BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

¶. ♪

We'll go ahead and commence.

Yeah,

yeah we will. We're ready now for roll call Mr. Allen welcome first welcome to June the 7th that's a lucky day for Mickey Mantle. June the 7th.

Mr. Carbajal?

Here.

Ms. Wolfe? Here Ms. Farr? Here Mr. Lavagnino?

Our grading ordinance isn't any different, either better or worse than anybody else's and that we would respectfully ask for her to drop her request. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Colwell. We have a terrible buzz. We've got to get this fixed. So all the people who know how to handle microphones if you would please help us out here? Santa Maria is too high. So Becky, if you could go in and turn. Thank you. OK. Here we go. I'm sorry Supervisor Wolf, I just wanted to get this out of my

hair.

And then we got a terrible echo. Did the back of Santa Maria have too

high?

He doesn't look like he's attached.

Joanie, did you

call me? No Andy. We've got a... It's too high up in Santa Maria. The microphone is turned on way too high and we're getting an awful buzz and an awful echo. Let's take a two minute break.

¶. . ♪ Thank you. ♪

First of all, I just wanted to respond to some of the comments. Our neighboring counties Ventura and San Luis Obispo both have exemptions as we do. They have a process whereby the landowners have to go through a process to provide planning and development with a checklist of why they would get the exemption. In my opinion, I don't think it's an onerous exercise as is stated in the board letter None of what we are talking about, nothing that we are talking about would impact routine agricultural activities such as tilling of the soil, cultivation, plowing, dicing or other agricultural practices. I think it's very reasonable that we ask, if someone is going to ask for an exemption, that they simply tell us why they feel that they should get the exemption.

And again our neighboring counties have done that. Our county staff has already done extensive research. So we're not asking them, I'm not asking them to go back and do more research. What I am suggesting is that this come back in an open session and that they provide us with the research that they've done. And I just don't feel that it's appropriate to go through and just make a determination without sufficient information. That's why I'd like it back on a D agenda.

Supervisor, usually we do that if someone wants to have it put on the D agenda. So let's do that. We're probably into the July maybe? Would that be adequate? That's absolutely fine. Mr. Russell, I should have asked you. I apologize. July OK with you?

Madam Chair, we have two hearings in July. July 5th, I will not be here. July 12 would be more appropriate as far as I'm concerned but whatever suits the board.

And you understand that we're not asking you to do a whole work plan on this. This is not part of the work plan, I think what the supervisor's asking for is just a discussion of what you've unturned so far. Is that correct, Supervisor? That's

correct.

Madam Chair, can I make a suggestion? Since most of the exemptions are in the North County, is there a way that we can schedule this for a North County meeting?

That would be a good idea. That's fine. July 12th. July 12th.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

And Madam Chair we have one late request to speak on this item from Mr. Troutwine.

Mr. Troutwine, we saved you by having that microphone

failure right?

You got to say your piece now.

Thank you very much Madam Chair and Supervisors I am Brian Troutwine from the EDC thank you for the technical difficulties that made me get here to speak. I support the direction that the board is going in terms of bringing this back. I think it would provide a lot of useful information to the public and the board In the context of ongoing planning issues like Gaviota and other things. So it would be very valuable information we support the direction the board is going to bring this back on the departmental agenda.

Thank you. Thanks Mr. Troutwine. And now we've done 15, did I skip one? 10? I'm sorry.

Madam Chair, in addition Mr. Caldwell has slips in on A34 and A43 if you'd like we could have him go ahead and complete his testimony and then come back to the board for

that. Well you know I think we oughta just go item by item since we've got so many people speaking on so many items today. So I fouled up and missed 10. I apologize.

Let's go with A10. It's from Housing and Community Development. The request of the Board approved and authorizes the chair to execute an amendment to the agreement to provide affordable housing. This is Old Mill Run. This is in the Orchard area in the Fourth District. Supervisor Wolf.

Thank you, Chair Gray. I'm going to ask that we pull this item so I can vote on it separately. I am concerned that the amendment to the agreement to provide affordable housing along with the resolution that is being provided for us, is something that I cannot support. The developer was given quite a few...I went back and looked at the agreement to provide affordable housing. The recitals say he received numerous incentives including increased density modifications Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

to either ask for our board to change its direction on affordable housing policies, uh, to allow the developer to either not provide affordable housing as was agreed to or do it on a unit-by-unit basis. So Madam Chair I will not be able to support this item.

Any other comments on this one Supervisor Carbajal? Thank you. I

see Ms. Fredrickson is here. Um, I'd like to get a little bit of clarification I want to make sure I understood the staff report. It said that we were not, by effectuating this it did not void the obligation of the developer to fulfill their affordable housing conditions or requirements. What its doing is its just changing the way it gets done to also include in lieu fees as one mechanism And I want to make sure if the in lieu fees is included or not, but it doesn't relieve the developer of having to fulfill its affordable housing requirement. Correct?

Ms. Fredrickson? Chair Gray and Supervisor Carbajal, the amendment before the board today would only modify the affordable units in terms of the timing for the six affordable units The current amendment allows for a concurrent building of those six units, and the proposed amendment would actually allow for the six affordable units to be built on a unit-by-unit basis. And if you look on the staff report, the six units are tied to the building of various other units. The in-lieu fee option is not being considered today. It's referenced in the resolution as a possibility sometime in the future, but if the developer would pursue in-lieu fees that would come back to the board as a possible amendment. The item today is only on the six affordable units and again allowing those units to be built on a unit by unit basis.

Madam

Chair, thank you Ms. Franklinson. My only concern is that it not be done in such a way without some kind of bonding issue or some kind of hook. Because what I don't want to happen is that, I'm okay with the economy being the way it is to create an opportunity for things to proceed. It's understanding. But what I don' want and to be quite honest is that we allow the timing of the affordable units to be both at the end and then they say hey We're just not going to build them. It gives us very little leverage, so as long as there's a hook to realizing the fulfillment of that criteria I'm okay voting for this today. If there's not and council can't give me that assurance I would have to agree with Supervisor Wolf but for me as long as there's an assurance of it being built I'm okay with the item today.

But I don't want to be had where it doesn't get built. And then we're left with the affordable component of this project, having realized many benefits and the public having none.

Who wants to answer that? Ms.

Meester? Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal, if you look at page three of the amendment to the agreement, it specifies the timing of construction of the affordable units So the first two affordable units would be built prior to issuance of the 47th building permit. This is a 60-unit project. The second... The answer is? It's timed.

I think the question was, is it guaranteed? Is there...is it bonded so that if they back out can we build it ourselves? Is that correct Supervisor?

No, I just want to make sure that the developer There's something that compels a developer whether cash, bond or something that fulfills this requirement.

Madam Chair and Supervisor Carpalhelm there is no bond that accompanies this agreement. The agreement is intended to meter out the affordable units concurrent or in conjunction with the market rate units so the way it works is they can't get additional building permits passed The 47th building permit until they begin building their affordable.

So in terms of timing, are these going to be built at the end?

And if I could just read one of the whereases and the resolution. Well actually a couple of them. One does talk about the market conditions which is understandable but there's another whereas where it says the developer also wishes to delay the construction of affordable units So as to enable it to utilize possible future amendments of the county's Inclusionary program that would allow it to pay fees in lieu of providing affordable units on site I mean, this is really the I believe the intention and I think we're hearing that from staff.

I Think that we best put this one over and get some answers. I

Madam Chair, I was going to suggest that we ought to just have it come back. Make sure that all our T's are crossed and our I's are dotted and we have that conversation with the developer because unless there is some guarantee

And at this point, Tom, you don't know if there is or isn't. We're going to have to come back on this one. Supervisor Farr did you want

to say something? I did Madam Chair. You know if the point is to kind of meter out the building of these along with the project and if it's a 60 unit project then one of the options that staff might consider when they bring it back to us is that when they talk about the completion date that perhaps the first two need to be done within the first 20 units being built The second two need to be done within the next 20 units and then the last two rather than all six being done really right at the very end.

Supervisor Wolf.

And I'd like staff to also consider, as we're moving forward with this, the implications on other development because there are some developments getting ready to move forward in my district where developers have made agreements for affordable housing and I think we have to be careful about how we move forward on this particular project and changing the rules midway. Thank

you. Madam Chair? Yes. I think it is important in this economy that maybe we do change the rules midway through. Now, I understand that I don't want to see all the affordable housing put off to the end and not built but we made agreements with developers under a certain set of rules and I think we all have to realize that we're in a new environment right now.

Agreements that we've made whether they are with our unions or with developers The climate's changed. We're in a new world, and holding somebody to something that can't be built right now is not going to do us any good.

And therein lies the issue it sounds like because this was entered into in 2004 am I correct? And we all know that a house that was $600,000 in 2004 is now $250,000 so we've got a different set of

rules. So I don't have any problem with us massaging this but I do agree that we need Something metered out with the affordable housing.

So we'll bring this back. Mr. Who's in charge? Miss Friedrichson, who is in charge of when it gets back?

Chair Gray, given that the board said schedule of the budget and so forth, we can come back in the late June meeting or early July.

I think would be quite wise to do it at a Santa Maria meeting being that it's it's a Santa Maria project and perhaps July 12th. We're going to be busy on July 12th. Yes. Okay, where are we now? We did 10. We're now ready to do 22. Is that the next in line?

That's correct Madam Chair.

Supervisor Farrs and did Mr. Caldwell have another one to go in between any of those?

No.

Okay.

Item A22 is from the Public Works Department it's to adopt a resolution approving the proposed addendum to the countywide siding element.

Thank you madam. Supervisor? Yes, thank you Madam Chair You know this item has to do with the siting of a large new landfill on property that the city of Santa Maria bought because their current landfill is rapidly coming to the end of its useful life and This is something that has come to the multi-jurisdictional solid waste task force a couple of times Supervisor Carbajal and I are on, so we are much more familiar with this issue than the rest of the board. But it's a really big issue and it's not something that I'm comfortable adding to our siting element without a lot more information about it particularly because the property is not contiguous with the City of Santa Maria.

It is totally surrounded by county property and so any possible future impacts from the siting of a landfill there would also be felt on the county. And I have questions that have come up at these other meetings that haven't necessarily been totally answered as far as who's going to be able to haul waste there, the kind of waste that might be put there, whether waste will be accepted from outside of the county, what kind of waste that is and currently this Santa Maria landfill is accepting soil, contaminated soil from outside of the county so I think that there are a lot of issues here that the board should be informed about before we go ahead and take a step of voting on this. How does

July 12th sound?

I think this item obviously needs to come back into the agenda. I also want to explore, you know, I did a little bit of research on my own and what other relationships exist with landfills and what have you. And I think our staff also need to explore any host fees. This is an opportunity for us We're going into a marriage, whether we like it or not. And we need to explore all components that exist in other areas and I know in other areas there are reciprocal fees that it's almost like revenue exchange agreements that also exists with a lot of different opportunities that come from these types of facilities so I think

A

lot more needs to be researched.

And I do need to recognize that Mr. Sweet is here from the City of Santa Maria, but it appears to me like this is way beyond the scope of today's meeting. Ms. Waller?

Chairwoman, I'd like to ask staff if I recall there was some time constraints to hearing this item so if you can share with us Mark what those are and what options we have for getting the information and getting it back to the board within those time constraints.

It's pretty obvious it should be a North County meeting.

Madam Chair, members of the board. The action that we are doing is amending what's called the siding element and the action that your board and actually the rest of the cities in the county would also have before them is whether to approve or disapprove of this siding element. If you approve it, there's obviously approval. If you choose to disapprove, you have to cite significant environmental impacts and that would be the action that you would have. Of course I believe there is remedy or process to resolve the difference between that disapproval and those significant impacts.

Mark, I'd like to ask why didn't this get resolved at the Solid Waste Task Force? This is...I am amazed that it's hitting us at this point in time. This has been going on for five years.

You're right and to speak to the history of the project, I don't know if you have time today. The City of Santa Maria is here. The city purchased this property in 2006. They actually identified, the community identified through the multi-jurisdictional the need for a disposal facility in about 2002. And if you really want to go back to ancient history in the 80s, the county bought property for landfill disposal or for disposal on Brown Road which we have subsequently sold.

So the issue of landfill disposal and in the Santa Maria Valley has been an issue of discussion The timing issue that CEO Waller brought up is that we have to act within 90 days and we are coming up on that. Oh, when? Of I believe March 22nd. So when's

that somebody?

June 16th.

June 16.

Which is very close. The which obviously is not going to allow us to extend it to July 12th.

So we could just today vote no on the siding I'm not predicting that but that might be the way people feel And then we have to go study it again. Don't faint, Rick. I didn't mean it.

I think the issues that you brought up are not necessarily would be resolved as it relates to the siting element. The type of material that goes to the facility, that could be a discussion this board may want to have and where it came from as just a discussion item.

What does the board want to do on this? Madam

Chair, you know I think that the City of Santa Maria wanted the task force to take an affirmative vote on this issue and it did not. And so you know this is the first time that it's come to this board as far as I know and I think by adding into the siding element the way it is now This is the only opportunity we have this is just kind of de facto saying yeah, we're okay with it Even though we don't know about it. We don't know anything about it and You know and I'm just not comfortable doing that and that's kind of separate from saying you know to Santa Maria need a landfill You know, that's that's fine. I mean, I thought from the very beginning that should really be kind of a joint facility With the county considering its you know Outside of the city limits so if this is my one chance to talk About this.

This is just not sufficient at all, and I can't just say yeah It's fine without having some more discussion about it And I think that it's unfortunate that we had 90 days and now we're up against the clock and you know time's running out

I

too am extremely disappointed Let me repeat that extremely disappointed CEO Waller when we have something that we have to provide comment on We should entertain the item at the beginning of that window to give us wiggle room no matter what we do and not hear this on the 11th hour. In order for us to do this right, we have no choice I'm afraid but to try to find that special meeting to really hear this out Here are all the answers to all the questions and it's going to make our life a little bit challenging.

You know, our life is challenging. How about Thursday?

Let's do it!

This Thursday. Let's do it. Supervisor Farr, is that alright with you? The Thursday that we're going to be doing the other...the 16th. We've got that short one with...or short...

Chairwoman, I know that we have budget hearings earlier in the week. And I would recommend that even though this will sort of throw off our schedule, I'd be very concerned with having the 16th be the day that you have to make your decision up or down. So my suggestion would be noticing it for one of the earlier meetings that week and possibly... Like Tuesday? Oh,

we're not meeting on

Tuesday. You're not meeting on Tuesday. You're meeting Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. You could meet on Tuesday. We could notice for that if you'd like to.

All right. OK. Supervisors? Tuesday, here we come. And all of those that made this happen, you're off my Christmas card list.

Madam Chair I just have a question. So I understand then if we were to deny it, we need to have some We obviously have to have a reason to do so. So, are you going to be able to provide us with... The answer is yes. ...environmental? Well I hope it's yes. I want to make sure that we make an informed decision.

Council is shaking their head yes, so why don't you just answer that. This is a legal thing, so could we please go to council?

It's partly a legal issue. There are findings that would be required of significant impact and we could work with the department prior to the meeting to make sure that any findings that would be required, depending on what your board's action is, would be ready for your consideration.

Now let me ask another question. Mr. Sweet, is Tuesday all right? Can you guys be here Tuesday? That's a pretty important part also. Or I guess we could meet in Santa Maria. Why don't we do it, just do it in Santa Maria?

We could either meet in Santa Maria or obviously he could be teleconference, either way your board would choose.

If you set a time, I will be there.

Okay.

I think since we're coming down Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday to Santa Barbara, it

might be nice to see everybody come up to Santa Maria

on Tuesday.

Yeah, Santa Maria on Tuesday.

Madam Chair, I'm very anxious to understand the relationship between this decision and all those other nuanced issues that have come up. What are the implications? Is it separate? You deal with those issues later. That's a separate decision. I really want to understand the flowchart of decision making and the implications of this decision for everything else.

Okay Tuesday, Santa Maria. What time do you guys want to do it? 9,

10,

10? I'll be out feeding the cows by then.

Ten o'clock.

Okay so, oh man I'm afraid to call the next one. You're right! Okay that was 22. The

next item would be A25. 25. It's from the Public Works Department it's to consider recommendations regarding the establishment of a no parking zone on Refugio Road in the 3rd District.

Madam

Chair? I hate to do this to you, but this is A-25. This is the one I pulled. I just received some very late constituent inquiries into folks that use that area. I'm not familiar with the area at all. I did not have time to go and even look at the site. I got emails last night I approached Supervisor Farr and asked her if she would, I know this is an issue that's close to her and in her district.

She would be willing to put it off for a couple of weeks for me to go out at least so I can answer my constituents about what the issue is. If that's okay?

Okay we're going to put this one over until 21st.

Thank you very much.

You're not gonna have to look for things to do. Thank

you. Next item is item 834 from the sheriff to consider recommendations regarding the donation of equipment for a Guardian 3 Sheriff's helicopter.

Everybody in the world wanted this one pulled, so who wants to start? Supervisor Farr, you had your... Mr. Caldwell also. All right. Supervisor

Farr. Madam Chair I think that this is one that also needs Until after budget because we don't have enough information here about this. At least I don't in the staff report as far as understanding How this helicopter fits in with the sheriff's aviation program? I know that I'd heard that there were four helicopters and one fixed wing that they had I'm not sure whether this helicopter is one of the four or in addition a Also, what the ongoing costs would be once this was rehabilitated as far as the hanger cost or the ongoing operations and maintenance, the pilot staff and such. So it seems to me it's kind of part of a bigger budget issue to do with Sheriff Aviation and it would just be better to put it off until after

budget. And I would like to make this suggestion. Since I've begun on the Board of Supervisors, one of the big issues has been how many flying machines can we possibly come up with? How can we use them? What can we do with them? How are they paid for? So, I would like to appoint a subcommittee because we have departments in conflict in the sense. So, I'd like to appoint a subject committee of Supervisor Lovanino and Supervisor Wolfe to really look into this and come back to us and make some recommendations so that we get what is happening because And I appreciate that Supervisor Gray and you know.

And Supervisor Farr for bringing this up. You know I have a lot of questions and you know this is also going to be a budget issue for us as one of the recommendations is eliminating the fire crew, the fire pilots which is very concerning to me so really it all fits together. I hope we can come out of this Making some reasonable, so we can reasonably understand what's going on. I would be so

grateful.

Thank you both. And I do believe that our sheriff and our fire chief have been working together on this issue and So I think we're on the right path and as you said this has been going on for so long So we really need to get a handle on it and move this forward in a cost-effective