Agenda packet — Santa Barbara City Council, March 10, 2026

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

CITY COUNCIL
Randy Rowse
Mayor
Kelly McAdoo
City Administrator
Kristen W. Sneddon
Mayor Pro Tempore
Oscar Gutierrez
Ordinance Committee Chair
John S. Doimas
City Attorney
Eric Friedman
Finance Committee Chair
Meagan Harmon
Mike Jordan
Wendy Santamaria
City Hall
735 Anacapa Street
http://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov
MARCH 10, 2026, 2:00 PM
AGENDA
IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT: At the beginning of each meeting of the City Council, Finance Committee, or Ordinance Committee, any member of the public may address the City Council concerning any item not on the Council's agenda. Any person wishing to make such address should first complete and deliver a "Request to Speak" form prior to the time that public comment is taken up by the City Council. Each speaker will be given a total of 3 minutes to address the Council. Pooling of time is not allowed during general public comment. The time allotted for general public comment at the beginning of the 2:00 p.m. session is 30 minutes.

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

REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public wishing to speak must “raise their hand” in the Zoom platform by selecting the virtual hand icon when their item is called. The keyboard shortcut for this is Alt+Y for Windows and Option+Y for Macs. City staff will activate the speaker’s microphone when the speaker’s name is called. The speaker will then need to unmute themselves. The keyboard shortcut for this is Alt+M for Windows or Command-Shift-A for Macs.

HOW TO REMOTELY OBSERVE AND/OR SPEAK LIVE AT A MEETING
• Web: https://santabarbaraca-gov.zoom.us/j/89359334270 (Participation via Zoom) • Telephone: Dial 1-669-900-6833, Enter Webinar ID: 893 5933 4270 (press *9 to raise/lower hand; press *6 to mute/unmute) • Online Streaming: Council meetings are streamed live at www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP • TV: Each regular City Council meeting is broadcast live in English and Spanish on City TV Channel 18 and rebroadcast in English on Wednesdays and Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays at 8:00 a.m., and in Spanish on Sundays at 3:00 p.m.

Each televised Council meeting is closed captioned for the hearing impaired. Check the City TV program guide at www.santabarbaraca.gov/citytv for rebroadcasts of Finance and Ordinance Committee meetings.

WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comments may also be submitted via email to [email protected] prior to the beginning of the Council Meeting. All public comments submitted via email will be provided to City Council and will become part of the public record.
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
ORDER OF BUSINESS: Regular meetings of the Finance Committee and the Ordinance Committee begin at 12:00 p.m. The regular City Council meeting begins at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

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

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

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

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

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: If you need auxiliary aids or services or staff assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's Office at 564-5305 or by email at [email protected]. If possible, notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will usually enable the City to make reasonable arrangements. For those who need accessibility accommodation in using the “raise hand” function and/or registering to participate in the Zoom session, please contact the Clerk’s office by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting for assistance. Additionally, a speaker may email [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. the day before a meeting, stating which item they wish to speak on. Specialized services, such as sign language interpretation or documents in Braille, may require additional lead time to arrange. 03/10/2026 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 1 MARCH 10, 2026 AGENDA
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING - 12:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER

1. Subject: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Recommendation: That Finance Committee receive the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year (FY) ended June 30, 2025. 03/10/2026 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 2 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - 2:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

1. Subject: Arbor Week 2026

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

CONSENT CALENDAR

2. Subject: Power Purchase and Battery Energy Storage Service Agreement with Staten Solar Corporation at the New Police Station [Ordinance Adoption]
Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Approving and Authorizing the Sustainability and Resilience Director to Execute a Power Purchase and Battery Energy Storage Services Agreement with Staten Solar Corporation to Develop, Own, Operate, and Maintain a Solar Photovoltaic Generation and Battery Energy Storage System at the City of Santa Barbara Police Station, Located at 601 Santa Barbara Street, and Sell All Power Generated and Battery Energy Storage Services to the City.

3. Subject: Best Interest Waiver for Purchase of Fire Vehicles [Resolution] Recommendation: That Council:

A. Authorize a Best Interest Waiver for formal solicitation for the General Services Manager to issue a Purchase Order in the amount of $1,288,737.70 to South Coast Fire Equipment for the purchase of a Pierce fire engine (Type 1);
B. Authorize a Best Interest Waiver for formal solicitation for the General Services Manager to issue a Purchase Order in the amount of $738,117.70 to South Coast Fire Equipment for the purchase of a Boise Mobile Equipment fire truck (Type 3); and
C. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 25-066, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2026, to Appropriate Available Fleet Replacement Fund Reserves for the Purchase of Fire Vehicles.
03/10/2026 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 3

4. Subject: Amendment to the Management Performance and Compensation Plan Resolution [Resolution]
Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Adopting the Amended Management Performance and Compensation Plan Applicable to Certain Unrepresented Safety, Non-Safety Managers, and Professional Attorneys.

5. Subject: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Recommendation: That Council accepts the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year (FY) ended June 30, 2025.

6. Subject: Feasibility Analysis for State Street Alternative Storm Water Compliance Project [Agreement]
Recommendation: That Council authorize the Sustainability & Resilience Director to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Geosyntec Consultants Inc. in the amount of $158,448 to prepare a Feasibility Analysis for State Street Alternative Storm Water Compliance Project; and authorize up to $17,983 for potential extra services, for a total expenditure authority of $175,570.

7. Subject: Franceschi Park Resident Caretaker [Agreement] Recommendation: That Council authorize the City Administrator to execute a Caretaker Rental Agreement for Franceschi Park with Monique O’Conner, commencing April 1, 2026, through March 31, 2027.

8. Subject: Contract for Design of the Islay Street Bridge Replacement Project [Agreement]
Recommendation: That Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a City Professional Services contract with Consor North America, Inc. in the amount of $1,617,676 for design services for the Islay Street Bridge Replacement Project and authorize $161,767 for potential extra services, which may result from necessary changes in the scope of work, for a total expenditure authority of $1,779,443.
03/10/2026 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 4

CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING

9. Subject: Five-Year Measure A Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2027 Through 2031 Public Hearing [Resolution]
Recommendation: That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Adopting the Five-Year Measure A Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2027 Through 2031.

REPORT FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

PULLED CONSENT ITEMS

CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE AND ATTORNEY REPORTS

SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE

10. Subject: Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution]
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Receive an update on coastal erosion and flooding hazards at the Waterfront and potential adaptation options to be studied further in the upcoming Waterfront Adaptation Plan; and
B. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund.

CITY ADMINISTRATOR

11. Subject: Bloomberg Asphalt Art Grant Award Update
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Accept the $100,000 Bloomberg Asphalt Art Initiative Grant and appropriate funds for expenditure; and
B. Receive an update on the City’s Bloomberg Asphalt Art Initiative Project. 03/10/2026 Santa Barbara City Council Final Agenda Page 5

12. Subject: Resolution and Statement of Values to Re-Affirm the City’s Response to Federal Immigration Enforcement Activities and Commitment to Community Policing [Resolution]
Recommendation: That Council:

A. Re-Affirm the City’s previously adopted Resolution Condemning Aggressive and Nontransparent Federal Immigration Enforcement Tactics and Reaffirming the City’s Commitment to the California Values Act and to Providing a Safe and Welcoming Community for All Residents, Visitors, and Workers;
B. Receive a statement of values that re-affirms the commitment of the Santa Barbara Police Department in community policing and protecting the life and safety of all residents regardless of immigration status; and C. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Promoting Community Safety, Diversity, and Public Trust Through Locally Guided Practices in Response to Federal Immigration Enforcement.

COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

COUNCILMEMBER COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT REPORTS & ENGAGEMENTS

PUBLIC COMMENT (IF NECESSARY)

ADJOURNMENT

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

MEETING AGENDA
DATE: March 10, 2026 Eric Friedman, Chair
TIME: 12:00 PM Wendy Santamaria, Vice Chair
PLACE: Council Chambers Meagan Harmon
Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator John S. Doimas, City Attorney Keith DeMartini, Finance Director
IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT: Any person wishing to address the Finance Committee should first complete and deliver a "Request to Speak" form prior to the time that public comment is taken up by the Committee Member. Each speaker will be given a total of 3 minutes to address the Committee. The Finance Committee, upon majority vote, may decline to hear a speaker on the grounds that the subject matter is beyond their jurisdiction.

HOW TO REMOTELY OBSERVE AND/OR SPEAK LIVE AT A MEETING:
 Web: SantaBarbaraCA-gov.Zoom.US/s/85839766181 (Participation via Zoom).  Telephone: Dial 1-669-900-6833, Enter Webinar ID: 858 3976 6181 (press *9 to raise/lower hand; press *6 to mute/unmute).  Online Streaming: Finance Committee meetings are streamed live at SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CAP.  TV: Each regular Finance Committee meeting is broadcast live in English and Spanish on City TV Channel 18.

Each televised Finance Committee meeting is closed captioned for the hearing impaired. Check the City TV program guide at SantaBarbaraCA.gov/CityTV for rebroadcasts of Finance Committee meetings.

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

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

LANGUAGE TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION: The City of Santa Barbara offers live Spanish translation and interpretation for City Council Meetings via the Wordly platform. Follow the directions below to access the service.  Go to: Attend.Wordly.AI/Join/QQBV-6746.
o Ensure the Session ID QQBV-6746 is displayed.
o Select “Spanish” and click on the “Attend” button.
o You can now read the captions on your device and/or listen to the translation of the City Council meeting. o Click the speaker button to hear a text-to-speech version of the translated dialogue.  If you have any questions or concerns, please contact City TV at 805-564-5311. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
SPANISH INTERPRETATION: If you need interpretation of your communications to Council from Spanish into English, please contact the City Administrator’s Office at 564-5305 or by email at [email protected]. If possible, notification of at least 48 hours will usually enable the City to make arrangements.

INTERPRETACIÓN EN ESPAÑOL: Si necesita una interpretación del español al inglés, para sus comunicaciones al Consejo, comuníquese con la Oficina del Administrador de la Ciudad al 564-5305, o por correo electrónico a [email protected]. Si es posible, la notificación de al menos 48 horas generalmente permitirá a la Ciudad hacer los arreglos.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: If you need auxiliary aids or services or staff assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's Office at 564-5305 or by email at [email protected] if possible, notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will usually enable the City to make reasonable arrangements. For those who need accessibility accommodation in using the “raise hand” function and/or registering to participate in the Zoom session, please contact the Finance Department by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting for assistance. Additionally, a speaker may email [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. the day before a meeting, stating which item they wish to speak on. Specialized Services, such as sign language interpretation or documents in Braille, may require additional lead time to arrange.

ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION:

Subject: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
Recommendation: That Finance Committee receive the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year (FY) ended June 30, 2025.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 10, 2026
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Finance Department
SUBJECT: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:

That Finance Committee receive the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year (FY) ended June 30, 2025.

DISCUSSION:

Pursuant to the City Charter, Finance Department staff have prepared the City’s annual financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. Each year, financial statements are prepared to report on the financial condition of the City as a whole, as well as individual funds/operations that are included within the City’s operations.

While only certain financial statements and schedules are required by state law and the City Charter, other information and elements are needed to be considered for an award for excellence in financial reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), which recognizes the highest standards of financial reporting. GFOA awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Santa Barbara California for its ACFR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. This was the 37th year that the City has received this prestigious award. To be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized ACFR. This report must satisfy both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and applicable legal requirements.

A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year. Staff believe that the current ACFR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program’s requirements and are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. The City remains committed to financial transparency and Agenda Item No. 1
Finance Committee Agenda Report
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025 March 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

compliance through the rigor and completeness of information presented to the City Council and the public through the ACFR.

The expanded financial statements and other information included in the report are collectively referred to as an ACFR. In addition to allowing the ACFR to be considered for the GFOA award for financial reporting, the financial statements are expanded to enable the community and other interested parties to obtain a better and more complete understanding of the City’s finances and operations.

The financial statements were audited by the independent public accounting firm of CliftonLarsonAllen LLP (CLA), whose unmodified opinion is included within the financial section of the report. An unmodified opinion indicates that the financial statements present fairly the financial position of the City of Santa Barbara as of June 30, 2024, and the results of operations, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

As part of the audit, CLA also reviewed and performed tests of the City’s internal accounting control procedures to determine if there are any material weaknesses or instances of non-compliance.

The ACFR is divided into three major sections: the introductory section, the financial section, and the statistical section. The introductory section includes a letter of transmittal, a directory of City officials, and an organizational chart. The financial section includes the independent auditors’ report (as noted above), management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A), and the financial statements, including notes. The statistical section includes financial trend information as well as demographic information about the City. The format of the ACFR is designed to serve the needs of the following primary users: the City Council and other governmental oversight bodies, the public, and agencies assessing the City’s creditworthiness. This Council Agenda Report includes the statement of net position, statement of activities, and other information to assist in understanding the ACFR. The MD&A and supplemental schedules and notes provide additional information.

The table below summarizes the assets, liabilities, and resulting net position for governmental and business-type activities for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025.

Governmental funds include activities that occur in the General Fund primarily, along with certain special revenue funds while business-type funds include the City’s various enterprise funds, such as water and wastewater, among others.

Finance Committee Agenda Report
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025 March 10, 2026

Page 3 ends

STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
in (000's)

ASSETS, LIABILITIES,
& NET POSITION

GOVERNMENTAL

ACTIVITIES

BUSINESS-TYPE

ACTIVITIES TOTAL
Assets
Current and other Assets $407,674 $272,751 $680,425
Capital Assets, Net $586,610 $632,729 $1,219,339
Total Assets $994,284 $905,480 $1,899,764
Deferred Outflows of Resources: $93,870 $17,376 $111,246 Liabilities
Current and other Liabilities $64,847 $52,966 $117,813
Noncurrent Liabilities $534,645 $193,352 $727,997
Total Liabilities $599,492 $246,318 $845,810
Deferred Inflows of Resources: $25,128 $25,818 $50,946
Net Position
Net investment in Capital Assets $444,051 $459,809 $903,860 Restricted $231,405 $8,456 $239,861
Unrestricted ($211,918) $182,455 ($29,463)
Total Net Position $463,538 $650,720 $1,114,258
“Net position” is defined as the excess of all the City’s assets and deferred outflows, if any, over all its liabilities and deferred inflows, if any, regardless of fund. The City’s net positions for funds grouped under governmental and business-type activities remain strong at $463.5 Million and $650.7 Million, respectively. The net position for governmental activities decreased by $11.4 Million in FY2025 compared to FY2024, while the net position in business-type activities reflects an additional $35.5 Million in FY2025 compared to FY2024.

The table below summarizes the expenses and revenues for the major functions and programs in the Governmental Activities for FY2025.

STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
in (000’s)

GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES REVENUES EXPENSES NET RESULT
Administration $11,631 $24,606 ($12,975)
Public Safety $10,791 $109,514 ($98,723)
Public Works $41,148 $89,631 ($48,483)
Community Services $10,860 $35,938 ($25,078)
Community Development $12,261 $23,049 ($10,788)
Sustainability & Resilience $0 $1,934 ($1,934)
Interest and Fiscal Charges $0 $788 ($788)
Total Governmental Activities $86,691 $285,460 ($198,769) Many of these functions/programs are funded through General Fund tax revenues, such as sales, property, and transient occupancy taxes. The revenues summarized in this table Finance Committee Agenda Report
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025 March 10, 2026

Page 4 ends

are revenues directly generated from specific functions and programs within the departments.

The table below summarizes the expenses and revenues for the major enterprise functions and programs in the business-type activities.

STATEMENT OF BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
in (000’s)

BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES REVENUES EXPENSES NET RESULT
Water $78,965 $56,404 $22,561
Wastewater $33,321 $30,213 $3,107
Airport $40,622 $39,451 $1,171
Waterfront $20,795 $18,702 $2,093
Solid Waste $40,318 $38,665 $1,653
Downtown Parking $9,958 $12,173 ($2,215)
Golf Course $4,842 $3,863 $979
Clean Energy $46,970 $56,387 ($9,417)
Total Business-Type Activities $275,790 $255,858 $19,933 The enterprise functions are entirely self-sustaining and generate their own revenue to cover both operating and capital expenditures.

Staff will present the ACFR to the Finance Committee just prior to the Council’s afternoon session. A representative from CLA will be present to provide the Finance Committee with a summary of the audit and the results thereof.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The acceptance of the City’s ACFR has no direct fiscal impact on the City; however, the reports are necessary to allow for City Council oversight of the financial condition of the City. Failing to prepare and accept such reports could jeopardize the City’s credit rating and its ability to obtain grants and debt financing in the future.

The ACFR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, is available for review on the City’s website at SantaBarbaraCA.gov/Budget-Reports.

PREPARED BY: Nathalie Lecolley, Controller
SUBMITTED BY: Keith DeMartini, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
Agenda Item No. 1
ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE

SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE DIRECTOR TO

EXECUTE A POWER PURCHASE AND BATTERY ENERGY

STORAGE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH STATEN

SOLAR, CORPORATION TO DEVELOP, OWN, OPERATE,

AND MAINTAIN A SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC GENERATION

AND BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM AT THE CITY
OF SANTA BARBARA POLICE STATION, LOCATED AT 601

SANTA BARBARA STREET, AND SELL ALL POWER

GENERATED AND BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE

SERVICES TO THE CITY

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

SECTION 1. In accordance with the provisions of Section 521 of the Charter of the City of Santa Barbara, the power purchase agreement on file with the Sustainability and Resilience Department between the City and Staten Solar Corporation, for the development, ownership, operation and maintenance of a solar photovoltaic generating system and battery energy storage system at the City of Santa Barbara Police Station, 601 Santa Barbara Street, is approved and the Sustainability and Resilience Director is authorized to execute the agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, on behalf of the City of Santa Barbara.

Agenda Item No. 2

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 10, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Public Works Department
Fire Department
SUBJECT: Best Interest Waiver for Purchase of Fire Vehicles [Resolution] RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Authorize a Best Interest Waiver for formal solicitation for the General Services Manager to issue a Purchase Order in the amount of $1,288,737.70 to South Coast Fire Equipment for the purchase of a Pierce fire engine (Type 1); B. Authorize a Best Interest Waiver for formal solicitation for the General Services Manager to issue a Purchase Order in the amount of $738,117.70 to South Coast Fire Equipment for the purchase of a Boise Mobile Equipment fire truck (Type 3); and
C. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending Resolution No. 25-066, Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2026, to Appropriate Available Fleet Replacement Fund Reserves for the Purchase of Fire Vehicles.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Santa Barbara (City) is due for replacement of 2 fire-fighting vehicles due to their age and anticipated end-of-life use. One of the Fire engines (Vehicle ID No. 2572) was purchased in 2014. One of the Fire trucks (Vehicle ID 2559) was purchased in 2013.

Staff requests Council authorize a Best Interest Waiver for formal solicitation for the General Services Manager to issue purchase orders to South Coast Fire Equipment for a Pierce Enforcer (Type 1) fire engine and Boise Mobile Equipment (Type 3) fire truck. The Fire Department (Fire) selected Type 1 to replace Vehicle ID No. 2572 as part of the City’s transition to a standardized apparatus platform and it will be the third Pierce vehicle in Fire’s fleet. Type 3 was selected to replace Vehicle ID 2559 for targeted wildland firefighting. A Best Interest Waiver is requested to waive the formal solicitation process to purchase vehicles from South Coast Fire Equipment to standardize Fire’s Fleet to sustain operation and maintenance practices for staff.

Agenda Item No. 3
Council Agenda Report
Best Interest Waiver for Purchase of Fire Vehicles [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

The current lead time on procurement, including custom and standard build, is estimated to be over 4-years so it is critical that the City issues Purchase Orders at this time.

Payment will not be due until such time as the vehicles pass final inspection and are put into service so the City will retain the full $2 million in Fleet Replacement funds until that time. If the City chooses not to put these vehicles into service once assembly is complete due to budget constraints at the end of the four-year period, there could be an option to sell the vehicles.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The table below indicates the cost of each Fire engine from South Coast Fire Equipment:

Fire Engine Type Cost
Pierce fire engine (Type 1) $1,288,737.70
BME fire truck (Type 3) $738,117.70
Total $2,026,855.40
The proposals listed in the table are valid until April 1, 2026. If the Purchase Orders are issued after that date, the final costs may be adjusted. If the Purchase Orders are issued prior to that date, the proposal prices are not subject to change except for extraordinary inflationary conditions as indicated in the proposal. Changes to final costs will be managed by Fire and the Public Works Department.

With the proposed action increasing expenditure appropriations from available Fleet Replacement Fund reserves, there will be sufficient expenditure appropriations in the Fleet Replacement Fund in Fiscal Year 2026 to fund the proposed purchase of fire vehicles from South Coast Fire Equipment.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The City’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Policy exempts the purchase of Internal Combustion Engine vehicles if ZEVs are not commercially available or do not meet operational requirements. ZEV fire engines or wildland trucks meeting the City’s needs do not exist. Standardization of the Fleet helps with sustainable operations.

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

Council Agenda Report
Best Interest Waiver for Purchase of Fire Vehicles [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 3 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The procurement of vehicles falls outside of the definition of a “Project” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378 (b)(5) as discretionary approval by a public agency that will not cause a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment are not subject to CEQA environmental review.

ATTACHMENT: Photos of recently purchased Type 1 and Type 3 PREPARED BY: Adam Hendel, P.E., Operations Manager/SH/td Brian Federmann, Fire Operations Division Chief
SUBMITTED BY: Brian D’Amour, P.E, Public Works Director Chris Mailes, Fire Chief
APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator

ATTACHMENT
Pierce Type 1

ATTACHMENT
BME Type 3
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA BARBARA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 25-066,
ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026, TO

APPROPRIATE AVAILABLE FLEET REPLACEMENT FUND

RESERVES FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRE VEHICLES
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Charter, the City Administrator filed with the Council a proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025; WHEREAS, the City Council is required to adopt a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1, 2025;
WHEREAS, the City Charter provides that at any public meeting after the adoption of the budget, the City Council may amend or supplement the budget by motion adopted by the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total members of the City Council; and WHEREAS, as authorized by Resolution No. 25-066, this Resolution approves the amendment to the budget as provided herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA THAT In accordance with the provisions of Section 1205 of the City Charter, the budget for the Fiscal Year 2026, as adopted by Resolution No. 25-066, is hereby amended as follows:

The Council approves an increase in expenditure appropriations in the Fleet Replacement Fund in Fiscal Year 2026 in the amount of $1,537,272.24, funded from available Fleet Replacement Fund reserves, to fund the proposed purchase of a Pierce Enforcer (Type 1) and a BME fire truck (Type 3) from South Coast Fire Equipment.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 10, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Human Resources Department
SUBJECT: Amendment to the Management Performance and Compensation Plan Resolution [Resolution]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Adopting the Amended Management Performance and Compensation Plan Applicable to Certain Unrepresented Safety, Non-Safety Managers, and Professional Attorneys.

DISCUSSION:

On December 3, 2024, the City Council adopted the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Adoption of the AFSCME MOU necessitated updates to the Management Performance and Compensation Plan for unrepresented management employees to ensure the Plan accurately reflected its intended application and to incorporate additional changes regarding compensation alignment, legal compliance, CalPERS requirements, and other administrative items.

On April 22, 2025, the City Council approved amendments to the Plan consistent with these objectives.

Following Council’s approval of the April 22, 2025 amendments, staff identified that the Plan language incorrectly included a substantive and material provision allowing for the cash payout of accrued sick leave upon separation from City service for managers who are not retiring and are under the age of 50. This provision originated from language contained in the version of the Plan presented to Council but was not identified, discussed, or disclosed in the April 22, 2025 Council Agenda Report.

Agenda Item No. 4
Council Agenda Report
Amendment to the Management Performance and Compensation Plan Resolution [Resolution]
March 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

City executive administration was unaware of, and did not intend to propose, this change for unrepresented management employees. The inclusion of this language was inconsistent with longstanding City practice and policy.

This provision represents a significant departure from established City compensation structure for the following reasons:
 No other bargaining unit within the City has a provision allowing for cash payout of sick leave upon separation outside of retirement.
 Sick leave, under California law and City practice, is not treated as a vested property right in the same manner as vacation leave. Sick leave is intended as a conditional benefit for use during illness or for service credit at retirement under CalPERS conversion rules.
 Allowing sick leave to be cashed out upon separation would effectively convert sick leave into a compensable property right, fundamentally altering its legal and fiscal character.
 This change would create a precedent with significant long-term financial and labor relations implications for all City employee groups.

Council was not alerted to this material policy shift in the April 22, 2025 report. This action is intended to correct and delete the Plan language so that it reflects the actual intent of City administration and historical City practice at the time the amendments were presented. The amendment restores parity and consistency with historical application of this benefit.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The corrected Management Performance and Compensation Plan does not result in additional costs to the City. To the contrary, removal of the unintended sick leave cashout provision avoids the creation of a new and potentially significant financial liability.

ATTACHMENT(S): Management Performance and Compensation Plan, effective April 22, 2025
PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Michael Arnoldus, Human Resources Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. __________

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

BARBARA AMENDING THE MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE

AND COMPENSATION PLAN APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN

UNREPRESENTED SAFETY, NON-SAFETY MANAGERS, AND
PROFESSIONAL ATTORNEYS.

WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, the City Council adopted amendments to the Management Performance and Compensation Plan applicable to certain unrepresented Safety, NonSafety Managers, and Professional Attorneys; and WHEREAS, following adoption, staff identified that the Plan language included a provision allowing cash payout of accrued sick leave upon separation from City service for managers who are not retiring and are under the age of 50, which was not disclosed or discussed in the April 22, 2025 Council Agenda Report and was not intended to be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the inclusion of such language is inconsistent with longstanding City practice and compensation policy; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to amend the Plan to remove the unintended provision and ensure the Plan reflects historical City practice.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Santa Barbara as follows:

1. Any provision in the Management Performance and Compensation Plan allowing for the cash payout of accrued sick leave upon separation from City service for managers who are not retiring and are under the age of 50 is hereby deleted in its entirety.

2. Except as expressly amended herein, all other provisions of the Management Performance and Compensation Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

3. The amended Management Performance and Compensation Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted.

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

MANAGEMENT

PERFORMANCE
& COMPENSATION
PLAN
(REVISED APRIL 22, 2025)
Management Performance and Compensation Plan
Table of Contents
SECTION I – GENERAL PROVISIONS...........................................................................1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. PAY FOR PERFORMANCE ..................................................................................3 SECTION II – COMPENSATION & EVALUATION .........................................................5

1. SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT PAY...............................................................................5 A. ACTING PAY (TEMPORARY UPGRADE PAY) ...............................................5 B. PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS .................................................................................5 C. DIRECT DEPOSIT .............................................................................................5

2. GOALS OF EVALUATION SYSTEM.....................................................................6

3. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PERIOD ............................................................6

4. AUTHORITY TO EVALUATE PERFORMANCE ...................................................6

5. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS ................................................................7

6. CITYWIDE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES.........................................................7

7. RATINGS...............................................................................................................8

8. PROMOTIONS AND NEW APPOINTMENTS TO MANAGEMENT ......................9 SECTION III – BENEFITS..............................................................................................10

1. BENEFIT GROUPS I AND II................................................................................10

2. HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS (CAFETERIA PLAN) ...............................10 A. CAFETERIA PLAN CONTRIBUTION .............................................................10 B. DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS .................................................................11 C. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (EAP)...............................................11 D. LIFE INSURANCE ...........................................................................................11 E. LONG TERM DISABILITY...............................................................................11 F. SHORT-TERM DISABILITY ............................................................................11 G. ACCIDENT/CANCER INSURANCE ............................................................11 H. TAX-QUALIFIED EXPENSE ACCOUNTS ......................................................11 I. EXECUTIVE CAR ALLOWANCE....................................................................12 J. CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE..........................................................................12

3. TIME OFF AND LEAVE BENEFITS ....................................................................12 A. VACATION & SICK LEAVE ADVANCED CREDIT UPON HIRE....................12

4. VACATION...........................................................................................................13

5. LEGAL HOLIDAYS ..............................................................................................14

6. PERSONAL LEAVE.............................................................................................14

7. SICK LEAVE........................................................................................................14

8. MANAGEMENT LEAVE.......................................................................................15

9. NON-REPLENISHABLE SICK LEAVE ................................................................15

10. CATASTROPHIC LEAVE (SEE APPENDIX B) ...............................................15

11. LEAVES OF ABSENCE ...................................................................................16

12. BEREAVEMENT LEAVE..................................................................................16

13. MANAGEMENT SUPPLEMENT PLAN............................................................17 SECTION IV – RETIREMENT BENEFITS .....................................................................18

1. RETIREMENT PLAN (CALPERS).......................................................................18

2. RETIREE MEDICAL INSURANCE ......................................................................19

3. SICK LEAVE ANNUITY UPON SEPARATION OR RETIREMENT.....................19

4. DEFERRED COMPENSATION...........................................................................20

5. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT..............................................................................20 SECTION V – SPECIAL PROVISIONS .........................................................................21

1. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE.....................................................................................21 UNREPRESENTED POLICE SAFETY MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES .................21 UNREPRESENTED FIRE SAFETY MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES ......................21

2. MUTUAL AID ASSIGNMENTS............................................................................21 APPENDIX A: ICMA CODE OF ETHICS.......................................................................22 APPENDIX B: CATASTROPHIC LEAVE POLICY........................................................23 APPENDIX B: REQUEST TO RECEIVE CATASTROPHIC LEAVE.............................26 APPENDIX B: DONATION OF VACATION TIME FOR CATASTROPHIC LEAVE......27 1 SECTION I – GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

This Management Performance and Compensation Plan emphasizes the need for a high level of performance by managers and provides adequate incentives and rewards for said performance. This plan recognizes that:
 Managers are not extended technicians, but rather are individuals with the unique responsibility for analyzing and synthesizing the input of subordinates, peers, and the public in making decisions regarding the allocation of human and financial resources for which they should be held accountable; and  A compensation plan for management should not just provide a financial gain for employees but should also create direct benefits to the City organization and the public it serves.

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

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

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

Professional Attorneys are defined as the City Attorney, Assistant City Attorney III, Assistant City Attorney II, Assistant City Attorney I, and the Deputy City Attorney. The COLAs and benefits provided under this Compensation Plan apply to professional attorneys as specifically provided in the Professional Attorneys Compensation Plan adopted by the City Council.

The Management Performance and Compensation Plan will be amended, as necessary, to include changes to compensation and benefits.

3. COMPENSATION PLAN FUNCTION
The primary function of the Management Performance and Compensation Plan is to regularly review and assess the City's compensation practices, carefully analyze labor market data and internal salary relationships among the various classes of work and, 2 based on this analysis, assign a salary range to each classification and recommend modifications to the City's approach to compensation, as needed. This provides an integrated salary plan for all of the City's management classifications.

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

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

The City will strive to maintain Manager Classifications fifteen (15) percent above the highest paid subordinate classification salary. For purposes of this Section, “salary” shall only include base pay at the maximum of the range for the classifications. The City shall review Manager Classifications in May of each fiscal year and provide the Unit with a summary report of this review. If, during the fiscal year, a compaction situation is identified, the Unit shall inform the City, and Human Resources shall review the classification in question. It is the responsibility of the association to maintain and update accurate Manager-to-subordinate reporting relationship information in the City payroll system. The City shall provide a determination within 30 calendar days of notification from the Unit. Implementation of the salary adjustments will be effective the first pay period following Council approval of the mid-year or new fiscal year budget.

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

5. MARKET COMPARISON STRATEGY
The City of Santa Barbara's management compensation strategy provides policy guidance relative to the selection of labor market employers, and scope of external market surveys. In overall terms, the City's comparison labor market should:
 Focus on full service coastal and/or urban cities, which are comparable to Santa Barbara with respect to budget, service structure, and service area population.  Include, when necessary, specialized markets for selected jobs, e.g. harbors, airports, utilities and parks and recreation.
 Recognize the impact of tourism on service demands.
3  Recognize agencies located within a defined, competitive recruitment area within the Santa Barbara region, i.e. Ventura County area. General Unit Comparable agencies should also be considered when doing market comparisons.

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

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

7. SALARY CONTROL POINT ADJUSTMENT PROCESS
Salary control point adjustments are to be made periodically and may be based on a costof-living adjustment (COLA), external market survey data, anticipated labor market movement, maintaining salary differentials between management classes in a series, and/or maintaining salary differentials between managers and other subordinate classes.

The City's ability to pay for adjustments will also be a consideration.

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

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

COLA (RANGE) INCREASE
Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) are increases to management salary ranges recommended by the City Administrator. When a COLA increase adjustment is made to the salary range for a management position, management employees, regardless of their previous evaluation rating will receive the same adjustment to their individual salaries.

COLAs may be scheduled in advance through adoption of a management salary plan.

MERIT INCREASE
Eligibility for a merit adjustment is for those individuals who are not already at the Control Point (top of the range) for their position. Merit increases are individual increases, based 4 on each manager’s performance, allowing the managers to work toward the Control Point.

The merit increase is based on the Evaluator’s assessment of the Manager’s Overall Rating for the evaluation period. The Manager qualifies for a merit increase only if they obtain an Overall Rating of “Successful” or “Exceptional Work”. The merit increase may be between 0 to 10 %. The exact percentage of merit awarded will be determined by the Evaluator with appropriate approval. Any merit increase of greater than 5% must first be approved by the City Administrator.
5 SECTION II – COMPENSATION & EVALUATION

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

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

A. ACTING PAY (TEMPORARY UPGRADE PAY)
When an employee is assigned on a temporary basis to the duties of a higher compensated position, and such an employee assumes the full duties and responsibilities of that position, such employee may be compensated the first full day of the first pay period following the appointment at a rate of payment up to 15.0% of the employee’s base pay not to exceed the maximum of the temporary classification.

The parties agree that to the extent permitted by law, this is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR Section 571(a)(3) Temporary Upgrade Pay as special compensation. “New members” as defined under the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 will not have the value of acting pay reported as special compensation or pensionable compensation.

B. PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS
Employees who receive payroll overpayment shall reimburse City for such overpayment.

The city shall establish a reasonable schedule of payments based upon the amount of such overpayment and date overpayment was made.

C. DIRECT DEPOSIT
All employees shall participate in the City’s payroll direct deposit program.

Each employee shall execute a payroll authorization form and submit a voided check or savings deposit slip to the Payroll Office. It shall be the employee’s choice as to which bank they designate as the institution receiving payroll funds.

When the authorization form is properly executed and filed with the Payroll Office, the city will begin automatically depositing the net amount of pay on or before each designated biweekly payday in the employee's designated bank account. 6 Exceptions: An exception to this policy may be granted by the Finance Director to an employee upon a showing of good cause for such exception (e.g., that they are unable to establish and/or maintain a personal banking/financial account for direct deposit, or that other personal circumstances necessitate a temporary or permanent exception). The Finance Director may require the employee to renew this exception periodically.

Exceptions will not be unreasonably denied.

Employees participating in direct deposit will be provided with a payroll detail report each pay period.

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

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

3. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PERIOD
Annual management performance evaluation periods correspond to the July-June fiscal year. Each manager's performance will be formally reviewed at mid-year and again following the end of the fiscal year, although the manager and evaluator have a continuing responsibility throughout the year to review performance progress.

4. AUTHORITY TO EVALUATE PERFORMANCE
Authority and responsibility for approving management performance goals, completing performance evaluations, and recommending merit increases will be assigned as follows:
 For department heads and City Administrator's staff, the City Administrator has the authority.
 For division managers, the department heads have the authority in consultation with the City Administrator.
 For all other management employees, the division managers have the authority in consultation with the department head.
7 5. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
At the beginning of each fiscal year a subordinate manager and his or her Evaluator will jointly develop the performance objectives for the subordinate manager in the upcoming fiscal year, including any:

1. Other Projects / Programs (or stages thereof) for Completion

2. Day to Day Operations Objectives

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

At times, conditions outside the individual manager’s control will alter the manager's activities. These adjustments and any corresponding changes to the manager’s individual performance goals should be discussed as they become apparent throughout the evaluation period.

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

A. Section 1: Citywide Objectives: These are programs and interests that have been deemed to be important to the welfare of the whole City, and must be actively supported by all management personnel
 Department/City-wide Communication
 Staff Development
 Diversity
 Injury/Illness and Prevention Program
B. Section 2: Management Skills Objectives: The development and effective use of these skills are deemed important for all management personnel  Budgeting / Financial Management
 Policy Development / Implementation
 Public and Community Relations
 Leadership
 Judgment
 Managing / Supporting Employees
 Encourage Creativity and Innovation
 Oral Communication / Presentation Skills
8  Written Communication
The Evaluator will use their judgment as to the fit between the specific job skill and the manager’s job and assign a performance rating to each Citywide objective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The initial performance goals will be developed during the first three (3) months of employment.
9 2. The beginning date of the evaluation period may be between one (1) and three (3) months from the date of employment as agreed to by the manager and his/her supervisor.

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

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

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

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

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

Those not evaluated because they were hired between April 1 and July 1 will receive the amount of the COLA adjustment in order to maintain their relative position in the range. 10 SECTION III – BENEFITS

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

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

Group II: All other management classifications.

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

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

Group I Managers: Group II Managers:
$1978.54 per month $1978.54 per month
Information about the benefits available and their cost will be distributed to all management employees at the beginning of each benefit year (i.e. calendar year). The City retains full and complete control over the selection, approval and administration of the City's group insurance program.

The benefits will be subject to the following rules:

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

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

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

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

4. All benefit selections are subject to State and Federal rules, regulations, and laws regarding employee benefits and tax status. No guarantee is made regarding the tax-exempt status of any and all benefits presented or selected. 11 5. Management employees will be eligible for benefits coverage and the respective Group I or Group II monthly cafeteria plan contribution, on the first day of the month following their hire date.

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

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

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

D. LIFE INSURANCE
Life Insurance will be provided equal to an amount of two times annual salary. An equal amount will be provided for accidental death and dismemberment (ADD) coverage. This amount will not be counted against the cafeteria plan allowance.

E. LONG TERM DISABILITY
Each management employee will receive coverage under the City's long-term disability insurance program. This amount will not be counted against the cafeteria plan allowance.

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

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

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

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

3. TIME OFF AND LEAVE BENEFITS
A. VACATION & SICK LEAVE ADVANCED CREDIT UPON HIRE
An employee who is appointed from outside City of Santa Barbara government service within one (1) year of leaving employment with either the City of Santa Barbara or another city, county, state agency, federal agency or special district and who, in the opinion of the Human Resources Manager, possesses government experience directly related to the position to which he or she has been appointed, may be offered credit for years of prior service with the City of Santa Barbara and/or his or her immediate previous government employer in the following ways:
i. Vacation Accrual: At the discretion of the Human Resources Manager, the employee may be offered credit for up to the total number of prior full years of service at the City of Santa Barbara and/or his or her immediate previous government employer toward the initial vacation accrual rate. The employee will not be eligible to progress to a higher accrual rate until the employee has the normal required minimum amount of City of Santa Barbara service for that accrual rate.
ii. Sick bank: At the discretion of the Human Resources Manager, the employee may be credited with up to 96 hours of sick leave. Thereafter, employees will accrue sick leave at the normal rate.

A former City of Santa Barbara employee reemployed within one year under Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 3.16.320 will automatically qualify for the full vacation accrual credit under (i), above, for his or her prior City of Santa Barbara service. However, under no circumstance will prior accrued vacation balances cashed out to the employee upon termination be reinstated.

4. VACATION
Managers will accrue vacation as follows:

GROUP I
13 0-3 Years 160 hours
4-5 Years 200 hours
6+ Years 224 hours

GROUP II
0-2 Years 120 hours
3-5 Years 160 hours
6-7 Years 200 hours
8+ Years 224 hours
Vacation for management employees will be used within the following parameters:

A. Effective May 31, 2025, the maximum vacation accrual will be 400 hours.

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

C. A manager whose vacation balances exceed the maximum accrual of 400 hours will not be eligible to accrue further vacation until such time as the manager has reduced their accrued leave balances through time off, catastrophic leave donation, to below the maximum accrual. There is no retroactive grant of vacation compensation for the period of time the vacation compensation was at the cap.

D. To qualify for vacation cash-out, an employee must take a minimum of forty (40) hours of accrued leave time (personal leave, management leave, vacation leave, or any combination) during a fiscal year to be eligible to receive cash out for the same fiscal year. Vacation can only be "cashed out" in 10-hour increments (i.e. 10, 20, 30), and the amount to be cashed out will not exceed the employee's vacation balance at the end of the vacation year. Employees eligible for vacation cash-out shall follow the procedures established by the City. Employees must maintain a minimum of 100 hours in their respective leave banks to be cash out vacation hours.

5. LEGAL HOLIDAYS
Jan 1st New Year’s Day
3rd Monday in January Martin Luther King Jr.’s
Birthday
3rd Monday in February President’s Day
March 31st Cesar Chavez Birthday
Last Monday in May Memorial Day
14 June 19 Juneteenth
July 4 Fourth of July
1st Monday in September Labor Day
November 11 Veteran’s Day
4th Thursday in November Thanksgiving
4th Friday in November Day Following Thanksgiving
December 25th Christmas
Paid holiday time is awarded based on regularly scheduled work day hours per holiday for a full-time manager (pro-rated for part-time employees). When a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the preceding Friday or following Monday, respectively, will be observed as a legal holiday. Whenever a holiday occurs on a manager's regularly scheduled day off, the manager is entitled to an additional day off. Such day off shall be taken within sixty (60) calendar days or shall be compensated at straight pay.

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

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

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

Employees may use sick leave up to 320 hours for the same qualifying events as California Paid Family Leave and with the same rules and regulations.

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

Effective July 1, 2024, Each eligible management employee is awarded sixty-four (64) hours of management leave (pro-rated for part-time employees) for the fiscal year as follows:
15 Managers on the payroll July 1 (inclusive) 64 Hours
Managers hired between July 2 and October 1
(inclusive)
48 Hours
Managers hired between October 2 and January 1
(inclusive)
32 Hours
Managers hired between January 2 and April 1
(inclusive)
16 Hours
A manager on a Leave of Absence without Pay on July 1st will receive the Management Leave hours (prorated) when they return to work.

Use: Management Leave is scheduled like vacation. The leave provided by this program is not related to hours worked nor subject to accrual and may not be carried over beyond the end of the fiscal year.

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

9. NON-REPLENISHABLE SICK LEAVE
Management employees are eligible for non-replenishable sick leave. After five (5) years of continuous service, a manager may accumulate additional sick leave at the rate of sixteen (16) hours at full salary for each additional year of continuous service. The maximum accumulation is two hundred and forty (240) hours and is not replenishable.

Non-replenishable sick leave hours may only be used after the manager’s entire regular sick leave bank is exhausted.

10. CATASTROPHIC LEAVE (SEE APPENDIX B)
The management catastrophic leave policy allows managers to donate vacation time to the applicable leave banks of full-time and part-time employees who are incapacitated due to a catastrophic illness or injury or who must care for a spouse or child who has a catastrophic illness or injury. A catastrophic illness or injury is a severe illness or injury which is unusual, unexpected, and immediate in nature; and which is expected to preclude an employee from returning to work for an extended period of time, during which the employee will exhaust all their accumulated leave balances.

Donated vacation time will be converted and credited to the recipient in equivalent hours of sick leave at the recipient's base hourly rate (e.g. employee A makes $20/hour and donates 1 hour of vacation time to employee B who earns $10/hour. Employee B's applicable leave bank is increased by 2 hours for each hour donated by Employee A). 16 11. LEAVES OF ABSENCE
Medical Leave: Managers are eligible to request a medical or family leave of absence of up to one year under the City’s FMLA/CFRA Family Medical Leave Policy, the Leave without Pay (Medical Reasons) Policy, the Maternity Leave Policy, and/or the Parental Leave Policy.

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

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

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

12. BEREAVEMENT LEAVE
The bereavement leave shall be up to forty hours leave with pay, prorated for part time employees, and shall include the following immediate family members: mother, father, brother, sister, spouse, child, grandparents by blood or marriage, grandchildren by blood or marriage, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, person standing in loco parentis (in place of the parents), and step family members. In addition to the immediate family members listed herein, an employee shall be eligible for bereavement leave with pay for their domestic partner and the domestic partner’s immediate family, as defined above.
17 To receive this benefit, domestic partners must be registered with the City Clerk’s office or the Secretary of State. The intent of bereavement leave is to provide employees with adequate time to be with their immediate family during a period of anguish, whether it be at the time of death, preparation of funeral arrangements and/or to attend a funeral.

The parties agree that co-worker funeral attendance will be acceptable to the City upon Department Head approval consistent with maintenance of operations.

13. MANAGEMENT SUPPLEMENT PLAN
Effective the first pay period after January 1, 2025, a Management Supplement shall be provided to all unrepresented managers and attorneys in an annual amount of $1200.00.

This supplement is paid at $50 per pay period (based on 24 pay periods) and can be used for payment toward any current or future voluntary supplemental benefit(s) or contribution to any current or future Defined Contribution Plan. Each employee shall have full discretion how this supplement is used.
18 SECTION IV – RETIREMENT BENEFITS

1. RETIREMENT PLAN (CALPERS)
Each management employee will be enrolled in the Public Employee’s Retirement System (CalPERS), in either the miscellaneous or safety category as determined by the individual’s job classification.

New Members:

Effective January 1, 2013, new members as defined by California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (hereinafter “AB 340”) will be covered under the 2.7% at 57 Safety retirement formula or the 2% at 62 Miscellaneous retirement formula, with a final compensation measurement period of the average of the highest three (3) consecutive years, as well as all other statutory requirements of AB 340.

Effective July 1, 2013, new employees and/or members as defined by AB 340 shall contribute half the normal cost for benefits, as defined by AB 340; the City will not pay any portion of these employees’ required contributions.

Classic Members:

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

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

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

POLICE AND SAFETY MANAGERS: The City’s Fire and Police Managers are covered under the PERS 3% at age 50 benefit formula, with a final compensation measurement period of the single highest year.
 The Fire Chief and Fire Operations Division Chief will contribute toward retirement an amount equal to the Fire Association retirement contribution. Effective June 23, 2018, the total employee contribution is 10.5%.
 Unrepresented Police and Fire Safety managers contribution changes toward retirement will be outlined in the as provided by Salary Plan(s) adopted by the City Council by resolution or ordinance.
19 2. RETIREE MEDICAL INSURANCE
This provision is applicable to managers who retire from City service and a. Have 10 or more years of classified or unclassified service; or b. Retire from the City with an industrial disability retirement.

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

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

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

3. SICK LEAVE ANNUITY UPON RETIREMENT
At the time of retirement, the City shall calculate the amount of an annuity for the retiring manager similar to the PERS amendment that provides service credit for sick leave. Note:

This provision does not apply to Fire Safety Managers since credit for sick leave is included in their PERS contract, nor to Police Management Association (PMA) members, who are covered under the provisions of their labor agreement.

1. The following conditions apply to this benefit:
a. In order to qualify for payout of sick leave upon retirement, the retirement eligible manager must have at least five (5) years of service and at least 300 sick leave hours.
b. The conversion rate of 0.004 years of service credit for each day of sick leave is utilized.

2. Safety group members who obtain 90% of final compensation upon retirement are not eligible for this benefit. (All safety group PERS contract evaluations limit a safety member's maximum annual pension to no more than 90% of final compensation regardless of the length of service and this benefit carries the same restriction); and
20 3. If the City amends its PERS Miscellaneous or Police contract evaluation to include service credit for sick leave upon retirement, non-safety or Police members, respectively, will be included in that PERS contract amendment and the annuity program will be discontinued for that group.

4. The retiring manager will be paid out in a lump sum amount based upon the value of the sick leave annuity.

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

4. DEFERRED COMPENSATION
In addition to the City’s retirement plans, managers will be automatically enrolled in the deferred compensation program to save for retirement. The deferred compensation program is a tax-qualified Section 457 government defined contribution retirement program. Effective the first pay period after adoption of the 2024-2026 AFSCME MOU, $750.00 will be deposited into the employee’s Deferred Compensation account.

5. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
Managers are eligible for up to $2,000 per year in educational reimbursement through the Citywide Educational Reimbursement Policy.
21 SECTION V – SPECIAL PROVISIONS

1. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE

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

P.O.S.T.

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

UNREPRESENTED FIRE SAFETY MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES
The Fire Chief and Fire Division Chief – Operations will receive an annual uniform allowance equal to the amount established for a Firefighter per the Fire Unit MOU in effect.

EMERGENCY OVERTIME
 Overtime will be accrued or paid to Fire Chief and the Fire Division Chief-Operations at straight time only when assigned to emergency suppression or prevention duties.  Overtime will not be accrued for performing administrative duties.  Overtime may be accrued in a bank of hours not to exceed 48 hours.

2. MUTUAL AID ASSIGNMENTS
Employees, with approval of the Fire Chief, when assigned to, in support of, or prepositioned for, any mutual aid incident, will be compensated at one and one half time their regular base rate of pay for hours worked outside of their regular work hours.

Classifications approved to respond to mutual aid requests are as follows:

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

We believe professional management is essential to effective, efficient, equitable, and democratic local government.

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

Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships in order that the member may merit the respect and confidence of the elected officials, of other officials and employees, and of the public.

Serve the best interests of all community members.

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

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

Refrain from all political activities which undermine public confidence in professional administrators. Refrain from participation in the election of the members of the employing legislative body.

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

Keep the community informed on local government affairs. Encourage and facilitate active engagement and constructive communication between community members and all local government officials.

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

Manage all personnel matters with fairness and impartiality.

Public office is a public trust. A member shall not leverage his or her position for personal gain or benefit. Adopted by the ICMA Executive Board in 1924, and most recently revised by the membership in April 2023.
23 APPENDIX B: CATASTROPHIC LEAVE POLICY

PURPOSE
To establish a program whereby City employees can donate vacation and/or compensatory time, if applicable, to:

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

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

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

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

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

State and Federal income tax on the value of vacation and/or compensatory time, if applicable, donated will be deducted from the recipient employee’s pay at the time the hours are used.

PROCEDURES
A request is made by the recipient employee or if incapacitated, the legally recognized representative, to the department head for the establishment of a Personal Catastrophic Leave Account. This request may be made prior to the employee exhausting all of their 24 applicable paid leave balances so that time donated may be utilized immediately upon exhaustion of the employee’s leave balances, but not before.

Upon approval of the department head and the City Administrator, and upon agreement of the recipient employee, a Personal Catastrophic Leave Account will be established.

The employee or if incapacitated, the legally recognized representative, will sign the “Request to Receive Donation(s)” form allowing publication and distribution of information regarding their situation.

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

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

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

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

The donation of vacation and/or compensatory time, if applicable, is irreversible. Should the recipient employee not use all the donated time for the catastrophic illness or injury, any balance will revert to a City-wide “Catastrophic Leave Bank” for future use by employees with need for that donated time pursuant to the provisions of this Catastrophic Leave Policy.

A report on the usage of Personal Catastrophic Leave Accounts and status of the Citywide “Catastrophic Leave Bank” will be available to recognized labor organizations and others with a need to know. The report will include the identity of the recipient(s), hours donated, hours used and the remaining balance(s).
25 APPENDIX B: REQUEST TO RECEIVE CATASTROPHIC LEAVE
CATASTROPHIC LEAVE POLICY – MANAGEMENT

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

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

Name: Date:

Job Title: Department:

Please describe why you are requesting use of the Catastrophic Leave Bank including specific information such as the nature of the catastrophe. (A doctor's Certificate of Disability and/or more pertinent information will be required by the City.) How much donated time do you estimate you may need?
I agree to allow this information to be released to those employees wishing to donate their vacation time to me, as well as those people involved in the administration of the program.

Signed by the Requesting Employee or if incapacitated, the Legally Recognized Representative
Date
Signed by the Requesting Employee
or if incapacitated, the Legally Recognized Representative Date
Signed by the Department Head
Date
Signed by the City Administrator
26 APPENDIX B: DONATION OF VACATION TIME FOR CATASTROPHIC LEAVE
CATASTROPHIC LEAVE POLICY – MANAGEMENT

DONATION OF VACATION TIME - CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Human Resources
FROM: (Employee Name and Department)
DATE:

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

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

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

I have read and understand all of the above and I freely and without restraint elect to donate vacation hours to a Catastrophic Leave Bank established for the benefit of

(employee’s name)
NAME:
(Please Print)
SIGNATURE:

DATE:

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 10, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Finance Department
SUBJECT: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council accepts the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year (FY) ended June 30, 2025.

DISCUSSION:

A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year. Staff believe that the current ACFR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program’s requirements and are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. The City remains committed to financial transparency and Agenda Item No. 5
Finance Committee Agenda Report
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025 March 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

compliance through the rigor and completeness of information presented to the City Council and the public through the ACFR.

The financial statements were audited by the independent public accounting firm of CliftonLarsonAllen LLP (CLA), whose unmodified opinion is included within the financial section of the report. An unmodified opinion indicates that the financial statements present fairly the financial position of the City of Santa Barbara as of June 30, 2025, and the results of operations, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

As part of the audit, CLA also reviewed and performed tests of the City’s internal accounting control procedures to determine if there are any material weaknesses or instances of non-compliance.

The table below summarizes the assets, liabilities, and resulting net position for governmental and business-type activities for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025.

Finance Committee Agenda Report
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025 March 10, 2026

Page 3 ends

STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
in (000's)

ASSETS, LIABILITIES,
& NET POSITION

GOVERNMENTAL

ACTIVITIES

BUSINESS-TYPE

The table below summarizes the expenses and revenues for the major functions and programs in the Governmental Activities for FY2025.

STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
in (000’s)

Page 4 ends

are revenues directly generated from specific functions and programs within the departments.

The table below summarizes the expenses and revenues for the major enterprise functions and programs in the business-type activities.

STATEMENT OF BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES
in (000’s)

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The ACFR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, is available for review on the City’s website at SantaBarbaraCA.gov/Budget-Reports.

PREPARED BY: Nathalie Lecolley, Controller
SUBMITTED BY: Keith DeMartini, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 10, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Sustainability & Resilience Department
SUBJECT: Feasibility Analysis for State Street Alternative Storm Water Compliance Project [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Sustainability & Resilience Director to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Geosyntec Consultants Inc. in the amount of $158,448 to prepare a Feasibility Analysis for State Street Alternative Storm Water Compliance Project; and authorize up to $17,983 for potential extra services, for a total expenditure authority of $175,570.

DISCUSSION:

Project Description
The State Street Master Plan is a key initiative to guide the revitalization of Santa Barbara’s downtown core and reimagine State Street as a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented corridor that supports local businesses, housing opportunities, arts, and community life.

To support redevelopment efforts in the downtown core and particularly on State Street, staff propose studying alternative storm water compliance options to support the State Street Master Plan. An alternative stormwater compliance program may provide a path for redevelopment projects to meet the City’s post construction storm water requirements off-site. Such a program can provide relief to developers, while maintaining water quality and flooding benefits. As an example, under an in-lieu fee program, the City could construct a centralized storm water management project, which developers could choose to buy in to, rather than installing stormwater control measures individually on each parcel.

The feasibility study, conducted by Geosyntec, will analyze the potential for a centralized storm water project on State Street between Ortega and Carillo Streets (700-900 blocks).

The analysis will include developing and evaluating design alternatives, calculating available storm water capacity, proposing an alternative compliance framework and potential fee structure, and supporting efforts to secure program approval from the Central Agenda Item No. 6
Council Agenda Report
Feasibility Analysis for State Street Alternative Storm Water Compliance Project [Agreement]
March 10, 2026
Page
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board under the City’s existing Storm Water Management Program. Implementing an in-lieu fee program and a centralized storm water project would create an additional storm water compliance pathway, thereby facilitating more effective and sustainable redevelopment in the downtown core, where lots are constrained due to zero lot lines. This approach will help maintain momentum in the State Street Master Plan process and support a cohesive plan for downtown revitalization that reflects community aspirations for a lively, inclusive, sustainable, and economically resilient downtown.

Consultant Selection
In December 2025, the City publicly solicited a request for proposals. On January 26, 2026, the City received five proposals, which were subsequently reviewed and evaluated.

Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) was selected as the most qualified consulting firm for providing the project deliverables. Geosyntec staff have extensive experience with storm water program development, designing storm water and green streets projects, and developing alternative storm water compliance programs for other municipalities.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The proposed agreement with Geosyntec Consultants Inc. sets compensation to $158,448. Staff request the authority to agree to additional services as needed up to the amount of $17,983. The total requested expenditure authority for this agreement is therefore $175,570.

Sufficient expenditure appropriations exist in the Creeks Restoration and Water Quality Improvement Operating Fund budget in Fiscal Year 2026 to fund the costs of the agreement, and the costs of potential additional services.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The feasibility study and proposed design of storm water control measures will prioritize green infrastructure solutions to deliver multiple community and environmental benefits, including enhancement of the downtown microclimate, reduced storm water runoff, and improved water quality in local creeks and the ocean.

This project aligns with the following Climate Action Plan Actions:

W 2-2 Create a Green Community Infrastructure Program based on the Stormwater BMP Guidance Manual with upgraded public spaces, green parking lots, green alleys and increased green stormwater infrastructure on City facilities.

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

Council Agenda Report
Feasibility Analysis for State Street Alternative Storm Water Compliance Project [Agreement]
March 10, 2026
Page
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This project is for planning and design efforts, which does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration (Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines). The project will consider environmental factors related to future project implementation and CEQA compliance.

PREPARED BY: Erin Markey, Creeks Division Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Alelia Parenteau, Sustainability and Resilience Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 10, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department
SUBJECT: Franceschi Park Resident Caretaker [Agreement] RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the City Administrator to execute a Caretaker Rental Agreement for Franceschi Park with Monique O’Conner, commencing April 1, 2026, through March 31, 2027.

DISCUSSION:

The Parks and Recreation Department (Department) administers three resident caretaker agreements in Franceschi, Skofield, and Hilda McIntyre Ray Parks. Caretakers enter into a one-year lease agreement subject to City Council approval. Lease agreements are renewable annually for up to a total of three years. Caretaker positions are available to permanent City employees working for the Parks and Recreation Department.

Caretaker duties may be required as part of normal work hours or as structured overtime.

These normal work duties consist of:

1. Opening and closing the park parking lot entrance gates, Monday-Friday.

2. Conducting a daily site walk prior to park closure.

3. Maintaining a log of all time spent on caretaker services.

4. Submitting a monthly log to the Parks Manager for review and approval.

All other park maintenance and management duties are the responsibility of assigned Parks Division and/or Recreation Division employees.

Franceschi Park Caretaker Agreement
In July 2024, the Department conducted a recruitment to fill the caretaker position at Franceschi Park. Monique O’Conner was selected as caretaker. The Department Agenda Item No. 7
Council Agenda Report
Franceschi Park Resident Caretaker [Agreement]
March 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

recommends approval of a second one-year agreement with Monique O’Conner effective April 1, 2026, through March 31, 2027.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

No rent will be received as revenue, as caretaker services are performed in lieu of rent.

Copies of the agreements are on file in the Parks and Recreation Department office.

Please contact [email protected] to request a copy.

PREPARED BY: Jazmin LeBlanc, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director SUBMITTED BY: Jill E. Zachary, Parks and Recreation Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 10, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Contract for Design of the Islay Street Bridge Replacement Project [Agreement]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a City Professional Services contract with Consor North America, Inc. in the amount of $1,617,676 for design services for the Islay Street Bridge Replacement Project and authorize $161,767 for potential extra services, which may result from necessary changes in the scope of work, for a total expenditure authority of $1,779,443.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The Islay Street Bridge (Bridge) is located over Mission Creek between Castillo Street and U.S. Highway 101 within the Downtown corridor (see Attachment). Originally constructed in 1923, and retrofitted in 1982, it is a reinforced concrete bridge consisting of a concrete deck and girders, supported by one pier and two stone abutments. The Bridge has served as the sole access for the residents of the 400 block of Islay Street for over 100 years, carrying an average of 700 vehicles per day.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) inspects all state bridges in accordance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards. In the 2021 Bridge Inspection Report, the Bridge was designated both structurally deficient and scour critical. A scour critical bridge is considered at risk of becoming unstable due to soil erosion around the footings of the bridge. Based on the inspection report, the Bridge is eligible for replacement through the Highway Bridge Program (HBP).

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides funding for the replacement and rehabilitation of bridges located off the state and interstate highway system. Caltrans administers the funds through the HBP. City staff successfully applied to have the Bridge programmed for replacement through the HBP, with the first funding made available in Fiscal Year 2024/2025 to start design. On April 3, 2025, Caltrans authorized the Preliminary Engineering phase (Phase 1) funding.

Agenda Item No. 8
Council Agenda Report
Contract for Design of the Islay Street Bridge Replacement Project [Agreement] March 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

Project Description
The Islay Street Bridge Replacement Project (Project) will remove and replace the existing structurally deficient Bridge with a new bridge that meets current seismic, safety, and design standards. The Project will widen the roadway width across the Bridge to match the approach widths, install new crash tested railings, relocate domestic water, sewer, and gas facilities, treat storm water, remove non-native vegetation, re-plant the adjacent creek banks, and increase the creek capacity under the Bridge to match that of the Valerio Street Bridge located downstream.

Design Phase Consultant Engineering Services
Staff recommend that Council authorize the Public Works Director to execute a contract with Consor North America, Inc. (Consor) in the amount of $1,617,675.53 for design services and authorize $161,767 for potential extra services, for a total expenditure authority of $1,779,442.53.

In October of 2025, City staff publicly advertised a Request for Proposals for the Project’s design, following Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual requirements. Three consulting firms submitted proposals and all firms were interviewed. After the firms were evaluated, staff concluded that Consor is the most qualified consultant for this Project.

Staff and Consor negotiated and reached an agreement on a final contract that delivers the services required at a fair and reasonable cost to the City.

The design contract is divided into three major phases of work:
 Phase 1 consists of all tasks required to obtain environmental clearance;  Phase 2 consists of all tasks required to certify right-of-way (ROW); and  Phase 3 consists of all tasks required to produce construction-ready bid documents and assist with the bidding process.

The Project will initially only be authorized to proceed with Phase 1. Consor will not begin Phases 2 or 3 without written approval from the City Engineer. Phase 4 services, included in the RFP, include design support services during construction. The scope and fee of Phase 4 will be defined at the end of Phase 3 and awarded with the construction contract after construction phase funds are authorized by Caltrans and appropriated by City Council.

Community Outreach
Extensive community outreach for the Project is anticipated during Phase 1 and will continue through construction. The design will be fully vetted through both an internal and public review process. Elements of community outreach are included in the design contract and will be included in the construction contract. Due to the concentrated impact of the Project, the planned primary outreach method will be timely, courteous, and polished notifications by mail.

A Project Development Team (PDT) will be assembled for the Project, consisting of City and Consultant Project Managers, City Transportation Planning, City Traffic Engineering, other applicable City staff, Santa Barbara County Flood Control, and Caltrans. The PDT will review and provide input through the three distinct design phases, Concept Design, Council Agenda Report
Contract for Design of the Islay Street Bridge Replacement Project [Agreement] March 10, 2026

Page 3 ends

Preliminary Design, and Final Design. Additional public information will be disseminated throughout the Project in a timely manner.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The FHWA has delegated authority to Caltrans to administer the Local HBP for the State of California. Federal HBP funds will be used to reimburse the City for 88.53 percent of eligible design, right of way, and construction phase costs. City match funds are needed for the remaining 11.47 percent of eligible costs.

On May 20, 2025, Council appropriated $1,327,950 in grant funds to the Islay Street Bridge Replacement Project in the Streets Grant Capital Fund. The City match for Phase 1 is funded by the Measure C Capital Fund. There are sufficient expenditure appropriations in the Islay Street Bridge Replacement Project in the Measure C Capital Fund to cover the City match for Phase 1 of this Project, including the City’s share of the recommended Consor contract and potential extra services. Additional grant and match funds for Phases 2 and 3 will be appropriated once the Project obtains the necessary environmental clearances.

The following summarizes all estimated Project costs:

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

HBP
GRANT
CITY
SHARE
TOTAL
City Design Management Costs $331,988 $43,012 $375,000
Consultant Design Costs (Consor) $1,334,785 $172,935 $1,507,720 Design Subtotal $1,666,773 $215,947 $1,882,720
City Right of Way Management Costs $30,986 $4,014 $35,000 Consultant ROW Costs (Consor) $97,344 $12,612 $109,956
Right of Way Capital $314,320 $40,724 $355,044
Right of Way Subtotal $442,650 $57,350 $500,000
Construction Contract $5,412,402 $701,234 $6,113,636
Construction Change Order Allowance $541,240 $70,124 $611,364 Subtotal $5,953,642 $771,358 $6,725,000
Construction Administration (by City Staff) $343,054 $44,446 $387,500 Construction Management/Inspection/
Environmental Monitoring (by Consultants)
$343,054 $44,446 $387,500
Subtotal $686,108 $88,892 $775,000
Construction Subtotal $6,639,750 $860,250 $7,500,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $8,749,173 $1,133,547 $9,882,720 1
Council Agenda Report
Contract for Design of the Islay Street Bridge Replacement Project [Agreement] March 10, 2026

Page 4 ends

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The Project will improve safety and accessibility for pedestrians and will contribute to the City’s sustainability goals by encouraging more people to walk, thereby reducing energy consumption and air pollution. The Project will also include creek habitat restoration along the creek banks adjacent to the bridge.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The Project will be subject to environmental review per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Environmental determinations will be made during Phase 1 of the design contract.

ATTACHMENT: Location Map
PREPARED BY: Ashleigh A. Sizoo, P.E.

SUBMITTED BY: Brian D'Amour, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
This service has been provided to allow a visual display of City information. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the map and data. The City of Santa Barbara assumes no responsibility arising from the use of this information. THE MAPS AND ASSOCIATED DATA ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT A WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. This map was created using the City of Santa Barbara Mapping Analysis and Printing System application. 2,000
© City of Santa Barbara
333.333
Legend
1:

WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
0 166.667 333.333 Feet Notes
Attachment 1

MAP DISCLAIMER
Islay Street Bridge Location Map
Reported on 02/11/2026 03:53 PM
Assessor's Parcels - City
City Limits
SDE.AERIAL2022_3INCH_DATASET
Red: Band_1
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band_3
Islay Street
Pedregosa Street
Valerio Street
Castillo Street

ATTACHMENT

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 10, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Five-Year Measure A Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2027 Through 2031 Public Hearing [Resolution]
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Adopting the Five-Year Measure A Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2027 Through 2031.

DISCUSSION:

Each year, the City of Santa Barbara (City) must hold a public hearing, adopt a subsequent resolution, and submit an updated Five-Year Measure A Program of Projects (Attachment) to the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) in accordance with the Measure A local allocation rules. The proposed Five-Year Measure A Program of Projects will be incorporated into the proposed Streets-Transportation Capital Improvement Program budget for Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028.

Background of Measure A
In November 2008, Santa Barbara County voters approved Measure A Ordinance No. 5 (“Measure A”). Measure A is a 30-year sales tax measure estimated to provide approximately $1 billion of local sales tax revenues for transportation projects in Santa Barbara County. Measure A is funded by continuing the local 1/2 cent sales tax originally authorized by Measure D, which expired on March 31, 2010. Measure A contains a strategic spending plan that includes both regional and local programs and projects, funded by monthly population-based allocations to each local agency. The Measure A Ordinance contains a requirement for the City to hold an annual public hearing and submit a Five-Year Measure A Local Program of Projects to the administrating agency, SBCAG.

Agenda Item No. 9
Five-Year Measure A Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2027 Through 2031 Public Hearing [Resolution]
March 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

Five-Year Measure A Local Program of Projects
SBCAG has estimated that the City will receive Measure A revenues for Fiscal Years (FY) 2027-2031 as follows:

FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 Total Estimated Revenue
$4,807,589 $4,968,752 $5,160,435 $5,355,463 $5,718,620 $26,010,859 The revenue estimates for FY 2027 and 2028 reflect debt service on the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan used to mitigate cash flow for the Highway 101 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Project that is partially funded by Measure A.

Under Measure A, local agencies choose how to spend their share of funds annually after adopting the Five-Year Measure A Local Program of Projects. Measure A contains funds specifically for local street and transportation improvements (capital projects, maintenance, and operations) and alternative transportation (pedestrian and bicycle improvements and transit assistance).

The Measure A Ordinance requires that local agencies spend a minimum of 10 percent on local street and transportation improvement funds. This percentage is calculated cumulatively and must be met by the fifth year of the Measure A Program, and then every fifth year thereafter. Fiscal Year 2027 is the first year of the next five-year period. The proposed Five-Year Measure A Local Program of Projects includes 10 percent of expenditures for alternative transportation.

The Measure A Ordinance also requires that local agencies meet an annual Maintenance of Effort (MOE) of non-Measure A local discretionary funds for street and road purposes, adjusted annually by the rate of growth (or decline) of measure revenues. This requirement ensures the legislature’s intent that local transportation sales taxes supplement, rather than supplant, local transportation investments. The City has exceeded the MOE requirement for FY 2025 and 2026 and is anticipated to meet the next five-year requirement, primarily through local Measure C funding.

As shown in the table above, Measure A revenues are expected to slowly trend upward over the five-year period. The costs of street construction and maintenance activities are expected to increase more than the anticipated future Measure A revenues. This forecast will support fewer construction and maintenance activities.

Further anticipated concerns include that both State Gas Tax and Underground Utility Tax revenue sources are not expected to keep pace with increases in operational maintenance and capital construction costs. Moreover, there will be less local Measure C funds available for street maintenance due to competing City priorities. In a reduced funding Measure C street maintenance scenario, priority will be placed on arterial and Five-Year Measure A Local Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2027 Through 2031 Public Hearing [Resolution]
March 10, 2026

Page 3 ends

collector streets that carry the majority of traffic. Maintenance on local streets and alleys will be increasingly deferred.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

By taking the proposed action, the City meets the requirements of the Measure A Ordinance to avoid the adverse financial impact of not qualifying for an ongoing allocation of Measure A local street and transportation improvement funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The annual adoption of a resolution and submittal of an updated Five-Year Measure A Program of Projects falls outside of the definition of a “Project” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378 (b)(5) as administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment are not subject to CEQA review. The proposed Five-Year Measure A Program of Projects will be incorporated into the proposed Streets-Transportation Capital Improvement Program budget for Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028. All future projects as part of this Program will be subject to CEQA review.

ATTACHMENT(S): City of Santa Barbara, Five-Year Measure A Program of Projects
PREPARED BY: Ashleigh A. Sizoo, P.E., City Engineer/LY/JWG/nv SUBMITTED BY: Brian D’Amour, P.E, Public Works Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
Local Street & Transportation Improvements Total Project Cost
Project Descriptions
FY 2024/2025
Actual
Expenditures
Carry-over
from FY
24/25
Carry-over
from FY
25/26
FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 TOTAL Measure A Revenues Local State Federal TOTAL Non-Measure A Revenues Maintainance, Improvement or Construction of Roadways & Bridges Roadway Maintenance (Operations) $ 4,325 -$ $ 3,001 $ 2,859 $ 3,003 $ 3,148 $ 3,445 $ 15,456 -$ $ - $ 15,456 Pavement Maintenance (Capital) $ 1,757 $ 1,105 $ 181 $ 181 $ 185 $ 188 $ 192 $ 196 $ 942 $ 693 $ 2,716 $ 3,409 $ 4,351 Engineering Services (Capital) $ 253 $ 28 -$ $ - $ 110 $ 112 $ 114 $ 117 $ 453 $ 145 $ 145 $ 598 Engineering Services (Operations) $ 1,045 -$ $ 893 $ 911 $ 929 $ 948 $ 967 $ 4,647 -$ $ - $ 4,647 Bridge Preventative Maintenance (Capital) $ 20 $ 206 $ 241 $ - $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 200 $ 50 $ 50 $ 250 Post Bridge Construction Monitoring/Reporting (Capital) $ 91 $ 51 $ 15 $ - $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 200 $ 40 $ 40 $ 240 Graffiti Abatement $ 260 $ 260 $ 260
Safety Improvements
Traffic Safety/Capacity Improvements (Capital) $ 93 $ 56 $ 58 $ - $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 200 $ 50 $ 50 $ 250 Urban Forestry Street Tree Program
Transfer to Parks & Recreation for Street Tree Maintenance $ 1,225 $ 1,225 $ 1,225 Storm Damage Repair to Transportation Facilities
Storm Drain Repair & Maintenance (Operations) $ 247 -$ -$ $ 252 $ 257 $ 262 $ 267 $ 273 $ 1,311 $ 465 $ 465 $ 1,776 Roadway Drainage Facilities
Lower Mission Creek Flood Control Project (Capital) $ 22 $ 57 $ 13 $ - -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - -$ $ - $ - Traffic Signal Coordination, Intersection Channelization Traffic Signal Maintenance (Capital) -$ $ - $ -
Traffic Signal Maintenance (Operations) $ 2,287 $ 2,287 $ 2,287 Traffic Signal Upgrades (Capital) -$ $ - $ -
Traffic Management
Traffic Engineering (Operations) $ 1,049 $ 1,049 $ 1,049 Transportation Planning (Operations) $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 Traffic Markings & Signage (Operations) $ 1,158 $ 1,158 $ 1,158 Landscaping Maintenance
Highway Improvements
Matching Funds for State and Regional Programs and Projects TOTAL $3,528 $1,503 $508 $4,327 $4,472 $4,644 $4,820 $5,147 $23,410 $8,522 $2,716 $0 $11,238 $34,648 Alternative Transportation Expenditures Total Project
Cost
Project Descriptions
FY 2024/2025
Actual
Expenditures
Carry-over
from FY
24/25
Carry-over
from FY
25/26
FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 TOTAL Measure A Revenues Local State Federal TOTAL Non-Measure A Revenues Maintenance, Repair, Construction & Improvement of Bike & Ped Facilities Sidewalk Maintenance (Capital) $ 42 $ 27 $ 7 $ - $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 200 $ 50 $ 50 $ 250 Sidewalk Maintenance (Operations) $ 1,032 $ 154 $ 60 $ 69 $ 69 $ 95 $ 446 $ 988 $ 988 $ 1,434 Sidewalk Access Ramps (Capital) $ 85 $ 3 -$ $ - $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 200 $ 50 $ 50 $ 250 Bicycle Improvements (Capital) $ 95 $ 95 $ 95
Sidewalk Infill (Capital) $ 245 $ 245 $ 245
Safe Routes to School Improvements
Reduced Transit Fares for Seniors & Disabled
$ - $ -
Bus and Rail Transit Services and Facilties
Easy Lift $ 298 $ 27 -$ $ 327 $ 337 $ 347 $ 367 $ 377 $ 1,755 $ - $ 1,755 Programs, Education, & Incentives to Reduce Single Occupant Auto Trips or Transportation Demand
Work Trip (Operations) $ - -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - -$ -$ $ - $ - TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES $1,457 $57 $7 $481 $497 $516 $536 $572 $2,601 $1,333 $95 $0 $1,428 $4,029 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,985 $1,560 $515 $4,808 $4,969 $5,160 $5,355 $5,719 $26,011 $9,855 $2,811 $0 $12,666 $38,677 Alternative Transportation Summary
TOTAL MEASURE A ALLOCATION (FY 2025/26 TO 2029/30) $23,410

MINIMUM ALTERNATIVE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED BY
INVESTMENT PLAN TO BE MET BY FY 20229/2030 FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2025/2026 THROUGH 2029/2030
10%
TOTAL MEASURE A ALLOCATION TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION $2,601

PERCENTAGE OF MEASURE A ALLOCATION TO ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION 11%
Measure A Revenues Non-Measure A Revenues
Non-Measure A Revenues
City of Santa Barbara
Measure A Local Street and Transportation Improvements Submittal Form Five Year Measure A Program of Projects (FYs 26/27 to 30/31) (Figures in $1000's)
Measure A Revenues

ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA ADOPTING THE FIVE-YEAR MEASURE

A LOCAL PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS
2027 THROUGH 2031
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2008, the voters of Santa Barbara County approved the, Santa Barbara County Road Repair, Traffic Relief and Transportation Safety measure, known as Measure A;
WHEREAS, Measure A Ordinance No. 5 provides that Santa Barbara County Local Transportation Authority shall annually approve a program of projects submitted by local jurisdictions identifying those transportation projects eligible to use Measure A funds; WHEREAS, the City of Santa Barbara was provided with an estimate of annual Measure A local revenues for Fiscal Years 2027 through 2031; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, the City of Santa Barbara held a public hearing in accordance with the Ordinance.

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

SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Santa Barbara approves the Five-Year Measure A Program of Projects to be funded in part with Measure A revenues, as shown in Exhibit A to this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The Council of the City of Santa Barbara certifies that it will include in its budget an amount of local discretionary funding for local streets and roads sufficient to comply with the Maintenance of Effort requirements contained in the Ordinance.

SECTION 3. The City of Santa Barbara will not use Measure A revenues to replace private developer funding that has been committed to a transportation project or would otherwise be required under current City policies.

SECTION 4. The City of Santa Barbara has complied with all other applicable provisions and requirements of the Ordinance.

Local Street & Transportation Improvements Total Project Cost
Project Descriptions
FY 2024/2025
Actual
Expenditures
Carry-over
from FY
24/25
Carry-over
from FY
25/26
FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 TOTAL Measure A Revenues Local State Federal TOTAL Non-Measure A Revenues Maintainance, Improvement or Construction of Roadways & Bridges Roadway Maintenance (Operations) $ 4,325 -$ $ 3,001 $ 2,859 $ 3,003 $ 3,148 $ 3,445 $ 15,456 -$ $ - $ 15,456 Pavement Maintenance (Capital) $ 1,757 $ 1,105 $ 181 $ 181 $ 185 $ 188 $ 192 $ 196 $ 942 $ 693 $ 2,716 $ 3,409 $ 4,351 Engineering Services (Capital) $ 253 $ 28 -$ $ - $ 110 $ 112 $ 114 $ 117 $ 453 $ 145 $ 145 $ 598 Engineering Services (Operations) $ 1,045 -$ $ 893 $ 911 $ 929 $ 948 $ 967 $ 4,647 -$ $ - $ 4,647 Bridge Preventative Maintenance (Capital) $ 20 $ 206 $ 241 $ - $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 200 $ 50 $ 50 $ 250 Post Bridge Construction Monitoring/Reporting (Capital) $ 91 $ 51 $ 15 $ - $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 200 $ 40 $ 40 $ 240 Graffiti Abatement $ 260 $ 260 $ 260
Safety Improvements
Traffic Safety/Capacity Improvements (Capital) $ 93 $ 56 $ 58 $ - $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 200 $ 50 $ 50 $ 250 Urban Forestry Street Tree Program
Transfer to Parks & Recreation for Street Tree Maintenance $ 1,225 $ 1,225 $ 1,225 Storm Damage Repair to Transportation Facilities
Storm Drain Repair & Maintenance (Operations) $ 247 -$ -$ $ 252 $ 257 $ 262 $ 267 $ 273 $ 1,311 $ 465 $ 465 $ 1,776 Roadway Drainage Facilities
Lower Mission Creek Flood Control Project (Capital) $ 22 $ 57 $ 13 $ - -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - -$ $ - $ - Traffic Signal Coordination, Intersection Channelization Traffic Signal Maintenance (Capital) -$ $ - $ -
Traffic Signal Maintenance (Operations) $ 2,287 $ 2,287 $ 2,287 Traffic Signal Upgrades (Capital) -$ $ - $ -
Traffic Management
Traffic Engineering (Operations) $ 1,049 $ 1,049 $ 1,049 Transportation Planning (Operations) $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 Traffic Markings & Signage (Operations) $ 1,158 $ 1,158 $ 1,158 Landscaping Maintenance
Highway Improvements
Matching Funds for State and Regional Programs and Projects TOTAL $3,528 $1,503 $508 $4,327 $4,472 $4,644 $4,820 $5,147 $23,410 $8,522 $2,716 $0 $11,238 $34,648 Alternative Transportation Expenditures Total Project
Cost
Project Descriptions
FY 2024/2025
Actual
Expenditures
Carry-over
from FY
24/25
Carry-over
from FY
25/26
FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 FY 29/30 FY 30/31 TOTAL Measure A Revenues Local State Federal TOTAL Non-Measure A Revenues Maintenance, Repair, Construction & Improvement of Bike & Ped Facilities Sidewalk Maintenance (Capital) $ 42 $ 27 $ 7 $ - $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 200 $ 50 $ 50 $ 250 Sidewalk Maintenance (Operations) $ 1,032 $ 154 $ 60 $ 69 $ 69 $ 95 $ 446 $ 988 $ 988 $ 1,434 Sidewalk Access Ramps (Capital) $ 85 $ 3 -$ $ - $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 200 $ 50 $ 50 $ 250 Bicycle Improvements (Capital) $ 95 $ 95 $ 95
Sidewalk Infill (Capital) $ 245 $ 245 $ 245
Safe Routes to School Improvements
Reduced Transit Fares for Seniors & Disabled
$ - $ -
Bus and Rail Transit Services and Facilties
Easy Lift $ 298 $ 27 -$ $ 327 $ 337 $ 347 $ 367 $ 377 $ 1,755 $ - $ 1,755 Programs, Education, & Incentives to Reduce Single Occupant Auto Trips or Transportation Demand
Work Trip (Operations) $ - -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - -$ -$ $ - $ - TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES $1,457 $57 $7 $481 $497 $516 $536 $572 $2,601 $1,333 $95 $0 $1,428 $4,029 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,985 $1,560 $515 $4,808 $4,969 $5,160 $5,355 $5,719 $26,011 $9,855 $2,811 $0 $12,666 $38,677 Alternative Transportation Summary
TOTAL MEASURE A ALLOCATION (FY 2025/26 TO 2029/30) $23,410

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 10, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Sustainability & Resilience Department
SUBJECT: Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution]
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Waterfront is a cherished community resource and cornerstone of our economy.

Today, it faces growing challenges from beach erosion and flooding during major wave events that are causing millions of dollars in damage, disrupting recreation and operations, and rapidly narrowing East Beach. As sea levels rise, these impacts will become more frequent and severe.

The purpose of the Waterfront Adaptation Plan is to develop practical solutions to address coastal flooding and erosion for the next 30 years, while enhancing what makes the Waterfront special. The Plan is funded by the California Coastal Commission, the California Coastal Conservancy, and the City.

The current focus of the Waterfront Adaptation Plan is engaging our community and stakeholders to identify a few options to evaluate in detail for feasibility, effectiveness, timing, and cost. As staff screens the range of options, staff are prioritizing solutions that provide multiple benefits and further the project’s core design objectives of:
 Keeping and enhancing sandy beach area and recreation;  Protecting the working Harbor;
Agenda Item No. 10
Council Agenda Report
Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

 Protecting inland areas from ocean flooding;
 Providing a safe and separated walking and biking path along the entire Waterfront; and
 Ensuring economic viability.

Some of the options being considered for further evaluation include:
 Immediate “quick win” projects like temporary deployable flood control measures, minor drainage improvements, and restriping the Harbor West and Leadbetter parking lots to create a separated walking and biking path that addresses pressing transportation safety concerns.
 Strategically relocating some parking, restrooms, walking and biking paths, park areas, and commercial facilities at Leadbetter and East Beach to allow the shoreline to naturally move inland and remain sandy. Options exist to phase relocations. For example, Shoreline Café and the adjacent Leadbetter restrooms could remain in their current locations until specified hazard thresholds are met, at which point they could be relocated inland.
 Implementing additional beach nourishment, berms, and dunes to retain and enhance sandy beach areas.
 Improving stormwater drainage at West Beach to enhance sand quality and adding amenities such as restrooms and showers to establish West Beach as a premier sandy beach destination.
 Protecting the Harbor Commercial Area with a revetment that reduces flooding and erosion and is topped by a pedestrian promenade that expands public access.  Exploring improvements to the Harbor Commercial Area and adjacent parking lots to expand boating support services, increase public access, support coastal uses, and add new economic development opportunities that generate revenue and support Plan implementation.
 Providing a safe, continuous, and separated walking and biking path along the entire Waterfront. This path could be elevated to reduce the risk of inland flooding and erosion.

The Plan will also analyze additional longer-term adaptation options that may be needed in the future and are more difficult to fund and permit, such as groins, headlands, and offshore reefs.

A State climate superfund would be one potential funding pathway that staff could look to for plan implementation. The attached resolution emphasizes the City’s supportive position on legislation that would create such a fund, which is currently being contemplated by State lawmakers.

Council Agenda Report
Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 3 ends

Public outreach on potential adaptation options will occur through May 2026. Additional information can be found at SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterfrontAdaptation.

DISCUSSION:

BACKGROUND
The City’s Adaptation & Resilience Program prepares our community for climate change impacts like flooding, sea level rise, and wildfire by coordinating citywide efforts, securing funding, strengthening infrastructure, and supporting community resilience. The Program implements a phased approach to adaptation planning where changing conditions are monitored and actions are taken as certain thresholds or triggers are reached.

In 2021, Council adopted a city-wide Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan that identified several high priority implementation projects. Since then, the Adaptation & Resilience Program has obtained over $5 million in grant funds from the California Coastal Commission and State Coastal Conservancy to implement several high-priority adaptation projects that address both sea level rise and stormwater flooding from changing rainfall patterns. Active projects of the program include: a Regional Coastal Adaptation Monitoring Program that assesses changes to the region’s shorelines; a stormwater and flood modeling project to address flooding during high intensity rainfall events; and projects to adapt the City’s wastewater, water, airport, and waterfront infrastructure. The Waterfront Adaptation Plan primarily addresses coastal (ocean) hazards south of Cabrillo Boulevard but does consider influences from rainstorms and creek outflows that are more closely studied in other Program projects.

More details on all Program projects were provided during the December 9, 2025, City Council meeting and are available at SantaBarbaraCA.gov/Adaptation.

Additionally, during a Program update at the Sustainability Council Committee on December 4, 2025, the Committee forwarded a resolution to Council for support of legislation for the development of a California Climate Superfund which could potentially provide future funding of the City’s climate adaptation projects.

Legislation currently contemplated by State lawmakers would aim to redistribute a portion of the income obtained by fossil fuel companies and major polluters to projects throughout the State that address climate-related damage and resilience, such as measures that will be included in the Waterfront plan.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The purpose of the Waterfront Adaptation Plan is to develop practical solutions that address coastal flooding and erosion for the next 30 years, while enhancing what makes the Waterfront special.

Council Agenda Report
Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 4 ends

The Waterfront is the three-mile-long, publicly owned coastal area that extends from Leadbetter Beach east to the former Clark Estate. It is among the City’s most valued public assets and supports a wide range of uses, including beaches, parks, Harbor operations, commercial fishing, tourism, recreation, and transportation infrastructure. The Waterfront is a cornerstone of the local economy, providing $100M in annual recreational value, serving as a key destination for the $2.2B annual south coast tourism market, and supporting a commercial fishing industry that creates $30M in annual local benefit.

Due to its low elevation and exposure to waves, the Waterfront is particularly vulnerable to coastal flooding, storm impacts, and erosion. Erosion and flooding from high wave events are now regularly impacting infrastructure and operations at the Waterfront, resulting in significant repair and cleanup costs. These impacts are projected to increase with sea level rise. In addition to addressing hazards, the Plan takes a holistic approach to improve the overall Waterfront experience, including closing gaps in walking and biking networks, improving the beach conditions at West Beach, and expanding recreational and economic activity at the Waterfront.

This project uses a proactive, phased implementation strategy informed by on-the-ground conditions, ensuring adaptation measures are appropriately scaled to specific timeframes and levels of sea level rise. The Plan uses a 30-year planning horizon because there is strong scientific consensus on anticipated sea level rise during this period, and this planning horizon reflects a practical timeframe for infrastructure planning. This period also captures the time when the Waterfront will experience significantly increased hazard risks but is before larger-scale flood control measures will be needed to address larger scale flooding from higher sea levels.

The Waterfront Adaptation Plan is funded by the California Coastal Commission, the California State Coastal Conservancy, and the City. The Sustainability & Resilience department manages the project, with the Parks & Recreation and Waterfront departments as principal advisors, and Public Works-Engineering providing technical support. The City is also supported by an experienced consulting team, led by Stantec Inc. and supported by Bionic Landscape Inc., Environmental Science Associates, Coastal Restoration Consultants, and Summit Environmental, who are responsible for the technical analysis and preparation of the plan. Implementation will require permitting approvals from State and Federal agencies, including the California Coastal Commission and Army Corps of Engineers.

The project was launched in Fall 2024 and is now at its midpoint, with Council consideration of a final plan and associated Local Coastal Program Amendment anticipated by Spring 2027. Early phases of this project focused on completing technical analyses to understand baseline conditions and assess current and future hazard risks.

These early phases also included an initial outreach campaign. The current focus of this project is engaging our community and stakeholders in the selection of a few options to evaluate in detail for feasibility, effectiveness, timing, and costs as part of the Draft Waterfront Adaptation Plan development.

Council Agenda Report
Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 5 ends

COASTAL STORMS, EROSION, AND SEA LEVEL RISE IMPACTS
The Waterfront has always been subject to coastal hazards, with major storms historically causing damage, particularly during El Niño events. However, these impacts are becoming more frequent and severe. Recent winter storms have flooded the Harbor Commercial Area, undermined and partially collapsed the Harbor West parking lot, and deposited sand across the Harbor West parking lot and the bikeway along East Beach.

Typical storm damage and cleanup costs the City $50-200K after each storm, with large storms causing significantly larger financial impacts. For instance, the January 2023 storm alone cost ~$3M in cleanup and repair costs, which included $1.3M for an emergency rock revetment.

Shoreline changes are compounding these risks. Since 2000, East Beach has eroded at roughly five feet per year, increasing the threat of coastal flooding to Chase Palm Park, Cabrillo Boulevard, and inland development. Leadbetter Beach has remained stable, while West Beach has slightly widened.

Since 2000, sea levels in Santa Barbara have risen approximately 3 to 4 inches. The rise of sea levels is anticipated to increase significantly in the coming decades, reaching approximately 0.8ft by 2050, 1.6ft by 2065, 2.5ft by 2075, and 5ft by 2100. Without adaptation measures, there will be an increase in coastal erosion, flooding, and stormrelated risks, damage, and cleanup costs.

The consultant team conducted modeling to refine projections of regional sediment movement and shoreline changes over time. Attachment 1 includes maps of projected coastal erosion if no action is taken. As depicted, West Beach is expected to remain a wide, sandy beach as sea levels rise, East Beach will erode faster, and Leadbetter Beach will begin to narrow over time.

Attachment 1 also includes maps of potential flooding from the ocean over time if no action is taken. Please note that these maps do not show additional flooding from rainfall events. Higher sea levels will increase coastal flooding risk for a broader inland portion of the City, highlighting the need for an elevated backstop measure to protect Cabrillo Boulevard.

THE TOOLBOX OF DESIGN OPTIONS
There is a broad spectrum of design options that can reduce coastal flooding and erosion risks as discussed in detail below. Each feature distinct benefits and tradeoffs. Due to varying physical conditions, uses, and risk profiles across the Waterfront, no single design option is appropriate for all locations. In most cases, a combination of options that also improve the waterfront experience are being considered to create multi-benefit solutions.

For example, the walking and biking path could be raised to both enhance transportation safety and serve as a flood protection measure that reduces inland coastal flooding.

Council Agenda Report
Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 6 ends

Seawalls, Revetments, and Coastal Armoring
Seawalls, revetments, and other coastal armoring techniques are hard, engineered structures that hold the shoreline at a fixed position. They can effectively protect areas behind the structures from erosion, waves, and storm surge.

However, when waves hit these structures, the wave energy is redirected to the adjacent shoreline, which increases erosion in front of and adjacent to these structures. If placed close to the wave zone, these structures can result in narrower beaches over time and limit public access along the shoreline. These types of structures are also expensive to build, have less available funding sources, and are challenging to permit.

Given these benefits and tradeoffs, seawalls and revetments could be an appropriate solution to protect critical public infrastructure that cannot be relocated, such as the Harbor. They could also be useful as a backstop for flooding and erosion that could impact Cabrillo Boulevard, Shoreline Drive, and the urban areas north of those roads.

Beach Nourishment, Sand Berms, and Dunes
Beach nourishment, sand berms, and dunes are softer, sand-based techniques that mimic natural coastal processes and help absorb wave energy. Beach nourishment adds sand to widen and raise beaches, while berms and dunes provide additional buffering from waves and storms.

These methods are temporary and require ongoing maintenance. Large waves can quickly move sand, as seen when Leadbetter’s seasonal berm was displaced into the parking lot in December 2023. Dunes need sufficient space, wind, and vegetation to remain stable. A dune feasibility analysis conducted for this plan found that most of the Waterfront lacks the conditions for self-sustaining dunes, so any constructed dunes would need regular upkeep, like seasonal berms.

Currently, beach nourishment and seasonal berms are used along the Waterfront and can continue to be used to reduce hazard risk for smaller storms. They may serve as part of a hybrid strategy that combines soft and hard coastal protections.

Groins, Headlands, and Artificial Reefs
Groins, headlands, and artificial reefs are structures designed to widen beaches. Groins and headlands extend perpendicular to the shoreline to trap sand as it moves down the coast. Artificial reefs are typically located underwater offshore to reduce wave energy, which slows sand movement. These structures can effectively increase beach width in targeted locations.

However, trapping sand with these types of structures can reduce available sand to downcoast beaches if not carefully designed and actively managed to remain full of sand, which requires a long-term, consistent, and external source of high-quality sand. They Council Agenda Report
Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 7 ends

are generally associated with high construction and maintenance costs, complex permitting requirements, and potential regional impacts, which can raise regulatory, environmental, legal liability, and stakeholder concerns.

Despite these challenges, these types of solutions may be appropriate to counteract rapidly eroding beaches, like East Beach.

Relocation or Removal of Development
Relocation or removal of development involves moving, modifying, or eliminating structures, infrastructure, or uses that are exposed to coastal hazards. This allows the shoreline to migrate naturally over time and helps preserve sandy beaches and coastal access as sea levels rise. This strategy is often favored by funding and regulatory agencies because it avoids many of the long-term environmental impacts associated with hard shoreline structures.

However, relocation or removal is not always practical or feasible. Some infrastructure cannot be easily moved, there may not be suitable replacement sites available, and relocation can result in economic impacts and lost revenues.

While this approach may not be appropriate everywhere, retaining the Waterfront as a sandy beach destination in the coming years will likely necessitate relocating or removing some facilities, such as parking, to allow the shoreline to migrate inland and remain sandy.

PRELIMINARY LIST OF OPTIONS FOR FURTHER EVALUATION
The following measures have been preliminarily identified for further evaluation in the next project phase to determine feasibility, effectiveness, timing, and cost. A final recommended adaptation strategy and phasing of implementation will be developed as part of a Draft Waterfront Adaptation Plan that will be released for public review in early 2027.

Core Objectives and Framework
The preliminary list of options reflects the following core Plan objectives:
 Provide a high-quality sandy beach experience with recreational facilities.  Protect the working Harbor.
 Protect inland areas from ocean flooding.
 Provide a safe and separated walking and biking path along the entire Waterfront.  Ensure economic viability.

The Plan is intended to address coastal flooding and erosion over the next 30 years, while recognizing the long timelines required to fund, design, permit, and construct Council Agenda Report
Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 8 ends

infrastructure projects. To support this approach, the preliminary list of options includes three categories of projects:

1. “Quick Wins” to Implement Today.

Quick-to-implement, low-cost, and easy-to-permit actions that address pressing safety concerns and operational hazards. These can generally be funded with existing City budgets and would be immediate action items. They would not sufficiently address hazards associated with higher sea levels but can provide immediate benefits while more comprehensive strategies are designed, permitted and built.

2. “Core Measures” to Start Permitting Now.

Large, higher-cost projects that comprehensively address coastal hazards and known access issues for at least the 30-year timeframe of this Plan. These projects require significant funding and more complex permitting that would begin shortly after Plan adoption.

3. “Future Options” for More Protection.

The largest-scale, highest-cost projects that would address coastal hazards to higher amounts of sea level rise. These projects involve significant tradeoffs, are the most challenging to permit, and rely on funding sources that may be difficult to secure. If desired, these projects could be considered for implementation in the mid-century timeframe.

The following options are intended to reflect some initial ideas of adaptation measures and their phasing. It is anticipated that through the community engagement process and after technical review, projects may move between project categories, new projects may be identified, and some projects may be removed entirely from the Plan. Attachment 2 includes graphics illustrating these potential options.

Leadbetter Beach
Potential Quick Wins to improve pedestrian and bike safety and address current flooding.

1. Add the missing portion of the walking and biking path. Restripe the beach-fronting row of parking in the Leadbetter Beach parking lot to create a separated walking and biking path.

2. Provide replacement parking. Reconfigure the Leadbetter parking lot to provide replacement parking in unused right-of-way and some landscaped areas south of Shoreline Drive.

3. Add a low-curb wall. Add low-curb wall to the ocean-fronting portion of the Leadbetter parking lot to address current coastal flooding and erosion impacts.

Council Agenda Report
Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 9 ends

4. Use deployable flood proofing. Protect Shoreline Café and the adjacent Leadbetter restrooms with deployable flood proofing during storms.

Potential Core Measures to retain the sandy beach, add a line of defense for near-term hazards, and improve stormwater drainage.

1. Move parks, facilities, and the walking and biking path inland. Make space for the sandy beach to migrate inland by moving upland park area, facilities, and the walking and biking path inland. Options exist to phase relocations. For example, Shoreline Café and the adjacent Leadbetter restrooms could remain in their current locations until specified hazard thresholds are met, at which point they would be relocated inland.

2. Raise the walking and biking path. Raise the walking and biking path to protect the path and provide a line of defense for coastal hazards.

3. Replace parking across Shoreline Drive. Replace parking by building new parking garages on the SBCC La Playa Lots.

4. Improve stormwater drainage. Improve stormwater drainage from the north side of Shoreline Drive by increasing pipe size and capacity.

Potential Future Options to retain the sandy beach for longer, raise the line of defense for additional hazard protection, and widen the beach.

1. Move parks, facilities, and walking and biking path further inland. Make additional space for the beach to migrate inland and remain sandy for a longer period by moving upland park area, facilities, and the walking and biking path further inland to Shoreline Drive.

2. Raise the walking and biking path higher. Move farther inland and/or raise the walking and biking path higher to provide a line of defense for larger storms and higher sea levels.

3. Add a headland. Add a headland by the Harbor breakwater and start a beach nourishment program to widen Leadbetter beach and protect the Harbor marinas.

The Harbor
Potential Quick Wins to address pedestrian and bike safety concerns and annual flooding.

1. Add the missing portion of the walking and biking path. Restripe the beach-fronting row of the Harbor West parking lot leading into Harbor Commercial area to create a separated walking and biking path and improve transportation safety.

2. Add a low-curb wall. Add a low-curb wall to the ocean-fronting portion of the Harbor West parking lot to address current coastal flooding and erosion impacts.

3. Use deployable flood proofing. Protect the Harbor Commercial Area with deployable flood proofing during storms.

Council Agenda Report
Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 10 ends

4. Improve drainage. Improve drainage system in the Harbor Commercial area to decrease flooding impacts.

Potential Core Measures to protect the Harbor Commercial Area from wave hazards, enhance boating and Harbor operations, and explore new economic development.

1. Build a combination revetment and pedestrian promenade. Build a revetment with a pedestrian promenade on top of it in front of the Harbor commercial area to improve access and prevent wave impacts.

2. Enhance and raise the walking and biking path. Enhance the walking and biking paths to improve access and, in strategic locations, raise it to provide a line of defense for coastal hazards.

3. Improve boating and Harbor operations. Improve boat storage, the launch area, boating facilities, and public access.

4. Add economic development area. Explore opportunities for additional economic development and revenue generation in the Harbor Main parking lot area.

Potential Future Options to protect the Harbor Commercial Area from additional sea level rise and bigger storms and widen the beach.

1. Raise paths and edges. Further raise the walking and biking path, combination revetment and pedestrian promenade, breakwater, and marina edges to provide a line of defense for larger storms and higher sea levels.

2. Add a wave screen and sand trap. Add a wave screen and sand trap to protect the Harbor marinas.

3. Add a headland. Add a headland by the Harbor breakwater and start a beach nourishment program to widen Leadbetter beach and protect the Harbor marinas.

West Beach
Potential Core Measures to reimagine West Beach as a premier sandy beach destination.

1. Relocate the storm drains. Relocate storm drains that currently outfall by the pedestrian path and pond on West Beach to improve the sand quality.

2. Add restrooms, facilities, and concessions. Add infrastructure that supports a sandy beach destination, including restrooms, showers, a café, concessions, and other revenue generation.

3. Add park area. Add an upland park area to expand recreational opportunities and emphasize the connection between Stearns Wharf and the Harbor.

4. Raise the walking and biking path. Raise the walking and biking path to provide a line of defense for coastal hazards.

Council Agenda Report
Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 11 ends

East Beach
Potential Core Measures to retain the sandy beach and protect Cabrillo Pavillion.

1. Convert park area to beach and move the walking and biking path inland. Make space for the sandy beach to migrate inland by converting upland park area to beach and move the walking and biking path inland.

2. Raise the walking and biking path. Raise the walking and biking path to provide a line of defense for coastal hazards.

3. Protect Cabrillo Pavillion. Protect Cabrillo Pavillion and associated recreational use by locating the raised walking and biking path in front of the Pavillion.

Potential Future Options to widen the beach and implement future Laguna Flood Resilience Project.

1. Add headlands or offshore reefs. Add headlands or offshore reefs, with additional beach nourishment to widen the beach.

2. Raise the walking and biking path higher. Raise the walking and biking paths higher to provide a line of defense for larger storms and higher sea levels.

3. Implement the Laguna Flood Resilience Project. Make improvements being developed as part of the future Laguna Flood Resiliency Project.

4. Expand Parking at Garden Street Lot. Expand parking with a new parking garage at the Garden Street Lot.

Council Feedback Requested
The purpose of this discussion is to introduce preliminary considerations, gather feedback on the relative suitability and timing of potential adaptation options, and ultimately determine which options to study in detail. Staff welcomes all ideas and input, and specifically request feedback on the following:

1. Design Direction. Are the options generally headed in the right direction and worth studying in more detail?

2. Timing and Phasing. Is the proposed phasing appropriate or should adjustments be considered (e.g. should some strategies be employed sooner)?

3. Additional Options. Are there additional options or alternatives that should be evaluated?

4. Priorities and Tradeoffs. Do the options appropriately prioritize key objectives, such as sandy beaches, parks, parking, walking and biking paths, flood protection, beach access, and public facilities? Are there other priorities that should be considered?
Council Agenda Report
Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 12 ends

5. Key Constraints or Concerns. Are there any significant constraints, concerns, or potential issues that need to be resolved?

HOW TO GET INVOLVED AND LEARN MORE
Community open houses will be held in person and online in late April and early May.

Staff will be presenting the project to multiple City advisory bodies, tabling at community events, and doing pop-up events through May. There will also be Spanish-specific outreach conducted by the Promotores Network and digital engagement methods.

For additional information and to sign up for project email updates, visit SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterfrontAdaptation. Please contact Timmy Bolton, Senior Climate Adaptation Analyst at [email protected] for questions or comments.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

The preparation of the Waterfront Adaptation Plan is currently fully funded and staffed.

Grants from the California Coastal Commission and State Coastal Conservancy cover the full consultant contract, as well as staff time for the Sustainability & Resilience staff who are managing the project and Engineering Division staff supporting it. Matching contributions are also provided in the form of staff time and overhead from existing City appropriations in the City Attorney, Community Development, Parks & Recreation, Public Works, Sustainability & Resilience, and Waterfront Departments.

The preparation of preliminary design drawings for targeted Core Measures and Quick Win projects is included in the existing consultant contract. The Quick Win projects are envisioned to be fundable with existing City budgets. Final design and construction for Core Measures are not yet funded, and a dedicated funding source has not yet been identified. The Plan will explore opportunities to integrate new and expanded revenue generation into design solutions to support implementation.

A comprehensive funding strategy for Plan implementation will be developed during the next phase of the project, when the design options are analyzed in detail and recommendations are made. This funding strategy will likely include a mix of State and Federal grants, low-interest loans, City funds, and other local sources.

If future superfund legislation was approved, the City could potentially benefit from State funding for local projects that align with the goals of such legislation, including the measures in the Waterfront Adaptation Plan. There is no direct fiscal impact to the City’s budget by adopting the Climate Superfund resolution.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The Waterfront Adaptation Plan advances goals contained in the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Climate Action Plan, and Citywide 2021 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Council Agenda Report
Review of Options for Waterfront Adaptation Plan and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Legislation for a California Climate Superfund [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 13 ends

Plan to better understand vulnerabilities to existing and future hazards and enhance our community’s resilience to climate change.

ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Coastal Flooding and Erosion Hazard Maps

2. Graphics Depicting Preliminary List of Options for Further Evaluation
PREPARED BY: Timmy Bolton, Senior Climate Adaptation Analyst SUBMITTED BY: Alelia Parenteau, Sustainability & Resilience Director APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
Coastal Flooding and Erosion Hazard Maps
(with no action)
ATTACHMENT 1
Current & Future Coastal Flooding Risk (with no action) Future Shoreline Position (with no action)

0.8’ SLR ~2050 1.6’ SLR ~2065 2.5’ SLR ~2075 Waterfront “Hold the Line” Position East Beach
Cabrillo Blvd
Stearns Wharf
Cabrillo Pavilion
Harbor
Stearns Wharf
West Beach
Cabrillo Blvd
Leadbetter Beach
Harbor
Shoreline Dr
Waterfront Adaptation Plan
Preliminary List of Adaptation
Options for Further Evaluation
City of Santa Barbara
ATTACHMENT 2
Waterfront-Wide Goals & Priorities
Keep and
enhance sandy
beach and
recreation
Protect the
working
harbor
Protect
inland areas
from ocean
flooding
Provide continuous
separated walking
and biking path
1 Shoreline Dr 3
2 4
Restripe first row of
parking to a walking &
biking path
Low wall next to new
path
Deployable flood
proofing
Convert unused area
to parking
Leadbetter Quick Wins:

Immediate safety & flooding fixes
4 Shoreline Dr
Future Shoreline 1.6’ SLR ~ 2065
5 Move parks, paths, & assets
inland to keep sandy beach
Relocate parking to
new parking garages
at existing surface lot
Raise path to reduce inland
flooding risk
Improve stormwater
drainage
Leadbetter Core Measures:

Keep sandy beach by moving things back
Relocate when replacement
facilities are available or when
flood/erosion risk reach set limits
1 2
3 1
Shoreline Dr 3
Future Shoreline 2.5’ SLR
~ 2075 with nourishment
2 Keep sandy beach
for longer by moving
paths, parks, and
facilities further inland
Add headland at
Harbor breakwater
(not shown) with
nourishment to widen
beach
Raise path higher to
reduce flood risk for
higher sea levels
Leadbetter Future Options:

Larger projects for a wider beach & more protection
1 3
Shoreline Dr
2 Leadbetter Beach
Drainage
Improvements
Restripe first row of
parking to a walking &
biking path
Deployable
Floodproofing
Harbor Quick Wins:

Immediate safety & flooding fixes
Shoreline Dr
Pedestrian promenade on
raised revetment for flood
protection & better access
Explore converting some
parking for economic
development
Protect & improve Harbor
Commercial area for better
public access & boating
Harbor Core Measures:

Flood protection, prioritize public access & boating
1 2 4
3 Enhance & raise walking
& biking paths for better
access & flood protection
Future Shoreline 1.6’ SLR
~ 2065
Shoreline Dr
Raise all paths and
edges for greater
flood protection
Wave screen to
protect marinas
Headland with beach
nourishment to widen
beach
Harbor Future Options: Further protection
1 2
3 Future Shoreline 2.5’ SLR
~ 2075
Sand Trap to protect
harbor entrance 3
Relocate storm drain to
improve sand quality
Raised walking and bike
path with new adjacent
park
Add restrooms, showers,
café, beach concessions
West Beach Core Measures:

Premier sandy beach experience
1 2
3 Future Shoreline 1.6' SLR
~ 2065
Keep sandy beach
and park for as long
as possible by moving
parks, paths, &
facilities inland
Raise & locate walking
& biking path to protect
Cabrillo Pavillion &
inland areas
East Beach Core Measures: Preserve sandy beach
for as long as possible & protect critical infrastructure 1 2
Future Shoreline 1.6’ SLR ~ 2065
Improve
per future
Laguna Flood
Resilience
Project
Potential site
for additional
parking
Raise path
higher to
reduce flood
risk for higher
sea levels
East Beach Future Options: Additional, larger
projects for wider beach and increased protection
Future Shoreline 2.5’ SLR
~ 2075 with nourishment Explore groins,
headlands, and
offshore reefs to
widen sandy beach 4
1 2 3
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA SUPPORTING LEGISLATION FOR A

CALIFORNIA CLIMATE SUPERFUND
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Barbara recognizes the increasing threats posed by climate change, including extreme summer heat, prolonged drought, sea level rise, wildfire risk, severe storms, and other major impacts affecting communities throughout California; WHEREAS, across the state, local governments and taxpayers are bearing immense and mounting costs of rebuilding from damage caused by climate change, including increased insurance premiums, property taxes, and utility bills, and State and local budgets are being impacted as climate risks rise, jeopardizing public services, and forcing communities to carry the burden of addressing and responding to climate-related emergencies;
WHEREAS, proposed legislation establishing a California Climate Superfund would create a mechanism to assess and recover a portion of revenues obtained by fossil fuel companies and dedicate those funds to projects throughout the State that address climate-related damages, adaptation, resilience, and mitigation; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Barbara finds that supporting legislation for a California Climate Superfund aligns with the City’s interest in fiscal responsibility and environmental stewardship because it proposes to shift a portion of the financial burden of climate change recovery from California taxpayers to businesses that have profited from the fossil fuel industry.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA THAT by the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Santa Barbara supports current and future legislation for a California Climate Superfund, establishing a California Climate Superfund, which would create a framework for fossil fuel companies to contribute to the costs of climate-related damages, adaptation, and mitigation within California.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: March 10, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Administrator’s Office
SUBJECT: Bloomberg Asphalt Art Grant Award Update
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council receive an update on the City’s Bloomberg Asphalt Art Initiative Project.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The City of Santa Barbara, in partnership with the Santa Barbara County Office of Arts and Culture, has been awarded a $100,000 grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies through the 2025 Bloomberg Asphalt Art Initiative. Santa Barbara is one of only 10 cities across the United States, Canada, and Mexico selected from over 300 applications to receive this competitive award. In addition, the program receives media coverage and support from the Bloomberg Philanthropies media syndicate, and staff participate in monthly trainings with Bloomberg Philanthropies, including design consultation, metrics, and engineering.

The Bloomberg Asphalt Art Initiative is an international placemaking and safety grant that uses art and design to improve street safety, activate public spaces, and engage community members in the public realm. Through artistic treatments applied directly to street surfaces, the program is intended to enhance pedestrian visibility, calm traffic, and create more welcoming and culturally expressive public spaces. Asphalt art projects are quickly and easily implementable, while awarded cities test potential long-term roadway designs.

The grant will fund the design and temporary installation of asphalt art at the intersection of State Street and Carrillo Street, with elements extending along the State Street corridor. Asphalt art will be painted on the four crosswalks at Carrillo and State Street, painted curb extensions along the four corners at Carrillo and State Street and along the red curb zone on Carrillo Street. Asphalt art will also be painted along the 900 and 1000 Agenda Item No. 11
Council Agenda Report
Bloomberg Asphalt Art Grant Update
March 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

blocks of State Street, between De La Guerra and Carrillo Streets. Additionally, the City, in collaboration with the Office of Arts and Culture, will integrate art with physical safety elements, including the existing planters lining the intersection, traffic bollards, and overhead pedestrian lighting. As per grant requirements, the artwork will be maintained for at least two years. This location was selected due to its high pedestrian activity, connection to the Saturday Santa Barbara Farmers Market, and its role as a key gateway within downtown. The project is intended to enhance pedestrian safety, visually define the Santa Barbara Farmers Market’s Saturday location, and contribute to downtown vibrancy.

The Asphalt Art Initiative will be installed in early April 2026. The design allows for flexible use of the roadway and will not impact future use of the space.

As discussed in Attachment 1, Bloomberg Philanthropies’ studies have found that asphalt art projects in high-use corridors resulted in a:
 50% decrease in the rate of crashes involving pedestrians or other vulnerable road users,
 37% decrease in the rate of crashes leading to injuries,  25% decrease in pedestrian crossings involving a conflict with drivers,  27% increase in frequency of drivers immediately yielding to pedestrians with the right of way; and a
 38% decrease in pedestrians crossing against the walk signal.

Outreach
Community engagement continues to be a core component of the Asphalt Art Initiative.

Outreach activities have been designed to inform the public, gather community input, and provide opportunities for residents and visitors to engage directly with the artists and design process.

The design concept will celebrate local Mixtec and Zapotec culture through a series of artistic and graphic elements developed by the project’s lead artists. The installation will align with broader City goals related to downtown revitalization, cultural celebration, pedestrian safety, and creative placemaking.

Outreach activities have included:
 Artist Meet-and-Greet: On Saturday, December 20, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., community members were invited to meet the Lead Project Artist and Lead Graphic Artist at the Santa Barbara Farmers Market. Staff were onsite to facilitate and to answer questions about the project, and attendees were encouraged to provide feedback through a project survey.
 Weaving Workshop: On Saturday, January 10, from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., the City hosted a public weaving workshop at the Farmers Market. Participants learned about traditional Zapotec weaving techniques that will inform the asphalt Council Agenda Report
Bloomberg Asphalt Art Grant Update
March 10, 2026

Page 3 ends

art design, shared ideas with the project team, and created their own artwork, which will be woven together into a community art piece.  Neighborhood Advisory Council: On Monday, February 9, 2026, City and County staff presented the asphalt art project and received comments and feedback from the Neighborhood Advisory Council.

These engagement opportunities provided interactions in English, Spanish, and Mixteco, with a Mixteco/ Spanish interpreter present at all events. The events aimed to increase public awareness of the installation and build connections between cultural storytelling, public art, and downtown public spaces.

Staff will lead additional outreach at the Farmers Market prior to installation to share the final design with the community on Saturday, March 21, 2026. Following installation in early April, staff will host an outreach event during the first weekend to provide information about the Initiative and answer questions.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The City of Santa Barbara received $100,000 from Bloomberg Philanthropies for the Asphalt Art Initiative Grant and will appropriate to spend monies on projects related to the grant. The grant was paid in advance and the full amount has been received and recorded in the City Administrator’s Miscellaneous Grants Fund. Expenditure appropriations have been established within the City Administrator’s Miscellaneous Grants Fund to allow for payments related to the grant project.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The Asphalt Art project supports the City’s sustainability goals by enhancing pedestrian safety and encouraging walking and active transportation within the downtown core. By improving visibility at the State Street and Carrillo Street intersection and creating a more inviting public space, the project supports a more walkable, people-oriented environment.

The installation utilizes low-impact materials applied within the existing public right-of-way and does not require new infrastructure or resource-intensive construction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed Asphalt Art installation consists of temporary surface treatments, including paint and design elements, within the existing public right-of-way at the State Street and Carrillo Street intersection. The project does not involve grading, construction of permanent structures, expansion of use, or changes to traffic capacity.

The activity qualifies for a categorical exemption from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Council Agenda Report
Bloomberg Asphalt Art Grant Update
March 10, 2026

Page 4 ends

Facilities), as the project involves minor alterations to an existing public facility with negligible or no expansion of existing use. The project will not result in significant environmental impacts, and no further environmental review is required.

ATTACHMENTS: Asphalt Art Safety Study, Historical Crash Analysis and Observational Behavior Assessment at Asphalt Art Sites, April 2022, Prepared for Bloomberg Philanthropies
PREPARED BY: Tess Harris, State Street Master Planner
Sarah York Rubin, Executive Director, Santa Barbara
County Office of Arts and Culture
SUBMITTED BY: Anthony Valdez, Deputy City Administrator APPROVED BY: Kelly McAdoo, City Administrator
Asphalt Art Safety Study
1 Asphalt Art Safety Study
Historical Crash Analysis and
Observational Behavior Assessment at
Asphalt Art Sites
April 2022

ATTACHMENT
Bloomberg Philanthropies
2 Prepared for:

Bloomberg Philanthropies
Prepared By:

Sam Schwartz
with support from
Street Plans

Bloomberg Philanthropies
4 Table of Contents
Executive Summary 6

1. Introduction 8

1.1 Study Goals and Objectives 10

1.2 Literature Review 11

2. Historical Crash Analysis 12

2.1. Background and Scope 12

2.2. Crash Data Sources 12

2.3. Site Selection Criteria 13

2.4. Summary of Study Sites Selected 14

2.5. Improvements at Study Sites 15

2.6. Historical Crash Data Analysis Methodology 16

2.7. Historical Crash Analysis Results 18

2.8. Discussion of Historical Crash Analysis Results 22

3. Behavioral Observational Assessment 26

3.1. Background and Scope 26

3.2. Methodology 26

3.3. Observation Sites and Analysis Periods 31

3.4. Behavioral Assessment Results 38

3.5. Discussion of Behavior Assessment Results 42

4. Conclusion/Next Steps 44
Table of Contents
5 | JC on the Move Table of Contents
Bloomberg Philanthropies
6 Executive Summary
Transportation infrastructure is perhaps the most visible aspect of a city’s public realm— the sidewalks and roadways we depend on daily are often as recognizable as the buildings, destinations, and people within it. As cities transform to meet evolving needs of the future, there is an increasing opportunity for streets to not only be safe and efficient, but a unique and inspiring part of the urban experience. Among other strategies to achieve that goal, public art projects coupled with improvements to transportation infrastructure, often known as “asphalt art,” offer many benefits. They can create safer, more desirable streets and public spaces. They are typically inexpensive and quickly implementable, while helping cities test long-term roadway redesigns. And they help local governments engage with residents to reshape their communities.

These projects, including intersection murals, crosswalk art, and painted plazas or sidewalk extensions, have existed for years and are growing in popularity in communities across the world.

Though asphalt art projects frequently include specific roadway safety improvements, the art itself is often also intended to improve safety by increasing visibility of pedestrian spaces and crosswalks, promoting a more walkable public realm, and encouraging drivers to slow down and be more alert for pedestrians and cyclists, the most vulnerable users of the road.

There has been considerable public feedback, anecdotal evidence, and analyses of individual locations indicating that asphalt art can have these traffic-calming benefits and encourage safer behavior. However, despite broad support from people who use and design streets, art within the public roadway network has faced regulatory hurdles in the United States and elsewhere because of concerns about compliance with current design standards and guidance that governs roadway markings. These concerns have persisted in the absence of much rigorous evaluation or published literature on safety performance of asphalt art projects.

This study was conducted to address the need for impact analysis by comparing crash rates and real-time behavior of pedestrians and motorists at an array of asphalt art sites before and after the projects were installed. There are two main components to the study: first is a Historical Crash Analysis that compares crash data prior to and after the introduction of asphalt art at 17 diverse study sites with at least two years of data. The second is an Observational Behavior Assessment that compares before and after video footage of motorist and pedestrian behavior at five U.S. locations with asphalt art projects installed in 2021 as part of the Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Asphalt Art Initiative. The analysis found significantly improved safety performance across a variety of measures during periods when asphalt art was installed.

Executive Summary
Asphalt Art Safety Study
7 Comparing the average of crash rates for before-after analysis periods, results from the Historical Crash Analysis include:
» 50% decrease in the rate of crashes involving pedestrians or other vulnerable road users
» 37% decrease in the rate of crashes leading to injuries » 17% decrease in the total crash rate
Similarly, the Observational Behavior Assessment indicates:
» 25% decrease in pedestrian crossings involving a conflict with drivers
» 27% increase in frequency of drivers immediately yielding to pedestrians with the right of way
» 38% decrease in pedestrians crossing against the walk signal The promising findings from this study will inform ongoing discussions on how to revise U.S. roadway engineering guidance to improve safety for the most vulnerable road users. The study also provides data-driven evidence cities can use to make the case for their own arts-driven transportation projects.

The following report details the background, methodology, and results of the Historical Crash Analysis and the Behavioral Observation Assessment.

Bloomberg Philanthropies
8 1. Introduction

1. Introduction
There is arguably no more important goal for the transportation profession than ensuring safe travel for everyone on the road, especially pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users. In recent years, though, this goal has proven elusive. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2020, a total of 38,824 people died in motor vehicle crashes in the U.S., the most since 2007 and an increase of 6.8% over 2019.1 Considering an 11% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2020 during the pandemic, the fatality rate adjusted for miles traveled increased by 21% and the adjusted pedestrian fatality rate increased by an unprecedented 21%. Clearly, innovative, proven street design tactics need to be more broadly embraced in order to improve safety and mobility on our roadways.

Cities across the globe have been installing asphalt art treatments at intersections and pedestrian crossings for some time now with a goal of improving safety and the quality of life for all roadway users. Such projects have been used in a variety of applications, including within the crosswalk, within the center of an intersection, or in place of or in addition to traditional roadway features such as islands or curb extensions. The art is intended to create a highly visible crossing and suggest a walkable, active, shared use environment. Additionally, art in the crosswalk or at curb extensions makes the pedestrian crossing location more conspicuous to drivers.

However, some in the transportation community find that such projects on portions of roads open to motor vehicles are typically not compliant with official interpretations of the 2009 version of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which provides standards and guidance for markings on public roadways in the United States.

This interpretation of the standard—which pre-dates the availability of modern colored pavement materials—has limited the number 1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2020 Annual Crash Data Asphalt Art Safety Study
9 of communities who can, as a practical matter, use asphalt art in crosswalks and other parts of the street. Recently, such interpretations have been challenged by organizations like the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and individual public agencies seeking to improve roadway safety by focusing more on the most vulnerable road users, and less on the rapid movement of motor vehicles on city streets. Both NACTO and the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) have proposed that asphalt art in crosswalks be permitted in the forthcoming revision to the MUTCD; however, the status of asphalt art in the ongoing revisions will likely not be known until 2023.

Given this divide between existing policy and the growing movement of practitioners and community residents who see the potential benefit of asphalt art, some local authorities have been willing to approve asphalt art projects while those in other jurisdictions have been more reluctant to do so. The resulting patchwork approach makes approval processes difficult for community organizations seeking to install asphalt art projects and leads to time-consuming, redundant efforts by local engineers seeking to assess such proposals. This study was designed to address this need and provide a quantitative assessment of multiple asphalt art projects to determine their impact on roadway safety.

Bloomberg Philanthropies
10 1. Introduction

1.1 Study Goals and Objectives
The goal of this study is to assess the effectiveness of asphalt art as a safety improvement through quantification and analysis of crash and behavior performance metrics before and after installation at study sites. There are two independent components to the study:
» Historical Crash Analysis – Site characteristics, traffic volumes, and crash data were obtained for 17 asphalt art sites in five states (seven unsignalized intersections, seven signalized intersections and three mid-block crossings). A before-after comparison group study design was used to evaluate the safety effectiveness of the projects.
» Observational Behavior Assessment – Performance metrics were developed for pedestrian and driver behavior and recordings were assessed to identify occurrences of the behavior during before and after comparison periods. This methodology was applied to five asphalt art intersection locations (two signalized and three unsignalized).

The objective of the study is to quantify the change in the following metrics for before and after comparison periods:
» Crash Rates
» Total Crashes
» Vulnerable user crashes
» Fatal and injury crashes
» Driver and Pedestrian Behavior Metrics
» Pedestrian-Vehicle conflicts with crash potential (near-miss) » Driver yielding/stopping behavior
» Compliance with traffic control devices
These components were combined because crash rates should not be used as a lone factor in determining the safety effectiveness of roadway treatments, as crashes often have numerous contributing factors. By also assessing quantifiable behavioral metrics such as rate of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and rates of drivers yielding to pedestrians, the intention is for the study to provide a more holistic measure of the effectiveness of treatments at installation sites.

Asphalt Art Safety Study
11 1.2 Literature Review
In addition to the analysis itself, a literature review was performed and interviews with transportation officials from over three dozen cities were conducted, inquiring about their experience with asphalt art projects related to safety. Aside from a small number of internal studies generated by municipal staff, the study team found no all-encompassing analysis that created a standardized set of metrics by which to compare safety across different asphalt art improvement types, facility types, settings, and geographic regions, or that considered the long-term safety impacts of asphalt art, further demonstrating the need for the analysis in this document. Findings from the literature review and interviews are summarized in Appendix A.

Bloomberg Philanthropies
12 2. Historical Crash Analysis

2. Historical Crash Analysis

2.1. Background and Scope
To quantify the safety performance of a site, road safety practitioners use metrics called crash modification factors (CMF).

CMFs are multiplicative factors used to compute the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure or roadway modification at a specific site. FHWA has developed a living database called the CMF Clearinghouse, which includes a list of recognized CMFs and provides references to studies from which they were developed. CMFs listed in the CMF Clearinghouse are developed as a product of robust published research studies.

CMFs included are rated based on the thoroughness of the associated research study, which is predicated on criteria such as study design, sample size, statistical methodology, statistical significance, etc.

While the intent of this historical crash analysis is not to develop a CMF (as it lacks the scale and complexity of FHWAreviewed research studies), elements of research studies used to develop CMFs were used as a model for this analysis. Similar to FHWA research studies, the goal of this study is to observe and compare long-term crash trends over a range of sites with similar characteristics. In addition to comparing crash quantity/frequency, trends in crash attributes and contributors such as severity, vulnerable user involvement, lighting condition, and crash type were also assessed.

2.2. Crash Data Sources
Many states and cities actively maintain open-source crash databases with historical crash data available at differing levels of granularity and comprehensiveness. While in certain states/ jurisdictions, comprehensive data is relatively easy to obtain, others do not allow the public to search for crash data at a single site, only by municipality or neighborhood. Additionally, some public databases only have crash data available for a limited number of years, often excluding the current and most recent complete year (for this study 2020 and 2021) and/or data older than five years.

Asphalt Art Safety Study
13 Further, while a range of roadway data (volume, speed, multimodal, user behavior) is also becoming more widely available and easier to obtain, it is usually not granular enough for quantifying performance at a specific site without dedicated, often costly, monitoring programs.

This lack of comprehensive crash and road user behavior data ultimately impacted both the study site selection and the methodology itself. A list of crash data sources for each study site including years of data obtained is included in the Appendix B.

2.3. Site Selection Criteria
While asphalt art sites are prevalent throughout the country, the study team sought the most rigorous understanding of asphalt art impacts and initially reviewed 150 locations. Of those, 17 sites were selected that met all of the below criteria while offering a diverse array of project types, geographic locations, and neighborhood contexts.
» Known installation dates and dates of deterioration/repainting within 3 months (confirmed through NearMap or Google Maps historical imagery)
» Facility type is a marked mid-block crossing, stop-controlled intersection, or signalized intersection within (or formerly within) public ROW and open to vehicle traffic (excludes art in driveways, trails, approaches to controlled access highways, private developments, etc.)
» State or municipality has publicly available historical crash data through an online resource or open-source data portal
» Historical crash data available on a location-based scale (i.e., more than just county-wide or municipal-wide data)
» At least 12 months of pre- and post-implementation (“before” and “after”) crash data available (as many states delay crash data for the current and previous year or only keep recent crash records for the last 5 years, many recently implemented asphalt art sites or those implemented longer than 6 years ago did not have 12 months of data)
» Robust crash data including (at a minimum) crash date, time of day, severity, vulnerable user involvement, lighting condition, crash type/circumstances
Bloomberg Philanthropies
14 2. Historical Crash Analysis

2.4. Summary of Study Sites Selected
The 17 sites selected for this study are included in Table 1 below.

Sites from five states were included in high-density urban (central business district, downtown, or mixed-use areas), medium/low density urban (mostly residential), and suburban settings. Sites included mid-block crossings, stop-controlled intersections, and signalized intersections. Tables 2–4 below include a disaggregation of the 17 study sites by state, region, setting, and facility type. # City State Intersection Site Setting Facility Type
1 St Petersburg FL Central Ave & 5th St Urban Core Intersection-Signal Intersection-Signal
2 Miami FL Northeast 98th St & Northeast 2nd Ave Neighborhood Commercial Mid-Block 3 Ft Lauderdale FL Terramar St & Breakers Ave Neighborhood Residential Intersection-Stop 4 Ft Lauderdale FL Riomore St & Breakers Ave Neighborhood Residential Intersection-Stop 5 Pinecrest FL Killian Dr & SW 67th Ave Suburban
6 Pinecrest FL Killian Dr & SW 62nd Ave Suburban Intersection-Stop 7 Atlanta GA Piedmont Ave & 10th St Urban Core Intersection-Signal 8 Decatur GA Ponce de Leon Ave & Fairview Ave Neighborhood Residential Intersection-Stop 9 Decatur GA Ponce de Leon Ave & Clairemont Ave Urban Core Intersection-Signal 10 Decatur GA Ponce de Leon Ave & E Court Square Urban Core Mid-Block 11 Cambridge MA Massachusetts Avenue & Inman Street Urban Core Intersection-Signal 12 Rahway NJ E Cherry St & Irving St Neighborhood Residential Intersection-Stop 13 Maplewood NJ Valley St & Oakview Ave Suburban Intersection-Signal 14 NYC (Brooklyn) NY Hooper St & Division Ave Urban Core Intersection-Stop 15 NYC (Manhattan) NY 7th Ave & Christopher St Urban Core Intersection-Signal 16 Tampa FL N River Blvd & W Louisiana Ave Suburban Intersection-Stop 17 New Brunswick NJ Livingston Ave Urban Core Mid-Block Table 1: Study Site Location Information
Table 2: Study Sites by Region Table 3: Study Sites by Setting Table 4: Study Sites by Facility Type Region # %
Northeast
Southeast
TOTAL
6 11
17 35%
65%
100%
Table 4
Urban Core
Neighborhood
Residential/Commercial
Suburban
TOTAL
8 5
4 17
47%
29%
24%
100%
Setting # %
Table 3
Intersection
(Signal Controlled)
Intersection
(Stop Controlled)
Mid-Block
TOTAL
7 7
3 17
41%
41%
18%
100%
Facility Type # %
Table 4
Asphalt Art Safety Study
15 # City State Crosswalk Art
Roadway Art
(Center of intersection or
intersection approach)
Other Improvements/Notes
1 St Petersburg FL ✓
2 Miami FL ✓
3 Ft Lauderdale FL ✓ ✓ Sidewalk improvements
4 Ft Lauderdale FL ✓ ✓ Sidewalk improvements
5 Pinecrest FL ✓
6 Pinecrest FL ✓
7 Atlanta GA ✓
Rapid development, nearby bike
network expansion, bike & pedestrian
volume growth
8 Decatur GA ✓ Raised crosswalks
9 Decatur GA ✓ Bollards/sidewalk improvements
10 Decatur GA ✓ Raised crosswalks
11 Cambridge MA ✓
12 Rahway NJ ✓
13 Maplewood NJ ✓
14 NYC (Brooklyn) NY ✓ Restricted turning movement,
intersection leg closure
15 NYC (Manhattan) NY ✓
16 Tampa FL ✓
17 New Brunswick NJ ✓ Art within marked parking spaces
# 11 8
% 65%
8 47% 29%

COMBINED SITES
Table 5: Site Locations by Improvement Type

2.5. Improvements at Study Sites
Asphalt art sites included in the study were classified based on type of improvement. Improvements related directly to installation of art include crosswalk art, intersection art serving a functional traffic control/calming purpose and meeting the definition of a traffic control device or traffic calming treatment device (e.g., curb extension, painted chicane, incorporation of traffic control elements), and roadway art serving only as an aesthetic improvement and not meeting the definition of a traffic control device (e.g., within the center of an intersection or along an approach). At some sites, in addition to asphalt art, other roadway/ roadside improvements were implemented at the same time (e.g., raised crosswalks, pedestrian signal improvements, traffic control device modifications). Table 5 provides a matrix of improvements at each study site. Pre- and post-implementation aerial photos and links to locations in Google Maps are provided in Appendix C.

Bloomberg Philanthropies
16 2. Historical Crash Analysis

2.6. Historical Crash Data Analysis Methodology
Historical crash data was obtained from state and municipal transportation agencies for each of the 17 study sites. As mentioned above, sites were selected based on a set of criteria identified to support a sound analysis methodology. In many jurisdictions, there are limitations on data available through open-source data portals.

This required extracting data for thousands of crashes, and then manually parsing data to obtain the desired datasets at individual locations.

NearMap, an online resource for regularly updated historical aerial imagery, was used to obtain art installation dates as interviews with each municipality were not conducted. Using this imagery, the last confirmed date of the condition prior to asphalt art implementation, date of art installation, and dates of deterioration/ repainting/removal were obtained. Months between the confirmed prior condition and implementation and months after art had deteriorated beyond recognition were excluded from both analysis periods. At some locations, the exact date(s) of installation are known and were used when available.

To account for differences in sites with different analysis periods, crash rates (crashes/year) were used as a metric instead of raw number of crashes. The average pre-implementation/before period for all sites was 48.2 months while the post-implementation/after period averaged 32.9 months. Analysis periods for each site are presented in Table 6 on page 21.

The combined pre- and post-implementation analysis periods for the 17 study sites included a total of 390 reported crash records.

Crash records were first reviewed and analyzed for all 17 sites combined in the following categories: total reported crashes, crashes involving vulnerable users (e.g., bicyclists, pedestrians, scooter users), crashes resulting in an injury, crash type, contributing circumstance, and time of day/lighting condition.

Contributing circumstances and crash types were not available for every site and breakdown of crash types were summarized for combined sites with that information available. Lighting condition data was incomplete for many states and varied widely from state to state, resulting in inclusive data that was not included in the analysis.

Asphalt Art Safety Study
17 Crash rate metrics for combined study sites were calculated using two separate methods. The average of crash rates is the average of the individual crash rate values of each site within an analysis period and is calculated by dividing the sum of crash rates for each site by the quantity of sites. The average rate is the aggregated crash rate of all sites/analysis periods and is calculated by dividing the total number crashes that occurred divided by the total amount of time analyzed. It should be noted that several after periods overlapped with periods of reduced volumes due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
52 39 2016
54 25 2017
49 42 2016
49 42 2016
59 14 2018
59 14 2018
54 42 2017
47 46 2016
48 47 2017
48 47 2017
60 28 2016
39 18 2019
40 31 2018
30 35 2018
16 42 2017
60 32 2017
57 16 2019

48.3 32.9 -
# City State Pre-Implementation
“Before” (Months)
Post-Implementation
“After” (Months) Implementation Year
1 St Petersburg FL
2 Miami FL
3 Ft Lauderdale FL
4 Ft Lauderdale FL
5 Pinecrest FL
6 Pinecrest FL
7 Atlanta GA
8 Decatur GA
9 Decatur GA
10 Decatur GA
11 Cambridge MA
12 Rahway NJ
13 Maplewood NJ
14 NYC (Brooklyn) NY
15 NYC (Manhattan) NY
16 Tampa FL
17 New Brunswick NJ

AVERAGE
Table 6 Table 6: Analysis Periods
Bloomberg Philanthropies
18 2. Historical Crash Analysis

2.7. Historical Crash Analysis Results
Comparisons of crash types are presented in the following tables and further detailed by site in Appendix D. The percent differences between analysis periods were calculated as the difference in crash rates of the after and before period divided by the crash rate of the before period. Positive values for percent difference between the crash rates in the before and after condition indicate a reduction in the crash rate, while negative values indicate an increase.

Study Sites - Combined
Results indicate that, at the 17 study sites, the average of crash rates was 17.3% lower in the analysis periods after art installation than the average of crash rates for the before analysis periods.

Similarly, the average of vulnerable user and injury crash rates were

49.6% and 36.5% lower in analysis periods after art was installed.

It should be noted that sites with a comparatively large number of crashes in both the before and after analysis periods heavily influenced averages of crash rates. As such, the average of crash rates was calculated for the entire 17 site sample and separately, excluding the sites with the highest and lowest number of total crashes statistical outliers. For this study, Site 7 (Atlanta, GA) experienced the highest number of crashes (70 and 77 crashes in before and after periods respectively) and both Site 16 (Tampa, FL) and Site 17 (New Brunswick, NJ) had no crash occurrences either analysis period. For purposes of performing calculations excluding statistical outliers, Site 17 was excluded as opposed to Site 16 because the before and after analysis periods were longer.

The following points summarize key findings from an analysis of crashes of all types (total crashes), crashes involving vulnerable users, and crashes involving an injury, holistically for all 17 study sites combined. Reported crashes, analysis periods intervals, and crash rates for before and after periods are presented by site and as an average in Tables 7–9 below. Table 10 presents the average (aggregate) crash rate of crashes and analysis periods of the 17 study sites combined.

Asphalt Art Safety Study
19 54
49 49
59 59
54 47
48 48
60 39
40 30
16 60
57 48.3
25 42
42 14
14 42
46 47
47 28
18 31
35 42
32 16

32.9 # City State
Before After Before After Before After Difference
Analysis Period
(Months)
Vulnerable User
Crash Quantity
Vulnerable User Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
1 St Petersburg
2 Miami FL
3 Ft Lauderdale FL
4 Ft Lauderdale FL
5 Pinecrest FL
6 Pinecrest FL
7 Atlanta GA
8 Decatur GA
9 Decatur GA
10 Decatur GA
11 Cambridge MA
12 Rahway NJ
13 Maplewood NJ
14 NYC (Brooklyn) NY
15 NYC (Manhattan) NY
16 Tampa FL
17 New Brunswick NJ

AVERAGE SITE

AVERAGE OF VULNERABLE USER CRASH RATES (ALL SITES)

AVERAGE OF VULNERABLE USER CRASH RATE (EXCLUDING HIGH AND LOW SITES) 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 1
6 1
1 0
0 0
0 0

13.7 9.2

0.00 0.00 0%

0.89 0.86 -4%

0.00 0.00 0%

0.20 0.00 -100%

0.00 0.67 0%

0.00 0.39 0%

2.40 0.34 -86%

0.75 0.00 -100%

0.00 0.00 0%

0.26 0.13 -49.6%

0.24 0.09 -61.0%
FL 52 39 1 0 0.00 0.00 -100%
54 49
49 59
59 54
47 48
48 60
39 40
30 16
60 57

48.3 25
42 42
14 14
42 46
47 47
28 18
31 35
42 32
16 32.9
# City State
Before After Before After Before After Difference
Analysis Period
(Months)
Total Crash Quantity Total Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
1 St Petersburg
2 Miami FL
3 Ft Lauderdale FL
4 Ft Lauderdale FL
5 Pinecrest FL
6 Pinecrest FL
7 Atlanta GA
8 Decatur GA
9 Decatur GA
10 Decatur GA
11 Cambridge MA
12 Rahway NJ
13 Maplewood NJ
14 NYC (Brooklyn) NY
15 NYC (Manhattan) NY
16 Tampa FL
17 New Brunswick NJ

AVERAGE SITE

AVERAGE OF TOTAL CRASH RATES (ALL SITES)

AVERAGE OF TOTAL CRASH RATES (EXCLUDING HIGH AND LOW SITES) 3 0
2 1
4 3
28 1
3 0
70 77
11 4
12 15
11 8
31 7
6 2
17 9
12 12
5 5
0 0
0 0

13.7 9.2

0.7 0.0 -100%

0.5 0.3 -42%

1.0 0.9 -13%

5.7 0.9 -85%

0.6 0.0 -100%

15.6 22.0 +41%

2.8 1.0 -63%

3.0 3.8 +28%

2.8 2.0 -26%

6.2 3.0 -52%

1.8 1.3 -28%

5.1 3.5 -32%

4.8 4.1 -14%

3.8 1.4 -62%

0.0 0.0 0%

3.44 2.84 -17.3%

2.86 1.75 -38.7%
FL 52 39 18 13 4.2 4.0 -4%
Table 7: Total Crash Rate by Site and Average of Rates (Crashes/Year) Table 8: Vulnerable User Crash Rate by Site and Average of Rates (Crashes/Year) Bloomberg Philanthropies
20 2. Historical Crash Analysis
54 49
49 59
59 54
47 48
48 60
39 40
30 16
60 57

48.3 25
42 42
14 14
42 46
47 47
28 18
31 35
42 32
16 32.9
# City State
Before After Before After Before After Difference
Analysis Period
(Months)
Injury Crash Quantity Injury Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
1 St Petersburg
2 Miami FL
3 Ft Lauderdale FL
4 Ft Lauderdale FL
5 Pinecrest FL
6 Pinecrest FL
7 Atlanta GA
8 Decatur GA
9 Decatur GA
10 Decatur GA
11 Cambridge MA
12 Rahway NJ
13 Maplewood NJ
14 NYC (Brooklyn) NY
15 NYC (Manhattan) NY
16 Tampa FL
17 New Brunswick NJ

AVERAGE SITE

AVERAGE OF INJURY CRASH RATES (ALL SITES)

AVERAGE OF INJURY CRASH RATE (EXCLUDING HIGH AND LOW SITES)

0.88 0.56 -36.5%

0.80 0.46 -41.5%
FL 52 39 5 0 1.15 0.00 -100%
1 0 0.22 0.00 -100%
0 0 0.00 0.00 0%
6 0 1.47 0.00 -100%
3 1 0.61 0.86 +40%
0 0 0.00 0.00 0%
14 9 3.11 2.57 -17%
4 2 1.02 0.52 -49%
1 4 0.25 1.02 +309%
1 1 0.25 0.26 +2%
14 0 2.80 0.00 -100%
0 1 0.00 0.67 0%
6 5 1.80 1.94 +8%
4 5 1.60 1.71 +7%
1 0 0.75 0.00 -100%
0 0 0.00 0.00 0%
0 0 0.00 0.00 0%

13.7 9.2
821
821
710
710
710
560
560
502
502
502
Sites Crash
Type Before After Before After Before After Difference
Analysis Period
(Months)
Quantity Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Average Crash Rate
(All Sites
Aggregated)
Vulnerable
Users
Injury
Average Crash Rate
(Aggregated,
Excluding High and
Low sites)
Total
Vulnerable
Users
Injury
Total 821 560 233 157 3.41 3.36 -1.2%
13 6 0.7 0.0 -32.3%
60 28 0.5 0.3 -31.6%
163 80 2.75 1.91 -30.6%
9 3 0.15 0.07 -52.9%
46 19 0.78 0.45 -41.6%
Table 9: Injury Crash Rate by Site and Average of Rates (Crashes/Year) Table 10: Average (Aggregate) Crash Rate (Crashes/Year) Asphalt Art Safety Study
21 » Using the average of rates method, between the before and after analysis periods, the average of total, vulnerable user, and injury crash rates decreased by 17.3%, 49.6%, 36.5%, respectively.

Excluding the statistical outliers (Sites 7 and 17), the average of total, vulnerable user, and injury crash rates decreased by 38.7%,

61.0%, 41.5%, respectively.
» Using the average (aggregate) rate method, between the before and after analysis periods, the average (aggregate) total, vulnerable user, and injury crash rates decreased by 1.2%, 32.3%, and 31.6%, respectively. Excluding the statistical outliers (Sites 7 and 17), the average (aggregate) total, vulnerable user, and injury crash rates decreased by 30.6%, 52.9%, and 41.6%, respectively.
» Change in crash rates at sites ranged from a decrease of 100% (two FL locations) to an increase of 41% (Atlanta, GA).
» 13 (76%) sites had a decreased total crash rate, 2 (12%) had an increased total crash rate, 2 (12%) had no crashes in either period. » No crashes resulted in a fatality during before or after analysis periods at each of the 17 study sites.
» No crashes were reported during one or both analysis periods at 4 (24%) sites and both analysis periods at 2 (12%) sites. » No vulnerable user crashes were reported during one or both analysis periods at 15 (88%) sites and both analysis period at 10 (59%) sites.
» No injury crashes were reported during one or both analysis periods at 10 (59%) sites and both analysis period at 4 (24%) sites. » Crashes at one site (Atlanta, GA) accounted for 38% of total crashes (30% in the before period, 49% in the after period).

Bloomberg Philanthropies
22 2. Historical Crash Analysis
Study Sites – Disaggregated by Site Characteristics
A disaggregate analysis was completed to determine if certain types of asphalt art may be more effective or if art may be more effective under specific conditions. Tables 11–14 below summarize trends for total, vulnerable user, and injury crash rates for study sites broken down by geographic region and site setting.

2.8. Discussion of Historical Crash Analysis Results
On the basis of a before-after historical crash analysis of 17 asphalt art study sites, implementation of asphalt art appears to have a positive impact on the rate of crashes of all types. The average of total, vulnerable user, and injury crash rates for the combined study sites were reduced by 17%, 50%, and 37% respectively after installation of asphalt art. While the average (aggregate) rate also decreased in the after period. The trend between presence of asphalt art and reduced crash rates was consistent across sites with a variety of roadway settings, traffic control types, and art improvement type. The results are likely due to the improved conspicuity of the intersection and roadway user movements. It should be noted that at several locations, after analysis periods overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, when injury crash rates were elevated nationwide.

The total crash rate decreased or remained at 0 in the after analysis period compared to the before period at all sites, except Piedmont Avenue & 10th Street in Atlanta, GA (+41%) and Ponce de Leon Avenue & Clairemont Avenue in Decatur, GA (+28%) (both signalized intersections). The Piedmont Avenue & 10th Street site is located in the rapidly growing Midtown area of Atlanta and accounted for 38% of the total crashes occurring at all sites.

Despite increased total crash rate after art was installed, the intersection experienced a 17% decrease in the injury crash rate (crashes/year) and a 4% decrease in vulnerable user crash rate—two important and widely utilized performance indicators. The project could be considered successful on the basis of this decrease in the injury crash rate and vulnerable user crash rate (which typically result in an injury, if reported).

Additionally, according to the City of Atlanta, rapid redevelopment of immediate area surrounding the intersection near the time of the art installation, resulted in a nearly three-fold increase in bike activity (without bike improvements at the intersection itself), an 18% increase in motor vehicle volumes on Piedmont Street, and a Asphalt Art Safety Study
23 Region #
Before After Difference Before After Difference Before After Difference Total Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Vulnerable User Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Injury Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Northeast
Southeast 11
Total 17
6 3.52 2.47 -30% 0.40 0.21 -47% 1.24 0.78 -37%

3.36 3.75 +12% 0.10 0.09 -11% 0.73 0.52 -28%

3.41 3.36 -1.2% 0.19 0.13 -32.3% 0.88 0.60 -31.6%
Table 11: Average (Aggregated) Total, Vulnerable User, and Injury Crash Rates by Geographic Region Setting #
Before After Difference Before After Difference Before After Difference Total Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Vulnerable User Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Injury Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Urban Core 7 2.30 1.01 -56% 0.04 0.06 +48% 1.01 0.18 -82% Urban Residential 6 5.04 5.82 +16% 0.47 0.18 -62% 1.02 0.85 -17% Suburban 4 2.64 1.32 -50% 0.00 0.13 IND 0.50 0.79 +60%
TOTAL 17 3.41 3.36 -1.2% 0.19 0.13 -32.3% 0.88 0.60 -31.6% Table 12: Average (Aggregated) Total, Vulnerable User, and Injury Crash Rates by Site Setting Traffic Control #
Before After Difference Before After Difference Before After Difference Total Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Vulnerable User Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Injury Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Intersection -
Signal Controlled 7 6.60 6.27 -5% 0.26 0.20 -23% 1.60 0.94 -42% Intersection -
Stop Controlled 7 1.37 1.15 -16% 0.22 0.10 -52% 0.50 0.42 -17% Mid-Block 3 1.06 1.09 +3% 0.00 0.00 - 0.15 0.14 -10%
TOTAL 17 3.41 3.36 -1.2% 0.19 0.13 -32.3% 0.88 0.60 -31.6% Table 13: Average (Aggregated) Total, Vulnerable User, and Injury Crash Rates by Site Facility Type Improvement #
Before After Difference Before After Difference Before After Difference Total Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Vulnerable User Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Injury Crash Rate
(Crashes/Year)
Roadway Art Sites
(Excl. Sites with
Crosswalk Art)
6 2.45 1.96 -20% 0.27 0.08 -72% 0.50 0.45 -9%
Roadway Art +
Crosswalk Art Sites 2 0.73 0.57 -22% 2.08 1.29 -38% 0.73 0.00 -100% Crosswalk Art Sites
(Excl. Sites with
Roadway Art)
9 4.78 4.81 +1% 0.18 0.19 +8% 1.20 0.83 -31%
Combined
(Average Rate) 17 3.41 3.36 -1.2% 0.19 0.13 -32.3% 0.88 0.60 -31.6% Table 14: Average (Aggregated) Total, Vulnerable User, and Injury Crash Rates by Site Improvement Type Bloomberg Philanthropies
24 2. Historical Crash Analysis
likely a significant increase in pedestrian volumes. It is reasonable to expect an increase in total crash and vulnerable user rate when volumes increase significantly and is encouraging that the injury crash rate decreased despite this.

Although crash rates for specific crash types (vulnerable user and injury crashes) did increase for certain crash types in the after periods, sample sizes were often very small (most locations had 0 or 1 crash in before-after periods averaging over 3 years). As crashes are for the most part rare and random events with several contributing circumstances, when crash sample sizes are small, crash reductions at most individual locations are not statistically significant when evaluated individually.

The disaggregate analysis indicated mixed results for each crash type investigated when considering sites by setting.

Increases in pedestrian crashes in urban locations may be due an increased rate of pedestrians, cyclists, and even motor vehicle traffic generated by improving the location with asphalt art and other developments. Crash rates decreased for signalized and unsignalized intersections and experienced an insignificant increase at mid-block crossing locations between the before and after analysis periods. Notably, the average crash rate decreased at signalized intersections despite the significant number of crashes at the Atlanta site.

The negligible increases in overall and vulnerable user crash rates at improvement sites with crosswalk art alone may also be due to an increased rate of pedestrians, cyclists, and even motor vehicle traffic generated by site and nearby improvements. Despite a slight increase in overall (+1%) and vulnerable user (+8%) crashes at crosswalk art sites, injury crashes were reduced by 31%.

Disaggregate analyses in the present study are based on a very limited sample sizes using basic crash analysis techniques. As such, while we cannot infer direct causation, results generally indicated reduced crash rates after installation of art for most crash types across a range of settings, traffic control, and improvement types. As more post-implementation crash data becomes available for asphalt art sites, further study and analysis using larger sample sizes would provide more insight into effectiveness of different types of art improvements in different roadway contexts.

Asphalt Art Safety Study
25 Bloomberg Philanthropies
26 3. Behavioral Observational Assessment

3. Behavioral Observational Assessment

3.1. Background and Scope
While historical crash data provides insight into the safety performance of a subject site, it is important to keep in mind that crashes are rare occurrences and almost always have multiple contributing factors. The sample size of pedestrian crashes at most locations is too small to be of statistical significance at most locations individually. This is indicated in the above historical crash data, in that most sites have few to zero pedestrian crashes over both analysis periods. In instances where pedestrian crashes occur infrequently, other factors such as near-miss conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, observed road user behavior, and compliance with traffic control devices can provide insight on the safety impacts as a result of roadway treatments such as asphalt art.

To study the impact of asphalt art on driver and pedestrian behavior, five intersection sites with art projects in Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Asphalt Art Initiative were selected with scheduled implementation dates for summer-fall 2021. Video was recorded of the intersection capturing vehicle and pedestrian behavior for a period prior to and following installation. Using this video, visual observations were performed to assess pedestrian and motorist behavior during each observation period. The observation assessment methodology, information about sites selected, and findings are presented in the sections below.

3.2. Methodology
Video recordings of each intersection location were collected for 48-hour periods during the same days of the week (when possible) to capture approaching vehicles and crossing movements at each leg of the intersection. Video was first reviewed at a high level to determine appropriate 8-hour analysis periods before and after the installation of the art/improvements. In some cases, this 8-hour period was broken into multiple segments to capture peak hour pedestrian volumes.

Asphalt Art Safety Study
27 The video recordings were reviewed during the before and after analysis periods to conduct conflict analyses and record other observable behavior metrics. Pedestrian group crossings (as opposed to individual pedestrians, which were also recorded) were utilized for purposes of analysis. This metric is typical for pedestrian crossing studies as pedestrians waiting at an intersection typically arrive or cross in groups. As an example, if a child and parent arrived at an intersection together and crossed the roadway together, they would be counted as a single crossing, while if there were two individuals waiting at an intersection and one crossed during a “flashing don’t walk phase” while the other pedestrian decided to wait until the next interval, they would be counted as separate crossings.

As the observational study sites consisted of both signalized and unsignalized intersections, different metrics were captured based on different types of traffic control. The following details road-user behavior metrics assessed as part of this study.

3.2.1. Metrics at All Observation Sites
Pedestrian-Vehicle Conflicts
To compare road user behavior in the before and after conditions at signalized and unsignalized intersection locations, a conflict analysis was conducted using video data collected at each location.

Conflict analysis involves observing and recording conflicts between pedestrians and drivers/vehicle. A conflict is defined as an observable situation in which two or more road users approach each other in space and time to such an extent that there is a risk of collision if their movements remain unchanged, and at least one of the road users then takes action to avoid a crash. Such an action could be as simple as a routine application of the brakes to give way to a crossing pedestrian.

Bloomberg Philanthropies
28 3. Behavioral Observational Assessment
Pedestrian-vehicle conflicts range in severity by how likely they are to result in a crash. This analysis considered conflicts of two levels:
» Low Crash Potential – A motorist noticeably brakes to avoid striking a pedestrian or group; a pedestrian or group of pedestrians stops to avoid being in the path of an oncoming or turning vehicle, although the vehicle has appropriately yielded. Neither actions are sudden, atypical, or extreme. Vehicles passing their appropriate stop bar, or negotiation of space between pedestrian and vehicle in the crosswalk may suggest a Low Crash Potential conflict. » High Crash Potential – A motorist noticeably and clearly suddenly stops or swerves to avoid striking a pedestrian or group of pedestrians in a fashion that suggests reduced control of the vehicle; a pedestrian or group of pedestrians jumps, runs, stops, or suddenly steps or lunges to avoid being struck by a vehicle.

An example of a Low Crash Potential conflict is when a vehicle turning towards a pedestrian in the crosswalk noticeably brakes to avoid conflicting with the pedestrian. This behavior is normal and as expected, as pedestrians are crossing with the signal and the car properly yields to them; however, this is still considered to be a conflict because, if the vehicle had not yielded quickly, the vehicle would have to suddenly break or swerve (indicating a High Crash Potential conflict) to avoid potential collision. A turning vehicle yielding the right of way to crossing pedestrians is also the most common type of Low Crash Potential conflict encountered. The goal of this conflict analysis is to identify observed differences in driver and pedestrian behavior and occurrences of crash-risk conflicts before and after art implementation.

To consider the rate of Low and High Crash Potential conflicts, the video recorded was also reviewed to quantify pedestrian activity.

The following metrics pertaining to pedestrian activity were quantified:
» Pedestrian Crossing Groups – A pedestrian, or a group of pedestrians, that both approach the crosswalk and cross at the intersection simultaneously.
» Pedestrians per Crossing Group - The number of people present per pedestrian crossing as defined above.
» Origin/Destination of Crossing Groups – The origin and destination crosswalk for each group of pedestrian crossings.

Asphalt Art Safety Study
29 Pedestrian Actions
An analysis was conducted of undesired pedestrian actions at intersections in before and after conditions using collected video data. Undesired pedestrian actions were recorded as follows:
» Pedestrian crossing against signal – When a pedestrian crosses the intersection while the movement is prohibited by the pedestrian signal and begins their movement while a solid “Don’t Walk” symbol is displayed.
» Pedestrian crossing outside of crosswalk – When a pedestrian crosses mid-block, at an intersection approach outside the vicinity of the crosswalk or crosses the intersection at a diagonal.

Bloomberg Philanthropies
30 3. Behavioral Observational Assessment

3.2.2. Metrics at Unsignalized Observation Sites
Vehicle Yield/Stop Compliance
The goal of this yield compliance analysis is to identify observed differences in driver behavior with respect to compliance with yielding or stopping for pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross before and after art implementation, as well as noted behavior of pedestrians in the before and after observation periods.

Pedestrians have the right of way at unsignalized intersections, regardless of the presence or absence of a marked crosswalk, but people often have to wait for drivers to yield or stop for them before they start crossing. Particularly on higher-speed or higher-volume streets, drivers often fail to yield to pedestrians who are waiting to cross, and sometimes even fail to yield to people already in the crosswalk. In addition to injury risks, pedestrians face extended delays in crossing when drivers do not properly yield or stop for them.

As such, at unsignalized locations, the recorded videos were reviewed to analyze yielding behavior of drivers for crossing pedestrians along with other indicators of the traffic environment.

The below metrics were recorded. It should be noted that only crossings with vehicles present at the intersection were analyzed, excluding crossings where pedestrians crossed with an adequate gap, unconflicted.
» Vehicle Presence – Whether there one or more vehicles approaching the observed crossing at the intersection at the time of the pedestrian crossing.
» Non-Yielding Drivers/Vehicles – The number of drivers who failed to yield to a pedestrian initiating crossing or in the crosswalk.

This excludes any driver yielding to pedestrians even if suddenly braking in a manner that would constitute a potential crash conflict as defined in the section above.
» Eventual Yield – Whether or not the first or subsequent drivers, if present, eventually yielded to crossing pedestrians or pedestrians.

If no vehicles yielded, pedestrians crossing during an adequate gap were noted as crossing with no eventual yield.

Asphalt Art Safety Study
31 3.3. Observation Sites and Analysis Periods
A total of five sites were selected for observations analysis with asphalt art projects scheduled for installation in summer and fall 2021. Table 15 below provides a summary of each site, setting, intersection type, roadway/roadside improvement(s). Before and after street level and aerial photography is provided for each location in the Appendix. Table 16 provides a summary of locations by date of art installation and observation analysis periods. Before and after photos of each observation site are shown in Figures 2–6, illustrating the improvements made at each site.
# City State Intersection Setting Traffic
Control Summary
1 Trenton South Clinton Ave &
Barlow St/ R Wallenberg Ave NJ Signal Urban Core Painted crosswalks 2 Richmond VA W Marshall St & Brook Rd Signal Curb extensions, bollards, painted intersection Urban Core
3 Durham NC Club Blvd & Glendale Ave Signal Painted crosswalks, painted intersection Suburban
4 Pittsburgh PA Roup Ave, S Fairmount St &
Harriet St Stop Curb extensions, additional/revised marked crosswalks Neighborhood
Residential
5 Lancaster PA Strawberry St & Vine St Stop Urban Core Curb extensions, bollards # City State Intersection
Before
Observation
Date
After
Observation
Date
Installation
Date(s)
Observation
Period Times
1 Trenton South Clinton Ave &
Barlow St/ R Wallenberg Ave NJ 9/4/21 - 9/5/21
7 AM–11 AM,
3 PM–7 PM 8/24/2021 9/21/2021
2 Richmond VA W Marshall St & Brook Rd 10/24/21 –
10/26/21 9/23/2021 11/16/2021 11 AM–7 PM
3 Durham NC Club Blvd & Glendale Ave 5/21/21-
5/24/21 5/15/2021 7/3/2021 10 AM–6 PM
4 Pittsburgh PA Roup Ave, S Fairmount St &
Harriet St
9/23/21 –
9/24/21
8 AM–12 PM,
3:30 PM–7:30 PM 9/9/2021 10/21/2021
5 Lancaster PA Strawberry St & Vine St 9/11/21-
9/12/21 9/9/2021 10/24/2021 8 AM–12 PM, 3:30 PM–7:30 PM Table 15: Summary of Observational Assessment Sites
Table 16: Summary of Analysis Periods
Bloomberg Philanthropies
32 3. Behavioral Observational Assessment
Trenton, NJ
Figure 2: Trenton, NJ - Before
Figure 3: Trenton, NJ - After
Asphalt Art Safety Study
33 Figure 6: Richmond, VA - Before
Figure 7: Richmond, VA - After
Richmond, VA
Bloomberg Philanthropies
34 3. Behavioral Observational Assessment
Figure 8: Durham, NC - Before
Figure 9: Durham, NC - After
Durham, NC
Asphalt Art Safety Study
35 Figure 10: Pittsburgh, PA - Before
Figure 11: Pittsburgh, PA - After
Pittsburgh, PA
Bloomberg Philanthropies
36 3. Behavioral Observational Assessment
Figure 12: Lancaster, PA - Before
Figure 13: Lancaster, PA - After
Lancaster, PA
Asphalt Art Safety Study
37 Bloomberg Philanthropies
38 3. Behavioral Observational Assessment

3.4. Behavioral Assessment Results

3.4.1. Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflict Assessment
At both signalized locations, the total conflict rate and rate of low crash potential conflicts decreased after the installation of asphalt art. Tables 17 summarizes the results of the vehicle-pedestrian conflict assessments for each site, signalized observation sites aggregated, unsignalized observation sites aggregated, and all observation sites aggregated. The high crash potential conflict rate increased at the Trenton location negligibly (an absolute difference of 0.1% in the rate). The average (aggregated) low and high crash potential conflict rates decreased when considering observed crossing movements at combined signalized study sites.

At the Durham unsignalized site, the rate of both high and low crash potential conflicts decreased. The low crash potential conflict rate decreased by 61% (an absolute difference of six fewer occurrences) at the Pittsburgh site and increased by 23% (an absolute difference of two additional occurrences) at the Lancaster site. No high crash potential conflicts occurred during the before or after observation periods at the Pittsburgh and Lancaster sites. The average (aggregated) low and high crash potential conflict rates decreased when considering observed crossing movements at unsignalized study sites.

When considering all observed movements at observation sites aggregated, the rate of crossings involving a low and high crash potential conflict decreased by 27% and 18%, respectively, an overall decrease of 25%.

Asphalt Art Safety Study
39 Pedestrian Crossing
Behavior/Action Crossings
(#)
Before After
Crossings
(%)
Crossings
(#)
Crossings
(%)
Conflict Rate
Reduction (%)
Total Pedestrian Crossings
Crossings Involving a Conflict
High Crash Potential Conflicts
Low Crash Potential Conflicts
Total Pedestrian Crossings
Crossings Involving a Conflict
High Crash Potential Conflicts
Low Crash Potential Conflicts
Total Pedestrian Crossings
Crossings Involving a Conflict
High Crash Potential Conflicts
Low Crash Potential Conflicts
Total Pedestrian Crossings
Crossings Involving a Conflict
High Crash Potential Conflicts
Low Crash Potential Conflicts
Total Pedestrian Crossings
Crossings Involving a Conflict
High Crash Potential Conflicts
Low Crash Potential Conflicts
Total Pedestrian Crossings
Crossings Involving a Conflict
High Crash Potential Conflicts
Low Crash Potential Conflicts
Total Pedestrian Crossings
Crossings Involving a Conflict
High Crash Potential Conflicts
Low Crash Potential Conflicts
Total Pedestrian Crossings
Crossings Involving a Conflict
High Crash Potential Conflicts
Low Crash Potential Conflicts
Trenton,
NJ
Richmond,
VA
Durham,
NC
Pittsburgh,
PA
Lancaster,
PA
Aggregated
for
Unsignalized
Sites
Combined
Aggregated
for
Observational
Sites
Combined
Aggregated
for
Signalized
Sites
Combined
1,035 - 1,050 - -
68 6.6% 59 5.6% -14.5%
13 1.3% 15 1.4% +13.7%
55 5.3% 44 4.2% -21.1%
325 - 319 - -
14 4.3% 6 1.9% -56.3%
5 1.5% 1 0.3% -79.6%
9 2.8% 5 1.6% -43.4%
1,360 - 1,369 - -
82 6.0% 65 4.7% -21.3%
18 1.3% 16 1.2% -11.7%
64 4.7% 49 3.6% -23.9%
301 - 215 - -
6 2.0% 3 1.4% -30.0%
1 0.3% 0 0.0% -100.0%
5 1.7% 3 1.4% -16.0%
287 - 372 - -
12 4.2% 6 1.6% -61.4%
0 0.0% 0 0.0% -
12 4.2% 6 1.6% -61.4%
841 - 895 - -
22 1.6% 15 1.1% -32.3%
1 0.1% 0 0.0% -100.0%
21 1.5% 15 1.1% -29.0%
2,201 - 2,264 - -
104 4.7% 80 3.5% -25.2%
19 0.9% 16 0.7% -18.1%
85 3.9% 64 2.8% -26.8%
253 - 308 - -
4 1.6% 6 1.9% +23.2%
0 0.0% 0 0.0% -
4 1.6% 6 1.9% +23.2%
Table 17: Pedestrian-Vehicle Conflict Assessment Results Bloomberg Philanthropies
40 3. Behavioral Observational Assessment

3.4.2. Driver-Pedestrian Yield Assessment at
Unsignalized Sites
Drivers were more likely to yield to pedestrians after asphalt art was installed. Table 18 summarizes the results of the pedestrianvehicle yielding assessment for unsignalized intersection sites (Durham, NC; Pittsburgh, PA; and Lancaster PA sites, and the three unsignalized sites combined, respectively). While yield behavior results varied at each site, when considering observed crossings at all three unsignalized locations aggregated, the occurrences of the first/all vehicles yielding increased by 27% and the occurrences of no vehicles yielding before the pedestrian group crossed decreased by 27%.

Asphalt Art Safety Study
41 Pedestrian Crossing
Behavior/Action Crossings
(#)
Before After
Crossings
(%)
Crossings
(#)
Crossings
(%)
Difference
Crossings w/ Vehicle Present
All drivers yielded to
pedestrian(s) crossing
One or more drivers did not yield,
but drivers eventually yielded
No drivers yielded—
pedestrian crossed during a gap
Crossings w/ Vehicle Present
All drivers yielded to
pedestrian(s) crossing
One or more drivers did not yield,
but drivers eventually yielded
No drivers yielded—
pedestrian crossed during a gap
Crossings w/ Vehicle Present
All drivers yielded to
pedestrian(s) crossing
One or more drivers did not yield,
but drivers eventually yielded
No drivers yielded—
pedestrian crossed during a gap
Crossings w/ Vehicle Present
All drivers yielded to
pedestrian(s) crossing
One or more drivers did not yield,
but drivers eventually yielded
No drivers yielded—
pedestrian crossed during a gap
Durham,
NC
Pittsburgh,
PA
Lancaster,
PA
Aggregated
for
Unsignalized
Sites
Combined
50 - 38 - -
7 14.0% 3 7.9% -43.6%
6 12.0% 7 18.4% +53.5%
37 74.0% 28 73.7% -0.4%
26 - 30 -
24 92.3% 28 93.3% +1.1%
0 0.0% 1 3.3% -
2 7.7% 1 3.3% -56.7%
36 - 93 -
25 69.4% 71 76.3% +9.9%
5 13.9% 4 4.3% -69.0%
6 16.7% 18 19.4% +16.1%
112 - 161 - -
-
-
56 50.0% 102 63.4% +26.7%
11 9.8% 12 7.5% -24.1%
45 40.2% 47 29.2% -27.3%
Table 18: Pedestrian-Vehicle Yield Assessment
Bloomberg Philanthropies
42 3. Behavioral Observational Assessment

3.4.3. Pedestrian Actions Assessment
Table 19 summarizes the results of the pedestrian action assessment. The percentage of occurrences of undesirable pedestrian actions are calculated for each observation period by dividing the number of occurrences of undesired crossing actions by total number of crossings. At both signalized sites, the percentage crossings involving undesirable pedestrian actions (crossing against the signal and crossing outside the vicinity of the marked crosswalk) decreased in the period after asphalt art was installed.

The percentage of crossings involving pedestrians crossing outside of the marked crosswalk increased in the after period at unsignalized observation when combined despite a reduction at the Pittsburgh site. Pedestrian crossing actions were not recorded for the Durham site.

3.5. Discussion of Behavior Assessment Results
As crashes almost exclusively have multiple contributing circumstances and are often random events, road user behavior is a critical indictor of road safety performance at a site in addition to crash data. Across each metric analyzed, results indicated that asphalt art has an overall positive impact on safe driver and pedestrian behavior, resulting in a reduced (-25%) rate of driver/vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, improved (+27%) rate of drivers yielding to pedestrians, and reduced (-27 to -38%) rate of undesirable pedestrian actions in the after observation period.

When considering road user behavior at sites by type of traffic control, driver/vehicle-pedestrian conflict rates were reduced at both signalized and unsignalized intersections while a greater rate of pedestrians were observed crossing outside of the marked crosswalk vicinity at unsignalized sites. The driver yield assessment was only performed for unsignalized sites only as traffic signals control vehicle and pedestrian movements at signalized intersections. Results indicate that drivers not only yielded immediately to pedestrians 27% more frequently after art was installed, but the frequency of no vehicles stopping for the pedestrian (pedestrian having to find a gap in traffic to cross) was reduced by 27%. While MUTCD rulings have suggested that the art may confuse drivers as to whether or not the art is part of a marked crosswalk, drivers yielded more often in the after observation period.

Asphalt Art Safety Study
43 Pedestrian Crossing
Behavior/Action Crossings
(#)
Before After
Crossings
(%)
Crossings
(#)
Crossings
(%)
Difference
Total Crossings
Total Crossings
Total Crossings
Total Crossings
Total Crossings
Total Crossings
Total Crossings
Total Crossings
Trenton,
NJ
Richmond,
VA
Durham,
NC
Pittsburgh,
PA
Lancaster,
PA
Aggregated
for
Unsignalized
Sites
Aggregated
for
Observational
Sites
Combined
Aggregated
for
Signalized
Sites
Combined
1035 - 1050 - -
Crossing Against Signal
(Solid DON’T WALK) 363 35.1% 229 21.8% -37.8%
Crossing Outside of
Marked Crosswalks 207 20.0% 139 13.2% -33.8%
325 - 319 - -
Crossing Against Signal
(Solid DON’T WALK) 5 1.5% 1 0.3% -79.6%
Crossing Outside of
Marked Crosswalks 68 20.9% 35 11.0% -47.6%
1360 - 1369 - -
Crossing Against Signal
(Solid DON’T WALK) 368 27.1% 230 16.8% -37.9%
Crossing Outside of
Marked Crosswalks 275 20.2% 174 12.7% -37.1%
301 - 215 - -
Crossing Outside of
Marked Crosswalks Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available 287 - 372 - -
Crossing Outside of
Marked Crosswalks 28 9.8% 23 6.2% -36.6%
253 - 308 - -
Crossing Outside of
Marked Crosswalks 42 16.6% 64 20.8% +25.2%
841 - 895 - -
Crossing Outside of
Marked Crosswalks 70 5.1% 87 6.4% +23.5%
2201 - 2264 - -
Crossing Against Signal
(Solid DON’T WALK)
(Signalized Sites Only)
368 27.1% 230 16.8% -37.9%
Crossing Outside of
Marked Crosswalks 345 15.7% 261 11.5% -26.5%
Table 19: Pedestrian Actions at Observational Study Locations Bloomberg Philanthropies
44 4. Conclusion/Next Steps

4. Conclusion/Next Steps
As indicated in the results of both the historical crash analysis and observational behavior assessment, asphalt art had a strong positive correlation with improved safety benefits across aggregated and most individual study sites. Road user behavior clearly improved across the observed study sites in the after analysis periods.

At unsignalized intersections, there was a greater frequency of drivers immediately yielding to crossing pedestrians. Similarly, pedestrian-vehicle conflict assessments indicated a reduction in conflict rates at both signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Good pedestrian crossing practices, such as crossing at marked crosswalk locations and crossing during the pedestrian phase, also improved substantially at signalized intersections with crossings against the signal dropping from 27% to 17%. Meanwhile, at unsignalized intersections, a few more people crossed outside the marked crosswalk, but the rate was still quite low (1% of people crossing the street).

On the basis of these positive findings, the study team recommends a significant expansion of this study to include asphalt art sites in a variety of roadway and land use contexts. This would allow for a more detailed assessment of which elements of projects (the art itself, additional traffic control, roadway, or roadside improvements, etc.) are the most effective, and also take into account other changes that may have taken place after the implementation period (redevelopment, population growth, changes to local bike or transit networks, etc.). It will also be critical to have control groups to account for the random variation in crash rates over time. This would determine a crash modification factor for asphalt art projects and provide the research grounding that some transportation professionals have requested.

Asphalt Art Safety Study
45 This study also provides important context and precedent for the FHWA and others working to improve the MUTCD and other design guidance in the U.S. and globally. As the FHWA is currently revising the MUTCD, this analysis could contribute to more immediate changes to the language of that document to be more supportive of asphalt art projects going forward. Federal adoption of the language regarding color crosswalks proposed jointly by ITE and NACTO could clarify guidance and go a long way toward removing arbitrary barriers to asphalt art implementation. Additionally, since asphalt art is not technically prohibited by the current MUTCD and has only been restricted through interpretation memos that did not undergo the Federal regulatory process, the FHWA could remove this ambiguity with another such interpretation memo citing the results of this study and clarifying that the use of color in crosswalks and the use of artwork on roadways is in fact permitted under the 2009 MUTCD (excluding controlled-access highways such as Interstates/freeways).

Last and perhaps most important, this study, with a rigorous analysis of nearly two dozen projects across the country, provides supporting quantitative data for residents and city officials to use to implement asphalt art projects in their own communities.

The results provide evidence to decision-makers that these projects will likely reduce crashes and improve safety for the most vulnerable users on the road.

By contributing to the body of research on this topic and through the Asphalt Art Initiative and work by cities, the study team hopes to encourage more arts-focused transportation projects that contribute to safer city streets across the country and around the world.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, March 10, 2026
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Administrator’s Office
SUBJECT: Resolution and Statement of Values to Re-Affirm the City’s Response to Federal Immigration Enforcement Activities and Commitment to Community Policing [Resolution]
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Re-Affirm the City’s previously adopted Resolution Condemning Aggressive and Nontransparent Federal Immigration Enforcement Tactics and Reaffirming the City’s Commitment to the California Values Act and to Providing a Safe and Welcoming Community for All Residents, Visitors, and Workers; B. Receive a statement of values that re-affirms the commitment of the Santa Barbara Police Department in community policing and protecting the life and safety of all residents regardless of immigration status; and
C. Adopt, by reading of title only, a Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Promoting Community Safety, Diversity, and Public Trust Through Locally Guided Practices in Response to Federal Immigration Enforcement.

DISCUSSION:

Background
Federal immigration enforcement operations by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have caused significant disruption in the City of Santa Barbara and the surrounding region. ICE’s detainment of individuals in public spaces, commercial establishments, schools, and places of work have created instability, chaos and fear.

These events have also caused negative economic and social impacts on the community.

Fewer people are accessing critical community services and programs, avoiding commercial and retail establishments, and not participating in public events and festivals.

Agenda Item No. 12
Council Agenda Report
Resolution and Statement of Values to Re-Affirm the City’s Response to Federal Immigration Enforcement Activities and Commitment to Community Policing [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 2 ends

Mayor and Council, along with City leadership and staff, are regularly coordinating and collaborating with community leaders and organizations that are working tirelessly to protect and support our impacted community members.

The City of Santa Barbara hosted a Town Hall Meeting on July 15, 2025, at the Franklin Neighborhood Center for the purpose of providing a local public forum to address concerns regarding federal immigration enforcement activities that had recently occurred in the City. During this meeting, as well as subsequent collaborative dialogue with community leaders, several action items were requested that would demonstrate the City’s support for our immigrant communities and the local organizations that are working to address emergent needs.

On July 31, 2025, a Special Meeting was held where City Council took action on these items including:
(1) Authorized the City Attorney to file a petition to intervene in the class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California titled Vasquez Perdomo et al v. Noem et al, which challenges federal immigration enforcement tactics alleged to have created a chilling effect within immigrant communities, discouraging individuals from accessing essential services, participating in the local economy, and engaging in everyday community activities, resulting in broader economic and social impacts on the region;
(2) Adopted a Resolution Condemning Aggressive and Nontransparent Federal Immigration Enforcement Tactics and Reaffirming the City’s Commitment to the California Values Act and to Providing a Safe and Welcoming Community for All Residents, Visitors, and Workers;
(3) Provided direction to staff on the allocation of $500,000 in support of immigrantserving organizations; and (4) Adopted changes to the City of Santa Barbara Legislative Platform that enabled the Mayor and Council to advocate on behalf of immigrant communities on legislation at the State and Federal level.

Since that time, federal immigration enforcement operations have continued to take place in the City of Santa Barbara that have negatively impacted the sense of safety and security of our residents and led to physical harm. It has also resulted in a number of questions and concerns regarding the ability of the Santa Barbara Police Department (SBPD) to intervene in protecting the life and safety of our residents and preventing excessive use of force.

Therefore, City staff, in collaboration with our community leaders and local immigrantserving organizations, are proposing the adoption of a new resolution that promotes Council Agenda Report
Resolution and Statement of Values to Re-Affirm the City’s Response to Federal Immigration Enforcement Activities and Commitment to Community Policing [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 3 ends

community safety, diversity, and public trust through locally guided practices in response to federal immigration enforcement. Police Chief Kelly Gordon and the Santa Barbara Police Department are also sharing a statement that re-affirms the Department’s commitment to safety and respect for all of our residents regardless of immigration status.

The Resolution and statement will be published and distributed by Friday, March 6.

Key Provisions of the Proposed Resolution
The proposed Resolution establishes locally guided practices intended to maintain public safety, protect civil rights, and reinforce public trust. (1) Data Privacy and Non-Cooperation
The Resolution clarifies that City departments, officers, employees, and contractors will not voluntarily disclose personal information obtained through City operations to federal immigration authorities for purposes of civil immigration enforcement unless required by federal or state law or pursuant to a valid judicial warrant, subpoena, or court order.
(2) Use of City Facilities
The Resolution provides that City-owned or City-leased facilities will not be used for federal civil immigration enforcement activities, including investigative or detention operations, except when required by law or pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order.
(3) Regional Cooperation
The City may collaborate with other California municipalities and public agencies to share information and best practices related to maintaining public safety, protecting civil rights, and ensuring compliance with state law governing local participation in federal immigration enforcement activities. (4) Community Values
The Resolution reaffirms the City’s longstanding commitment to diversity, inclusion, and community trust, recognizing the important cultural, social, and economic contributions of immigrant residents and workers in Santa Barbara. The City further affirms that residents should be able to report crimes, seek services, and interact with local government without fear that such interactions will lead to immigration enforcement consequences.

Role of the Santa Barbara Police Department during Federal Enforcement Operations The Resolution also clarifies the role of the Santa Barbara Police Department when federal immigration enforcement activities occur within the City. SBPD’s role during such operations is limited to maintaining public safety and preserving the peace. Officers may take reasonable actions necessary to protect life and property, including traffic control, Council Agenda Report
Resolution and Statement of Values to Re-Affirm the City’s Response to Federal Immigration Enforcement Activities and Commitment to Community Policing [Resolution] March 10, 2026

Page 4 ends

establishing safety perimeters, responding to emergencies, providing medical or emergency assistance, and documenting incidents related to public safety.

SBPD officers may also take reasonable and lawful actions to prevent violence and reduce the risk of escalation between federal officers and members of the public. When appropriate, officers may clarify that their presence is solely for public safety purposes and that SBPD does not enforce federal civil immigration law except as required by law.

Consistent with the California Values Act, SBPD will not participate in joint operations, investigations, or enforcement activities whose primary purpose is civil immigration enforcement, nor will the Department voluntarily provide information, personnel, or equipment for such activities except where required by law or pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order.

Chief Kelly Gordon and the Santa Barbara Police Department will also provide a statement reaffirming the Department’s commitment to community policing and to protecting the life and safety of all residents regardless of immigration status.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

There is no direct financial impact from the recommended actions. City leadership and staff are continuing to meet with local organizations to address misinformation, concerns and fears as well as responding to resource requests through in-kind contributions and/or public-private partnerships.

ATTACHMENT: 1. Statement of the Santa Barbara Police Department and Chief Kelly’s Gordon Commitment to Safety and Respect (to be
uploaded on Friday, March 6, 2026)

2. Resolution (to be uploaded on Friday, March 6, 2026)

PREPARED
SUBMITTED BY: Barbara Andersen, Sr. Assistant to the City Administrator John Doimas, City Attorney
Kelly Gordon, Chief of Police
APPROVED BY: Kelly R. McAdoo, City Administrator
Attachment 1
Draft as of 03.09.26
Reaffirmation of the Santa Barbara Police Department and Chief Kelly Gordon’s Commitment to Safety and Respect
Every person who lives, works, visits, learns, or raises a family in Santa Barbara deserves to be treated with dignity and care. Recent immigration enforcement actions in Santa Barbara and other parts of the country have created fear, confusion, and a sense of vulnerability. We want to reassure our community that our mission remains unchanged: community safety and well‑being. We are focused on listening, engaging, and maintaining trust with the community. The broader climate also affects the men and women of the Santa Barbara Police Department not only as public servants, but as neighbors, family members, and community members themselves.

The Santa Barbara Police Department does not engage in immigration enforcement.

When federal immigration actions occur in our city, our role is guided by our commitment to safety and respect for all. Our officers are trained to respond with restraint, empathy, and a commitment to keeping the peace. We understand these situations can be tense and emotional, and we know how we conduct ourselves matters. Every interaction is an opportunity to build trust and demonstrate that we are here to protect and serve every member of our community.

We fully support the peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights, including lawful assembly and free speech, and have worked diligently to provide spaces in Santa Barbara to exercise these rights in a safe and peaceful manner. These rights are fundamental to a healthy democracy. We remain dedicated to de-escalation, professionalism, and collaboration so our community can express its views safely and respectfully.

We also want victims and witnesses of crime to feel safe coming forward regardless of immigration status. Protecting our community means ensuring no one is afraid to seek help. The Santa Barbara Police Department continues to partner with local advocacy groups, support multilingual services, and expand reporting options so that everyone can access the assistance they need.

If you have questions or concerns, please reach out to us. We will continue to focus on what we can control: protecting public safety, rejecting fear as a governing force, and standing firm in our values. Together, we will continue to build a community rooted in trust, safety, and respect for all.

In service,
Chief Kelly Gordon
Attachment 2
Draft as of 03.05.26
1 RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA BARBARA PROMOTING COMMUNITY SAFETY,

DIVERSITY, AND PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH LOCALLY

GUIDED PRACTICES IN RESPONSE TO FEDERAL

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
WHEREAS, The City of Santa Barbara has long prided itself on a legacy of diversity, inclusion, and community, and the City’s vibrance, culture, and economic vitality have been enriched by the contributions of immigrant residents and workers who call the City home; and
WHEREAS, The City of Santa Barbara seeks to affirm that all residents, regardless of immigration status, should feel safe in their interactions with City institutions and be able to report crimes, seek services, and engage with local government without fear of discrimination or unnecessary immigration enforcement consequences; and
WHEREAS, The City operates under the California Constitution and laws of the State of California, which provide statutory frameworks protecting civil rights and limiting the use of local public resources for federal civil immigration enforcement purposes; and WHEREAS, The California Values Act (California Government Code Section 7284 et seq.) establishes that California law enforcement agencies shall not use public resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest individuals for immigration enforcement purposes except as required by federal law; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 7284.6 further limits the ability of local law enforcement agencies to provide access to nonpublic areas of government facilities or personal information for immigration enforcement purposes without proper legal authorization; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the federal government may not compel state or local officials to administer or enforce federal regulatory programs under the Tenth Amendment, as articulated in Printz v. United States and reaffirmed in Murphy v. NCAA; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States recognized that immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility and that state and local participation must be carefully limited to avoid constitutional conflicts and preemption; and
Attachment 2
Draft as of 03.05.26
2 WHEREAS, The Santa Barbara Police Department maintains policies consistent with California law stating that officers shall not inquire into or enforce civil immigration status except where required by law, and shall provide fair, dignified, and humane treatment to all persons; and
WHEREAS, The City Council finds that maintaining trust between the community and local law enforcement is essential to public safety and that clear guidance regarding the role of local law enforcement during federal civil immigration enforcement operations promotes transparency, safety, and respect for constitutional rights.

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

Section 1. Data Privacy and Non-Cooperation
No City department, officer, employee, or contractor acting on behalf of the City shall voluntarily disclose personal information obtained through City operations, including but not limited to an individual’s address, employment information, or identifying data, to federal immigration authorities for purposes of civil immigration enforcement except as required by federal or state law or pursuant to a lawfully issued judicial warrant, subpoena, or court order. All City actions under this section shall be implemented consistent with applicable provisions of California law, including Government Code Section 7284 et seq.

Section 2. Use of City Facilities
City-owned or City-leased facilities, including law enforcement buildings and administrative offices, shall not be used by federal immigration enforcement agencies for investigative, detention, or operational activities related to civil immigration enforcement except where required by law or pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit City personnel from responding to emergencies or providing services otherwise required by law.

Section 3. Regional Cooperation
The City may collaborate with other California municipalities and public agencies to share information and best practices regarding lawful approaches to maintaining public safety, protecting civil rights, and ensuring compliance with state law governing local participation in federal immigration enforcement activities.

Section 4. Community Values
The City reaffirms its commitment to fostering a welcoming and inclusive community and recognizes the important contributions immigrants make to the cultural, social, and economic vitality of Santa Barbara. The City further affirms that all residents should be Attachment 2
Draft as of 03.05.26
3 able to access City services, report crimes, and interact with local government without fear that such interactions will be used for civil immigration enforcement purposes.

Section 5. Conduct of the Santa Barbara Police Department during Federal Civil Immigration Enforcement Operations
When federal immigration authorities conduct civil immigration enforcement activities within the City of Santa Barbara, the role of the Santa Barbara Police Department (“SBPD”) shall be limited to protecting public safety and maintaining peace. (a) Public Safety Responsibilities
SBPD officers responding to incidents involving federal immigration enforcement personnel shall prioritize the protection of life and property and may take reasonable actions necessary to maintain public safety, including traffic control, establishing safety perimeters, responding to emergencies, and providing medical or emergency assistance and intaking reports or documenting incidents related to public safety matters arising from the situation.
(b) Preservation of Peace
SBPD officers shall take reasonable and lawful actions to maintain order, prevent violence, and reduce the risk of escalation between federal officers and members of the public. SBPD personnel shall make clear, when appropriate, that their presence during such operations is solely for the purpose of ensuring public safety and maintaining peace and that SBPD does not enforce federal civil immigration law except as required by law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or authorize SBPD officers to intervene in, obstruct, delay, or otherwise interfere with lawful federal immigration enforcement operations. (c) Prohibition on Voluntary Assistance
Consistent with the California Values Act, SBPD shall not participate in joint operations, investigations, or enforcement activities whose primary purpose is civil immigration enforcement, nor shall SBPD voluntarily provide information, equipment, or personnel for such purposes except where required by federal or state law or pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order. (d) Reaffirmation of Not Acting as Agents for Immigration Enforcement SBPD shall not act as agents or liaisons for federal immigration authorities and shall limit any interaction to actions necessary to protect life, property, and public safety, consistent with all applicable state and federal laws, including the California Values Act (Cal. Gov’t Code § 7284 et seq.).

Attachment 2
Draft as of 03.05.26
4 (e) Collective Bargaining Rights
Nothing in this Resolution shall alter or impair any rights or obligations established under existing collective bargaining agreements between the City and employee organizations representing SBPD personnel.

Section 6. Implementation and Public Communication
The City Administrator, in coordination with the Police Chief, is directed to issue public guidance summarizing this Resolution and clarifying SBPD’s role during federal civil immigration enforcement activities in order to promote transparency, maintain community trust, and ensure residents understand the limited public safety role of the Santa Barbara Police Department.

SantaBarbaraCA.gov

OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR

RESOLUTION AND STATEMENT OF VALUES TO RE-AFFIRM
THE CITY’S RESPONSE TO FEDERAL IMMIGRATION

ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
City Council March 10, 2026
1 SantaBarbaraCA.gov

RE-AFFIRMATION OF THE SANTA

BARBARA POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
CHIEF KELLY GORDON’S COMMITMENT TO

SAFETY AND RESPECT
Values Statement
2 SantaBarbaraCA.gov

DRAFT RESOLUTION PROMOTING

COMMUNITY SAFETY, DIVERSITY, AND

PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH LOCALLY

GUIDED PRACTICES IN RESPONSE TO

FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
For Consideration by Council
3 SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Purpose of the Resolution
• Reaffirm Santa Barbara’s commitment to community safety and public trust as a result of recent community concerns • Explain the City’s response to federal civil immigration enforcement
• Re-state compliance with California law including the California Values Act
• Inform the community regarding the role of the Santa
Barbara Police Department (SBPD)
4 SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Legal and Policy Framework
• California Values Act limits local participation in civil immigration enforcement
• Federal immigration enforcement is under the sole jurisdiction of the Federal government
• Federal statutes criminalize interference and obstruction of federal immigration enforcement actions by local police agencies and others • Local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal regulatory programs
• SBPD policies emphasize fair, dignified, and humane treatment of all residents regardless of immigration status
5 SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Key Components of the Draft Resolution
• Protection of personal data collected through City
operations and contracted agencies
• Restrictions on the use of City facilities for civil
immigration enforcement
• Regional collaboration with other California
municipalities
• Reaffirmation of Santa Barbara’s community values
and inclusiveness
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Role of the Santa Barbara Police Department
• Maintain public safety and protect
life and property
• Preserve peace and reduce
escalation during federal operations
• Do not participate in civil
immigration enforcement activities
• Act only within the limits established
by state and federal law
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Implementation and Public Communication
• Public guidance explaining
the City’s policies
• Clear explanation of SBPD’s
limited role during federal
immigration operations
• Transparency to support
community understanding
and trust
SantaBarbaraCA.gov

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
For Consideration by Council
9 SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Policy Clarifications for Council Consideration
• Additional safety and communication protocols
• Improved transparency and reporting
mechanisms
• Guidance for City staff and community members
• Public information and education regarding
rights and processes
Community Feedback
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Community Event Safety Protocols
• Establish safety protocols if
federal immigration officers
appear at community events
or festivals
• Clarify coordination between
event organizers, SBPD,
and City staff
• Prioritize crowd safety and
de-escalation
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Rapid Response Communication
• Develop clear communication
protocols between the City and
local immigrant rapid response
networks
• Ensure information sharing
while maintaining accuracy and
legal compliance
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Public Alerts of ICE Activity
• Consider legal procedures
for sharing verified alerts
regarding immigration
enforcement activity
• Focus on public safety,
transparency, and avoiding
misinformation
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Public Education on Enforcement Authority
• Provide clear information on
what federal immigration
officers can and cannot
legally do
• Distribute guidance through
City communication channels
and community partners
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Transparency and Reporting
• Improve access to data
information sharing
through SBPD
Transparency Portal
• Consider including in
quarterly reporting to the Fire
and Police Commission
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Excessive Force Considerations
• Clarify the role of SBPD if
excessive force is observed
during federal operations
• Ensure actions remain
consistent with legal
authority and public safety
responsibilities
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Complaint Process for Federal Misconduct
• Provide information on how residents may
file complaints to State and Federal
agencies such as the State Attorney
General and the U.S. Department
of Justice
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Election Safety and Non-Interference
• Research and develop
lawful safety protocols
during local elections
• Ensure voters can
participate safely
without intimidation
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
ICE Presence on City Property
• Define staff roles and
procedures if immigration
enforcement occurs on
City-owned property
• Ensure actions remain
consistent with state law
and City policy that do not
expose staff to criminal liability
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Enhance Communication to City Council
• Establish procedures for
informing Council about
incidents involving
police and immigration
enforcement
• Promote transparency
and accountability
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Public Facility Signage
• Consider signage at public facilities
identifying spaces where federal
civil immigration enforcement is not
permitted without proper legal
authorization (e.g. an Order from a
Judge)
• Review models such as signage
used by the City of Seattle
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
Staff Recommendation
That Council:

B. Receive a statement of values that re-affirms the
commitment of the Santa Barbara Police Department
to community policing and protecting the life and safety of all residents regardless of immigration status; and
C. Discuss draft resolution and continue this item for
further community input and revisions.
23 SantaBarbaraCA.gov

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
24

Santa Barbara City CouncilMarch 10, 2026

Santa Barbara City Council
March 10, 2026