council By Hand Delivery City of Santa Barbara
c/o City Clerk
P.O. Box 1990
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
RE: A eal of Sin 1c Famil Desi n Board A rovalof Pro" ect at 3208 Laurel Can on Road Honorable Mayor Rowse and Members of the Santa Barbara City Council:

This office represents Ms. Anita Williamson in this matter. Ms. Williamson has owned and occupied the residence at 3210 Laurel Canyon, immediately adjacent to the East of the proposed project at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road (Project), for over 22 years.

The applicant flaunted the City's design review process and ignored the City's recommended pre-project consultation with their neighbors and proposed a bulky and oversized second story addition. Ms. Williamson and other affected neighbors tried to work with the applicant to adjust the project to reduce its mass and bulk and to protect her privacy and the privacy of surrounding homes, but"were consistently rebuffed. The Single Family Design Board's (SFDB) review was compromised by vague and shifting project details, late submittals, and the applicant's refusal to make meaningful changes responsive to neighborhood and SFDB concerns.

As a result, the Project was approved despite retaining excessive size and bulk (92% of allowable FAR, well above the recommended 85%) without the necessary stepping back of the upper floor elements, inadequate landscaping and tree protection, and two second floor decks providing direct views into neighbors' homes and backyards.

Initially the Project was proposed with a FAR of 87% and the SFDB preliminarily waived the requirement for the applicant to provide supplemental floor-to-lot area ratios ordinarily required for projects with FAR's of 85% or more. These supplemental materials include story poles, allowing a visual representation of the project and its impacts on adjacent houses. The applicant then expanded the Project to 93% of the maximum allowable FAR. SFDB did not require supplemental materials, so Ms. Williamson commissioned a qualified visual representation modeler to create a visual study of the proposed project, shown below:

LAW OFFICE OF MARC CHYTILO
P.O. Box 92233 . Santa Barbara, California 93190
Phone: (805) 682-0585 . Fax: (805) 682-2379
Email(s): marc@lomcsb. com CMMc); ana@lomcsb. com (Ana) Appeal ofSFDB Preliminary Design Approval of 3208 Laurel Canyon Road March 9, 2023

The Single Family Design Guidelines (SFDG) establish a series of standards used to gauge the compatibility of a proposed residential addition, including specific direction for Two-Story Design Concepts. These Guidelines direct applicants to "set back taller portions of structures from the lot lines to reduce the appearance of height" and "avoid crowding or overwhelming neighboriiig residences. " SFDG 39-TS.

The SFDB's Chair stated the applicant should lower the plate height adjacent to Ms.

Williamson's home "to the lowest height possible" and another member stated the applicant should . 'step back or reduce the scale for those two adjacent neighbors" in explaining the minutes' "reduce the FAR to 90% or less as a particular in consideration for the easterly and westerly neighbors." February 13, 2023.

Instead, the applicant made no changes to the second story and returned with a project with a FAR 92% of the allowable maximum.

Ms. Williamson raised privacy concerns that the backyard-facing balconies were inappropriate, as they provide direct lines of sight into her bedroom and her backyard, along with the other adjacent homes. The Good Neighbor Guidelines establish that such decks and balconies should be located on the front side of the house and avoid direct lines-of-sight from the balconies to neighbors' windows, open yard and patio areas. Ms. Williamson submitted a line of sight study that demonstrated views into her bedroom, patio and open yard, along with those of her neighbors. Since Appeal ofSFDB Preliminary Design Approval of 3208 Laurel Canyon Road March 9, 2023

the applicant proposed the decks and balconies before consulting with any neighbors, ' privacy concerns were not discussed during the design stage.

Raytraced Visibility Study
© foot fence added to 3208
322 ^d
31 8 La
19 i
Lau Cyn
SE floor b
' The applicant's first outreach to neighbors was September 30, 3022, after plans had been submitted to the City and the first SFDB hearing noticed. After emailing their neighbors stating they were pursuing the project, the applicants Jeft town until after the SFDB's first hearing on October 10, 2022. The applicant's conduct prevented affected neighbors from even understanding, much less commenting on the plans until the first January SFDB hearing.

Appeal ofSFDB Preliminary Design Approval of 3208 Laurel Canyon Road March 9, 2023

The design includes a covered patio downstairs whose footage is excluded from FAR but adds considerable mass and bulk to the stmcture. The Guidelines note that covered areas can be easily enclosed in the future and direct "careful consideration" when covered areas exceed 250 square feet or 10% of the net square footage of the structure, as the case here. The SFDB did not address the covered area.

Ms. Williamson does not oppose a second story at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road, but only asks that a project be approved that conforms to the Single Family Design Guidelines and is developed with due consideration of the Good Neighbor Guidelines, as well as the City's solar access ordinance.

As proposed, the Project will loom over her home and her neighbors, unnecessarily blocking and shading windows and providing direct line of sight views into her home, patio and backyard. Ms.

Williamson also raises this appeal in consideration of her other neighbors that will be unfairly impacted by the Project, including residents ofLucinda Lane that back up to the proposed project lot or are in its direct view.

As demonstrated in the attached letters and other materials submitted to the SFDB, there is no substantial evidence supporting the required compatibility findings, and instead, substantial and compelling evidence of the incompatibility of the project.

We reserve the right to submit additional argument to your Council in advance of any hearing on this appeal, relying on evidence submitted to the SFDB or evidence that could not have been submitted, such as a property line survey that was initially requested by a SFDB member, but dropped due to shortness of time.

Thank you for your consideration of the important community compatibility issues presented in this appeal. Santa Barbara must and will grow, and neighborhoods will change, but the City's Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance provide important tools that the Council can help clarify in order to direct future applicants to preserve and enhance our community's charm and livability.

Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF MARC CHYTILO
/
/ "
"S3
Marc Chytilo
For Ms. Anita Williamson

LAW OFFICE OF MARC CHTTILO

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
February 10, 2023
Single Family Design Board By email to SFDBSecretary@SantaBarbaraCA. gov City of Santa Barbara
Community Development Dept. /Planning Division
P.O. Box 1990
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
RE: 3208 Laurel Can on Road
Dear Members of the Single Family Design Board (SFDB),
This office represents Anita Williamson in this matter. Ms. Williamson has owned and occupied the residence at 3210 Laurel Canyon, immediately adjacent to the East of the proposed addition at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road for over 22 years. All of the main living areas of Ms.

Williamson's home would be impacted by the proposed addition, including the living room, dining room, den, kitchen, main bedroom, and backyard/patio, most of which have large windows or sliding glass doors. These impacts include direct views from the proposed balcony into Ms. Williamson's bedroom and backyard, impacting her privacy in a manner that is both avoidable and inconsistent with the City's Good Neighbor Guidelines, and prevent your Board from making the necessary findings for approval.

The proposed addition to the existing one-story residence at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road ("Project") would more than double the existing square footage of the existing residence, resulting in a 93% FAR. The proposed second-story addition itself is more than 50% larger than the existing residence. The'surrounding neighborhood is overwhelmingly single story, and the Project represents a significant departure from the size, bulk, and scale, as well as architectural style, from other residences on Laurel Canyon Road (as shown in photos provided by the applicant in their submittal for this hearing). Further, due to its orientation toward the rear of the parcel, the proposed addition unreasonably intrudes into the privacy of Ms. Williamson's home.

For the reasons discussed below, the proposed Project fails to conform to the Single Family Design Board Guidelines (SFDB Guidelines), the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines (SFRD Guidelines) including Compatibility Guidelines related to neighborhood compatibility, volume/bulk/massing/scale, two-story design concepts, and Good Neighbor Guidelines concerning privacy. As a result of these conflicts, the required Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO) Findings cannot be made, and the Santa Barbara Municipal Code (SBMC) requires denial.

We request that the SFDB continue this matter to a subsequent hearing, with direction to install story poles, consider revisions to the layout to reduce impacts to Ms. Williamson's residence, and consider reductions in the size, bulk, and scale of the proposed additions to achieve compatibility with the neighborhood and better fit the site.

LAW OFFICE OF MARC CHYTILO
P.O. Box 92233 . Santa Barbara, California 93190
Phone: (805) 682-0585 . Fax: (805) 682-2379
Email(s): marc@lomcsb. com (Marc); ana@lomcsb. com (Ana) 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 10, 2023

1) Re uiredNei hborhood Preservation Findin s Cannot Be Made Pursuant to the City's Municipal Code (SBMC) and the SFDB Guidelines, "SFDB shall deny a project if one or more required findings cannot be made" (See SBMC Sections 22.69.050,

22. 69.020 or 28. 92. 110, SFDB Guidelines § 2. 8.F). The required findings for the proposed addition at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road include the following Neighborhood Preservation Findings (SBMC §

22. 69. 050.A, SFDB Guidelines § 2. 8.A):

1. Consistency and Appearance. The proposed development is consistent with the scenic character of the City and will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood.

2. Compatibility. The proposed development is compatible with the neighborhood, and its size, bulk, and scale is appropriate to the site and neighborhood.

3. Quality Architecture and Materials. The proposed buildings and structures are designed with quality architectural details. The proposed materials and colors maintain the natural appearance of the ridgeline or hillside.

4. Trees. The proposed project does not include the removal of or significantly impact any designated Specimen Tree, Historic Tree or Landmark Tree. The proposed project, to the maximum extent feasible, preserves and protects healthy, non-invasive trees with a trunk diameter of four inches (4") or more measured four feet (4') above natural grade.

If the project includes the removal of any healthy, non-invasive tree with a diameter of four inches (4") or more measured four feet (4') above natural grade, the project includes a plan to mitigate the impact of such removal by planting replacement trees in accordance with applicable tree replacement ratios.

5. Health, Safety, and Welfare. The public health, safety, and welfare are appropriately protected and preserved.

6. Good Neighbor Guidelines. The project generally complies with the Good Neighbor Guidelines regarding privacy, landscaping, noise and lighting.

7. Public Views. The development, including proposed structures and grading, preserves significant public scenic views of and from the hillside.

As proposed, the 1,439 s.f. addition including the 784 s.f. new second story are not compatible with the neighborhood, and its size, bulk, and scale is inappropriate both for the site and for the neighborhood. The Project furthermore does not comply, generally or specifically, with the Good Neighbor Guidelines regarding privacy, noise and lighting. \\
\\
3208 Laurel Canyor Road
February 10, 2023

a) Incom atibilit with the Nei hborhood
i) Corn atibilit Guidelines
The core requirement that the Project must satisfy to gain SFDB approval is that the Project is compatible with the neighborhood. (See SBMC § 22. 69. 020.) With respect to determining whether a given project is compatible with the neighborhood and maintains a desirable living environment', the SFRD Guidelines provide:

When a change is made in an established neighborhood, it is essential to properly balance that change with a respect for the design features and characteristics of surrounding properties.

Homes are more likely to be compatible when their volume and bulk are at an appropriate scale with their neighbors. This is the concept of neighborhood compatibility. New and remodeled houses can maintain a desirable living environment when they:
. Have an appropriate volume, bulk, massing and scale
. Have a size that is not significantly larger than the immediate neighborhood . Use materials and designs that are compatible with their surroundings . Are sited such that they do not block light and views for other existing homes . Minimize privacy impacts to surrounding properties.
(SFRD Guidelines, p. 1.)
The Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines include "[d]esign structures to be compatible with neighboring houses in terms of volume, bulk, massing, and scale." (SFRD Guidelines p. 17-C-) Among the "[i]ssues that the SFDB considers related to volume, mass, bulk, size and scale" include "[h]ow compatible is the structure's volume, bulk, and scale with the volume, bulk and scale of the existing neighborhood homes and structures" and "[h]ow does the second story volume affect the streetscape or neighboring backyards?" (SFRD Guidelines p. 20-C.) "The Compatibility Guidelines ... are more important for two-story h()mesthan_for one-story homes because two-story homes can appear more prominent in a neighborhood. " (SFRD Guidelines p. 39-TS.)
' "According to the City of Santa Barbara General Plan, 'Santa Barbara has, as its primary ... [goal], the provision of a particularly desirable living environment. ' .. Home designs which achieve the following contribute to a desirable living environment: compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; preserve the City's visual resources; promote long-term sustainability. " (Guidelines, p. i.)
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 10, 2023

As discussed below, the proposed project exceeds the scale of the adjacent homes, and is sited in a way that it will block light and views for the existing homes. The presence of second story additions on three (3) of the twenty-three (23) homes on Laurel Canyon Road does not automatically make this second story proposal compatible with the neighborhood, particularly when straight-wall second story elements crowd the surrounding homes and fail to fully comply with either the compatibility guidelines or the Good Neighbor Guidelines. ii) Defining the Neighborhood
When considering whether the Project is compatible with the neighborhood, it is critical that the "neighborhood" be properly defined. The Guidelines provide direction regarding the relevant neighborhood to be analyzed, the size of which varies depending on particular circumstances.

Pursuant to the Compatibility Guidelines, an applicant must "[d]esign a project to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood, and carefully consider the neighborhood study area for a project. " (SRFD Guidelines p. 15-C) The Guidelines define "Immediate Neighborhood" as a neighborhood with a combination of common characteristics including similar zoning, properties built as part of the same original subdivision, common access routes, walkable radius, similar architectural styles, similar tree and landscaping patters, main streets, bridges, or railroad corridors as a boundary. (Id.)
The SRFD Guidelines define "Neighborhood Study Area" as the twenty closest lots to a proposed project, and depicted on p. 15-C as follows:

NeigMborhood Study Area: 1'be twenty (20) dosess. lots to a proposed project (see example bdow). Additional lots taay be consi(k»d to make a compatibility dctet'minadon depctttimg on the picdorainant sttiKtscapc, patterns of dcvdopment, or parcel sizes.

Proposed
Development
'\,.
<"
!^ .- . " .C^-':'. ..Jr . ^y/>:/^:/-7>/-:> ^^' ..< '^>v.. - ; "^^<';A</>-' <. 'y;5 .<. . ':'-'"'v.. -.'.' Y9""^..; ..---. . ^ ^. ". < 7x/''-./ N j.K.-" '.-'; ^^./'y'^"^-1' -'</ /''. /^<^\^1 cs^^^^%? -... i.X->. . '^C?^Z\ <J>-S-_:-, >'~ A^/' .cV'^'.. ^>/"' . /\ \... - --'~*'</^.// ->- \. -.>-'"_-< . '" A"'/ .'_S/'. /;... «.<A'"
Netghborkooof 5tK.dy Area: so Cuisest l-h?mgs e/<flw.ple 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 10, 2023

Both the "Immediate Neighborhood" and "Neighborhood Study Area" of which 3208 Laurel Canyon Road is a part, are characterized by modestly sized single family homes and are predominantly single story. The Applicant's FAR study considered only 13 homes, of which 3 had second story elements. While the addition of a two story element clearly does not itself trigger a finding of incompatibility, the Board must undertake a more careful analysis to ensure that the second story elements do not loom or overwhelm the adjacent residences and introduce structural elements that are inappropriate for the neighborhood.

The Neighborhood Study Area should include notice and consideration of the project's mass, bulk and scale upon the lot adjacent to the south (3185 Lucinda Lane), and the two other lots sharing corners with the project parcel, 3179 and 3193 Lucinda Lane. These lots are lower and the apparent height of the proposed second story elements and tower have not been considered, despite the prominence that the second story will have from their perspective. The 13 house FAR study should be expanded to the specified 20 home FAR study and include adjacent lots on Lucinda Lane. iii) Floor to Lot Area Ratio (FAR)
The Compatibility Guidelines include "[sjtrive for a project which falls in the "less than 85% of maximum FAR" range for the proposed lot size." (SFRD Guidelines p. 21-C.) The FAR for the proposed project at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road is now 93% (increased from 87% from the initial proposal).

Projects proposed to be over 85% of a maximum regulatory FAR have additional plan submittal requirements, including 20-closest homes data, and may require story poles if requested by SFDB (SFDB Guidelines § 6.3.A). The Guidelines require applicants to provide a County Assessor's report of the 20 closest homes for Projects exceeding 85% FAR (SFRD Guidelines p. 25-C). Factors to consider when using the 20 Closest FAR Study include:
. Variability of square footages in the neighborhood
. Variability of lot sizes and FARs in the neighborhood . Site constraints; how much of the lot area is developable? . Is the project near the average for the neighborhood? . Is the project among the largest in the neighborhood? . The project's volume, bulk, scale, height, and massing relative to its square footage . Closer proximity to neighboring structures and/or denser development in the neighborhood suggests closer adherence to the size of adjacent structures and to the average size of structures in the study.
(SFRD Guidelines p. 25-C)(emphasis added).
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 10, 2023

FAR is one of several metrics used to evaluate a proposed project's compatibility with the immediate neighborhood. As proposed, the project parcel would have the third highest FAR in the study area. While the original design was generously granted a waiver of story poles when it was at 87%, that waiver should be eliminated now that the project is at 93% of maximum FAR. The elevated FAR also triggers the need for enhanced scrutiny of the impacts on surrounding parcels, including Ms. Williamson's home at 3210 Laurel Canyon Road. iv) The Size, Bulk, and Scale of the Proposed Addition Is Inappropriate for the Site and Neighborhood
To make the required Compatibility finding, the SFDB must find that the size, bulk, and scale of the proposed development is appropriate to the site and neighborhood. (See SBMC §

22. 69. 050. A., SFDB Guidelines § 2. 8.A). The Guidelines explain that "[t]he Compatibility Guidelines ... are more important for two-story homes than for one-story homes because two-story homes can appear more prominent in a neighborhood. " (SFRD Guidelines p. 39-TS. ) Design techniques to address the compatibility of Second-Stories include "[ajvoid crowding or overwhelming neighboring residences. " (SFRD Guidelines p. 39-TS.) Discussed above, the proposed project is considerably more massive than other homes in the neighborhood, and includes both a large second story and third story tower element that crowds and overwhelms neighboring residences. Due to the orientation of the proposed addition and second story toward the rear of the lot and the placement of new and second story elements up to footprint of the floor below, and the failure to step back the second story elements (the project actually steps the new first floor closer to Ms. Williamson's home and the second story extends straight up), the proposed project crowds and overwhelms Ms. Williamson's home by blocking views, light and solar access. As discussed in the context of the Privacy Guidelines below, unreasonably intrudes into Ms.

Williamson's privacy. See Section A (Page A3. 5) and the East Elevation (Page A3A).

The Guidelines require consideration of solar access on both the proposed project and neighboring properties. ("Where possible, orient building volumes and second stories away from the north, west, and east property lines when feasible to allow for the solar access of neighboring properties. ") SFRD Guidelines, Sec. 3, Solar Design, p 8-SP.

Ms. Williamson previously alerted the SFDB to her concerns in her written comments provided for the January 1 7, 2023 hearing.

The design and configuration of the southeast comer of the proposed revisions presents an continuous blank wall pinstriped by vertical battens, with additional visual striping from the metal roof seams. The eastward expansion of the first-floor footprint, the use often (10) foot first story plate heights and the failure to step the second story away from the property line combine to create a uniform looming structure that will dominate Ms. Williamson's primary living area. Heavy beam finishes to the second story eves add to the bulk and create an overhang that will increase the looming effect of the proposed revision as viewed from Ms. Williamson's living room. 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 10, 2023
Page?
v) Story Poles Are Necessary
Story poles are an important tool, without which it is difficult to visualize the extent of a project's impact on neighboring residences. Here, story poles are warranted both because the Project exceeds 85% FAR, and because the second floor addition covers more than 50% of the first floor.

Specifically the SFDB Guidelines provide "Single Family Residential proposals involving a second floor or above addition covering 50% or more of the first floor will likely require some form of story poles unless waived. This type of project will likely be required to provide full level story pole or visual aids as detailed below. Factors that may trigger this requirement are the following: 1.

High vertical design elements including steep roof pitch, high volumes, 10 feet or greater plate heights and towers. 2. Neighborhood context where buildings are proposed that are significantly taller than other structures in the immediate neighborhood (20 closest homes); or [high visibility locations]" (SFDB Guidelines § 6.3.A)
The proposed project meets all the triggers for story poles: high vertical elements with a tower and pitched roofs, ten foot plate heights and a neighborhood context whereby the building is significantly taller then the adjacent homes and other structures in the immediate neighborhood.

We recognize that the applicant supplied stylized drawings of the structure from two vantage points, however these do not supply the same information that story poles will provide. The applicant produced the results of a view blocking study that showed two picture windows in Ms.

Williamson's home would be blocked. That study was not shared with Ms. Williamson or the SFDB, only a picture with two windows marked in yellow. It is unknown whether stepping back the second story element as contemplated by the Compatibility Guidelines would preserve some of Ms.

Williamson's views, reflecting the lack of objective project analysis that Ms. Williamson has been struggling with.

Contrary to the applicant's characterization, Ms. Williamson is not categorically opposed to a second story addition. Ironically, it is the applicant's strong desire to preserve the existing living room ceiling that somehow prevents locating any second story elements in that area. Since the project entails replacing the existing roof above the living room and expanding the interior finishes of the living room into the new open kitchen area, the living room ceiling will be affected anyway. The applicant has taken the position that any second story element will block views .from Ms.

Williamson's home, and nothing can be done. Careful observance of the Compatibility guidelines and Good Neighbor Guidelines could reduce the magnitude of view blockage and better preserve Ms.

Williamson's privacy, hut regrettably the impacts to neighbors has not been properly integrated into this site plan and design.

We respectfully request that the applicant reconsider their design of the second story elements, eliminate the tower and step the second story elements of the project back from the setbacks in accordance with the Compatibility guidelines and Two-story Design Concepts. See 38- TS.
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 10, 2023
Page8
b) The Pro'ect Fails to Observe Sin 1c Famil Residence Desi n Guidelines Two-Sto Conce ts
Desi n
The City's Single Family Residence Design Guidelines Two-Story Design Concepts provide the following guidance to the project siting and design:

Two or more story homes require special care in design to ensure they are compatible in a neighborhood. The Compatibility Guidelines in the previous chapter are more important for two-story homes than for one-story homes because two- story homes can appear more prominent in a neighborhood. Following are special design techniques and illustrations for two or more story homes.

19. Avoid crowding or overwhelming neighboring residences.

20. Avoid a "vertical canyon effect" between homes. The space between a proposed two-story home adjacent to one-story homes is important. Space between homes should increase as wall height increases. Consider set- backs greater than those required by the Municipal Code to avoid bulky structures.

21. Minimize areas of maximum height.

22. Vary height of building elements.

23. Vary roof lines.

24. Set back taller portions of structures from the lot lines to reduce the appearance of height.

25. Use architectural features to break up unacceptable bulk.

Regrettably, these concepts have not been carefully applied to the siting and design of this project.

As described in this letter, Ms. Williamson's prior comments, comments submitted by other affected residents, and the plans themselves, the second story elements crowd and overwhelm the existing residences. A vertical canyon effect is created from the use of vertical second story walls located principally atop the first story walls, without setbacks. The roof design presents a generally uniform maximum height across the structure as viewed from either adjoining residence, and from the front (but for the tower). Vertical walls create unacceptable bulk as viewed from adjoining residences, without setbacks to reduce the appearance of height.

Redesign of the second story elements is needed to reduce the bulk and massing in conformity with the Two-Story Design Concepts.
\\
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 10, 2023

c) Consider Hillside Desi n Standards
Laurel Canyon Road is the boundary of Hillside Design District Area 2, and ironically, the homes across the street from the project that are lower in elevation and on larger lots are subject to those standards, while the project parcel, located on a ridge on a sloping lot with homes terraced above and below, is not. Nevertheless, guidance on Neighborhood Compatibility and Decks and Courtyards in the Hillside Design Standards have applicability.

Apparent height concepts are most applicable to lots below the project to the west and south, and have not been studied. Neighborhood Compatibility issues of crowding or overwhelming neighboring residences are heightened on terraced lots, and the siting of decks [and balconies] "have the potential to greatly affect downhill neighbors' privacy and noise levels." These issues should be more carefully considered and the project's siting and design reevaluated.
d) The Pro'ect Fails to Conform with the Good Nei hbor Guidelines The findings the SFDB must make to approve the Project pursuant to SBMC § 22. 69. 020 include: "The project generally complies with the Good Neighbor Guidelines regarding privacy, landscaping, noise and lighting", among other things. (SBMC § 22. 69.050.A.) Discussed below, the Project and in particular the second-story addition does not conform with the Good Neighbor Guidelines, and accordingly should not be approved by SFDB.

The Good Neighbor Guidelines are intended to enshrine the golden rule of doing onto others as you would have them do unto you. John Goodman validated Ms. Williamson's concerns at the January 17, 2023 hearing by acknowledging that she had every right to be concerned about the project, and were he in her position, he would also. Regrettably, despite otherwise good relations among the neighbors, there has been incomplete and late disclosure of project information and limited opportunity for constructive dialogue to meet all parties' needs and interests in the siting and design of this project. The Good Neighbor Tips for Considering Neighbors' Views have not been honored, despite Ms. Williamson opening her home to the applicant and allowing photographs from the interior of her home for the stated purpose of assessing views, recognizing privacy issues, and avoiding impacts. The City's signage was posted before neighbors were notified, and the applicant was out of town and unavailable to meet with neighbors until after the first hearing of the SFDB.

Neighbors were led to believe the project could be downsized, but instead it was increased in size and height after the first hearing. Plans are only available when posted to the Board's hearing agenda, and'supptemental materials are presented to the Board without neighbor review or consultation.

It is clear that this project triggers a number of incompatibility issues, and productive communications between neighbors would be the best way to reconcile the competing interests in site 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 10, 2023

planning and design. Specific direction from the SFDB identifying the areas where site and project revisions are expected will assist in facilitating productive communications between the neighbors and the applicant.

The Privacy Guidelines include "consider[ing] what a comfortable distance between a proposed addition and an existing neighbor's structure would be [and] considering] the pattern of building separation in the immediate neighborhood and design a project compatible with this pattern, Locate areas that require more privacy away from your neighbors. " (SFRD Guidelines p. 68-N.) The Privacy Guidelines address this problem with second-story decks and loss of privacy by providing as follows: "[u]pper-story balconies or decks facing the street are usually preferable to upper-story balconies or decks facing a yard area adjacent to a neighbor", and "locate second-story balconies and decks to avoid direct sight lines from the deck or balcony to neighbors' windows, open yard, patio, deck, and/or loggia areas". (SFRD Guidelines p. 68-N.) In this case, the upper story balcony and deck face neighbors' back yards and appear to provide direct line-of-sight views into neighbors bedrooms. Without story poles and a physical simulation of the deck and balcony, lines of sight cannot be accurately assessed. As designed, the project defies the guidelines by siting a deck and balcony facing neighbors' back yards and living areas, and not facing the street as recommended and preferrable. ii) Lighting
The Lighting Guidelines provide that lighting "should be designed in a way that is not detrimental to neighboring properties" and that avoids or minimizes "night glow" (illumination of the night sky). (SFRD Guidelines p. 75-N.)
While a single picture of a potential unshielded outside lighting fixture was provided with the applicant's assurances it could be made night-sky compliant with cutoff bulbs, the locations of exterior lighting is not provided and the lighting fixture is not shaded or cut off. Given the proximity of the residences, the grade change, and the potential for entryway lighting to impact surrounding residences and backyards (such as if there is lighting on the balcony and/or deck), lighting design should be specified in somewhat greater detail for conceptual approval. iii) Landsca e Surve and Easement issues
There is no survey on file or staking of property lines. Given the reliance on existing hedges located on, near or over the property line, the specific location of the property line is important to ascertain whether SBMC-compliant hedges (8 foot maximum) landscaping will achieve screening. 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 10, 2023

While the newly-supplied Tree Plan offers some information, if the applicant expects landscaping to mitigate any view conflicts, a more complete Landscape Plan should be provided. 2) Su erfluous Pro'ect Elements
The proposed project includes two separate dedicated offices, which seems excessive.

Eliminating one of the offices could reduce the needed floor area. The project also includes an unusual 'covered patio' with three sides in the center of the structure that consumes a relatively significant part of the ground floor area that could otherwise be used for residential purposes. Th s feature pushes the building footprint considerably further into the back yard than otherwise would be necessary. The patio's 10 foot plate height increases the height of the second story and makes the addition more massive and bulky. These features should be justified and may be necessary compromises to revise the project to better fit in the neighborhood. 3) Re uested SFDB Direction to A licant
The SFDB should consider adopting, at a minimum, the following direction for the next submittal:

1. Reduce first floor plate heights to 8' to lower overall height and mass

2. Shift and set back the second story's east side.

3. Shift the exterior line of the new first floor elements away from Ms. Williamson's home

4. Eliminate the Tower

5. Eliminate the master bedroom balcony extension, relocating it to the north side in accordance with the Guidelines

6. Prepare a comprehensive landscape plan identifying all screening plants

7. Prepare a lighting Plan
4) Conclusion
Discussed above, the proposed Project is not consistent with the Single Family Residence Guidelines and consequently unnecessarily impacts the surrounding homes. The Project, and in particular the tower and elements of the second-story addition, is incompatible with the neighborhood and intrudes into the privacy, solar access and views of neighboring properties. For these reasons, the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance findings required for design approval articulated in SBMC §

22.69.020 cannot be made for this Project.

For these reasons, we urge SFDB to continue this matter to a subsequent hearing, with direction to revise the project through reductions in the size, bulk, and scale and to be compatible with all applicable Guidelines as detailed above, install story poles, and prepare landscape and lighting plans.
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 10, 2023

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF MARC CHYTILO
^^
Marc Chytilo
For Anita Williamson

LAW OFFICE OF MARC CHYTILO

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
February 19, 2023
Chair Colasse and Members
Single Family Design Board By email to SFDBSecretary@SantaBarbaraCA. gov City of Santa Barbara
Community Development Dept./Planning Division
P.O. Box 1990
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
RE: 3208 Laurel Can on Road-Re nested Desi n Modificaitons Chair Colasse and Members of the Single Family Design Board (SFDB), This office represents Ms. Anita Williamson, owner and occupant of the residence at 3210 Laurel Canyon, immediately adjacent to the East of the proposed addition at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road.

Your comments, directions and actions on Febmary 13 have given us hope that the applicant will make sufficient revisions to the project to gain compliance with the applicable Single Family Design Guidelines and Good Neighbor Guidelines, and adequately address our client's privacy, visual and compatibility issues.

To help guide the applicant's revisions, we offer the following specific requests:

1. Draw in all second story elements to avoid crowding neighboring residences, avoiding a "canyon effect" between the homes, and set back taller portions of the structures from the lot lines. Move the second story away from thesetback and lower the eve lines. 39-TS, 26-C An example of this concept is found at 40-TS:
/
^w&.-d s*n>1 iartri40>if- BWx»rf «-.va.i. t frew s'isty^^ asfca&te and ^s.EgMd ',». sffiue style as *xtsCsif, y">is,* y}., 3a s+).

UW OFFICE OF MARC CHYTILO
P.O. Box 92233 . Santa Barbara, California 93190
Phone: (805) 682-0585 . Fax: (805) 682-2379
Email(s): marc@lomcsb. com (Marc); ana@lomcsb. com (Ana) 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 19, 2023

2. In accordance with the SFDB's direction and intent, lower the first floor plate height to 8' (for the outdoor patio, laundry, powder room and office, below the master bedroom). This lowers the profile and apparent height of the second floor elements.

3. Eliminate the Second Floor Balcony and Deck, relocating them to the street side if desired.

These features each enable direct views into the backyards and homes of surrounding neighbors.

The Good Neighbor Guidelines direct that second story decks and balconies facing the street are preferrable to upper story balconies or decks facing a yard adjacent to a neighbor. 68-N,

36. 2. Second story balconies and decks should be located "to avoid direct sight lines from the deck or balcony to neighbors' windows, open yard, patio, deck and/or loggia areas. " Id.,

36.2.3. The project's backyard balcony off the master bedroom and the deck off the second upstairs bedroom provide direct views into the backyards of all 5 adjoining neighbors (2 on Laurel Canyon Road and 3 on Lucinda Lane) and into living areas of one or more adjacent residences. While the strong preference is to relocate the balcony and deck to the front of the residence to avoid views into the backyards of the 5 adjacent homes, privacy screening walls are required to protect the privacy of the resident at 3210. 70-N (upper right picture, citing

36. 2.2, 36. 2. 3 and 36. 2. 5).

Regrettably, the applicant failed to meet with adjacent neighbors before the application process, a process "strongly encouraged" by the Good Neighbor Guidelines. 68-N, 36. 2. i.

What little consultation that happened did not materially affect or reduce the project's impact on neighbors' privacy, landscaping interests, noise, or lighting, which has not been addressed whatsoever.

4. Eliminate or reduce size of the First Floor Covered Patio. This large feature in the center of the first floor underneath second story elements contributes to the project's excessive volume bulk and scale. It expands the footprint and precludes accommodating new indoor living area on the first floor, adding excessive volume to the second story. The SFDG caution that covered porches should enhance the building's design and appearance, and not contribute to excessive mass and bulk. 20-C. The Guidelines caution that covered outdoor areas can easily be enclosed without design review or consideration of increased FAR. Id.

5. Adjust the first floor addition's easterly string line away from 3210. The proposed plans shift the easterly external side of the building under the addition (where laundry, powder room and office are proposed) approximately 18-25" easterly, towards 3210. This is the area of the greatest impact to 3210, and compatibility can be increased by siting the first floor addition on the same plane as the adjoining wall on the existing part of the building, shifting all the mass of the first floor addition away from 3210, then an additional setback of the second floor elements further away from 3210. The two windows in the laundry and powder room offer views towards 3210 and should be screened by defined landscaping or adjusted. 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 19, 2023

6. Eliminate the tower. The tower significantly increases the size mass and bulk of the building, and is unnecessary. The applicant can illuminate the downstairs hallway with lights, and the addition of a tower element looms over all nearby buildings with unnecessary additional visibility and bulk impacting all surrounding homes. The proposed window creates a line of sight directly into Lucinda Lane neighbors' backyards and homes. The window will also create a highly visible lantern effect when illuminated at night.

7. Include a comprehensive Landscaping Plan. Given the size bulk and scale of the proposed second story and neighbor concerns, a complete Landscaping Plan (showing all trees and other plantings) is appropriate. The applicant's Tree Plan omitted a tall bottlebrush tree in the southeast comer, and did not include reference to utility easements on the southerly and easterly sides of the property that may impact the viability of screening vegetation due to clearance requirements.

As the Board noted, the absence of a survey creates substantial questions over the accuracy of the plans under consideration, which compromises the veracity of approvals and will likely create additional issues as the project moves forward. The applicant should refrain from seeking preliminary approvals until a survey has been completed.

Further, the absence of story poles and supplemental visual impact materials has created substantial uncertainties and questions over the project's impact on the neighborhood and surrounding homes.

Preliminary approval should not proceed until story poles, street simulations and a line-of-sight analysis is completed and privacy impacts are more successfully avoided.

Respectfully submitted, Law Office of Marc Chytilo
Marc Chytilo
For Anita Williamson
CC: Mr. Joe Steuer, project architect, JOE EASTBEACHVENTURES. COM Ms. Holly Garcin, staff, h arcin SantaBarbaraCA. ov
John Goodman, "ohn.n. oodman mail.com
Kassie Goodman, kassie. oodman mail. com

LAW OFFICE OF MARC CHYTILO

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
February 24, 2023
By email to [email protected]
Chair Colasse and Members
Single Family Design Board
City of Santa Barbara
Community Development Dept./Planning Division
P.O. Box 1990
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
RE: 3208 Laurel Can on Road - Februa 27 2023 Hearin
Chair Colasse and Members of the Single Family Design Board (SFDB), This office represents Ms. Anita Williamson, owner and occupant of the residence at 3210 Laurel Canyon Road, immediately adjacent to the east of the proposed project at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road.

Regrettably, the applicant has not responded to most of your board's concerns and has ignored reasonable requests from adjacent neighbors to modify their proposal to preserve existing views by stepping back the second story elements and eliminating decks that invade adjacent neighbors privacy. Consequently, your Board cannot make the findings necessary for approval and must deny the Project.

A. Mandatory Findings Requirements
The City's Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance and Single Family Design Guidelines (SFDG) establish objective compatibility and design standards applicable to second story additions, and the Santa Barbara Municipal Code requires your Board make specific findings based on facts in evidence that the project meets design and compatibility standards. SBMC 22. 69. 050.A.

Specifically, the Compatibility Finding requires that the "proposed development is compatible with the neighborhood, and its size, bulk and scale are appropriate to the site and neighborhood. " Id. The SFDG Compatibility Guidelines direct that the project should be designed "to be compatible with neighboring homes in terms of volume, size, massing, scale and bulk." In adopting Findings, SFDB must consider the FAR, the presence of Second Story Decks, Covered Porches, Second Story Setbacks, the Canyon Effect, Wall Size and Plate Height. (Volume Bulk Massing and Scale Issues, SFDG at 20-C). Findings must be based on substantial evidence in the record. In this case, there is substantial evidence supporting findings of denial.

LAW OFFICE OF MARC CHYTILO
P.O. Box 92233 . Santa Barbara, California 93190
Phone: (805) 682-0585 . Fax: (805) 682-2379
Email(s): [email protected] (Marc), [email protected] (Ana) 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023

1. FAR Remains Excessive and Forced Nei hbors to Perform A Su Anal sis
lemental Visual
FAR is "a useful indication of a structure's bulk relative to its site. " SFDG 21-C. Initially the project was proposed at 87% of FAR, above the preferred 85% goal, but close enough that the SFDB waived the ordinary requirement of supplemental FAR analysis materials in October 2022. Subsequently, the project expanded over time to 93%. Rather that requiring supplemental materials, the Board directed the FAR be reduced to no more than 90% on February 13, 2023. The Applicant returned with a nominal reduction in project floor area, resulting in a FAR of 92%.

Since requests for story poles were not heeded, the resident at 3210 elected to secure the preparation of a project view analysis. Submitted herewith, the Videoscapes Visual Analysis confirms that the project will be highly visible in the neighborhood, including, significantly, homes on Lucinda Lane.

The excessive FAR and applicant's obdurate defiance of both your Board's direction and the Good Neighbor Guidelines provide substantial evidence supporting denial of the project.

2. Second Sto Decks Add to Bulk and Invade Nei hbors' Privac The evidence shows the two second story decks add to the bulk to the project and create direct sight lines into adjacent neighbor's windows, open backyards and patio areas. See Visual Analysis prepared by Ken Doud, submitted herewith.

3. Covered Porches Add Mass and Bulk and Invite Future Enclosure The evidence shows that the project features a large covered porch in the center of the first floor addition, prone to future enclosure and an unreviewed and potentially unpermitted expansion of the interior floor area. The covered porch located in the center of the structure contributes to the excessive mass and bulk and the overall excessive scale.

4. Tail Walls and Site To. o ra .h. Create The Can, on Effect for Ad;acent Nei, hbors The project designs are evidence of the creation of tail and expansive walls at or near the setbacks for both neighboring properties. The exterior wall of the easterly second story element is an extensions of the first floor walls, without any second story setback, creating an expanse of continuous walls. The metal seamed roof adds to the visual expanse of the tall walls as viewed from 3210 Laurel Canyon Road. The east side expansive walls face existing large windows at 3210 Laurel Canyon Road, blocking views and creating a canyon effect between the two structures.
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023

5. The A licant I nored SFDB Direction and Pla s Games with Plate Hei ht Excessive Plate Heights on the easterly side materially impact 3210 Laurel Canyon Road. On February 13 the SFDB directed they be reduced to 8 feet at the first story. Revised plans were submitted with the finish elevation of the second floor unchanged, but a new line added purporting to represent a 9 foot plate height, and the plate height for the second story elements increased to 7 foot 7 inches. The roof height is reduced by 4 inches. The apparent height of the new first and second floor elements adjacent to 3210 are unchanged.

The Applicant's defiance with the SFDB's direction parallels their treatment of neighbors and defiance of the Good Neighbor Guidelines.

Since the latest version of the project plans do not conform to the SFDB's direction and there is no evidence that the project is compatible with the neighborhood as defined in the SFDG, your Board must deny this project, or gain the applicant's voluntary extension of the Permit Streamlining Act's deadlines for action and their commitment to make meaningful changes to the project to confirm to the SFDG.

B. The Board Cannot Make Findings of Applicant or Project Compliance with Privacy Guidelines
Additionally, your Board must make a finding that the project generally complies with the Good Neighbor Guidelines concerning, inter alia, privacy. SBMC 22. 69. 050. A. 6. the project must "respect, complement or improve upon existing neighborhood patterns" and "[i]f possible, consider private use and view areas of immediate neighbors. " SFDG 7-SP.

1. The Pro'ect does not "res ect corn lementorim rove u on existin nei hborhood atterns" Extensive public comment after a misleading and half-hearted neighbor outreach effort (undertaken after designs were complete, not before as proposed in the Good Neighbor Guidelines) establish that the project does not respect, complement or improve upon existing neighborhood patterns, but instead is among the largest in the 20 closest lots and ignited a firestorm of neighborhood objections, in a neighborhood where residents are reluctant to speak against other neighbors. As shown with the most recent "revisions" the applicant has been unwilling to consider, much less make meaningful project changes to compromise with or address the concerns of nearby neighbors.

2. The Process Proscribed b the Good Nei hbor Guidelines Was Not Observed The City's Good Neighbor Guidelines offer a number of helpful practices that were not followed.

Consequently the project fails to address neighborhood concerns, and in particular, the concerns of adjacent neighbors.
3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023

3. The Dei n Must be Revised to Address the Privac Guidelines and Protect Ri hts to Privac The protection of personal privacy in one's home is a core goal of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance affecting fundamental Constitutionally protected rights. See California Constitution Art I., sec 1 (inalienable right to privacy); see also Dolan v. City ofTigard, 512 U. S. 374, 393 ("The Constitution extends special safeguards to the privacy of the home")(citations omitted).

The SFDG directs techniques to lessen impacts to neighbors including: "36. 2. 3. Locate second story balconies and decks to avoid direct sight lines from the deck or balcony to neighbors windows, open yard, patio, deck and/or loggia areas. " 68-N (emphasis added).

Submitted herewith is a report and analysis prepared by visual impact technician Ken Doud.

Using a computerized model of the project and surrounding homes based on a topographical map, Mr. Doud identifies all locations visible from each of the two decks proposed with the project. Due to the downward sloping topography, the project's decks offer virtually all nearby homes on Lucinda Lane and the adjacent westerly neighbor direct views into these neighbors' open yards, various patios and windows.

Additionally, the southwestern deck that is part of the second story master bedroom is tall enough that it provides direct sight lines into the master bedroom at 3210 Laurel Canyon Road, in addition to the open yard and patio areas. See accompanying report.

The line of sight into private interior spaces deprives Ms. Williamson of fundamental Constitutionally protected rights, violates the City's Single Family Design Guidelines, and is simply inappropriate. No deck or balcony is needed for this bedroom.

C. Careful Compliance with Two Story Design Concepts Would Create a Compatible Project
The city's SFDG identify the key two-story design concepts that deter crowding and overwhelming neighboring homes, avoid creating canyons between homes, and to set back the taller portions of the structure from the lot lines to avoid the appearance of height. 39-TS. The applicant has ignored each of these requirements, even in the face of direction by the SFDB, and consequently is at risk of denial based on the lack of compatibility with surrounding residences.

The most obvious alternative design technique is to increase the distance of the second story elements to the property lines. See 39-TS, 26-C; illustration at 40-TS. While additional analysis of such revisions would be needed, but increasing the second story setbacks could reduce or even avoid the loss of neighbors' views, better protect privacy and reduce the bulk and scale of the project. 3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023

D. Noticing Defects
The Placard noticing neighbors included an incomplete project description that detailed various other parts of the project and included only a "new second story deck". See Notice Sign, posted September 30, 2022. This truncated project description failed to apprise neighbors of the scale of the proposed changes, delaying the neighborhoods' response to the proposed project until it later became clear the magnitude of the second story element. The Doud line of sight analysis is, for some, the first awareness of the impact of the proposed second story upon their respective homes.

E. Conclusion
The Applicant has defied the direction of the Single Family Design Board, and resubmitted plans for a project that is not compatible with the neighborhood as defined by the Single Family Design Guidelines. Under the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, the Board cannot make the findings for approval and must deny this project, or direct additional revisions if the applicant waives the pending deadlines for City action.

Respectfully submitted, Law Office of Marc Chytilo
Marc Chytilo
For Anita Williamson
CC: Ms. Holly Garcin, staff, h arcin SantaBarbaraCA. ov

VIDEOSCAPES
Visibility Analysis
For 3210 Laurel Canyon Road, Santa Barbara, Ca 93105
Created for The Law Office of Marc Chytilo, APC
February 24, 2023
The purpose of this study is to illustrate the view which would be obtained from a second floor balcony that is part of construction proposed for 3208 Laurel Canyon Rd ., especially as it would impact the adjacent residence to the East at 3210 Laurel Canyon Road and more generally the homes and backyards of residences on Lucinda Lane. Additionally, this analysis also generally illustrates the views obtained from a proposed second story deck adjacent to the home on the west side. These analyses demonstrate that the proposed balcony and deck will provide direct views into backyards and private living areas, compromising the privacy in those adjacent homes and backyards. These results are presented as simulated 3-dimensional model images located in Appendix A of this report.

Methodology:

A three dimensional model of the neighborhood surrounding 3210 Laurel Canyon Road was crafted in Autodesk 3ds Max. The model encompasses a radius of about 275 feet centered on the house at the above address, which is the residence of Anita Williamson.

The existing house at 3210 Laurel Canyon Road was parametrically modeled based on the plans provided by the owner.

The proposed house at 3208 Laurel Canyon Road was also parametrically modeled using the January 17 version of the plans and elevations on file with the City of Santa Barbara, with the balcony and deck heights adjusted to the conform to the February 23, 2023 version of the plans and elevations. All of the other homes are represented as volumetric massing models based on the building footprint and highest roof peak height.

Two studies were conducted:

One is a raytraced visualization of structures illuminated by a light source placed where a person might be viewing the neighborhood from the proposed southeastern second floor balcony of 3208 Laurel Canyon Road. Structures illuminated by the light, indicated by a red wash on the illustrations, could be seen by a person standing on the balcony.

The presence'of screening vegetation is not considered in this study, as vegetative screening is ephemeral relative to building structures and hardscapes.

A second study places a virtual camera on the proposed southeastern second floor deck of 3208 Laurel Canyon Road approximately where the eyes of a 6 foot tail person would be. The models were then rendered by the computer from this view. Again, the presence of screening vegetation is not considered in this study.

Visibility Analysis for 3210/3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023

Conclusions:

It is possible to easily look directly into patio, backyard and the bedroom of the residence at 3210 Laurel Canyon Rd from the proposed southeastern second floor balcony. The privacy of the residential backyards of 3202 Laurel Canyon Road and 3193, 3185, and 3279 Lucinda Lane is compromised by the proximity and height of the viewpoint from the proposed southeastern second floor balcony and southwestern deck of 3208 Laurel Canyon Road.

References:

Santa Barbara Topographic Map -Section F05
2023-02-13_February_13_2023_3208_Laurel_Canyon_Rd.pdf
Ken Doud
Visual Impacts Analyst
videosca es comcast. net
805-331-8348
Visibility Analysis for 3210/3208 Laurel Canyon Road
February 24, 2023