Planning Commission finds draft five‑year CIP consistent with general plan

The Santa Barbara Planning Commission on Feb. 13 voted to find the projects added to the draft five‑year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for fiscal years 2026–2030 consistent with the city’s general plan.

The finding allows staff to carry the CIP forward in its two‑year budget cycle toward Finance Committee review and City Council consideration in March. Brian D’Amour, the city engineer who is serving as acting public works director, told commissioners the draft emphasizes projects that can reasonably begin activity within the five‑year horizon.

“I made a conscious effort with this iteration of the CIP to not add more projects than we thought could reasonably begin to have some activity on them within this 5‑year horizon,” D’Amour said during the presentation.

Why it matters: the CIP organizes capital investments across city assets—streets, water, waterfront, airport, parks, libraries, police and fire—and is used to prioritize projects, pursue grants and shape the two‑year budget. Staff described the current draft as smaller and more realistic than prior iterations and said they will continue to refine funding once the budget process narrows available resources.

Key facts and figures - Staff reported 32 newly added projects in the draft and said the total number of projects in the document is 296. The draft lists roughly $2,000,000,000 in capital needs across the five‑year and future columns. D’Amour clarified the figure was stated in billions. - The draft groups funding by source (general fund, enterprise funds, designated funds such as Measure A, grants and debt). Staff said more than $655,000,000 of the total CIP is tied to grants in the current snapshot. - Notable additions called out in the presentation include an airfield stormwater improvements project at the airport and a Stearns Wharf promenade improvement near the Dolphin Fountain. The Las Positas multi‑use bike path was cited as an existing long‑standing CIP project example.

Discussion highlights - Prioritization: Commissioners pressed staff about how projects are selected and prioritized. D’Amour described a scoring methodology applied within program areas rather than a single citywide ranking. Criteria included funding source eligibility, impacts to the operating budget, risk management, critical infrastructure (public safety), project readiness and council or advisory board recommendations. He said the scores are a tool, not the sole determinant of funding decisions. - Funding sources and Measure C pressure: Commissioners asked why some projects receive Measure C or general fund allocations while others will need grant matches. D’Amour and other staff explained enterprise funds are restricted to their services; Measure C and grant matches are used for many transportation and Streets projects. Staff warned the recently awarded police station construction will be largely funded through debt issuance and will “put a pretty big squeeze on Measure C for the next 2 to 3 years,” a staff presentation said, limiting near‑term discretionary capacity. - State Street master plan and implementation: The draft includes funding for completion of the State Street master plan and for later design services and construction‑level drawings. Tess Harris, the State Street master planner, told the commission the master plan and staffing (including a State Street Project Planner) are funded from Measure C and that implementation funding beyond design has not been fully identified. - Library outreach garage: Christina Hernandez, library services manager, explained the Eastside Library garage project is intended to house and service two large outreach vehicles plus equipment and charging infrastructure. The current fiscal year funding is for design; construction funding will be finalized later and may be split across years. - Electric vehicle charging: Jefferson Litton, Energy and Climate Division Manager, said three DC fast chargers in the CIP are being installed by a private vendor that covers capital costs; the vendor pays a licensing fee to the city and recoups costs by charging customers. “They are paying all the upfront capital costs for those installations. They pay us a small licensing fee to use that property,” Litton said.

Process and next steps - Staff said the CIP draft will next go to the Finance Committee for budget considerations and then to City Council in March. The budget adoption typically follows in June, and staff indicated some CIP elements will remain draft until the budget is set so the CIP and budget align. - Commissioners suggested the staff provide explicit references to the general plan policies that each CIP project implements (element and policy citation) to assist the commission’s consistency finding.

Vote and formal action - The commission’s finding that the newly added projects in the draft five‑year CIP are consistent with the general plan passed on a roll call vote: Commissioners Dilucio, Peterson, Barnwell, Wisscomb, Bauke, Vice Chair Boss and Chair Wardlow voted yes. (One commissioner had abstained on an earlier minutes vote.)

What staff said next: D’Amour and other staff reiterated that the CIP list will be refined as budget decisions are made and that staff will return with additional detail as projects move toward implementation.