BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 February 21, 2012

UnGovr Transcript

iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:088 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:50 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for being here with us today. I'd like to go ahead and call to order this regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on February 21st. Mr. Allen would you call the roll please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:07 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Mr. Lavagnino? Here! Mr. Carbajal? Here. Ms. Wolfe? Here. Ms Gray? Present. Ms Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:12 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Here Would you

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈22s recited, not transcribed
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:13 · ≈ 9:01 AM

please rise with me for the Pledge of Allegiance

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:29 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Indivisible with liberty.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:38 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Thank you. Now we need to approve the minutes of our meeting of February 14th. Second. Motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries thank you very much. All right how we're going to handle the first part of our agenda today is that we're gonna go to the administrative agenda first and pull any items there that we want to pull then we will go ahead and vote on the rest of the items that have not been pulled Then we will go to public comment, then we will go back to the A agenda and do the resolutions first.

And then we will go to those administrative items that have been pulled. For those of you that are here for the First Departmental Agenda item, the Goleta Valley Plan, if you can see we have a little work before we get to that item so I just wanted to let you know that. All right. Why don't we go to the administrative agenda? Does anybody on the board want to pull any items?

Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:34 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Madam Chair, I would like to pull item A10. A10?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.732:40 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Anybody else? Madam Chair, A11 as

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:42 · ≈ 9:02 AM

well. A11? Alright. Any other items? Okay just those two. Alright, I'll entertain a motion then to approve the rest of the administrative agenda. Second. Thank you all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right, so we have approved all of the administrative items except for A10 and A11. So the staff that are here for the other items can leave if they need to. Now we'll go ahead and go to

public comment. Mr. Allen do we have any slips for public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:11 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Madam Chairman, we have one request to speak in public comment from Jeff Alexander.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:15 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Alright, Mr. Alexander

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:23 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Good morning, Supervisors. Jeff Alexander from the Santa Barbara County Film Commission and I'm here today to give you a quick update on recent media production activity and trends here in Santa Barbara County. First, I recently finished a report on production for the California Film Commission And the results were very encouraging. In 2011, we saw a significant jump in activity in key areas of local production. In fact, we added a total of 119 days of production reporting 543 days as opposed to 424 in the previous year. We saw fewer feature film days but a major bump in commercial production which on average spends as much as or more than our typical feature film. Beyond our jump in production I'm also happy to report that the county community We are currently in discussions with the City of Builton as well.

I think that this is a strong signal that key stakeholders in the county support and welcome this business. The PR benefits of production continue On Sunday night we saw the 20th season premiere, I don't know if any of you caught this but I hope you did or part of it, of the hit reality show The Amazing Race. And of all the starting points in the world, all the possible places they could have begun, they chose San Ynez Valley.

Filming breathtaking sunny vistas and landscapes for their premier at the Bridalwood Winery, they captured 9.2 million viewers. Many of them out there shivering in the dead of winter, and I can guarantee you that it left a lot of people out there considering travel to sunny Santa Barbara. I can't even imagine what it would have cost us to reach 9.2 million television viewers. Finally, you should have received an invitation to our upcoming film production seminar on February 27th. I hope that you'll consider attending this event, which will feature a presentation by Amy Lemesh, the State Film Commissioner and also presentations by top producers and scouts on production, barriers of production, how do we bring more business here?

And some interesting presentations on issues around production. I'm here to tell you that this business is strong, it's getting stronger from 2008 till now. We've seen nothing but an upward climb and it's really great to have that business here. Just want to let you know. Thank you very much. Have a good day. Thank

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:45 · ≈ 9:05 AM

you for that report Mr. Alexander. Thank you for being here. Before we leave public comment, we are honoring volunteers from our county family and we're doing this during public comment. And today I'd like to honor our volunteer Vivian Pisano-Smith who's a county employee and her father Alberto Pisano. Are they here? Not here? Vivian has worked in human resources since 1981. She's currently the business specialist for the Employees University, and until his retirement Alberto was the district manager for Southern California Edison.

Vivian and Alberto established the non-profit Flamenco Arts Festival in 1999. They, their volunteer board and advisory group have donated hundreds of hours to raise awareness of flamenco as a major component of America's rich and diverse cultural heritage. The festival, a Latino-conceived and organized event is designed to showcase world class flamenco artists and to broaden and deepen public knowledge and understanding of the performing arts through the medium of flamenco. It is also designed to diversify local performing art audiences by helping to create greater Latino interest in all cultural arts activities and conversely attract the diverse segments of the community to Latino events.

The Flamenco Arts Festival is committed to equal access to the arts and offers unique educational and community programs designed for children and adults, especially Latino children who are underserved or at risk through the Access To The Arts initiative. The Concerto Para Los Niños is one of many special events produced by the festival. This year's concerto will be held on April 21st. Children 12 and under can attend live performances by some of today's most prominent flamenco artists for free. Free dance workshops for children will be held the following day on April 22nd. Vivian is extremely proud of the festival and her pride of accomplishment is evident to anyone who talks to her about it. She and Alberto have found a way to bring flamenco to everyone who lives and visits Santa Barbara.

So this is again one way we want to thank and honor one of our county employees for all of the extra work that they spend making our community a better place to live for all of us outside of their business hours. Thank you to the Pisanos. All right, we will go ahead now and turn to our resolutions as part of our administrative agenda. I have the honor of presenting several of these, and the first one is a resolution of commendation honoring Joan Davidson for her service as a County Santa Barbara Arts Commissioner. Joan, why don't you come up? And John, anybody else?

Going to go ahead and have Mr. Allen read the resolution. I'm going to come down and present it to you, and then you'll certainly have an opportunity to make some comments.

0:08 – 0:126 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed8:30 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Madam Chair, members of the Board. This is a resolution honoring Joan Davidson for her service as a County Arts Commissioner. Whereas the Santa Barbara County Arts Commission was founded in 1977 in order to support regional artists, promote regional cultural organizations and draw attention to Santa Barbara as a vibrant cultural destination and is a state and local partner of the California Arts Council. And whereas the commission makes recommendations to the board on cultural arts policy and promotes public art opportunities throughout Santa Barbara.

And whereas Joan Davidson, a long-time advocate in the Santa Barbara arts community was appointed to the commission in 1997 and served as chair three times starting in 1999. And whereas Joan has served on the Commission's County Art and Public Places Committee for more than a decade and was chair for an extended time. During her tenure at the commission and the CAPP committee Completed many significant percent for art projects, and raised the profile and expanded the number of public events in the Better Avia and Channing Peak Galleries. Joan played a significant role in updating the commission's public art inventory of works installed outside the galleries that helped develop a public art program at the Santa Barbara Airport Terminal.

And whereas, Joan also served as board member and as chair of Arts Outreach, a non-profit community arts organization serving the San Ynez and Los Alamos Valleys for several years. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors and commends Joan Davidson for her service, tireless dedication, and countless contributions to our community. Passing adopted today by the board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed10:08 · ≈ 9:10 AM

Is this on? I haven't had a proclamation since my dad said it's a girl over 68 years ago. I'm honored to receive this and I thank you, I think that you know that I was only one of 15 arts commissioners were all passionate about the arts And our job was to make sure that arts came to the Santa Barbara County in many different ways. In the parks, in the schools, in your offices on your walls, in the galleries at the Channing Peak and if you look in the papers you see the Arts Commission everywhere we're like fleas on a dog and you can't get rid of us and you shouldn't I want to commend the staff of the Arts Commission.

Ginny Brush, the Executive Director. Rita Ferry, the Visual Arts Coordinator and Curator of Collections. And Linda Gardy, the Business Specialist. I think that's what she is now called because they are untiring in their work and they not only work for the county but also work for the city so you're getting double for your money when you have them. I want to thank my mother for being my mentor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed11:17 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Well, I came up to thank you for following in that footstep so well. Very few daughters follow in their mother's footsteps but I gather she thought I was good enough to follow. So I'm very proud of her.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed11:32 · ≈ 9:11 AM

And thank you and last but not least I want to thank my husband for his tireless work in supporting me and being at venues when I couldn't. John? He's taking a picture.

CommentAction NumberProposed11:50 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Madam Chair, Joan, I ran into you downstairs and you asked me what was going on today. And I said just another hearing. Anytime you're in the audience with your mother it's not just another hearing. Congratulations!

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed12:12 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Next we have the honor of presenting a resolution of commendation to the City of Buelton for their 20th anniversary of incorporation. And I see the current mayor here, Holly Sierra. I see Councilmember Judith Dale. I'm not sure who all else from the City of Buelton is here? Mayor Pro Tem King. Please all of you come on up and anybody else that wants to from Buelton.

We've had a fun time this last year honoring the 100th anniversary of the beginning of Solvang and then last week, the 10th anniversary of the City of Goleta and now the 20th anniversary of Bealton. So thank you all for being here. Mr. Allen is going to read the resolution.

0:12 – 0:155 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed12:53 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. This is a resolution honoring the city of Buelton on its 20th anniversary of incorporation. Whereas on February 1st 1992, the first Buelton City Council was sworn in marking the community's long journey toward autonomy and self-determination by culminating in cityhood. And whereas over the past 20 years, Buelton has morphed from a crossroads into a thriving well managed city with community members active in policy and decision making And whereas, promises made and fulfilled by city leaders include bringing a large grocery store, pharmacy, parks and commercial redevelopment to Buelton.

And whereas the future of Buelton is bright with possibility including the revitalization of the Avenue of the Flags and the development of well-designed mixed use projects that bring economic opportunity. And whereas community residents, city staff and elected representatives have put countless hours into the future vision of Buelton and share the efforts to bring progress and prosperity to our region.

I would like to thank the Board of Supervisors for this honor. We are very proud that we've made it past our teenage years, that we've

CommentHolly SierraProposed14:00 · ≈ 9:14 AM

gotten to 20 And we are looking forward to a very exciting 20 years coming on. A lot of, a lot of changes, a lot of participation from residents and we appreciate the honor. Thank you very much.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed14:35 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Another city I'm very proud to represent in my district. All right, next we want to honor Jeff Scoba of the California Highway Patrol. But we don't necessarily see him in the audience. Is Jeff here? Well why don't we go ahead to the next resolution and then we'll come back to that. And the next one is a Resolution of Accommodation honoring the University of California Cooperative Extension Master Gardeners of Santa Barbara County for their outstanding service to the community.

I understand we have several people here that are going to accept, including former Judge DeCaro. Thank you for being here. Retired?

CommentAction NumberProposed15:19 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Madam Chair, now you know what judges do when they retire. It's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed15:24 · ≈ 9:15 AM

a good thing too. Everybody on up here? All right, Mr. Allen, why don't you go ahead and read the resolution.

0:15 – 0:183 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed15:31 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, this is a resolution honoring the University of California Cooperative Extension Master Gardeners for outstanding service. Whereas the University of California Cooperative Extension Master Gardeners of Santa Barbara County Program have volunteered over 15,000 hours of science-based horticultural assistance to the gardening public in Santa Barbara County since 1990.

And whereas each master gardener of Santa Barbara County successfully completes a 50 hour training program followed by an annual commitment to 25 hours of volunteer work and 12 hours of continuing education. And whereas the Master Gardeners are certified, non-paid volunteers who provide assistance to the public by telephone at plant clinics and farmers markets and other venues with demonstrations, talks and workshops on sustainable landscape practices.

Public information resources offered by the Master Gardeners of Santa Barbara County are science-based and include plant, pest, and problem identification, compost production, and cultural practices for growing vegetables, fruits, and ornamental plants. And whereas the Master Gardeners of Santa Barbara County hosts approximately 10 public workshops annually on various sustainable and gardening topics of interest to the public and draws an average of 60 attendees from each public workshop.

And whereas, the Master Gardeners of Santa Barbara County vowed to continue their volunteer education work in 2012 with 10 public workshops, advice table at the Saturday's Farmer's Market, Earth Day participation, butterfly garden education at several locations and helpline operation. Now therefore be it resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors the Master Gardeners of Santa Barbara County for their continued dedication in advising, educating and assisting the public in our community on science-based sustainable landscape matters and practices. Passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed17:26 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Thank you very much Chairman Farr and board members. We also want to thank Stephanie from Supervisor Farr's office and Mr. Allen for their help in preparing this resolution. I just helped run the paperwork for this program, and I want to turn it over to Leslie Wiscombe who is one of our volunteers because she's the one that along with the other Master Gardeners really does the work.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed17:57 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Good morning, Chairwoman Farr and esteemed supervisors. I'm one of 80 some odd volunteers and we all work pretty hard and we all do different things and we love what we do and we thank you so much for your support over the years. I am co-chair of the Public Education Committee for the Master Gardeners We have been really truly busy with our workshops and educating the public on sustainable gardening practices. And we have some pretty exciting workshops coming up, and I hope to see some of your faces there. We have one coming up this weekend for backyard citrus and a really good slate of things planned for public education. And thank you all very much for your support and it's a pleasure being here today. Thank you.

0:19 – 0:246 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed19:04 · ≈ 9:19 AM

All right, I think I still don't see Captain Scoba here. Supervisor Wolfe? I think that there's going to be a luncheon in his honor and perhaps the resolution can be presented then but he's such an exceptional individual. I wondered whether you wanted to make a few comments anyway about why we would be honoring him. Thank you Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed19:24 · ≈ 9:19 AM

I would like to do that and then perhaps we can read the resolution into the record as well. Captain Scoba has been an integral part of public safety in our community. He's met numerous times with myself and community members or business members when there have been issues of traffic control on some of the highways, particularly in the Second District. Supervisor Farr and I are co-sponsoring this particular item because of Jeff Scoba's intense interest and leadership And results that have occurred on Highway 154.

He's done everything from grant writing, and those grants have been received by the county for increased enforcement. We've seen changes on Highway 154 as it relates to what types of trucks can traverse that area. I think in essence he has just been a huge supporter of this community You'll hear in the resolution that through his leadership, traffic fatalities have decreased by 85%. This man is astounding in the work that he does for the Highway Patrol and I'm confident that his successor will do an excellent job as well. I just know that it's been a terrific pleasure working

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed20:53 · ≈ 9:20 AM

with him. Thank you Supervisor Wolff. And I just want to add that he is being promoted, but fortunately we're not going to lose him. He's still going to be representing this area and for that I'm very grateful. And also I want to say as we've talked about people in the community that are not only recognized for the work they do day-to-day but the extra work that they do out in our community, that if you haven't had the opportunity to hear Jeff sing, you've really missed something He's got, he plays guitar and he sings. And it's just amazing. So on top of the work that he does day to day for us as a captain in the California Highway Patrol, he makes himself available at various events including memorial services for fallen officers and participates in that way and sings.

And it's just so beautiful to hear him. So Mr. Allen why don't you go ahead and read the resolution and when we have the opportunity we will present it to him in person?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed21:52 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Resolution of commendation for Jeff Scoba for his service to the people of Santa Barbara County. Whereas Jeff Scoba as an officer of the California Highway Patrol began serving the people of the state of California in May 1985 and the people of Santa Barbara County in June 1986. And whereas in recognition of his excellent service and leadership skills In commitment to the people of California, Jeff Scoble was promoted throughout the CHP organization obtaining the rank of captain and becoming the commander of the Santa Barbara CHP area office. And whereas in his various leadership positions at the Santa Barbara CHP area office, Jeff has repeatedly shown dedication and faithfulness in working with local officials during emergencies and disasters in his daily commitment for our community's safety.

And whereas, Jeff has served Santa Barbara County in many programs including coordinating the CHP's integration into the Ivy Foot Patrol, working with the local wine tasting industry and the Santa Barbara County Vintners Association in the Taste Responsibly Designated Sober Driver campaign. Working with UCSB on decreasing impaired driving within a student population. Working to make Highway 154 safer and reducing pedestrian fatalities on Highway 101.

And whereas, since taking command of the Santa Barbara CHP Area Office, Jeff Scoba's tireless efforts to safety have helped reduce the fatality rate within his assigned area by 85%. And whereas, Jeff Scoba, receiver of two California Law Enforcement Challenge Awards for Overall Excellence has been further promoted to the rank of Assistant Chief of the CHP Coastal Division. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County recognizes and thanks Jeff Skoba for his tireless devotion to the people of the state of California and to the county of Santa Barbara. I pass and adopt it today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed23:43 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Madam Chair, if I could just say, Jeff Scopa has never missed one meeting and I can only assume that the reason he's missing this is because he's out on the road doing something very important right now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed23:56 · ≈ 9:23 AM

I totally agree with you. All right let's go to the administrative agenda items that were pulled. The first one was A-10 Supervisor Wolf and then we'll see whether there any... I'm sorry Mr. Allen you need to read that into the record?

0:24 – 0:3124 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed24:11 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Madam Chair, we have a request to speak on items A-10 and 11. Item A- 10 is from Planning and Development. It's to receive and file a board letter regarding the Bryce Beach Cabana and Fenuncular. And item A-11 from Planning and Development. Receive and file a board agenda letter regarding the Irene and Frances Rich Beach Cabana.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed24:28 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Thank you. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed24:29 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Wolf, I think you pulled 810? I did Madam Chair. I just want to state briefly that I'm pulling this item so that we can have it set for hearing for the full board to hear the merits of this case on March 6th. It seems appropriate since the last time we heard this item at the Board of Supervisors level, we had specifically referred it back to HVAC. did respond so I think it's important for us to follow through on the process and hear this item at the full hearing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed25:02 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Why don't we go ahead and hear from our public speaker and then you can make that motion?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed25:06 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Madam Chair, we have requests to speak on Item A11 but no requests to speak on Item

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed25:11 · ≈ 9:25 AM

A10. So I'm going to make the motion Madam Chair that we set this item for hearing for March 6th.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed25:18 · ≈ 9:25 AM

All right, motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries all right that'll be continued to March 6th for a full hearing and now item A11 Mr. Allen oh you already read that didn't you okay Supervisor Levin you know I think you filled this one

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7325:36 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Similarly to the last one I'd like to accept this for hearing March 6 based on what our HLAC vote was and just want to bring it back so that we can hear the merits of this before the full board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed25:50 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Okay. Are public speakers then Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed25:54 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Madam Chair, we have four requests to speak. We'll start in Santa Maria with Andy Caldwell to be followed by Julia Carr here in Santa Barbara.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCOLABProposedself-stated26:02 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. It actually wanted to encourage the board to schedule both items A10 and A11. It's amazing to me as you know I've been coming to county meetings and some planning commission meetings for over 20 years. And I specifically remember A lemon packing shed. It was no more than a tin shed next to the railroad tracks and how there was a huge debate to make that some sort of historical landmark Which, you know, I found questionable because it was just literally a shed.

The Union Sugar where I used to work was the oldest sugar factory in the country and it got torn down with nary a peep. These particular Projects really are completely rich in history, not just for what they represented but the people that built them and the people that were involved in their creation. And I know in some ways there's some people that would like to ignore parts of the history of Santa Barbara because it's not politically correct anymore in some ways, shapes and forms. But the bottom line is both of these facilities were spectacular in their day and they represented as one person said the California dream.

And so we would hope that you would schedule them and approve them for what it's going to take to restore and preserve them. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed27:51 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Thank you, Mr. Caldwell. Next speaker?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed27:53 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Our next speaker is Julia Carr to be followed by Lee Carr.

CommentJulia CarrProposed27:57 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, Supervisors. Lee and I want the Rich Cabana to go on to the March 6th meeting for final approval of a landmarking of the Rich Cabana. We have a lot of new information since the last time we saw you came before you and we want to share it And we would like to also, if possible, request time to be able to present our PowerPoint or at least part of it on the March 6th hearing because it was prepared by us for the HLAC and it helped us win our second and unprecedented unanimous nomination from the HLAC Commission.

They are your commission and they're the people you have appointed to give you their opinion Both your board, both you the board and the commission have asked us a lot of good questions. And we have been able to answer them. So thank you very much for your time and consideration. We hope to see you on the 6th.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed28:55 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Thank you. Our next speaker is Lee Carr followed by Chip Wolbrandt

CommentLee CarrProposed29:03 · ≈ 9:29 AM

I'm going to be extremely brief, given that Julia took care of what I wanted to say anyway. But a year ago we, or a little more than a year ago, we were before you about this land marking of the Irene and Francis Rich Cabana. Good questions were raised at that point in time. We've worked diligently for the last year to try to answer each of those questions. They would have to do with documentation of the history of the cabana, they had to do with alternatives that were available or could be available and in addition to that there was some issues about permitting that were discussed. We've gotten answers we believe through diligent work to address each of those. We welcome the opportunity to address those things on March 6th We would ask you to set it for March 6.

Thank you.

CommentChip WolbrandtProposed29:52 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed29:54 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Our

CommentChip WolbrandtProposed29:55 · ≈ 9:29 AM

final speaker is Chip Wilbrandt. Madam Chair, I'll be even briefer and just thank you very much for pulling this off the administrative agenda recognizing that you have a full recommendation from unanimous HLAC for nomination and asking you to please take your time to have a full hearing on this item. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed30:13 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Thank You Mr. Wilbrandt. All right we'll bring it back to the board Supervisor Wolfe. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed30:19 · ≈ 9:30 AM

When this was heard before, we also had the recommendation from HLAC to move forward with a designation and the board at that time I believe the vote was 3-2 to deny what was if not an identical request from the same applicant. The applicants appeal that denial to Superior Court where it remains. I don't believe that it's appropriate that we move forward on setting this item for a hearing. This is different than the previous item, which I myself pulled for a hearing and so I would hope that the board holds to its statement that we made last year, that this would not move forward as a historic landmark designation. Thank you Madam Chair.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed31:16 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Thank you Supervisor Wolff. Counsel did you want to comment on the fact that if there's some ongoing litigation how that affects us?

CommentGoleta Valley CommunityProposed31:30 · ≈ 9:31 AM

I was not aware that there was still ongoing litigation on this item. I'm not really sure what the status is of that item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed31:40 · ≈ 9:31 AM

I think Rachel's coming forward

0:31 – 0:3718 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed31:48 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Madam Chair and Supervisors, there is still current litigation on this item. And I believe that they haven't started the briefing stage so it's still in the early part of the litigation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed32:03 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Okay, so does that affect our ability to go ahead and and discuss this matter.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed32:11 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board it's within your discretion to set this matter for hearing and that's separate from the litigation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed32:22 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Thank you. I think Supervisor Lavinino then Supervisor Carbajal.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7332:29 · ≈ 9:32 AM

I wasn't here last year at this point when this item came up, and that's why I'd like to bring it forward. I think I'd like to hear the merits of the case, and I think we're always better off when we hear... If the vote turns out the way it does last time, that's fine. But I just want to hear it and see how it all plays out.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed32:52 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentAction NumberProposed32:54 · ≈ 9:32 AM

I'm just trying to wrap my hands around The outstanding litigation and our hearing this item. Certainly it's within our discretion, but I'm looking to our lawyers to give us some kind of sign language something that That gives me a little bit more insight because not being a lawyer, I'm trying to understand the implications. So to the extent that you can say something on the record that would help me understand the nexus implications thereof or otherwise, I would greatly appreciate it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed33:39 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal, what's before your board is exactly the same issue that's in litigation. So when your board heard this item in a public hearing Believe it was over a year ago. The board decided to deny the historic landmark designation and what's happened is this is a new application for the exact same thing. So, but your board still has the discretion to in spite of the litigation on that item, your board still has the discretion to hear that item again and have a full hearing if that's the pleasure of the board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed34:26 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Supervisor Carbone.

CommentAction NumberProposed34:28 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. I guess I would like to understand what kind of legal expenses, not that it's so much germane as have we been... What has this protracted legal circumstance? How has it impacted us in terms of County Council's time?

CommentGoleta Valley CommunityProposed34:56 · ≈ 9:34 AM

At this point, our effort in the litigation has been putting together the administrative record of your board's hearing. We don't have a cost estimate on that but it would have been probably several hours of work. We've not yet begun our formal briefing on this matter.

CommentAction NumberProposed35:25 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed35:28 · ≈ 9:35 AM

All right. Any other comments from the board on this? Supervisor Lavinuna.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7335:35 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we set this for hearing for March 6th.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed35:43 · ≈ 9:35 AM

All right. Any discussion on the motion? Before we vote council have we ever done this before? Have we ever discussed a matter that was under litigation in open session like this?

CommentGoleta Valley CommunityProposed35:58 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Not that I'm aware of, but as Rachel indicated there this is a new application. So, is it possible that there could be some issues that overlap between a subsequent hearing and the matter pending in Superior Court? Assuming the issues are the same. Yes, there could be some overlap. What we're just trying to tell you is that your board is not precluded from hearing this item if that's your pleasure.

But does it materially create a risk to our litigation in Superior Court? That's really hard to say.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed36:39 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Okay, thank you. Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentAction NumberProposed36:44 · ≈ 9:36 AM

I think you helped me get to where I was interested in what are the financial implications for the county should we have... Should it go through to trial, what could be the financial exposure to the county or would it just be a matter of... Could there be a financial implication to the county?

0:37 – 0:405 turns

CommentGoleta Valley CommunityProposed37:10 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Really, the expense would be the lawyer staff time in preparing and arguing the record. My understanding is it's proceeding under an administrative mandamus process. So yeah, it would just be attorney time. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed37:30 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know this is to me this is very simple I feel very strongly that first of all going back to the HLAC after we had already made our decision based on the information that was provided to us was an interesting way to kind of circumvent our decision, but certainly the applicants had the right to do that. And they have presented to us additional information which I've looked at, but I understand that we're not to get into the into the fine aspects of their proposal unless it was to go back to unless it was to go to the hearing March 6th. I feel very strongly that we not engage in this, that would let the process move forward as as we had decided before and and Let it play itself out if we talk about staff time and County Council time You know, we're going to we're going to be taking more time on an issue that like I said is already In the litigation process and I suggest we let it move forward in that arena And Supervisor Labagnino, I do appreciate your taking the interest in this.

I recognize that you weren't here last time but for the reasons that I stated, I think we should just hold the line at this point and call for the question unless you have comments, Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed39:02 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Wolff. All right. We'll go ahead and have a roll call vote on this Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed39:07 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Mr. Labagnino? Mr Carbajal? Ms. Wolff? Ms Gray? Ms Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed39:16 · ≈ 9:39 AM

All right, that completes our administrative agenda and we will go ahead and continue to our departmental agenda. The first item is looking at the Goleta Valley Community Plan. For those of you who have not participated in a hearing here at the Board of Supervisors I just wanted to lay out how Hearing is going to proceed and a few of the ground rules. First of all, if you have cell phone would you please turn it off or turn it to silent? We don't allow booing or clapping.

If somebody says something that you really like you can go ahead and wave your hand in the air like that. Depending on how many speaker slips we have, people will be given up to three minutes to speak. If somebody has something that they can say in one minute, we will go ahead and take you first and come around over here and stand on the side. And so first of all, we will read the item into the record and Supervisor Wolf whose district this is in and who we will look to as our lead on it. We'll make some introductory comments then staff will make a presentation there will be questions from the board then there will be public comment and then we will bring it back to the board for deliberations and a possible motion So Mr. Allen, why don't you go ahead and read this into the record?

0:40 – 0:464 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed40:48 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Item number one is from Planning and Development. It's a hearing to adopt a resolution to initiate environmental review for the draft Goleta Valley Community Plan for the Eastern Goleta Valley.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed40:59 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Thank you. And good morning to our staff who is here. Presentation, Mr. Hunt. Oh I'm sorry, Supervisor Wolf wants to make a few comments first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed41:12 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Thank you Madam Chair and thank you all of you for being here this morning. And I'm sure there's quite a few who may be home and listening to this or at work My office and I think the other supervisors have received numerous emails from many, if not all of you. So we appreciate that input. It's actually hard for me to believe that this day has finally arrived for my colleagues on the board and members of the public to be able to hear about and move forward today on the initiation of environmental review of the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan.

It is safe to say for at least The past six years, even before I ran for supervisor, the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan Update has been at the forefront of thoughts and discussion within the unincorporated area of the 2nd District. And there's a reason for that. If you look at the county district maps it's easy to see that the second district is geographically the smallest of the five districts It's actually very tiny when compared to the other districts.

The unincorporated eastern Goleta Valley has approximately 36,000 residents, one of the largest unincorporated population centers in the county. And within the more urbanized area, the land mass is approximately 7900 acres or 12 square miles. The beautiful and unique eastern Goleta Valley is geographically situated between the mountains and Pacific Ocean and bordered by two cities.

For these reasons, land use and planning and the impacts of growth are understandably at the forefront of consciousness and concerns among residents. And therefore the process to arrive at this draft plan has not been quick or easy and frequently frustrating. But in the end, I believe that the process has been fair and it has resulted in a draft plan which is an excellent framework for setting the stage for robust environmental review process.

Before we move on, if you look in the draft community plan book there is an acknowledgment and I want to publicly thank the folks who worked on the Goleta Valley Community Plan PAC. And those members are Valerie Olson, Kinan Inzel, Tom Elliott, Bonnie Freeman, Kim Minow, Kim True, and Ted Adams. Our true representatives of our community representing different geographical locations in the community and coming to the plan from different perspectives. So I want to publicly thank them right now, and to my colleagues on the board I don't know if you watched the Planning Commission hearings, but the planning commissioners did an outstanding job in listening to the concerns of the public trying to reconcile staff's issues, GBPAC issues, community issues.

They were all exceptional. And I want to call them out by name too. Michael Cooney, Merrill Brooks, Joe Valencia and Dan Blau. And of course our Second District Planning Commissioner Cecilia Brown who's in the audience today who I know many of you have met. Every time I see Cecilia I thank her but sometimes I know that words are not enough to really express the appreciation that I have for her work Her diligence, her...

Cecilia you are outstanding and I am so lucky and I think the community is lucky to have you as our representative. And then finally to our staff, our folks down here Jeff Hunt, Glenn Russell and particularly Erica who has some by some people been named the Galita gal she's done a terrific job and they have worked closely Maybe this is the frustrating part that I referenced earlier, but I think again we have come to a place and a plan that is one that is workable.

And I'd now like to turn the presentation over to our planning staff and they will go through a PowerPoint After your presentation, I do have one additional modification that I would like to make. But we can talk about that later. So without any further delay, we'll get going on

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed46:10 · ≈ 9:46 AM

your presentation. Actually, Supervisor Wolf before Mr. Hunt starts. Council, do we need to do ex parte on this particular matter?

0:46 – 0:554 turns

CommentGoleta Valley CommunityProposed46:20 · ≈ 9:46 AM

No, we don't believe so. OK. You always can do ex parte But I don't believe you'd be required to. I don't believe this is a quasi-judicial proceeding.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed46:30 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Okay, thank you. All right, Mr. Hunt?

PresenterJeff HuntLong Range PlanningProposedself-stated46:35 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Good morning, Chair and Supervisors. I'm Jeff Hunt, Director of Long Range Planning. With me this morning is Glenn Russell, the Director of Planning and Development, and Erica Leachman, the Project Manager. The Draft Goleta Plan represents a balance By providing for housing and economic development while preserving community character. The plan would also bring a number of other benefits to the community, as Erica will now mention in her staff presentation.

UnidentifiedCounty Executive OfficerProposed · by role47:06 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Thank you Mr. Hunt Good morning, Honorable Supervisors. Thank you for the opportunity to present recommendations for the Goleta Community Plan Update Project. The objective of this project is to evaluate and update the goals, policies, development standards and action items for the 1993 Goleta Community Plan exclusively for the Eastern Goleta Valley. The project includes the updated draft community plan, updated land use and zoning maps, and Land Use Development Code and Coastal Zoning Ordinance amendments.

Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt Attachment 2, which is a resolution to initiate environmental review for the draft plan with any board-approved modifications. This hearing is not to approve or adopt the draft plan and initiation does not commit the county to adopt the project following environmental review. The community plan is organized into three basic sections that apply comprehensively to the planning area.

First, Section 1 provides the background and organization and regulation of the plan. Section 2 provides planning and policies for community development and land use including residential, commercial, mixed-use, agricultural, and rural land uses. Section 3 provides recommendations for public services and facilities including parks, recreation, open space, water and wastewater, and multimodal transportation. And lastly, Section 4 provides standards for environmental resources and constraints including watershed-based ecosystems, air quality, climate change, sensitive habitats and visual resources.

The county adopted the Community Plan for Goleta in 1993 and the planning area has seen many changes over the years including the incorporation of the City of Goleta in 2002. The Eastern Goleta Valley Vision Document was created in 2006, which informed the Goleta Valley planning process beginning in 2008. This planning process involved a total of 41 public meetings of the GVPAC or Goleta Valley Planning Advisory Committee and seven Planning Commission hearings culminating in the updated draft plan in late 2011.

The environmental review of this draft will occur over the next year and a half And we expect adoption hearings to occur in the fall of 2013, followed by Coastal Commission certification for the coastal zone in 2014. The draft plan proposes solutions to longstanding land use issues including the urban-rural boundary, residential land use densities and urban agriculture as the most significant land use issues addressed by the plan.

Eastern Goleta Valley is a 23,000 acre planning area situated between the cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta as depicted here on the map. The planning area currently contains rural, inter-rural and urban areas characterized by agricultural and mountainous land use designations in the northern reaches and a combination of residential, commercial, agricultural, recreational and institutional land uses in the developed area.

The draft plan proposes to adjust the urban-rural boundary line to follow the existing urbanized extent. This strategy transitions undeveloped urban and inter-rural areas to rural land use designations, to limit development of urban uses in urban style subdivision in foothills. This adjustment would preserve agricultural viability, protect natural resources and support fire protection and response services in these areas.

Residential land use change is recommended in the urban area to achieve housing goals and policies, including residential density recommendations to implement Program 1.3 of the County's Housing Element. Program 1. 3 requires the county to consider residentially zoning 20-30 acres at an effective density of 20 units per acre as part of the Community Plan update processes. This is to plan for affordable housing development in the future.

In a letter dated August 23, 2011 State Housing and Community Development asserts if the county fails to implement Program 1.3, the housing element will no longer comply with state law. In response to State Housing and Community Development, the Planning Commission discussed and recommended Eight specific locations or sites to study for higher density housing development as part of this project, distributed throughout the urban areas depicted here. Sites 1 through 8.

These eight locations are recommended to provide additional capacity for housing development to achieve a range of outcomes including six which include designations of 20 units per acre on sufficient acreage to support potential affordable housing One at eight units per acre to support potential agricultural housing or farm worker housing. And one along the State Street and Hollister Avenue commercial corridor to allow for residential components as part of mixed use projects.

The proposed land use map includes approximately 28 acres in total, at 20 units per acre, to consider and study during environmental review. which conforms to the letter of Program 1.3. Through environmental review, the potential impacts of the proposed land use map will be studied and disclosed to inform the final land use recommendations during adoption proceedings in the future.

After docketing this item, the Planning and Development Department received a letter dated February 13th from the State Housing and Community Development Department expressing concern with the county's housing element compliance Summarized, State HCD's concern is that the recommended zoning for the MTD and Tatum sites was not the 20 units per acre that yielded credit under state housing element law but up to 20 units per acre.

This appears to be more of a concern over the zoning framework rather than the number of units on the ground. In response staff is recommending the following revisions to the Planning Commission's recommendations Number one, that the 17-acre MTD site be studied with a zoning of 20 units per acre on 10.2 acres and that the agricultural zoning currently in place be retained on the remaining 6.8 acres.

This would result in the same number of high density housing units and the potential for one additional unit on the agricultural portion of the site. And number two, the 23-acre Tatum site would be studied with a zoning of 20 units per on 13.8 acres and one unit on the remaining 9.2. This would result in the same number of high-density housing units, and the potential for one additional unit on the remainder of the site as well.

The revised recommendation would result in no change in the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the number of high density units to be studied in the EIR. 204 units on the MPD site and 276 units on the Tatum site. Studying these densities in the EIR is not a commitment to rezone properties, any decision regarding potential rezones will be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in public hearings after the EIR is completed.

These two recommended modifications highlighted here in yellow would continue to implement the housing element as two sites of the six which include designations of 20 units per acre on sufficient acres to support potential affordable housing. Considering the residential land use changes recommended planning area wide, inclusive of the adjustment to the urban-rural boundary. The proposed land use map with staff's recommended modifications for TATEM and MTD would reduce the capacity for detached single family units by approximately 148 units and increase the capacity for attached multifamily units by 774 for a net change in residential unit capacity of 626 plan area wide

0:55 – 1:037 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed55:28 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Supervisor Wolf has a question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed55:30 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Thank you, Erica. Just to confirm with the folks who are here that 626 number is the same number as it was before we got that final letter from HCD. So what we really did was, as you mentioned, change the framework of the zoning

UnidentifiedCounty Executive OfficerProposed · by role55:52 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Madam Chair and Supervisors, the only difference is the two units that hypothetically would result from the remainder designations on the Tatum and MTD sites. Prior to those recommendations, the difference would be 624. With those changes, the change would be 626. Eastern Goleta Valley contains two agricultural areas The draft plan retains the existing agricultural land use and zoning for these two areas due largely to the existing agricultural operations on site.

The draft plan also proposes a revised policy for potential urban agricultural land use conversion. This policy requires a study of agricultural resources as part of any future proposal to convert these agricultural properties and ensures that the conversion enhances the community at large as a result. Turning now to public services and facilities, these sections recommend new recreational facilities such as improvements to the Ben Page Youth Center and pocket parks along at Hascadero Creek, as well as improvements in reclassification of roads and transit facilities for multimodal transportation.

This map depicts the community corridors which are priorities for complete streets improvements where needed to serve the multimodal needs of the community. Additionally, additional bike facilities are recommended to increase multimodal connectivity and safe routes to local schools including a potential bike bridge connection to the city of Goleta at Patterson Avenue, a delineated San Simeon Road safe route to school and bike route, and potential locations for bike crossings of Highway 101 at Ben Page Youth Center and or State Street along the mixed-use corridor there.

Turning now to environmental resources and constraints, all substantive updates are recommended throughout the plan based on watershed planning principles for land use, public facilities and environmental resource protection ridgeline to shore. As depicted here you'll see the watershed sub-basins created by the Planning Area's hydrology. The Environmental Resources and Constraints sections also address climate change consistent with AB 32 Define, map and enhance visual resources in the planning area.

And increase required setbacks from environmentally sensitive habitat and biological resources associated with the ESH and riparian corridor overlay depicted here on the map. The plan also recommends an expansion of the coverage of the environmental sensitive habitat overlay into the rural San Marcos foothills, a 7200 acre area not currently included in the 1993 plan but considered within the planning area boundary as part of the plan update.

Uniquely, Atascadero Creek as part of this watershed approach is proposed as a greenway and wildlife corridor from its headwaters in the San Marcos foothills to its outlet at Goleta Beach. The Greenway conceptually and functionally protects and enhances the creek's corridor and its habitat. In doing so, it also acknowledges the hydrologic and recreational value to the community including the potential for passive hiking trails, bike paths, wildlife passage, habitat restoration, and pocket parks where appropriate.

Eastern Goleta Valley also contains a limited area within the coastal zone The draft plan includes coastal zone policies for public access, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, visual resources, coastal development such as sea walls and staircases, water resources and runoff, and agricultural land use retention in the South Patterson Ag Block. The California Coastal Commission has recently provided a letter as Attachment 7 that includes preliminary comments on the draft plan. Through environmental review and the certification process these comments on coastal issues will be addressed.

Overall, the draft plan perpetuates a majority of the existing policies for the area while providing potential solutions to long-standing land use issues described today. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt attachment 2 to the board letter, a resolution to initiate environmental review for the draft Goleta Valley Community Plan for Eastern Goleta Valley and that the project description be modified as follows. That number 1, the MTV site be studied with a land use designation of RES 20 and a zoning of DR 20 on 10.2 acres, and that the ag land use designation and the Ag 1-5 zoning be retained on the remaining 6.8.

And secondly, the Tatum site be studied with the land use designation of RES 20 and the zoning of DR 20 on 13.8 acres, and a land use designation of RES 0.33 and the zoning of 10E1 on the remaining 9.2 acres. Thank you very much for your attention to the presentation.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:01:18 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Thank you, Ms. Leachman. Supervisor Wolff, you had something that you wanted to add for discussion before we go to the board and public?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:01:28 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Yes. Thank you Madam Chair. First of all thank you Ms. Leachman for your excellent and succinct presentation Of a very complex issue. And I want to put forth a couple of modifications that I'm inclined to make, but I want to hear from the public first. But I do think that there is one particular change that I want to put into the record now and I have worked with staff and county council This is the issue of the conversion of urban ag land.

And that, again, is something that's been at the forefront of concerns for several years and Ms. Leachman mentioned it when she talked about the two larger ag parcels that we have in our community and there are other smaller ag parcels. I think it's important to tighten up this policy Staff right now is passing out the language that has been prepared with the proposed modification.

And I believe that the inclusion of the language of findings will help to further the intent that is and has been repeated often to preserve urban ag. So if we can put that up on Ms. Leachman, Or someone from staff, do you have the slide to put it up? Mr. Russell. If you don't have it right at this moment, we can go to board questions. I want the hearing to move forward without delay so we can come back to this.

So Madam Chair, it appears that we don't have it ready to put up so let's go to board questions then.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:03:39 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Okay any questions from the Board at this time? All right Mr. Allen how many public speakers do we have here?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:03:50 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Approximately 30.

1:03 – 1:0815 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:03:58 · ≈ 10:03 AM

All right. Mr. Allen will call the names of the public speakers, you will have up to three minutes to speak again anybody who has a speaker slip in can do it in a minute raise your hand if somebody want to do that with somebody over here anybody else all right sir why don't you give us your name and you can come up to the podium first

CommentIan MotesProposedself-stated1:04:36 · ≈ 10:04 AM

My name is Ian Motes of Santa Barbara, California. And I wanted to come speak on the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan. I wanted to come before you to present my personal and professional experiences as both recruiter for a locally owned staffing agency and being a married working professional here in Santa Barbara. I recruit for manufacturing, administrative and professional positions for clients in Santa Barbara and Goleta.

And I myself live in downtown Santa Barbara. The difficulties you can imagine is not in showcasing the tremendous aesthetic beauty and rich culture Santa Barbara offers but in attracting working professionals to find housing to sustain a comfortable life. When I work with local companies to fill complex positions, I'm met with barriers when it comes to providing housing alternatives for positions that make between $50,000 and $100,000.

These professionals are disheartened by the fact that they cannot afford affordable housing and their stay here is often short-lived.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:05:41 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Okay Mr. Motz, I am not sure if you misunderstood me or not but I said you would have one minute.

CommentIan MotesProposedself-stated1:05:45 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Am I already over?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:05:46 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Yeah, you already

CommentIan MotesProposedself-stated1:05:47 · ≈ 10:05 AM

are up.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:05:48 · ≈ 10:05 AM

One minute goes really fast.

CommentIan MotesProposedself-stated1:05:49 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Okay, I apologize. Can I finish real fast, Supervisor?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:05:52 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Actually no. So you'll have to sit down.

CommentIan MotesProposedself-stated1:05:55 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Thank you for your

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:05:56 · ≈ 10:05 AM

time. All right and so everybody else will have up to three minutes again it's just like a stoplight green means you're good yellow means you need to really start to wrap up and red means that you need to leave the microphone.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:06:12 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Did you want to go? I'm getting the go-ahead from county staff that the slide is ready to go, if that would be okay with you to put that up now. Okay, that's fine and Supervisor

CommentAction NumberProposed1:06:23 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Carvajal. I just wanted to acknowledge what the gentleman said. I think he was trying to put forth one of the most significant arguments that has brought forward by folks from all points of views. Aesthetic housing jobs finding that balance and I think That is always the goal with these community plans, is to find that balance. It's a tricky, challenging endeavor but finding the balance of all these interests and still defining what community is it's really what the goal of community plans are so I want to acknowledge what you said but I also want to remind you that it's a balance. There's no easy answer other than working with the community to find that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:07:09 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Thank you Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:07:09 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Carbajal. Supervisor Wolk? Thank you Supervisor Carbajal for those comments and I think that's the essence of this plan is that it is balanced, and I think it will be even more balanced if the board agrees with this additional language And this is one of the policies that's in the plan. It's LUA EGB 1.6 and what we have done, basically what we have done is we have added a layer of protection and that is to ensure that findings are made Factual and substantive findings are made by the county that a, the land is no longer appropriate for urban ag land uses following due consideration consistent with all policies of the plan or b, there is an overriding public need for conversion to other uses as part of the finding of the county. I just want to point out that the only additional language here is the findings section.

Thank you staff for getting this up here for us.

not transcribed≈49s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:09 – 1:1512 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:09:06 · ≈ 10:09 AM

All right, Mr. Allen, we'll start now with our up to three minute speakers.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:09:10 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Our first request to speak is from Steve Muside to be followed by Jerry Bunin. I have handouts that you give to the clerk

CommentSteve MusickProposedself-stated1:09:16 · ≈ 10:09 AM

to provide to the Board of Supervisors. My name is Steve Musick. I was the last person to farm the MTD Farmland. I started in 1980 until 1986, it's now been almost that much time since I stopped being a farmer. This time is going to go really

CommentJohn GreenleafProposedself-stated1:09:45 · ≈ 10:09 AM

quick

CommentSteve MusickProposedself-stated1:10:02 · ≈ 10:10 AM

The first page is for your purview at a later point. It's the soil surveys of Santa Barbara County, South Coastal by the USDA. The second page is the county conservation element that illustrates what soils are as according to the current general plan held by the county. The third page is a map of the prime soils on MTD and the San Marcos property along with two color views, no it was.

And this is what I'm referring to which is the watershed views okay? This is the picture of the prime soils on MTD property and the last of course is a collage when I was 100 pounds lighter when I was farming. The state definition of prime farmland is if it's being farmed. And so, if you do not recognize the prime soils in MPD property then that's the recipe for the development of San Marcos and any other farmland because it ignores the USD definition of prime soils.

My lease was terminated four years before by the MPD GM because I got a lawyer. According to that general manager, the current GM misspoke the planning commission saying that my lease was terminated because I couldn't afford to pay the rent. No, that's not true. The registered letter didn't say anything about that. I did propose a million dollar a year business plan conservaty when prices were three to four times less than they are now and response was if you do this we will terminate your lease I don't have an axe to grind. I don't have a chip on my shoulder, no.

Part of my comments are denuded by staff's recommendation to recognize 6.8 acres of farmland and they really support that. I've always been on the record for supporting Critical workforce housing on the MTD property because look what the city has done for the seniors on one acre over on De La Vena, if you remember that. And the veterans have been left off this property. This property was purchased with tax dollars and so I'll leave out all the other personal BS.

Where are the protocols and policies determining the parceling of this proposed development to the critical workforce, fire and police men and women, nurses, teachers, and all others in the county? Who's going to win the lottery when they get to... This development comes four or five years. This says protocols haven't been decided what to do with state-owned property. AB 1937 allows transit districts to partner with developers only for transoriented developments. I'm sorry, I need you to wrap up.

I enter this into the public record. Actually,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:13:02 · ≈ 10:13 AM

I've given you extra time.

CommentSteve MusickProposedself-stated1:13:04 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Thank you very much. I'll submit the rest of these comments in writing and so that you're not violating your own protocols in your own document. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:13:15 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Thank you so much and thank you for being here. Mr. Bunin?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:13:18 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Our next speaker is Jerry Bunin to be followed by Kelly Travers.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:13:22 · ≈ 10:13 AM

And as you're the next person to speak, if you could stand up and stand on the side and be ready to go. Good morning.

CommentJerry BuninProposed1:13:27 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Thank you. Jerry Bunon, Government Affairs Director, Home Builders Association. We want you to do the best and most comprehensive environmental impact report possible. We think that would involve looking at all the best possible properties for higher density zoning. To find the best, you need to look at all In order to reduce all the long-distance commuting that goes on in this county, the freeway congestion and the unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions.

We also think it will involve hiring an independent consultant to lead the environmental impact report. No insult to your staff which I actually like they put up with me but the bottom line is as long as it's done in house it really has Appearance of being motivated by politics. And we really think that the best way to do this is to get the most possible appearance of neutrality and objectivity by hiring someone from outside. 20 units per acre housing is not going to be a financial windfall for the home building community.

It's gonna be where you build more affordable housing, by groups like people self-help housing will be the ones that will be looking at it. With or without new housing, population growth and household formation in the county continues. Whenever a child is born, children get married, or business adds one-and-a-half jobs, you need a new house. The one thing everyone in this room has in common is that living in a home that was once new development was once growth.

You have to take care of the population as it develops. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:15:15 · ≈ 10:15 AM

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kelly Travers to be followed by Ronald Stern.

1:15 – 1:2410 turns

CommentKelly TraversProposedself-stated1:15:22 · ≈ 10:15 AM

Good morning, supervisors. My name is Kelly Travers. I'm a resident of the Goleta Valley. Haven't seen you guys in awhile. In 2006, the county endorsed the creation of the GVC 2020 vision document and I wish that we would have spoken a little more about this today. This is an official county document written by the Goleta Valley community members. Its purpose is to lay the foundation for the plan we are discussing today.

This document was completed in 2008 and was officially accepted and recognized by the county. While campaigning in office in 2006, Supervisor Wolf, you assured us that the GVC 2020 Vision Document would serve as the blueprint for the future Goleta Valley Community Plan. Two critical points in this document are to maintain the amount of acreage zoned as agricultural land and to follow a simple formula for any future rezones that would require higher densities.

That formula is meant to, I just want to make a note what Supervisor Carbajal was saying earlier about having a balance. Recognizing that there would be a need for density in the future. The committee that worked on this vision document came up with a formula to determine how to put higher densities in smaller pockets within some of the regions. The current draft plan ignores both of these points.

No net loss of agricultural lands and following the simple formula that was arranged by the Visioning Committee. Now is the time, Supervisor Wolf to keep your promise and oppose the current draft of the Goleta Valley Community Plan as it is. The proposed re-zones are simply too high. I recognize that today it was emphasized that we won't be approving the plan today, but we'll be talking about EIRs. This is a key part of the process this talks about where we're intending to go and The proposed rezones need to be reformulated to abide by the 2020 vision document before this process goes forward It's pretty simple formula Just running off the numbers that Erica put up there earlier just for those two properties And my math may be off, this is just quick.

But just those two properties in what the community would have allowed for 280 units is now being looked at for 484. That's quite a bit more than what was arranged here. So I ask you to consider that, keep the wishes of the community in mind. As you know we've been working on this for years. Supervisor Wolf, we'd love to see you come through and stick by this document. We believe there's room and we know there's room in here for balance.

Thank you. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:18:23 · ≈ 10:18 AM

you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:18:24 · ≈ 10:18 AM

Our next speaker is Ronald Stern to be followed by Barbara Cluse.

CommentRonald SternProposedself-stated1:18:33 · ≈ 10:18 AM

Good morning members of the board. I'm Ronald Stern. I live in the Hope Ranch Annex, about 300 yards from Atascadero Creek. And I've been in my house since 1967. When I moved to Los Angeles in 1949 it was like a big Santa Barbara. Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley had nice single family residences with little lawns and neat gardens and a couple of cars in the driveway.

I lived all over Los Angeles at that time because I was poor and I rented rooms in different houses. But they were all lovely, from downtown to West Hollywood to East Hollywood and even Beverly Hills where I rented a room in a little house. And then everything was up-zoned. One by one the houses disappeared and large apartments came in there If you look at that place now, Los Angeles, it's a jungle. I was just down there again last week.

Traffic is horrible. Cars are backed up where they were once nice houses. They're now apartments and that is what you're looking to do here. I see complete repetition of this and I don't want it. I was lucky. I came up here in 1966, bought my home in 67 and I was with the guppy operation which is long gone. I made a career change just to be able to stay here.

I raised a family here. I now have grandchildren here. My son-in-law and daughter both work here in Santa Barbara. My son works just the floor underneath, my son-and-law underneath here. And what you're doing is the beginning of what happened in Los Angeles, and you can't go back on it. So I'm begging you not to go ahead with this. It's only a start and at the moment my area isn't immediately affected, but it will be.

Hollister will be up zoned and on the third of an acre where I live, I can put a whole bunch of apartments. I don't want to. I'm not interested. In fact, I won't be affected by all of this. I am 84 years old most My sand is in the bottom of my hourglass, so please do not even start out on this venture. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:20:50 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Thank you for being here Mr.

CommentBarbara CluseProposed1:20:51 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Stern.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:20:55 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Can't have it already said no clapping I'm sorry all right our next speaker. Our

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:21:00 · ≈ 10:21 AM

next speaker is Barbara Clues to be followed by Steve Snyder

CommentBarbara CluesProposed1:21:05 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Good morning. I'm part of the Eastern Goleta Valley Coalition and six months ago, I never dreamed that I would be standing up here thinking that 650 new housing units within one square mile in my community was a good idea. And I am not really standing here today saying that it is. However, I am asking that you do accept the community plan as it has been presented to you and vote today to approve it.

We realize that many outsiders have an interest in the limited land resources that exist in our valley. While nobody got everything they wanted every legitimate stakeholder is getting something that benefits them. First, the property owners of the recommended sites will be able to develop them at a moderate density while still meeting the state requirements Studying the two large properties, the Tatum property and the MTD property at maximum density would result in neighborhood urban blight.

A representative of the MTD property came to the planning commission last year and stood up and said that they had really tried to be sensitive to the neighborhoods and kept what they wanted at a moderate density. And I hope that is still the case. Secondly, it's not about what the community did get but what the community avoided getting. We would have liked parks or landscape medians, but instead what we got was avoiding a mass apartment complex in the heart of our valley on San Marcos Growers. This site has been studied extensively from the GBPAC through the planning commissioners who worked tirelessly on our plan and everybody has agreed that it will not enhance our community.

And third, while we Valley residents do not recognize the special interest dense housing advocates as stakeholders in our community they are still getting up to 650 new units that will benefit some of the people they represent. The 36,000 residents who live here don't ever want high-density development to be the dominant characteristic of our Eastern Goleta Valley. And for those who don't live in our community but are looking to extract our last available resources of land we suggest that you look elsewhere to meet your insatiable need for urban development.

I am proud to be part of a cohesive community with common sense and strong neighborhood preservation values. We are intent upon being good stewards of our land, and maintaining the fundamental character of this place that we call home. We ask that you Supervisors vote today on approving the Community Plan as it is set forth with the one change of reinserting the Agricultural Land Protection Clause. Thank You

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:23:56 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Thank you, Ms. Cluse. Our next speaker is Steve Snyder to be followed by Barbara Greenleaf.

1:24 – 1:298 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:24:07 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Mr. Snyder? I don't see Mr. Snyder.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:24:16 · ≈ 10:24 AM

If Mr. Snyder's not available we'll go on to Barbara Greenleef to be followed by John Greenleaf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:24:25 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Good morning Ms. Greenleaf, thank you for being here. Thank you so much.

CommentSteve SnyderProposed1:24:29 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Not to repeat what's been said I just am very glad that we inserted the findings issue however I'm still concerned about the murky language in this community plan as cited by the Coastal Commission. We need more terms defined I'm concerned that too much power is being taken out of the communities, hands and into the planners. I think this may be coming to a district near you. This is not specific to this plan but before this the onus was on the petitioner to say why he or she should get a variance and now it's on the community to say why some development should not take place. I think this is extremely concerning. I'm also worried about developing the flatlands in order to save agriculture towards the foothills. Most of us who live along Hollister live in what is effectively a cul-de-sac We cannot get in or out except via Hollister Avenue.

We need to have a seat at the table, I know there are plans being studied to do something with Hollister, the so-called transportation corridor. We do not have a place at that table which is why I'm urging this commission to write into the plan for this Board of Supervisors that we get our own planning commission in the Eastern Goleta Valley And also to let you know that we will be starting something akin to the mighty Montecito Association. So welcome to the West Santa Barbara Association, where we feel that it's so important that the neighbors' voices be heard here. We are concerned that you're setting up a ghetto on Hollister and Turnpike with massive development that will impact the neighborhood negatively.

So please keep us in mind. We are the people who live there. We also don't feel that although these units are supposedly being designed to be affordable by design, that they will be if you look at La Semita Gardens. You have to pay something like $1,500 for a less than 700 foot square unit. You're not going to get working families in there at all. So my time is running out and I thank you so much. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:26:43 · ≈ 10:26 AM

Our next speaker is Joanne Greenleaf, followed by Joann Fultz.

CommentJohn GreenleafProposedself-stated1:26:52 · ≈ 10:26 AM

My name is John Greenleaf, and I live in the eastern Goleta Valley bordering Moore Mesa. I'm going to be very brief. I am not as sanguine about this plan even as some of my confreres who live in that area are. I have a couple of questions. Whoever heard of recommending a community plan and EIR generation without first ascertaining whether the infrastructure is even adequate to support the proposals? The areas being recommended For development by the Planning Commission have neither the water, nor the educational facilities, nor the traffic capacity, nor uniformed services. Nor the emergency evacuation planning to service over 600 additional units in 8 tenths of a square mile.

Second, whoever heard of a land use plan in the 21st century that does not contain basic mandatory provisions for open spaces, recreation areas, road and median beautification and other common amenities. This plan as it exists today is singularly unimaginative unsafe Unprofessional, unresponsive to the community and generally pathetic in addressing the everyday issues facing the 36,000 residents of the Eastern Galeta Valley. As opposed to I might add 10,000 residents in Montecito who have their own planning commission and their own association.

And finally who ever heard of a land use plan that tries to force all the allegedly required housing into an area so small and residential in nature as to forever change the character of the neighborhood? Or such a plan whose primary transportation corridor narrows to two lanes under a railroad bridge that will never, ever be changed. The concept of balance that was mentioned before includes geography as well as other considerations and this is not a geographically balanced plan.

Finally, our lone representative in county government who was elected on the promise of maintaining ag land and open spaces should be taking a strong stand against the gross inadequacies and inequities of this plan. And the avarice of the developers who stand to make millions from this high density development that if you believe that the developers are going to build this stuff out of the goodness of their heart I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to tell you In any case, we have long memories. We're going to try to convince you to give the Goleta Valley, the East Goleta Valley some real representation in decision-making. But in the meantime, think real carefully about what you're going to do with this neighborhood. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:29:29 · ≈ 10:29 AM

you. Thank you Mr. Greenlee. Next speaker?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:29:32 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Our next speaker is Joanne Foltz to be followed by Tom Elliott.

1:29 – 1:366 turns

CommentJoanne FultzProposedself-stated1:29:40 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Good morning, Supervisors. My name is Joanne Fultz. I've lived in the San Julio area which is right off of San Simeon. First of all, I resent the fact that the state is mandating how we use our land but with that said, I have watched Living since 1977 in this area, I have watched the beautiful valley orchards and the open spaces disappear. Each year another piece of land is gone and replaced with housing or a commercial building. Hollister Avenue being our only main corridor seems to be the main Target for more cars noise and congestion the Tatum property and San Marcos growers is Near where I live The amount of property that you went are building units that you want to put in there will definitely I'm nervous, I'm sorry. You're doing fine.

The Tatum property and the San Marcos growers will affect the neighborhoods immensely. Our quality of life will go down. I am concerned about the water and I work for the City of Santa Barbara in the Water Department and I know during the 1990s when we had our drought it was Very very serious problem. Another problem that we see is where the low income housing on Turnpike and then also the apartment buildings that are already there, that's constantly being inundated with crime and small crime petty theft. And I can just see that happening in the Tatum property.

I urge you to please take the people that live in that area and even the whole area, not just that area but the whole plan is lacking Thank you. I think there's 20 units there that may be going in there. Let's flip it, let's put the 240 some houses over there or a high density living there instead of putting it in this small area and I'm sure that the people in Hope Ranch would fight against that. Thank you.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:32:47 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Our next speaker is Tom Elliott to be followed by Kathy Fletcher

CommentTom ElliottProposedself-stated1:32:53 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Good

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:32:53 · ≈ 10:32 AM

morning.

CommentTom ElliottProposedself-stated1:32:54 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Morning Madam Chair, Supervisors my name is Tom Elliott and I'm a homeowner at Fort Ranch the condominium development just directly adjacent to the MTD Cal Rial property for the last 10 years I've been involved in issues dealing with the eventual development of the MTD property. I built a number of community meetings with the other Fort Ranch residents the last one a week ago Wednesday so I'm here today representing a number of the Fort Ranch homeowners We're not a bunch of NIMBYs, as stated by some certain local developers. We are concerned homeowners who have all along been aware that AMTD property would eventually be developed.

What we've tried to do is stay involved with the goal of keeping the density of the development similar to that of Fort Ranch which is 137 units on 20 acres. Many of us figured all along that the property would eventually be developed at around 200 units of mixed affordability. The current plan, as it's being presented to you, recommends that the property be rezoned as a PUD at around 202 units on part of the 17-acre parcel.

What is not included in any of the presentations is that there was a 1.06 acre parcel attached to the entity property that's already zoned at 20 units per acre. So the overall development, if you add the two together would be somewhere around 240 units or nearly twice the size of Fort Ranch. Yet many of the Fort Ranch residents are ready to support a property design development up to that density but not if the number of units is increased.

I would like to point out that Program 1.3, the requirement for rezoning to higher density states a density of 20 units per acre if such rezoning can be found compatible with the surrounding development. Twenty units per acre on the entire MTD property would not be compatible with the surrounding development of Fort Ranch or any of the other nearby housing tracts.

As far as the statement by developers that they need more density in order to make a profit, I would point out that less than a mile away the Christmas tree farm development of mixed affordable and market rate units is moving forward at a density of 137 units on 25 acres. And I would assume the developer is going to make a profit. The GVPAC, your county planners and your planning commission I've spent a lot of time on this plan and have recommended it to you.

I would urge you to accept that it has been presented for the EIR study. Please do not allow an uninterested parties, developers, and a clueless Sacramento unelected paid-off bureaucrat to come in at the 11th hour trying to make an end run around all the work that's been done. Please do not add density to the NPD or TATEM sites, and please do not include the Sandmarkers Growers property in the EIR study.

This is called the Goleta Valley Community Plan. Please support the community and move the plan forward as it is, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:35:55 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Thank you Mr. Elliott. Our next speaker is Kathy Fletcher to be followed by Terry Ortega.

1:36 – 1:439 turns

CommentKathy FletcherProposedself-stated1:36:05 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Good morning my name is Kathy Fletcher. My family and I have resided in the eastern Goleta Valley for over 50 years. We've always lived a couple blocks off of Hollister Avenue And have always been grateful to live in a beautiful semi-rural environment. I'm only partially in favor of the 20 year plan, the high density housing element that has been specified within a square mile of Hollister Avenue is a huge concern and a perceived threat to an ongoing fragile infrastructure The plan marginally addresses much needed infrastructure improvements along Hollister Avenue.

We need a park with an easy walking distance that can easily and safely be reached by our elders and children. We need safer bike lanes and sidewalks, we need safer bus stops. We need these things and so much more to sustain our community. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:37:15 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Our next speaker is Terry Ortega to be followed by Charles Kenton.

CommentTerry OrtegaProposedself-stated1:37:23 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Good morning, I'm Terry Ortega and I live on Arboleda Road which is in Hope Ranch Annex. And I've been here for about 50 years so I definitely have seen the valley change. And Barb Close and I have gotten quite involved in this it's kind of become a second job for us. So we were fortunate enough to meet with all but one of the supervisors. We've spent a lot of time with county staff.

And um...I definitely don't want their jobs But it's become obvious to me that it's pretty easy to sit here and say we don't want any growth without really becoming involved. And the learning curve, to bring everybody up to speed on this has been amazing to me. And so like Barb I never thought I'd be sitting here saying bring on the density but when you get involved in the process there is a balance and you have to recognize that there are some realities that you need to deal with and we can either get involved or we can keep saying Don't do anything while we chose to get involved and try to shape the plan.

Meet with people and try to get our input as best as possible, and I think that's what we've done so supervisor Wolf. I encourage you to approve the plan as it is. And putting the findings in is one of the things that we were Very adamant about so we're happy to see that that's been put back in there. Hopefully, that will be approved. We encourage you to vote today so that we can move on. It's become very obvious that we need to remain diligent, remain involved in this and so Barbara and I are going to be even better friends by going through the EIR process possibly meeting with you and county staff again So with the flurry of the 213 HCD letter, it renewed my faith in the process a bit watching how county staff and supervisors reacted to that.

Again, we're just happy with the outcome of that and hope that it will be approved as is. And thank you to Cecilia. I mimic Supervisor Wolf's how diligent she works and was instrumental in the process of getting us up-to-speed neighborhood meetings. It was good to have somebody that has a very level head even voice and is willing to listen while people are throwing their arms up and having a fit so it was good. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:39:41 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Thank you. Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentAction NumberProposed1:39:44 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Ms. Ortega, I just want to tell you publicly how much I appreciated my meeting with you and with Ms. Cluse two only residents who met with me on this issue and I so much appreciated your insight your due diligence in trying to understand all the issues and having that exchange with me it was really helpful for me to understand what was important to you and the pressures that you were dealing The extremes on all sides and trying to find that balance. So I'm just very grateful for you taking the time to come in and spend a few moments with me.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:40:22 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Thank you. Our next speaker is Charles Kent, followed by Nancy Panason.

CommentCharles KentProposedself-stated1:40:28 · ≈ 10:40 AM

I'm Charles Kent, and I live in the Eastern Goleta Valley right across from San Marcos Growers on the Sungate Ranch. I agree with everything Mrs. Ortega just said, and she's been doing wonderful work. I agree with good intentions of Supervisor Wolf's modification before we can convert other properties away from ag use. It might be helpful If instead of the substantive finding being required by the county, maybe it could be toughened up by saying it should be supported by an EAR and not just county staff which would be a concern to a lot of people.

Concerned with the way staff is being aggressive about doing high density housing changes out in Eastern Toledo Valley. A couple of things to remember About trying to put on all these units in that area, including the Tatum property. They're all in the Toledo Water District which has a legal limit on how much water they can supply for new housing is 1% of the total water available.

That was their bond to that rule because the voters of East and Goleta Valley required Condition to signing up for state water. So when we inevitably have some of our future water challenges, that's going to be a real problem for continuing to support water supply to that area. In addition another problem which will come up in the EIR is that's a real fire trap back in that little section where Kittam property is, remember the Painted Cave Fire?

It jumps right over the freeway just less than a mile from there. You can still see the charred trees just going down Hollister a few blocks from Turnpike Road and if it jumped the freeway there with all that development people are gonna have an extremely difficult time finding a way to get out. The road would be totally blocked at that point In addition to that fire danger, we can add a couple of the last fires we had more recently where in our community some of us had to evacuate our homes. To be totally safe from the fire reaching Sungate Ranch. So it's not a far reach to realize That very dense development in that end of the neighborhood is a very valid concern. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:43:22 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Thank you, Mr. Kent.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:43:23 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Our next speaker is Nancy Panazone to be followed by Kenan Ezell.

1:43 – 1:575 turns

CommentNancy PanazoneProposed1:43:31 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Good morning. I'm a resident living by San Marcos Growers. I've been there 42 years. I have a daughter who owns a home four blocks from our home, so we're going to definitely be impacted by this. Just one little instance of something that happens to me personally weekly is I have the meeting downtown that I have to go to on Thursdays and I leave my home, go down San Marcos Road to Hollister Avenue It would normally take maybe five minutes to go to that distance to get to the freeway. When San Marcos High School has a late start and they're coming into school about that time, it takes me 15 minutes to go from my home, San Marcos Road, Hollister Avenue, to get to the freeway. So if this development takes place On San Marcos growers, I can't imagine the impact it will have on all the residents.

Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:44:28 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:44:32 · ≈ 10:44 AM

I wasn't going to make any comments during public comment but it's come up a couple of times and I just want to make sure that folks understand that San Marcos Growers is not... It's in the plan to remain in ag. So I just want to make that really clear.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:44:47 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Okay. And actually the board is going to take a 10 minute break. We will be back at 11 o'clock. It's my intention that we will hear from all the rest of the public speakers before we break for lunch. Thank you. ¶. StSq2 2.60 StSq3 3.30 (-0.00),

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:46:39 · ≈ 10:46 AM

¶. ¶. Thank you. Yeah. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶. ♪ Yeah. ¶. ¶¶ Yeah. Thank you. ¶¶ ♪ ♪♪ Hi. ♪ ♪ ♫ Hi, everyone. ¶¶ Yeah.

1:58 – 2:1314 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:58:14 · ≈ 10:58 AM

Need everybody to take their seats so we can get started again. Thank you All right, we're going to continue our hearing here on the Goleta Valley Community Plan update. We were hearing from the public and we're going to continue and hear from the rest of the public that have put in speakers at this time. Mr. Allen would you tell us who's next?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:58:40 · ≈ 10:58 AM

Our next speaker is Keenan Ezell to be followed by Rebecca Lee

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:58:45 · ≈ 10:58 AM

Good morning

CommentKen AnizalProposedself-stated1:58:47 · ≈ 10:58 AM

Good morning, Madam Chair and County Supervisors. My name is Ken Anizal and I'm the Vice-Chair of the Goleta Valley Planning Advisory Committee or GBPAC. However, I am today speaking only as a resident of Eastern Goleta Valley. I would like to begin by thanking you, the county supervisors, Supervisor Wolf, the members of the planning commission, Cecilia Brown, the GBPAC members, and especially staff at Long Range Planning & Development Erica and Jeff for their hard work on our community plan update. Their job is clearly not an easy one, and although it certainly appears to involve lots of drama which must make it interesting I think I'll stick to being a nerdy engineer.

Today I'm here because I'm concerned about the planning process. I'm concerned because our county is being, in my opinion, illegally strong-armed by the Department of Housing and Community Development. What's worse is that we're allowing ourselves to be bullied over time and special interest groups are taking advantage of it. I am here asking you to take a stand against such bullying tactics. The actions of HCD are clearly illegal because the California law states that each locality is best capable of determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to the attainment of the state housing goal. The HCD is illegally overreaching and is attempting to micromanage the planning and development process of our county.

I have an absurd vision of a game of Twister where the state is instructing the county to contort itself in impossible ways and the county's trying to oblige. Moreover, midway through the game, the state changes the rules. Specifically, the state is strong-arming the county by grotesquely misinterpreting Program 1.3 of the housing element that you, the Board of Supervisors approved. Do you personally agree with the state's interpretation? What did you think you were approving? Your interpretation is what matters. You approved it! Each one of you should re-read the text of Program 1.3 because this isn't just about Eastern Goleta Valley. Each and every community in our county is going to find itself in exactly the same position when updating their Community Plan.

If you agree with the state's interpretation of Program 1.3, then by all means roll over. However if you disagree and you believe that the update of our community plan already exceeds all legal requirements for the entire county, then please hold a line. Just hold a line. It seems that every time someone indirectly or directly appears to threaten the county with a lawsuit, the line slips further away from us Reacting to each and every whisper of a possibility lawsuit will only be interpreted as a weakness and will result in more implied threats. Please be firm, just hold the line." I also want to say thank you very much for adding the findings. I think that's a fantastic way and I hope you approve it.

And the only other comment that I could make is that possibly those two parts of parcels that you're considering for remaining residential or ag Thank you very much.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentRebecca LeeProposedself-stated2:02:00 · ≈ 11:02 AM

Dear Supervisors and staff, my name is Rebecca Lee and I am a resident in the North Patterson area on East Goleta Valley. Last week I was troubled to learn that California Rural Legal Assistance had sent a letter to state demanding more housing and high density to be added to the general plan. I believe that this is a deliberately destructive act designed to override the many years of hard work by a team of community planners who have solicited wide range inputs on many publicly held meetings My strong objection to this unwarranted interference in the local planning process is based on the following facts.

The CRLIA is trying to interject itself at the very last minute, when there had been many years of time and numerous opportunities to get involved in the earlier states. I think this effort to invalidate the work by local community planner is a violation of local planning rights. The CRLA contacted the state without engaging and soliciting reviews, inputs and discussions by local residents and local planning committees Again, by bypassing the local agencies, the CRLA showed its intent to pressure and intimidate the county according to its own agenda. The current plan, the Eastern Valley Community Plan, that's what I'm referring to.

As far, I mean as far exceeds state mandate he absorbs all high densities and affordable housing requirements for the entire county. But CRLA is still not satisfied and had an insatiable appetite for more development higher densities with complete disregard of concerns of local residents who live their lives at this very community. I highly question the real motive of an outsider showing southern interest of our community.

The effort to directly interfere the local planning process strays far from its organization's mission and caters to the pro-growth lobbying interests. What is enough for developers and outside interest groups? All I can say is that I'm outraged by CRLA's highly unconventional and legally questionable maneuvers. The current plan took years of hard work to address concerns of all stakeholders with a comprehensive review... You need

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:05:02 · ≈ 11:05 AM

to stop now, thank you.

CommentRebecca LeeProposedself-stated2:05:04 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Okay, I just want to add. So I ask all five supervisors to please vote for the plan and also keep the San Marcos Corp as an outlet. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:05:14 · ≈ 11:05 AM

you. Next speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:05:16 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Our next speaker is Andy Caldwell to be followed by David Donor back here in Santa Barbara.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCOLABProposedself-stated2:05:21 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. First of all, I want to concur with what Jerry Bunan said to you. Completely support their position. One of the things I'd like to bring up to you is, it's amazing to me that the board and the community lots of times wants to wrestle about preserving this piece of ag land and that piece of ag land but in reality the decisions before you and what's left on the table before you to comport and comply with AB 32 and SB 375 Which is supposed to help address in some ways the jobs, housing imbalance, commuter patterns, etc. What's left can't be looked at in a vacuum.

Look at more Mesa. Look at Elwood Shores. Look at what was I think called the San Marcos Preserve. Look at Naples. Look Bishop Ranch. You have literally hundreds if not thousands of acres of land that the County of Santa Barbara, the City of Goleta and the City of Santa Barbara have put off limits to development. So what's happened with the progressive majority in the South County over the last 10-20 years Is you've boxed yourself into a corner and then you turn around and you support AB 32 and SB 375. It says now you've got to shoehorn hundreds and hundreds of units in the postage stamp size lots, then you wring your hand in public saying well this is the best we can do this is our only choices when again you made this bed that you're trying to lay in right now You're five supervisors that are supposed to be representing the entire county.

You've got RINA numbers to look at, the Isla Vista plan now has blown up to smithereens because of redevelopment. Where's the leadership? Where is the master plan? We would rather you oppose SB 375 and AB 32 and the ARENA numbers that you're trying to be all things to all people while at the same time taking land off the map completely in the name of preservation.

And finally, for instance putting ESH in the hills ESH is fuel for fires. That's some of the land that you should be paying some farmer or cattleman to either grow orchards up there, or graze cattle, or graze goats to cut down on the fire hazard versus what the EDC and others want you to do, preserve every ounce of chaparral so that the fuel buildup will burn down the houses you do have. We need a plan and some leadership.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:08:33 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Our next speaker is David Donor to be followed by Debbie Boltan. Good morning.

CommentDr. David DonorProposedself-stated2:08:41 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Good morning, Madam Chair and Supervisors. My name is Dr. David Donor. I've had the pleasure of addressing the Planning Commission at least three different times about my concern for the health of our community. And I noticed this morning that we honored the master gardeners of Santa Barbara and I applaud them and I applaud you for honoring them Welcome to the Eastern Goleta Valley as our garden.

So we want to take good care of our garden. As a physician in Santa Barbara for over 30 years, I implore the county supervisors to ensure that we keep our San Marcos growers land which is thank God supported by Janet Wolfe and Ms. Brown and our planning commission To keep off the board for any upzoning or change. We like the idea of having urban land close to us, especially urban organic farming.

What a delight, what an honor to be gardeners in our own backyard. As I look around the room, I realize there's a new political party out here. We could call it the NIMBY Party. Not in our backyard because that's where we all live I don't want a high development in my backyard, nor do you. So how do we do that in such a way so we do provide housing for those people of moderate income?

The compromise on the table today, the plan proposed by the commissioners, I think is reasonable. I'm sorry it's actually happening at all that we're losing any of these valuable open lands. But we do live in a time of compromise even though it doesn't seem to come out of Washington DC very often. Therefore, I hope that you will leave the organic farming of the San Marcos growers out of the upzoning as recommended.

That the title changes in the new proposed law as it's written at the present time be inserted and we want to save our water, our health, to limit our noise and continue to serve the best health of the character of our and your community for you are part of this community You are my neighbors and I care about you and I hope you will care about us. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:11:05 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Thank you, Dr. Donner. Our next speaker is Debbie Bolton to be followed by Susan Deacon.

PresenterDebbie Cox-BoltonCoastal Housing Coalition which speaks for thousands of local workers in the couProposedself-stated2:11:12 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Chair, Supervisors, thank you. My name is Debbie Cox-Bolton. I'm here representing Coastal Housing Coalition which speaks for thousands of local workers in the county and on the South Coast who continue to struggle with a high cost of housing Executives of several local employers, including College Health Systems, Impulse Communications and others came to the Planning Commission meeting to express their concerns over lack of housing that's affordable for their workforce. And they urged the county to continue to ensure that workforce housing is a priority in this community plan update.

Despite the recession, the affordability gap on the south coast remains dramatically higher than the state and the nation. And a forthcoming study of the Coastal Housing Coalition Commission will show that all indications are that it will only widen as the economy recovers. The coalition has consistently praised the GVPAC and the Planning Commission for the goal in the GLIDA Valley Community Plan update, in terms of providing housing at a variety of price points.

And we think that the Planning Commission recommendations moved the conversation in the right direction. However, we are concerned about the limited number of sites that have been targeted for study in the EIR. Affordability and density are linked. That's why the state requires Sites be targeted for 20 units an acre. and that large enough sites continue to be included in the plan.

The Eastern Goleta update is meant to be a planning document to guide decisions over the next 20 years, and to limit those properties to be studied for residential suitability seems a missed opportunity given the cost and time involved in the EIR. We encourage you to look at other sites such as those who were deemed opportunity sites by the County at one time like San Marcos Growers and those discussed by the Planning Commission such as the Georgie property.

Finally, we have expressed concerns about the way the densities in those two larger sites that are included have been calculated and are concerned about why the number of units was not calculated on the whole property as opposed to just a portion of the property. I guess lastly what I want to say is while I'm here tonight today with my professional hat on, I also am a resident of Eastern Goleta Valley and raising my children there.

And my motivation for these words is that I want to make sure that the teachers and firefighters and police officers who make up this vibrant community continue to live here. I agree that there needs to be a balance in how we find housing that's affordable for those folks while keeping the unique beauty and quality of life we have in Eastern Goleta Valley I think is key. Thank you.

2:13 – 2:2111 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:13:41 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Our next speaker is Susan Deacon to be followed by Christina McGuinness.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:13:46 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Good morning, Ms. Deacon.

PresenterSusan DeaconSanta Barbara Unified School District Board of EducationProposedself-stated2:13:48 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the Board. My name is Susan Deacon and I'm the President of the Santa Barbara Unified School District Board of Education. I'm here today to speak in support of the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the redesignation of the district-owned Tatum property and I urge you to move ahead with initiation of the environmental review process.

I know you've also received a letter in support from our Superintendent Dr. David Cash I'd also like to thank your board and your staff and members of the Planning Commission for the hard and very careful work that they have put into evaluating the potential use of this property, which is already zoned for residential use. While the school board has no immediate plans to develop the property And we would certainly initiate a robust dialogue with the community if we did. Because of the state budget crisis, we need to look at our assets such as the Tatum property as possible revenue streams so that we can support our students.

The redesignation of this site would provide an opportunity for the district to explore further development as a means of not only bringing more funding to our schools but to provide the community with much needed housing, including below market housing. As you know it is very difficult for our teachers and staff who come and work for us to be able to find affordable housing.

I believe that changing the zoning of this property which is near our San Marcos High School campus would allow the district to maintain this property in lieu of a possible sale to a third party If we found it necessary to designate it as surplus. The district believes this site, which was acquired in 1965 as a possible location for a junior high school now because of changing demographics is likely to remain unneeded for educational facility purposes. Thank you for considering our request to move forward on this important EIR project.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:15:39 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Thank you. Our next speaker is Christina McGinnis to be followed by Craig Minos.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:15:45 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Good morning Ms. McGinnis.

PresenterChristina McGinnisEnvironmental Defense Center and the OPEN ProgramProposedself-stated2:15:48 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the Board. My name is Christina McGinnis, I'm here on behalf of the Environmental Defense Center and the OPEN Program, Open Space Preservation Education Network. And I'd like to just take this opportunity to focus your attention on three things. First of all, I wanted to speak to the agricultural conversion findings. I'd also like to speak to the Carib Triangle property and potential consideration for not rezoning that particular property out of ag. And then the third one is to please uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation to not rezone the San Marcos grower site, which sounds like that's the path we're on. So first I just wanted to thank Supervisor Wolf for Including the findings for agricultural conversion, I do have a couple of pretty big concerns with the language that's been proposed.

However, the first is that the language that says to the greatest extent feasible As the introduction to that policy, I believe should be removed because that leaves so much discretion to future decision makers as to potentially even render the rest of that policy meaningless. So I would strongly urge the board to consider that. And then also, the bullet under the finding number one where it says evaluate and document factually and substantively the quality and extent of ag resources on site.

That bullet is great but we can evaluate and document everything and then what? So I would just suggest that Beyond the evaluation, I would say if the land is determined that it has historic current or future potential for agricultural use That it should be strongly discouraged to reason that out of agriculture. So those would be my suggestions on the findings Second one. I'd like to talk about is the South Patterson triangle and That it should not be considered as part of the potential rezone It's still unclear to me why this piece of agricultural land is included as part of this plan for a rezone It's located near South Patterson, adjacent to Maria Ignacio Creek and Atascadero Creek. And it's vitally important to our community not only for local ag but also as a creek buffer.

And these creeks support endangered southern steelhead tidewater gobies species of concern so just please don't rezone this triangle parcel in particular also because the reason that's being proposed is not And then third, finally, to please uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation not to include the San Marcos grower site. Last November, the Planning Commission met I think over seven times to discuss the draft community plan and also the Goleta Valley PAC. Nobody recommended that the San Marcos site should be considered for a rezone, and it's very important that we maintain this particular piece of land in agriculture. Thank you so much. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:18:54 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Next speaker is Craig Munoz to be followed by Dave Davis

PresenterChristina McGinnisEnvironmental Defense Center and the OPEN ProgramProposedself-stated2:18:59 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Good

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:18:59 · ≈ 11:18 AM

morning

CommentCraig MinusProposedself-stated2:19:01 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Good morning Chair Farr, members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Craig Minus and I'm a young professional who together with my wife are doing our best to raise our three children here in this beautiful place we call home. Despite our education and qualifications, we like many in our generation have struggled with the cost of housing. I suspect that many people here today have friends, children and or grandchildren who've experienced the same thing.

I am also an employee of the Tobes Group. As a matter of fact, I'm a development project manager for the Tobes Group. What I could do is stand up here and tell you ten reasons why the San Marcos Grower site is viable for housing. What I'd rather do is use my three minutes to stand behind a man who has stood behind our community for 55 years. I find it truly disheartening that misleading accusations are flung around during the discussion of important local issues, particularly aimed at a man who has given so much to his community.

Michael Tobes has not created skyscrapers or concrete jungles. Rather he's built communities, opportunities and important public improvements All while sponsoring arts, jobs and non-profits. Now that is the type of quote unquote developer I'd like in my community. The issue at hand is not NIMBY versus developer, it is about having the tools to make an informed decision.

This informed decision is the exact thing that you as decision makers should require as you create policy affecting the next 20 years. Staff's recent methodology in response to the HCD February 13th letter appears sloppy. Last minute zoning classifications are not the answer to the HCD letter. We haven't seen any land use maps. We don't know where residential is and whether they're retaining the agriculture.

Moreover, MTD has significant drainage issues. Tatum site is covered with oak trees and has huge elevation changes. This approach leaves the county in great danger of not meeting the state's housing requirements. Relying on these two sites alone is very dangerous. The Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan EIR should study, let me repeat, study all opportunity sites for housing. Particularly those sites which are A, inside the urban boundary B, along vehicular and transit corridors C, adjacent to existing infrastructure D, surrounded by residential and commercial uses.

The EIR should study the San Marcos Rower site. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:21:40 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Thank you. Next speaker Mr Davis

2:21 – 2:266 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:21:45 · ≈ 11:21 AM

I'm here today basically to ask you to consider.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentMr DavisProposed2:22:00 · ≈ 11:22 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I'd like to thank you for expanding this study on the MTD property. First, I would like to compliment the planning commission and staff for really an exceptional effort. Finding that balance is very difficult and in this part of the community what we are dealing with here is also very emotional for many people.

The board does support the recommended zoning classifications but First is the fact that this particular property is really unique of all those that you've studied. It is equidistant from the employment centers in Santa Barbara and Goleta, it is adjacent to the major transit routes and fronts on the Highway 101 corridor, it borders high and moderate density residential uses, highway commercial, and a major governmental center.

No better place could be found for infill housing, for affordable or workforce housing on the South Coast in the remaining areas of properties of this size. The environmental review really is to provide full information, to provide the appropriate discussion of the environmental effects, public service impacts of various alternatives. The options that you're looking at today could include one 20 units an acre as recommended by our board, an alternative of the 204 units as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff, as well as a no project alternative agriculture.

As you go through the process, you may be looking for properties which could absorb some of the other demand for the future residential demand that we're going to see here in the South Coast. If you look at SB 375, the housing element and the fact as you do environmental reviews, some of the other properties that you're looking at may have constraints and may not be able to meet those housing needs.

We're not saying that this is what the final result should be or this is what you should choose. But if you don't analyze it within the IR, you have not given yourself the options to look at what balance is necessary when you actually get to plan adoption. Again I want to compliment Supervisor Wolf for the leadership to make this happen and you as a board as well as the community in doing an excellent and respectful job. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:24:17 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Thank You Mr. Davis

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:24:18 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Our next speaker is Kristen Miller followed by Tim Schmidt.

PresenterKristen MillerGoleta Valley Chamber of CommerceProposedself-stated2:24:22 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Good morning, Ms. Miller. Good morning Chair Farr and County Supervisors. I'm Kristen Miller, President and CEO of the Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce. The Goleta Chamber of Commerce supports the local economy and jobs in the Goleta Valley, and we have a long history of supporting a balanced community in that area. It is important to us and our members that all parts of the Goleta Valley work together to create plans that support economic vitality.

Of critical importance to this balance is the provision of a broad range of housing types, including workforce housing and housing affordable to all segments of the community. For years employers have told us that the lack of reasonably priced housing is a major impediment to establishing and maintaining the businesses that support the economic vitality and quality of life that is so important to all of us.

We all know that attainable housing is in short supply on the South Coast. Tens of thousands of people commute long distances to jobs in Goleta and elsewhere on the South Coast because of this. Such commuting produces serious impacts in terms of air quality deterioration, failure to conserve energy and lower community involvement and lower quality of life. Unfortunately, we do not see evidence in the community plan that these issues are being addressed in a proactive way.

Opportunity sites in the plan are being downzoned to densities that would support fewer homes. No other parcels of substantial size were given meaningful residential designations. The City of Goleta has worked to create a balanced plan for housing. They are doing their part. We ask that you do the same. Our letter submitted to each of you details some specific concerns and meaningful observations, but today please allow me to reiterate the basic point that we respectfully request that you ensure that the EIR preserve options for actually producing the types of housing that are needed by our community The EIR scope should be modified to include potential sites that might be suitable for housing our next generation. You can then assess the environmental impacts of such alternatives and weigh any impacts against the benefits of truly producing workforce and affordable housing for our community.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:26:38 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Thank you, Ms. Miller. Our next speaker is Tim Schmidt to be followed by Bonnie Freeman

2:26 – 2:346 turns

PresenterTim Schmidt I'mBoard of the Patterson Area Neighborhoods Association and several years ago I seProposedself-stated2:26:50 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Tim Schmidt I'm president of the Board of the Patterson Area Neighborhoods Association and several years ago I served on the Goleta Vision Committee which has been referred to here several times today Based on my long-standing involvement in this process, I want to commend the committee and the county staff for all of your efforts on this project.

I know you have followed a thorough, fair and inclusive process. It has lots of dimensions to this issue and we've talked about balance and all these other things but I believe that even with the flaws, I urge the board to approve the recommendation as proposed. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:27:29 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Thank You Mr. Schmidt The next speaker is Bonnie Freeman to be followed by Patty Close.

CommentBonnie FreemanProposedself-stated2:27:38 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Good morning Madam Chair and fellow Supervisors, another nervous speaker. My name is Bonnie Freeman and I live in the South Patterson Residential and Agricultural section but today I'm speaking as a resident. Oh wait a minute, I spent over three years working on the GBPAC specifically the agricultural community and in doing so interviewed and met all of the urban landowners But today I'm speaking as a resident.

First, I'd like to thank you for considering the Planning Commission's recommendations and for any further investigation you've done since then. I think the draft plan as submitted is a good compromise plan, even though I personally thought the new urban agricultural land use designation was an inspired idea to help small farmers stay in business. There's one area of dissatisfaction however and I'd like to ask that you give deeper thought to the plight of the small urban farmer to be considered now and after the EIR.

They need to be thought of as in a different category than the large landowner or big agribusiness due to the size of their lots and proximity to housing and environmental constraints. Caught in the crossfire of special interests on both sides, it should be remembered that these growers have been here long before most of us today. Long before the Coastal Act and the re-zones of their lands.

Where I live there are ag businesses that are struggling hard to stay afloat These are second and third generation growers who have been trying to get relief since the 1993 plan. The restrictions are such that they can't go forward with a business plan, and they can't go back to a failed market. To stay in agriculture, the properties that are zoned with 5- and 10-acre parcels need to have some flexibility in land usage, be that having lot line adjustments subdividing to allow a farming operation develop their own business and marketing plan on a smaller scale.

Also, please give consideration to policy LUA EG 1.6 Urban Agricultural Land Conversion leaving the language as written I was told by a planner over a year ago that the existing policies for land conversion We're already one of the most restrictive in the state, if not the most restrictive. With all due respect it would seem highly punitive to have it be any harsher than it already is.

While the small farmer may not hold the most political clout I agree with those who state that the larger consideration given to those with the least amount of power thereby creates a stronger environment for everyone. Thank you and I appreciate any consideration

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:30:27 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Thank you Miss Freeman. Before we hear from our next speaker, I just wanted to tell the members of the public that departmental items number two to do with the Margaret Dent Land Use Appeal, number three to do with RDA successor agencies and number four to do with the Breach House Shelter will all be heard after lunch. All right please proceed thank you.

CommentPatti CloseProposedself-stated2:30:47 · ≈ 11:30 AM

My name is Patti Close. I'm on the Board of Coalition for Sensible Planning. Just out of curiosity how many of you have read The Plan? In total? Okay, thank you very much. I was at all but two of the GBPAC meetings. I went through all of the laborious discussion with the panel. I was at most of the visioning committee meetings. I've been involved in this issue for over nine years what I saw Sadly in this process was that there was very little input from the community. The people who did attend the meetings had a very little time to speak and had very little opportunity to ask questions when someone, an extra speaker came to give us information the public was not allowed to ask that speaker questions In my opinion, the plan is not a reflection of the citizens of Goleta Valley.

It's a reflection of the county and the county's agenda for high-density housing. There are specific state guidelines that you can find on the internet having to do with community plans The meetings are supposed to be in the planning area, they were not. They're supposed to be adequate and efficient noticing, there was not. Most of our neighbors who we've talked to didn't even know this was happening and the attendance at some of these meetings is because we have walked neighborhoods, not because there's been notification from the county.

The attitude from the county has been that the input by the community and the people to whom this really affects is an inconvenience. And I'm sorry to be on a negative note, but We do not feel heard. After the plan was finished, we were promised at least one if not two workshops. Those were never addressed. We asked repeatedly for someone from emergency preparedness to come and give a presentation. He came and gave a presentation at the very end of the process, 10 minutes, and basically said nothing. And we had no opportunity to ask questions.

We ask for a glossary over and over and over again. How can a legal document not have an official glossary? We have been denied a glossary, that is a very crucial legal issue if the terms in a legal document are not defined what is the accountability for that document how does anyone hold the document accountable if there's no glossary What we have is a flawed document because of flawed process.

I could have come up with a whole list of things that I think need to be reconsidered, but because they only have three minutes, I knew that I would never have chance and because there's no workshops, there's no way for any of us to present these things except in letters which we believe end up eventually just in the file and don't get attended to. It's a very frustrating process. I know a lot about this, but there is no way that I can share my knowledge because there is no opportunity. I think this plan needs to go back to the community so the community can effectively have input in the process. Thank you. I also have a printout of Supervisor Wolf's commitment to uphold the Visioning Committee.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:34:15 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Our next speaker is Penny Wordlaw to be followed by Catherine Pisanat.

2:34 – 2:408 turns

CommentPenny WordlawProposed2:34:35 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Good morning. Thank you for hearing us. I would like to thank Supervisor Wolf and Cecilia for their work on this. You've heard a lot of people tell you a lot of very interesting things, and as a resident of the Eastern Goleta Valley, I would like to endorse most of what my fellow residents have told you. I would like to ask you to adopt the plan, vote on it today and approve it with Ms. Supervisor Wolf's amended, I hope, verbiage in it.

The push to incorporate San Marcos growers from the state of California is being driven by local developers. We know that. We've seen the proof of that. We would like to keep that off the table. Yes, it's off the table now But it needs to be kept off the table. There's no need for it. People tell us the environmental protection and the environmental review will probably prove that this is not a good idea, why do we need to go to the expense of doing that?

Anybody who lives there, and I've lived there for 30 years. If you've gone through a fire, you know you can't get out of there. Southern Pacific isn't going to let us change that. So there's a myriad of reasons why that area is not a good area to develop. We have gotten to a point where within the plan as it is, we have satisfied the recommendations and requirements of the state. And I think it's time we're going to beat this horse to death. I think we need to vote on it. We need to approve it and go forward. Otherwise, we're just going to sit here and argue with each other in perpetuity. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:36:20 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Thank you. Our next speaker is Catherine Pisanet to be followed by Suzanne Elledge

CommentTerry OrtegaProposedself-stated2:36:29 · ≈ 11:36 AM

She is a tenacious little 10 year old that had decided she's my neighbor and she decided to take the day off and come here. And I think was so nervous that she actually threw up in the car on the way here and said, so she wanted to she spent her weekend drawing this. Little she's very artistic. So save our land and it looks much like San Marcos growers, and it says hi my name is Heather Catherine prison at I'm 10 years old and I go to Valley School. I came here to ask you to keep San Marcos growers as it is ag land in open space is very important for our community environment. We must keep land open to grow our food and our plants please protect this thank you Catherine so she wanted supervisor submit

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:37:11 · ≈ 11:37 AM

that into the record then here with Mr. Allen. Thank you.

CommentTerry OrtegaProposedself-stated2:37:14 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Thank you very much

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:37:16 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Our next speaker is Suzanne Elledge to be followed by Carol Leaf.

PresenterSuzanne ElledgeRon Caird and Stan Georgie who between the two of them own apProposedself-stated2:37:20 · ≈ 11:37 AM

That's a little bit of a tough act to follow. Good morning Madam Chair and Supervisors. My name is Suzanne Elledge, Suzanne Elledge Planning and Permitting Services and I'm here this morning speaking on behalf of Ron Caird and Stan Georgie who between the two of them own approximately 160 acres in the South Patterson Ag Block and in the area at the north portion which has been come to be known as the Flatlands Area Stan is a fourth generation Galetan farmer and Ron has been farming or growing his ornamental plants and flowers on Patterson for decades.

Both men participated extensively in the community plan process, attending dozens of meetings and providing personal testimony about the challenges they face having ag operations in their urban ag area. Before I get into the two points I wanted to underscore, and I did submit a letter on Friday that I hope you've had an opportunity to read. I did want to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work of staff in the GVPAC in this effort. It was long and challenging and I think they did a tremendous job but I also wanted to particularly acknowledge Commissioner Cecilia Brown's hard work during all of the PC deliberations And before that, she attended most if not all of the GVPAC meetings, listened carefully to all testimony, reached out to individuals and groups of all persuasions.

And I believe she thought carefully and creatively about land use in the Eastern Goleta Valley. And she led the commission to the decisions that resulted in the recommendations that have come to you. There are tough issues to tackle and urban ag is just one. And while my clients are actually a little disappointed that there wasn't more flexibility built into the plan with respect to allowable uses in the urban ag area, they were satisfied with two specific recommendations that I'm here to respectfully request that you retain.

The first one is that they recommended that the EIR analyze the C.A.R.E. triangle parcel, it came to be known as the Triangle Parcel for potential residential use. An impartial analysis in the EIR will identify the potential benefits and impacts that would result from converting this six acres, only six acres property from ag to residential use. Without such an analysis, no one really knows and what better time to consider this? What more logical parcel to consider than this one that is inaccessible to the rest of the flatland area, ag area And yet it is immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood with all the necessary public services.

Each concern that has been raised about developing this parcel can be addressed by a well-designed plan. The landowner has specifically requested this land use to be studied, residential use and he has initiated discussions with the local nonprofit housing group to discuss potential partnership to develop a project that's compatible and that meets the density of the surrounding neighborhood. Please do not pull this off the table when there is no valid reason to do so.

Our second request is that you retain the ag conversion policy language as it's currently written. There was much... Ms. Sahra, your time is up. Okay. There was much debate about it and we do feel that eventually there was a fair compromise about that language. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:40:45 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Thank you. Our next speaker is Carol Leaf to be followed by Anna Citrin.

2:40 – 2:4715 turns

CommentCarol LeafProposedself-stated2:40:52 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Hi, everybody. I'm Carol Leaf. You know it's...I've studied this quite a bit and it's quite clear to me that this is about money. Michael Tobes and his organization stand to make $54 million on this development. I think that brings things into the perspective. And it also starts to make clear what all this Caltrans freeway expanding is about the supervisors. A lot of people don't know this, but Caltrans can't come in and start doing projects without having been invited here by SBCAG and all the supervisors are directors on board of directors of SBCAG, the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments.

The county right now is bankrupt. We have close to at least a $2.5 billion unfunded pension liability for public pensions. It's hard for me to take any of the supervisors seriously when none of you, as per our last meeting has read this report so I copied it for you so you can read it It's the Stanford Economic Policy Institute study on pensions. So I'll leave this here on the desk and now you can read it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:42:21 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Ms.

CommentCarol LeafProposedself-stated2:42:21 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Leaf,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:42:22 · ≈ 11:42 AM

you

CommentCarol LeafProposedself-stated2:42:22 · ≈ 11:42 AM

need

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:42:23 · ≈ 11:42 AM

to direct your comments to the plan.

CommentCarol LeafProposedself-stated2:42:25 · ≈ 11:42 AM

I am directing it to you. Who am I directing it to? No, about the plan. It's all about the plan because this plan in Goleta is to raise taxes because you're grasping at straws. This is a Los Angeles-ization of Santa Barbara. Property taxes, there'll be businesses up there. I mean, you guys don't care. You just raised water prices in Goleta. What's going to happen now? All of our aquifers are depleted. This isn't just about expanding your fiefdoms.

And getting more voters and getting more votes from the public unions. I mean, it's not credible to me when you have not read a pension report which is what all this development is about. I'm sorry. Madam

CommentGoleta Valley CommunityProposed2:43:14 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Chair, the speaker is not on topic. I am on topic. This relates to the development. It relates to the development. I don't see the axis between the issue before and her discussion.

CommentCarol LeafProposedself-stated2:43:28 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Well, it does relate to the development. Okay. Ms. Lief, can you? Because that's why you have to develop this is to pay those pensions. You have to know the motive for things to know why they're being done. This isn't a surface issue.

PresenterKristen MillerGoleta Valley Chamber of CommerceProposedself-stated2:43:41 · ≈ 11:43 AM

And

CommentCarol LeafProposedself-stated2:43:41 · ≈ 11:43 AM

we know it as well as I do. Thank you. Next speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:43:47 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Our next speaker is Anna Citron to be followed by Steve Snyder.

PresenterAna CitrinLaw Office of Mark Shutillo representing the San Marcos Foothills CoalitionProposedself-stated2:43:51 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Good morning Chair Farr and Board Members. I'm Ana Citrin, an attorney with the Law Office of Mark Shutillo representing the San Marcos Foothills Coalition, a community organization dedicated to preserving the unique resources present on the San Marcos Foothills Preserve property. For my three minutes, I'm going to be segueing away from the controversial density debate and making a very specific and relatively limited request with respect to the ESHA policies included in the draft plan.

Specifically, draft policy ECO 5.4 identifies specific biological resources that shall be considered environmentally sensitive and then action ECO5A directs the identification of additional biological resources Our concern is that there are specific sensitive resources located on the San Marcos Foothills Preserve property and elsewhere in the plan area that are frequently overlooked. And we wanted to flag those particular habitat areas so they are adequately identified and mapped in the environmental document.

First of all, raptor and specifically white-tail kite foraging areas, burrowing owl wintering sites, grasshopper sparrow nesting sites. And also Native Grasslands meeting the definition articulated in the county's environmental thresholds and guidelines manual of areas where native grassland species comprise 10% or more of the total relative cover. In the letter that we submitted to you, we suggested that one way to make sure these resources are not overlooked is to specifically identify them in the language of Action ECO 5A similar to how Chaparral Habitat was specifically identified at the request of EDC and Urban Creeks Council.

That would be the preferable route. If however you're not willing to change the language at this point in time, we would ask that you provide very clear direction to staff that these particular habitat types are analyzed, identified and mapped in the draft planning process. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:46:09 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Thank You Ms. Citrin. Supervisor Wolf? Thank you. I have a question for staff on this. I think Ms. Citrin brings up An interesting point in the identification of some of the different habitats and biological resources that we may need to name them and identify them, and it's not just for the San Marcos Preserve but other sites. Can you comment on that?

CommentSteve SnyderProposed2:46:37 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf. CEQA requires that in the EIR process we analyze and consider all rare threatened and endangered species. All of the species that she mentioned qualify so it is obligatory on us that they be considered explicitly in the process however should you wish to add those species specifically to the policy that would be okay too

2:47 – 2:5324 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:47:07 · ≈ 11:47 AM

All right, thank you. Thank you next public speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:47:13 · ≈ 11:47 AM

Our next speaker is Steve Snyder to be followed by Marissa Brownfield.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:47:19 · ≈ 11:47 AM

Mr. Snyder still not here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:47:22 · ≈ 11:47 AM

Right. Marissa Brownfield to be followed by Robert Cumming.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:47:30 · ≈ 11:47 AM

Marissa Brownfield plus one

CommentSteve SnyderProposed2:47:38 · ≈ 11:47 AM

I just have a brief comment. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter. We are residents of the Fort Ranch community, and we're just very concerned about the safety, the traffic, and the environmental impact that construction in that small amount of space in front of our community and development will have There's already such a large amount of traffic, the cars and the people because of the county buildings on the other side of San Antonio Road.

And when it comes to the environmental impact I'd like to request that an Environmental Impact Study Report and Wetland Report be done because it does seem to be sensitive habitat right there in a wetland that fills with water during the rainy season. So thank you very much for taking us into consideration and for your attention to this

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:48:25 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Thank you and what a good baby.

CommentAction NumberProposed2:48:29 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:48:30 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Supervisor Carbajal.

CommentAction NumberProposed2:48:31 · ≈ 11:48 AM

What was the name of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:48:32 · ≈ 11:48 AM

the... Brownfield? Marissa?

CommentAction NumberProposed2:48:35 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Marissa, I think you should get a copy of the tape today so that when he grows up, you could say this was his first hearing especially if he becomes president someday. He'll know where he got it from.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:48:48 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Thank you. Next public speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:48:50 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Our next speaker is Robert Cumming to be followed by Chris Taylor.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:48:54 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Robert Cumming

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:48:58 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Chris Taylor.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:49:01 · ≈ 11:49 AM

Not here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:49:02 · ≈ 11:49 AM

David Peckham.

PresenterDavid PeckhamSungate Ranch Owners Association and the comments that I've heard we it's a commProposedself-stated2:49:10 · ≈ 11:49 AM

Good morning, Madam Chair and Board of Supervisors. My name is David Peckham. I'm the president of the Sungate Ranch Owners Association and the comments that I've heard we it's a community of 48 residents 36 single-family homes and 12 Condominium owners and the comments I've heard from the residents in my community. Is that the strongest part of the Plan that you're your contemplating is to keep San Marcos growers off the table, so I'm happy to hear that That's what you're contemplating then as an individual resident I believe that We do need to have compromise in our process, and we have gone through a long process of looking at particular parcels to consider or not to consider.

And personally I'm satisfied with the compromise and urge you to go forward with the recommendations as you have presented them, and I have not read the Janet Wolfe's recent entry. But otherwise, I think that the process has been good so far and I'm satisfied and urge you to go forward with the plan as presented by GVPAC. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:50:29 · ≈ 11:50 AM

Thank you. Our next speaker is Brett Hodges followed by Linda Mayo who is our final speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:50:36 · ≈ 11:50 AM

Mr. Hodges? Good morning.

CommentBrett HodgesProposed2:50:41 · ≈ 11:50 AM

I know it's been a long, hard process. It's seemingly the last of decades and finding balance is a huge challenge. I appreciate all of your work. I just wanted to read a letter that I wrote to the Planning Commission several months ago I wanted to share my family's thoughts on the ongoing Goleta Community Plan update as it relates to our land, commonly known as the San Marcos Growers property.

Our families own these two parcels totaling 33 acres since the late 1970s. Since that time, the property has been leased to a wholesale plant nursery, San Marcos Growers and to organic vegetable farmers. My brother, sister and I jointly own the property and are the majority owners in the nursery though we were not involved in its day-to-day management. The 1993 plan did seem to recognize the appropriateness of the property for future non-agricultural use.

And the final plan stated, the long term land use designation for this parcel should be mixed residential and retail commercial. No later than 2000s, the land use designation for this parcel should be reviewed to determine if it should be changed to a mixed used residential and retail commercial designation. At the present time, we are pleased with the use of our property. San Marcos Growers is very well run and has built an international reputation as a leader in both California native and Mediterranean climate plant material.

Our lease of nine acres to John and Ruth Lane for growing organic produce and operating the San Marcos Gardens farm stand has worked out very well. However, none of my family are involved in operating these businesses, and as time passes and key individuals retire it's uncertain what the family's interest in maintaining long-term agricultural operations would be.

With a growing need for workforce housing which places less of a burden on traffic and other resources, we do feel this is perhaps the best eventual use of the property. The property is one of the most suitable remaining large sites available. It's on Hollister Avenue corridor and Let's see. Within approximately half a mile, there are two elementary schools, El Camino and Hollister, San Marcos High School, two shopping centers, Turnpike and Magnolia, two youth recreational facilities, Girls Inc., and Page Youth Center, and the Gleada Valley Hospital.

We'd appreciate it if it was considered for any IR that would seem to allow the most flexibility for long-term planning. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:53:05 · ≈ 11:53 AM

Thank you Mr. Hodges.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:53:07 · ≈ 11:53 AM

Our final speaker is Linda Mayo.

2:53 – 3:0116 turns

PresenterLinda MayoLeague of Women VotersProposedself-stated2:53:13 · ≈ 11:53 AM

Good morning. Can you hear me? Good morning, we want to thank, I'm Linda Mayo with the League of Women Voters. I'm the secretary and we want to thank you for your consideration chair and supervisors. Why

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:53:25 · ≈ 11:53 AM

don't you go ahead and pull the microphone a little bit closer.

PresenterLinda MayoLeague of Women VotersProposedself-stated2:53:27 · ≈ 11:53 AM

There you go okay being short challenging part of the league's mission is to encourage citizens to participate in their government and in future planning efforts how can they do this How can they do so if after months of public hearings and volunteer effort, their Compromise Community Plan can be undermined by the State of California? Local people have the best knowledge of traffic and local problems and should be encouraged to plan for their future. The present plan was a compromise effort, and perhaps some further compromise can be acceptable to the public that has worked so hard on it.

We want to note that any dense housing that the county supports in the Goleta Valley will have to be restricted to people working in the local areas and be kept permanently affordable or it will do nothing to solve either the housing or the traffic problems. League is very aware that we need to reduce commuting in the South Coast But simply building more dense housing will not achieve that if the units are so expensive that the local workforce cannot afford them and their availability brings more people from other areas into the region. For that reason, we would encourage the county to try once again to enlist other counties in a cooperative effort to change the direction of the Department of Housing and Community Development In our area, almost all housing that can be built is too expensive for most of the people who work here.

Under these circumstances, the League believes that it is unproductive for the state to keep asking for more housing rezones in areas that do not want or need them. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:55:04 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Thank you. All right we will bring it back to staff to see what responses you may have to public comment.

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction2:55:22 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Staff, I don't know if you were listening or looking forward to hearing anything that you have to add before we turn it over to the supervisors.

PresenterJeff HuntLong Range PlanningProposedself-stated2:55:31 · ≈ 11:55 AM

At this point staff doesn't have anything to add. We do want you to address the staff proposed recommendations and modifications to the Planning Commission recommendations. In addition to that, we understand Supervisor Wolf has a proposal for the conversion language and that's all we have on our table at this point.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:55:50 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Were there any questions?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:55:52 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Yeah, I have some comments but there was as I went through and listened to some of the questions. There was the issue of noticing and I was hoping that staff might be able to address that

PresenterJeff HuntLong Range PlanningProposedself-stated2:56:07 · ≈ 11:56 AM

Madam Chair and Supervisors, we believe we've gone actually beyond the legal requirements for noticing. For instance, we put ads in multiple papers not just one as is minimum required. We've also had a interested persons list which has several hundred people on it. We have our own county website and we even have a Facebook site so I think we've gone beyond the minimum.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:56:35 · ≈ 11:56 AM

Thank you. I have a few comments, but I don't know if I can wait and hear from my colleagues first whatever is your pleasure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:56:44 · ≈ 11:56 AM

Are there any questions or comments? I think Supervisor Gray and then Supervisor Carbajal

CommentFlood ControlProposed2:56:49 · ≈ 11:56 AM

Yeah, thank you Chair Farr. And I just wanted to say to the folks that took the time to come and be here today and all the other meetings that you went to it's just what makes our community strong. 15 years ago maybe longer ORCAT was going through this same painful adversarial kind of A group of issues as we created our plan, passed the plan. Had many of the same comments that many of you have made today and now the plan is is basically 10 years into being developed. It's worked amazingly well, I was a doubting Thomas big time.

It's worked amazingly well we actually did a government issue video of the plan from the beginning till where it is now and have won awards in the state and regionally on that video A plan is just a really important thing because it helps you know where you're going. As far as my own personal interest is concerned, I very much recognize that it's your plan, it's your community and I just wanted to say that this is an outstanding process and I would say a really good balance and congratulations to Supervisor Wolff and all of you for what you've done and I'm going to be supporting the plan or moving forward on the EIR.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:58:27 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Thank you Supervisor Graves. Supervisor Carbajal and then Supervisor Lovenian.

CommentAction NumberProposed2:58:31 · ≈ 11:58 AM

I too wanted to add my appreciation for the process. We're in the process of doing two updates in my district, community plan updates and that's for Mission Canyon and Summerlin. And I know how painful these processes can be but at the end I think you come out with the best product possible. I heard some concerns about noticing And I can tell you that we pretty much do the same thing in all communities. So this is very similar, if anything I'm a little jealous because I think we've even done more noticing for the second district which is a good thing.

We have done the Toro Canyon plan, we've done the Montecito community plan, an update to include the architectural guidelines in Montecito We've even come back around and included some growth management ordinances for Montecito to make sure that community plan stays intact the way it was intended in terms of managing growth. These processes are good, as painful as they are they yield that balance that we all strive for I think you have individuals on both sides people who want things to be when they bought their home the first day and I certainly understand that. You want people who want to have opportunities for continued growth and development, I understand that but then you have all of those in the middle who put on their reason hats and say okay well what is that compromise?

What is that balance? And hopefully As we do with our democracy, we want that balance to be the end result and win at the end of the day. And for that reason I will be supporting the plan before us with the changes that Supervisor Wolf has put forth. Want to appreciate the process, all the citizens that participated even if for some of you who feel you didn't get everything you wanted.

The planning commission, I know my commissioner in addition to Cynthia and all the others did an extraordinary job. I saw some of the hearings and he was He was working, he was trying to make things come together. And so I know not everybody's happy but I think this is a good product and I commend you Supervisor Wolf, the Planning Commission and the community for doing its best through this painful process but I will be supporting this effort as discussed in outline by Supervisor Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:00:56 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Thank you Supervisor Carpaul. Supervisor Lavagnino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.733:00:58 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Thank you Madam Chair. I just had one question before I make my comments, and it was about the modifications. And I was just curious as to what happens if in the future we heard from some of the smaller farmers? What happens in the future if it's no longer economically feasible to farm that area? Who is the onus on? Is it on us? Is it on the farmer to come to us and try to get a modification or a change? How does that work?

3:01 – 3:1211 turns

UnidentifiedCounty Executive OfficerProposed · by role3:01:34 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisors. The onus would be on the applicant in that situation a proposal to change land uses is considered a general plan amendment and potential rezone and that's treated as any other application it would start at the planning counter and the process would unfold through a permitting process

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.733:01:53 · ≈ 12:01 PM

So how would that be different than what we would do right now? I mean, I'm not sure what the language changes and maybe you can help me out. I'm not sure how it changes the process.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:02:04 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Well actually there but any reason would end up at the Board of Supervisors ultimately. Madam Chair

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.733:02:08 · ≈ 12:02 PM

that's correct. Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:02:10 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Supervisor Wolf did you want to comment on it?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.733:02:12 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Okay well my comments are first off I just wanted to thank Cecilia and the Planning Commission This is a challenging issue when you listen to what everybody has to say. Nobody wants to see sprawl, but nobody wants high density and we all want our kids to live here so it really puts us all in a box. I want to say folks in Goleta, you really know how to use your computers and you've lit up my email box has been full. I had a nice three-day weekend and I spent it reading emails but I do appreciate it. You did have your voice heard.

At the same time, I want to say I do respect Mr. Tobes and anytime he wants to come and develop property up in the North County, he is more than welcome. He does really good work and we do need people to build We, you know, eventually we all talk about we all need workforce housing. But somebody has to build it somewhere. It has to happen somewhere. Having said all that I do appreciate that this is your community. It's your plan. You're going to be living with it for the next 20 years and so I will be in support of moving forward and studying EIR in the manner that we have it set forth.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:03:31 · ≈ 12:03 PM

Thank you Supervisor Lavagnino. And I just want to say that today, I feel like my experience in county government has come full circle because as some of you may know, I first lived in 3rd District and then I lived in this area in Nolita for 15 years where I raised my children before I've been now in the San Ines Valley for almost a decade. was involved in issues, actually was the founding member and first president of the Patterson Area Neighborhood Association. Was happy to see Tim Schmidt here. Also Cecilia Brown who has gotten a lot of praise and much deserved today is the past president of PANA as well so I have to say that in all of my experience in land use starting with sitting in the audience just as you have talking about these issues about 15 years ago And moving forward through time on the County Planning Commission, time at the City of Goleta on planning issues and now as an elected official back here on the Board of Supervisors.

The concerns that we hear are the same. The concerns are loss of agricultural land, potentially concerns about water, concerns about traffic Concerns about how do we make new development compatible with the existing development that we have there. And again, it's important to remember that we are not approving anything today. That we are just initiating environmental review which will look at all of these issues in detail and is done specifically to inform decision making down the line. So, thank you all for being here. Thank you for your participation throughout all of this long process and certainly as we have more information through the environmental review process there will be more opportunities to speak back at the Planning Commission and here at the Board.

So with that I'll turn it back to Supervisor Wolff.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed3:05:27 · ≈ 12:05 PM

Thank You Madam Chair You know, I couldn't be prouder to sit on this board. And I really want to thank all of you for your support. As Supervisor Farr said, she was a resident of the unincorporated area. Well not obviously, I could live in one of the cities but I live in the unincorporated area. Supervisor Gray has taken the time to visit with me and tour with me Throughout the unincorporated area, I know Supervisor Carbajal knows the area well. And I just found out today that Supervisor Lavagnino lived right around La Patera and I know he comes to the unincorporated area quite often.

But as I go back to the process and And to really point out the level of involvement, not just here but as you go down the line and you look at what the planning commissioners did and the time that they spent. didn't just focus on housing, which is what we have really been talking about here. But they've talked about the quality of life in Eastern Goleta Valley and some folks have mentioned that issue, the quality of life And I just want to, I made some notes and I just think it's important that we recognize some of the things that the PAC did. And some of the policies and development standards that are in this plan that are so important that will have an impact 10 or 15 or 20 years down the line on how what happens in our valley.

There is watershed based planning There is a whole section on hydrology, flooding and drainage discussing stormwater runoff. There's a section on ecological resource protections specifically the Atascadero Creek and our urban forests There is a section on the ESH policies. There's a section on setbacks and buffers along the riparian corridors. There is a section on bluff policies as it relates to geology, topography and soils.

There's a section on design guidelines and visual resources, and Cecilia Brown has always been a strong proponent for that. So as we move forward we know that whatever moves forward has some design standards in place. The issue of public services and facilities. We have in the second district, the Chi Real County Campus. Within the plan there was talk and recommendations to look at opportunities for parks, trailheads, park and ride options.

For emergency access, they talked about removing roadblocks and dead ends and secondary access. In parks and recreation there was discussion about identifying and developing new recreational resources Strategies for maximizing park siding and accessibility. Development of a park at Page Youth Center. And acquiring and improving pocket parks. These things are in the plan that help guide future planning, again what Supervisor Gray has mentioned. And what is so important that's in the plan is maximizing opportunities for coastal public access The issue of water was also addressed in the plan. There are two areas in the plan that talk about monitoring the condition of private wells, discussing septic systems and heightened environmental requirements and also ensuring that there is enough potable water that is coming from our local agency.

Transportation and circulation was also mentioned as you saw on on the PowerPoint. So all of these items are mentioned, they have not been forgotten in the plan but this is not the last word it has to go through environmental review to ensure that there is enough water to ensure that there are the environmental protections for each of these parcels So, we will have an opportunity to revisit this. The community will have an opportunity to comment prior to the final drafting of the EIR and subsequent to that.

I think one of the things that has come from this is that the Eastern Goleta Valley and Please, I hope we never call it Nolita again. That it has a distinct name. Someone called it Western Santa Barbara. Honestly, whatever. But whatever we call ourselves We're bigger than a name. We are community, we are community on one side of the freeway, a community on the other side in the rural areas but we are a community who cares and not just loves our environment but really cares about the community and the people that live here.

And I've seen it numerous times from the fires from some of the disasters that we have encountered. We all come together and we help each other And while there is going to be disagreements, I think in the end we are a stronger community because of this process. And I can't thank you enough for all of you who have been involved in this and so with that I am going to...I want to make a comment on the environmental status The ash and I'm feeling confident that that is being covered in the document.

So, is that correct? Just tell me that I am feeling confident and that's correct.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentSteve SnyderProposed3:11:48 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf. Yes you may feel confident in that regard. Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed3:11:53 · ≈ 12:11 PM

so then madam chair I'm going to have it I am going to make a motion that we move forward with staff's recommendation with the modifications to the project description as reflected in the PowerPoint slide and the revisions to policy LUA EGV 1.6 as provided today

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:12:15 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Motion and a second from Supervisor Carbajal. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much everyone. We will recess for lunch and closed session. Mr. Marshall did you want to read the closed session agenda? Everybody could file out quietly. The hearing is still going on, thank you.

3:12 – 4:273 turns

CommentGoleta Valley CommunityProposed3:12:48 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Madam Chair in your closed session item today you have existing litigation Ariando v. County of Santa Barbara. You have conference with labor negotiator employer relations and you have conference with real property negotiator agency negotiator Bob Nesbitt and Patty Langlands negotiating with the administrative office of the courts. Thank you madam chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:13:09 · ≈ 12:13 PM

Thank you and we'll be back in about an hour or so. For agenda item number two. At about one thirty.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:13:41 · ≈ 12:13 PM

Hi, everyone. ¶. ¶. Hi, everyone. ¶. ¶. ¶. Hi, everyone. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶¶ You. You. ¶¶ Hi, everyone. ♪ you ¶. ♪♪ ¶. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ You. ¶. ¶. ¶¶ ¶. ¶¶ ♪ Yeah. ♪ ♪ Hi. ¶¶ ¶. Hi. ♪ ¶. Hi. Thank you. ¶. ¶. ¶. Yeah. ♪ Thank you. Thank you. ¶. Hi. You. Hi. You. Hi. You. Music You. You. ♪ Yeah. ¶. Thank you. Yeah. ♪ ¶. ¶. ♪ ¶. Yeah. Yeah. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶.

♪ you ¶¶ ¶. ¶¶ ¶. ¶¶ ¶. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ StSq3 3.30 (-0.70)" ¶¶ ¶. Hi. ¶¶ 2A 3.30 x (-0.50), Yeah. ♪ ¶¶ ¶¶ Yeah. ¶¶ Yeah. Hi. ¶. ¶. ¶. Yeah. Yeah. Music Thank you. ♪ ¶¶ Thank you. ♪ ¶. ♪ Thank you. Yeah. ♪ Thank you. ♪♪ ♪

4:28 – 4:301 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:28:23 · ≈ 1:28 PM

Thank you. ¶. ♪ Hi. Good afternoon everybody. Board of Supervisors back in session here, we're going to take up agenda item number two Mr. Allen if you would read that into the record please oh actually before that Council do you want to do a report from closed session?

4:30 – 4:4012 turns

CommentGoleta Valley CommunityProposed4:30:29 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Yes thank you Madam Chair Your board held close session on each of the noticed items. There is one item to report out in the matter of Ariando V County or Santa Barbara, the Board unanimously authorized Council to file a writ of mandamus. Thank you Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:30:49 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Thank you. All right now Mr. Allen

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:30:52 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Item number two is from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an appeal filed by Margaret Dent et al for the Montecito Planning Commission's August 24th 2011 approval of the Van Vlet residential addition. This is located at 1717 Fernald Point Lane in the Montecito area First District.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:31:11 · ≈ 1:31 PM

Thank you Mr. Allen. Ex parte from the Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Carbajal this is in your district.

CommentAction NumberProposed4:31:19 · ≈ 1:31 PM

Thank You madam chair I've met with Lindsey Shin at a site visit, the Dent's Appellant Attorney Mr. and Mrs. Van Bleek, Richard Monk representing the Van Bleeks, Jennifer Foster representing the Van Bleeks, Kerry Gettner also with the Van Bleep party And I made a site visit last week with our planner, Nicole Liu. And I think I've covered everyone. I've had a meeting. I've had a site visit and that's pretty much it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:32:03 · ≈ 1:32 PM

Okay thank you. Supervisor Lavagnino do you have any exporte? Supervisor Gregg? Supervisor Wolf? Nothing to report. And I don't have anything to report either. All right, how the hearing is going to proceed is we're gonna have the staff presentation first then we'll go to the appellant for about five minutes then the project applicant for about five minutes Then there will be an opportunity for a rebuttal from each parties before we bring it back to the board for deliberation so Miss Black you want to start us off?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed4:32:38 · ≈ 1:32 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board, the planner Nicole Liu will present this project. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed4:32:44 · ≈ 1:32 PM

Good morning, Madam. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. The proposed project, the subject project is located at 1717 Fernald Point Lane. It is indicated by the parcel highlighted in red on this slide. The appellant's property, the dense, is located just adjacent to the Van Vliet's property and below that you'll see the public beach. The project approved in August by the Montecito Planning Commission included 159 square feet of first floor additions, 83 square feet of first floor demolition, 422 square feet of a second floor addition and relocation of a pool and pool equipment.

Other items of note shown in light blue on the slide, you'll see an access and parking easement that extends over to the Van Vliet's property in favor of Mrs. Dent. Additionally, you'll see in purple here between the MPCs approval of the project and this hearing today, the applicant has added a request for 169 square foot carport. This slide shows the elevations with the proposed second story addition, one of the main appeal issues of the appeal that is before you today.

While all parties agree that there would not be a detrimental impact to public views by public views, the appellant is concerned about private view impacts. The county does not enforce private view easements. There are no policies that require the protection of private views. The Montecito Architectural Guidelines state explicitly that there are no laws requiring private view protection.

However, as noted in the Appellant's February 16th letter, the architectural guidelines do state that private views should be given consideration. The Board of Architectural Review did consider private views, noting in their checklist to the applicant that the project is appropriately sited given view corridors, that the project height, size, bulk scale and number of stories fits and is incompatible with a neighborhood.

Additionally, based on the site visit, the second story would be visible only from limited and non-primary viewpoints from the dense property. The second appeal issue has to do with access and parking. The appellant has requested that there be no parking, access or even temporary deliveries during the construction process. However, to completely disallow temporary access to the Van Vlietes would result in logistical issues and potential traffic impacts along Fernald Point Lake.

Additionally, the existing parking condition that was applied by the Montecito Planning Commission requires a plan that designates specific parking areas. While no parking is proposed within the access easement, staff does recommend that you add the language to the parking conditions stating all construction parking shall occur outside of the access easement.

With regard to construction debris and noise, the appellant has requested a specific written protocol for debris management and has also requested that construction start at 8am. However, the existing conditions already require a specific protocol for debris clearance and ask for construction hours between 7am and 4.30pm. These construction hours specifically implement Montecito Community Plan development standards. Therefore, staff does not recommend a more restrictive start of 8am as is requested by the appellant.

Regarding lighting, after review of the appellants February 16th letter, the applicant has indicated that they are willing to incorporate the language in item number 5 pertaining to lighting into their project conditions should your board see fit. The dents have requested that the pool equipment proposed as a part of the project be moved further from their property line due to noise concerns.

County thresholds allow 65 decibels of noise to occur at the property line. The proposed pool equipment would be located 56 feet away from the dense property line, and this location is expected to generate about 34.4 decibels. To give a little bit of context that's somewhere between a soft whisper and ambient noise inside of an average home. Therefore we do not recommend that the pool equipment be moved.

The appellants have acknowledged that the parcel is legal nonconforming but state that the project would exacerbate nonconformity In planning review, a parcel is non-conforming or conforming as to size regardless of the level of development on site. Therefore, exacerbation of a non-conformity is not a concept considered in our review. Pertaining to architectural review, the appellants are concerned about project changes that occurred between the Montecito Board of Architectural Review and the Montecito Planning Commission's review. This included a slight shift in square footage They are also concerned about the current request for a carport between the Montecito Planning Commission's review and your review today.

However, the Pellant has had the opportunity to view plans with all of these proposed changes. The Pellant will have another opportunity to comment on the project at preliminary and final architectural review. And both the Montecito Planning Commission hearing and the hearing today are de novo meaning that the MPC appropriately considered and approved the project changes without first asking for additional architectural review and your board may consider the project together with the carport today without asking for further review by the Planning Commission.

The final issue raised by the appellant was that all required findings and consistency analysis for the project had not been completed. No specific policies or findings were raised in this statement, and staff's analysis continues to be that the project is consistent with all applicable findings and conditions. However, returning again to the main appeal issue of view impacts I have included a photo shown here taken from the public beach towards the Dent property.

And I've also included a photo here looking from Fernald Point Lane towards the Van Vliet's property. These photos illustrate that there would be minimal if any visibility of the proposed project and that the project would be consistent with all applicable Coastal Land Use Plan and Community Plan policies. These policies require the protection of scenic views and resources of public importance.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is that your board deny the appeal case number 11 APL 19 makes a required findings for approval of case number 11 CDH 8 determine the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15301E and grant de novo approval of the coastal development permit subject to the conditions of approval. That will conclude staff's presentation

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:39:47 · ≈ 1:39 PM

Thank you. Were there any questions from the board before we go to the appellant? Supervisor Carball?

CommentAction NumberProposed4:39:55 · ≈ 1:39 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair. You mentioned that language be included regarding the parking. Is that already included in the motion in the information you have in the staff report for our consideration?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed4:40:11 · ≈ 1:40 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal yes it is

CommentAction NumberProposed4:40:13 · ≈ 1:40 PM

incorporated. I just want to make sure it wasn't new language beyond what's already in there and two you mentioned lighting information as well

4:40 – 4:467 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed4:40:29 · ≈ 1:40 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal. Yes I have language that was suggested by the appellant in their February 16th letter and I can read that into the record if you desire it's some additional lighting restrictions that the applicant has indicated that they're willing to accept.

CommentAction NumberProposed4:40:44 · ≈ 1:40 PM

Well why don't we hold off until we get more into the hearing but thank you that and some carport language modification as well so we'll deal with that in a few

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:40:53 · ≈ 1:40 PM

Supervisor Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:40:55 · ≈ 1:40 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted you to clarify the regular construction hours. Did I hear you say that the Montecito planning area allows or calls out that you can start building at 7 in the morning?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed4:41:13 · ≈ 1:41 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf. Yes the development standard calls for 7 a.m to 4 30 p.m I believe and that's what we've incorporated into the condition. All right thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:41:26 · ≈ 1:41 PM

All right we'll go ahead and turn to the appellant then five minutes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed4:42:01 · ≈ 1:42 PM

Access and view considerations relating to the second story as well as to the carport. With regard to construction access and parking, my clients are gravely concerned about construction traffic. If you would the next slide please? The shared driveway is only approximately 15 feet wide and it's 225 feet long. It is the only access from Promal Point Lane to my client's property at 1711.

The parking area at the end of the shared driveway is limited. It is tight to turn around in the area and it is an exclusive parking area. My client Margaret Dent, who lives at 1711, is 82 years old. She has Parkinson's disease, limited mobility and other medical issues. We are gravely concerned about ensuring that she, her round-the-clock caregivers, emergency personnel and others who may need access can get to and from 1711 at all times.

There are substantial logistical issues that will be presented if construction traffic uses the driveway or the parking area in any way. Staff's recommendations with regard to the construction parking plan and the conditions on parking are helpful, and we appreciate those but they only address some of our concerns. Specifically, we would like to ensure that construction parking that is off-site is prohibited from blocking, interfering Narrowing or restricting in any way the entrance to the driveway, which would prevent access to my client's property.

The applicant has represented to the Montecito Planning Commission that they will not block the driveway and therefore we request that the board please incorporate into the conditions a specific restriction as stated on page two of my letter under item 2 dealing with the off-site construction parking. That would make it clear to the county personnel who subsequently will review the construction parking plan, as well as to construction workers and to the building inspectors what restrictions exist on off-site parking.

In addition we ask that the board please consider prohibiting construction parking in the driveway. There's barely enough room for one car as we can see in this slide here to fit through the driveway if somebody is parked there Somebody will not be able to access 1711. The applicant has represented they will not park in the driveway, we therefore ask that the board incorporate our requested language into the conditions to make it absolutely clear to those involved in this project including personnel who later will review the parking plan as well as construction workers and building inspectors.

Construction parking also should be prohibited in the parking area. Nicole, the next slide when you get a chance please? There's a limited area to turn around, especially for larger construction vehicles. Next slide please. It's not safe to back down the long driveway particularly with the curves and the limited visibility. This is an exclusive parking easement. 1717 does not have a right to use it for parking. Applicant has represented they will not park in the parking area so we ask that it be expressly conditioned on no parking in the parking area.

Finally, access by construction vehicles even temporarily for deliveries is of concern. Access even temporarily could prevent access to our property. There are logistical enforcement issues if parking is prohibited but temporary deliveries are not where's the line? What happens when the subcontractor stops for a minute has to go in and find the general has to then find people to help him unload suddenly they're there for 20 minutes and the parking has been the access to 1711 has been blocked Our proposals with regard to construction access and parking are on page two at item number two of our letter, and I ask that you please adopt those into the conditions.

With regard to view and privacy issues, the letter addresses the second story, the loss of mountain view. I'm aware of the county's position that you do not enforce private easements. However, the Montecito community plan does direct you to consider private easements. Here, the law requires us to have a view Thank you, Ms. Shin. Your time is up. Thank you.

not transcribed≈28s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

4:46 – 4:524 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:46:55 · ≈ 1:46 PM

Now we will hear from the project applicant.

CommentRichard MonkProposedself-stated4:47:01 · ≈ 1:47 PM

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. Excuse me. I am Richard Monk. I'm the attorney for Mr and Mrs Van Vliet. As you've heard from staff this is a modest remodel that adds 581 square feet to the house and demolishes 83 square feet and relocates the pool and improves the access to the garage from the driveway Regarding the second story, the project satisfies all of the height requirements of the county's regulations. At the highest point, the roof would be 21 feet 7 inches well below the maximum 25 foot ordinance height limitation and the project complies with the setback regulations of the zoning ordinance.

It also conforms with houses in the Fresnel Point Lane area of the 25 homes on that lane, 16 are two-story. The Van Vliet's propose a height lower than the adjacent house immediately to the east. 19 of the 25 homes on Fresnel Point Lane exceed FAR with an average at 55% over FAR and this home would be 23% over FAR. Regarding what The appellant mischaracterizes as a view easement. It's actually a scenic easement and a vague and ambiguous one at that. But they try to transform this easement into what they want it to be, which is a view easement and it is not.

View easements expressly provide for an unobstructed view of a portion of the property burden by the view easement which is typically called the Servian Tenement, the property burden by the easement. View easements expressly and specifically prohibit structures to exist beyond a specified height above the elevation or the ground of the Servian Tenement. And there's no such language whatsoever in The scenic easement that burdens the Van Vliet property. And obviously, the vague and ambiguous scenic easement is not a view easement. The good news is that your board need not consider itself whether it's a view easement or is not because the county does not involve itself in enforcing private easements.

Now, the appellate relies heavily on the modesty of architectural guidelines to make its case. But the guidelines are simply that they're only guidelines and even the guideline state as Nicole has adequately or accurately quoted there are no laws which ensure property owners the right to views and privacies. The guidelines merely require MBAR and the applicant to consider The proposed construction creates view and privacy problems, and that's exactly what occurred in this case. MBAR did consider this in its review of the project. It met several times, considered the design, and so did the applicant. The project is very sensitively designed to avoid view obstruction.

The remodel will not substantially block any mountain views. And just last week, our client redesigned the carport so as to lower its height to nine feet, a four-foot reduction from the previous plan and so as to preserve mountain views for the dense. And they now are proposing that the carport roof be flat rather than the arched roof that preexisted. Moreover, the mountain view from the dent property is really a secondary view. The whole orientation of the dent house is towards the ocean. That's where the views are at what the property or area of the house closest to the remodel is really what you would call back-of-house. With the primary views and orientation towards the ocean.

Because of that orientation of the den house towards the ocean, there really is no privacy issue here. That's back of house and with all the living and enjoyment and recreational entertainment areas pointing towards the ocean. Regarding the pool relocation and the concern over noise this is called a stealth pump If we can believe labels, but in any case the decibel level when at 10 feet from the pump is 58.3 dBA which is well below the county's threshold of significance of 65 dBA. The sound level will be even lower since the equipment will be located 56 feet from the dent property line And approximately 80 feet from the closest point of the dent house. Moreover, the equipment is going to be encased in concrete so that's going to bring the decibel level even down lower to what Nicole already described as probably a whisper.

Regarding the access to the driveway during construction we're satisfied and willing to abide by the county's Conditions that they've imposed, but the dense request that there be no temporary parking is simply unreasonable. There have to be material deliveries which is an in and out type delivery And this is not something that they would be entitled to even under the easement, because the owner of the fee, the owner of the ground retains all of its rights in the property except to the extent it is affected by the easement. So if it unreasonably interferes with the access rights of the easement holder, then there's an issue in this case that would not be. Thank you Mr. Monk. So we urge you to deny the appeal. I have a

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:52:14 · ≈ 1:52 PM

question. Your time is up. I have a question. Supervisor Gray?

CommentFlood ControlProposed4:52:18 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Thanks Chair. I don't know if it's Mr. Monk or staff. I'm trying to sort this out. If we could put the picture back up, it's the second one that shows the driveway. I can't tell on my slide where the driveway is and I'm interested in knowing that. I'm looking at the aerial photo.

4:52 – 5:0721 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed4:52:58 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Gray. The driveway is right here where this blue comes down so the Van Vliets will be accessing the property during the construction process by driving in and parking right here. And the Dents have an easement that's this entire light blue area. In order to access their property they come along here There, that's the slide I'm looking for. Show me where the driveway is on that slide.

The driveway comes down through here. It is narrow, it comes down through here and then curves right here and then right in this area is where the parking, the carport is for the dent property.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentFlood ControlProposed4:54:11 · ≈ 1:54 PM

So they park like in front of the house? Yes. Well, but the house faces then the ocean which is what Ms. Monk said. Okay thank you. That's tight.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:54:25 · ≈ 1:54 PM

Supervisor Carbajal.

CommentAction NumberProposed4:54:26 · ≈ 1:54 PM

Could you point where the garage is for the Van Bleeck? So that it's not confused, individuals are not confused with the Van Bleeck parking versus the Dent parking. Where that big tree is at, that's the Dent parking area correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed4:54:46 · ≈ 1:54 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal correct.

CommentAction NumberProposed4:54:48 · ≈ 1:54 PM

And then the Van Vliet reconfiguration of the garage is over there by the road. Over there? Can you go up to them? Up here. So that's just to differentiate the two parkings for the appellant versus the applicant because some of you might be confused with wait a minute so it's two different parking areas

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:55:08 · ≈ 1:55 PM

And where was the construction offloading going to be?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed4:55:14 · ≈ 1:55 PM

Madam Chair, the construction parking would occur in this location here. There's a pool there currently and the first thing would be that it would be demoed and this area would be used for construction parking so they'd pull in and park here So this would be, unless deliveries for some reason came down in this area which it's not anticipated. This would be the extent of the area where the construction vehicles would be driving through their driveway.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:55:46 · ≈ 1:55 PM

Okay thank you. Supervisor Gray? Nothing else? Thank you very much. Supervisor Carbajal? All right do we have any members of the public who would like to speak?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:55:58 · ≈ 1:55 PM

No request to speak.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:55:59 · ≈ 1:55 PM

Okay, so now there's opportunity for three minutes of rebuttal from the appellant. If you would like to come forward again Ms. Chen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed4:56:11 · ≈ 1:56 PM

Thank you Madam Chair. With regard to the scenic easement Mr. Monk's points take a very technical view versus scenic. There is a scene of the mountains we have an easement specifically over the Van Vliet property to view those mountains Although the property in large part is oriented towards the ocean, the scenic easement over the Van Vliet's property would not mean anything if it didn't mean we had a view of the mountains because the ocean is not on the other side of the Van Vliet's property.

While the guidelines are guidelines they are important for consideration and we ask that you do take them into account particularly because of our easement in this situation. With regard to parking We have not yet seen a construction parking plan. There's some indication that parking will occur at the north area where the pool currently is, but we don't know that that's the case and that's part of our concern here.

The Van Bleets also have a parking space At the southern side of their property and Nicole, if you wouldn't mind pulling up our presentation in the last slide. This is the area where the carport is being proposed I am just now seeing for the first time they propose revisions to the carport I cannot comment at those on those at this time. I don't know if the applicant will use that carport area for additional parking. One of our additional concerns in this matter is that the carport has not been considered by the Montecito Planning Commission.

There's a gate that is proposed there, that we have learned at the site visit will be opening up into our exclusive parking area. That's a use of our property that could interfere with our exclusive parking area. We have concerns about the possibility of the gate hitting cars that are in our parking area, or if cars hitting the gate that is not coordinated in any way could also block cars that are in our area.

The exclusive parking area is just that. It's something where the 1711 owners have the opportunity to park their vehicles, to have their guests park their vehicles. It is access to our property and Construction deliveries, if they use that area for deliveries very well will prevent our access or parking in that area. So we ask that you please do consider our suggestions for the conditions.

I also would like to touch on the lighting. I appreciate applicants willingness to incorporate our suggestions on the lighting condition into This plan and I ask that the board please adopt those suggestions which are written in our letter and can be read into the record if necessary and appropriate. Thank you for your time and your consideration, I'm happy to answer any other questions that you may have

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:59:06 · ≈ 1:59 PM

thank you. Right now we'll go ahead and turn to the applicant Mr. Monk

CommentRichard MonkProposedself-stated4:59:15 · ≈ 1:59 PM

Madam chair members of the board Richard Monk again. I'd like to underscore that this project will not cut off the view of Conveyed that thought to you, but I just wanted to again repeat that. Regarding parking there will be a construction parking plan that must be approved by staff prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit. That plan will provide for either on-site or off-site parking for construction and if it is off site it'll be in the pool area which will be the last area of the project to be completed.

So we'll have that area to park in for construction people during the course of construction Construction hours, we ask that they be consistent with every other project in Montecito as set forth in the Montecito Community Plan. On the lighting, we're comfortable with the conditions that have been proposed by staff but were also amenable to the additional enhancement of that condition as suggested by the appellant that's conditioned Number seven regarding lighting and similarly we will, were amenable to the enhancement of condition eight regarding solid waste as suggested by the appellant.

This project was unanimously approved by the MBAR. It was unanimously approved by the Montecito Planning Commission. The Montecito Association I would like to say it has their support because if they didn't like it you could certainly hear from them and you haven't heard from them on that so The nearest neighbor to the east, the Schwartz wrote a letter of support and that letter has been given to the clerk so that's available for your review. And there's been no opposition from any other Montecito property owner or by any other person for that matter except the appellant in this case.

My client Mr. Van Vliet is here with the architect Kerry Gepner and they are available to answer any questions you might have Again, we urge you to deny the appeal. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:01:24 · ≈ 2:01 PM

Thank you Mr. Monk. Right. Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentAction NumberProposed5:01:30 · ≈ 2:01 PM

Thank you. Could you go back to... Is this thing working? Could you go back to the slide that had... That one or actually the other? Well that one's fine. I'm

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:01:42 · ≈ 2:01 PM

not sure if that's working.

CommentAction NumberProposed5:01:44 · ≈ 2:01 PM

This isn't working. It's not working well it's... Madam Chair, I made a visit out to the area and just to really get acquainted with the issues. But let me start out by saying that I think Mr. Monk said what What I initially was going to start off with and that is that the issues have really been vetted extensively before the MBAR and the MPC, Montecito Planning Commission.

When I went out to the site if you could follow this pointer here, I walked the beach to make sure that I saw there were any public views impacted which they're not I went to that area right there to see the, even though private views are not protected. Obviously the architectural guidelines encourage that we look at them. Um, I did express to the applicant that the carport they were going to extend out here while not required it seemed to block a little bit of the mountain views and it's my understanding that they have lowered that four feet To make it flat instead of the gable roof.

So I want to make sure that that's reflected in what we're approving here or what I'm going to be making a motion on. I understand that from what I heard from the applicant's lawyers, that they're willing to incorporate the lighting Condition that was stipulated by the appellant, which I appreciate. And if that could be noted as part of the record, which I will be incorporating in my motion.

I want to make sure I understand from staff that a parking plan will be brought to you for your approval, that deals with construction and accordingly with the policies and conditions that staff outline or deem as appropriate. I think that the appellant raises some issues that go beyond appropriate Language I think there's some issues of use of the easement that may be a little too onerous. So, I want to make sure that it, the parking plan that comes back to staff is one that is in keeping with staff's conditions and standards. That addresses the access issue and the onsite and offsite parking and The entrance that the appellant raised to make sure that to the extent possible if not.

Make sure it's not blocked. That's pretty much it, I do appreciate the lowering of the carport because that's something that did catch my attention. I did express that it caught my attention and I appreciate that the applicant Was astute enough to understand that was a major concern and lowered it. So having said that, I think this is pretty straightforward with those items that I've mentioned staff please guide me into making a motion item 1 through 4 as outlined in the staff report including those items I just mentioned.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:05:16 · ≈ 2:05 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Carbajal did you intend to include the lighting condition that the applicant accepted? Yes. Then I think your motion would reflect the, or your recommendation would reflect what's on this screen. Amending the project description to include the carport being lowered by four feet as was presented to the board today and adding the lighting condition which is found on page three of the Mullin & Hensel letter under item number five and I'll just read that into the record. Prior to coastal development permit issuance, the applicant shall prepare a lighting plan The lighting plan shall include a site plan that graphically illustrates the location and type of each light, and shall include lighting cut sheets all in compliance with this condition.

The lighting plan shall be submitted to the MBAR for preliminary slash final approval and review. Appellant shall be given notice of the MBAR hearing and an opportunity to review and comment on the lighting

CommentAction NumberProposed5:06:13 · ≈ 2:06 PM

plan. That'll be my motion. And again, in making the motion I hope I have a second. I do want to stress that private views are not protected in the Montecito Community Plan but they are to be considered. It's sort of like an awkward contradiction. I know you didn't have to, and I'm assuming the appellant is grateful as I am grateful that you stepped up instead of making me make that decision. I could've gone either way but I did notice it was going to impact a little bit of the view there and I just again can't say enough how appreciative I am of you stepping up to do that for your neighbor and easing my life a little bit up here.

Madam Chair, that's it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:07:09 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Motion and a second. Any other comments, questions discussion on the motion? All right all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries thank you everybody we will go ahead and move to our agenda item number three Mr. Allen would you read that into the record please

5:07 – 5:133 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:07:33 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Madam Chair, Members of the Board. Item 3 is from Planning and Development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a report on RDA successor agencies and oversight board selections.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:07:43 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Madam Chair, Members of the Board. Today's agenda item includes a recommendation that the successor agency to the county's former redevelopment agency or RDA adopt a draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule. In addition, you will hear recommendations regarding appointments to the Oversight Boards for the county's successor agency as well as six other successor agencies.

All RDAs in California including the seven located in Santa Barbara County were dissolved on February 1st. The county became the successor agency to the Isla Vista RDA. Oversight boards must now be established to oversee the actions of all seven successor agencies. The Board of Supervisors may select certain members of all seven oversight boards, as will be presented shortly.

First, staff recommends that the Board take action to adopt the Draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule or ROPS. The ROPS discloses all existing contractual obligations inherited by the successor agency from the former Isla Vista RDA. The draft ROPS proposed for adoption today has been updated for consistency with the enforceable obligation payment schedule adopted by your board on January 24th.

Staff recommends that the board, acting as the successor agency to the Isla Vista RDA adopt a resolution adopting the draft ROPS which is included as attachment one. As previously mentioned it's now time to begin the appointments to the oversight boards. There are seven former redevelopment agencies within the county and an oversight board must be established for each one.

Your board may appoint individuals to specific seats on each of the seven oversight boards while other public entities may appoint individuals to other specific seats. These oversight boards must be formed by May 1st of this year. The following slides detail these appointments. This matrix summarizes the appointments for all seven oversight boards. Each row corresponds to one of the seven former RDA's in the county, each column specifies a section of law and the resulting appointing authority While your board will make a portion of the member appointments shown here in red underline, additional members will be appointed by the mayor or council of each of the six cities, the county superintendent of education and the chancellor of California Community Colleges.

This simplified matrix indicates only those oversight board positions that the county may appoint. As you can see, the county has authority to appoint two or three members to each oversight board depending on which oversight board it is. Staff recommends that the board appoint certain county staffers to the County Board of Supervisors and the special district slots.

The RDA wind-down is very technical, and staff are already well versed and able to immediately take a leadership role on these oversight boards. Additionally, staff recommends a process for your board to select members of the public to fill the public at large seats. The first column focuses on the County Board of Supervisors appointments under Section 34179A1.

Under this section, the Board of Supervisors may appoint a member to each of the seven Oversight Boards. To staff recommendation, the Board appoint County Chief Executive Officer Chandra Waller, Assistant Chief Executive Officer Renee Ball and Public Works Deputy Director of Finance and Administration Mark Paul who are all familiar with redevelopment agency activities to these positions as you see.

The next series of appointments will be made pursuant to Section A3 of the law, which indicates that the largest special district by property tax share in the territory of the former RDA may make the appointment to the Oversight Board. The County Fire Protection District and the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District are the largest special districts in five of the seven former RDAs, allowing the Board of Supervisors to make these appointments.

It's staff recommendation that the board appoint County Chief Executive Officer Chandra Waller to fill the county fire district slots and Assistant Chief Executive Officer Renee Ball and Public Works Deputy Director of Finance and Administration Mark Paul to fill the flood control and water conservation slots. By law, no individual may sit on more than five oversight boards. The staff recommendation places CEO Waller on five, ACEO Renee Ball on five and Deputy Director Paul on two.

The final series of appointments that may be made by your board are the public-at-large appointments pursuant to Section A6. Your board may make such appointments to each of the seven oversight boards. For these appointments, staff recommends the establishment of an ad hoc board subcommittee to make recommendations of potential public at large oversight board members to the full Board of Supervisors.

Decision making authority for the public at large appointments would remain with the entire Board of Supervisors. Staff proposes the Ad Hoc Subcommittee work quickly to make recommendations for the public at large members to the full Board of Supervisors at the April 3rd meeting. Staff will also provide updates on any relevant new legislation as is here at this meeting, as appropriate.

These are the staff recommendations that are in your board packet and we are available to answer any questions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:13:15 · ≈ 2:13 PM

Thank you Ms. Ball. Questions from the board?

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:13 – 5:1817 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:13:24 · ≈ 2:13 PM

I just want to thank you, Ms. Ball for going over this. I know it was quickly gone over but you and your team have been bringing us along every time this issue comes up so I think we're pretty much attuned to what's going on. I think as we consider our ad hoc committee, I look at the different agencies here and I think that it would make sense to have Supervisor Farr and Supervisor Gray serve on the ad hoc committee.

And so, that's my suggestion is...

CommentKelly TraversProposedself-stated5:14:05 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:14:14 · ≈ 2:14 PM

So anyway, there you go.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:14:17 · ≈ 2:14 PM

All right well thank you Supervisor Wolf. I guess that's my motion and we have a second and third. Let's see what other questions or discussion we have first. Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentAction NumberProposed5:14:27 · ≈ 2:14 PM

I say we vote on that motion while it's what we have hot bodies willing to take on the role

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:14:32 · ≈ 2:14 PM

All right so there was a motion who you seconded it and you thirded it. Madam

CommentGoleta Valley CommunityProposed5:14:36 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Chair, before you take any final action you probably should wait until you've had public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:14:41 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Oh that would probably be a good idea wouldn't it?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:14:43 · ≈ 2:14 PM

We have no request to speak.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:14:45 · ≈ 2:14 PM

No, okay. No request to speak. All right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed5:14:48 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Madam Chair, also as the agenda notes, the board is actually functioning in four different roles today depending on which recommended action you're looking at. You're either the Board of the Successor Agency, the Board of Supervisors for the County, the Board of Directors for the Fire Protection District And the Board of Directors for the Flood Control and Water Conservation District. So if you're calling a particular recommended action, we'd also ask that it just be clear that you're voting. For example, if it's the Ad Hoc Committee, that would be as the Board of Supervisors?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:15:21 · ≈ 2:15 PM

Correct. So what we're looking at is Action Number 3 under the Board of Supervisors. That's the only thing that we've had a motion on right now, right? Which is the establishment of an ad hoc board subcommittee. Yes. OK, so why don't we just go ahead and vote on that? And then we can go back and vote on the other things in order. So I'll make a motion. Motion and second all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right Supervisor Gray we have our work cut out for us with that.

And then since we have no public speakers are there any other questions or comments on the rest of the recommended

CommentAction NumberProposed5:16:03 · ≈ 2:16 PM

actions? Madam Chair I do have one

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:16:05 · ≈ 2:16 PM

Yes.

CommentAction NumberProposed5:16:07 · ≈ 2:16 PM

And I don't know that this is an issue, it's just something I came up with and it could be a good idea, it could be a mood idea but you know I was trying to think of well without making it more cumbersome than it is it's not like people are dying to step up and serve sometimes but I thought we do the individuals that the committee does appoint somehow we need some guiding criteria or questions that will be asked of them And they cannot have agendas or conflict agendas. They need to somehow be able to disclose them so that you're aware of them, and the only thing I can think of is that should these people be from the unincorporated area? I'm sure we have many people that can serve from the unincorporated area to represent the county's interests.

If you live in the city, you might be sort of... You might be conflicted. You know, I was just trying to put myself in that spot I may have an interest if I lived in the city for the city redevelopment, for example. More than I would even though you have a responsibility forward of the entire discussion ensuing. I guess I'm just trying to prevent and give consideration up front instead of going down the road and we don't give consideration to these issues and then we get individuals that may not be representing our interests. So somehow we need a way of flushing out any unintended conflicts of interest and the only thing I could think of that might address that is to ensure that the folks we appoint are from the unincorporated area.

Just food for thought, I don't know what the reaction is from my colleagues but give that some thought. If you live in the city you may have an allegiance because you have an interest I'm not sure, I just throw that out.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:17:58 · ≈ 2:17 PM

Were you going to consider providing the subcommittee with some parameters?

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction5:18:07 · ≈ 2:18 PM

Chairwoman, yes we were going to put together some ideas for questions. Certainly if your board would like for that to be one of the considerations they can include it. I know that we were also going to ask for information on individuals fiscal capabilities because that's certainly going to be something that's extremely important and then we were also going to look and you could tell from the recommendations that possibly a North County Supervisor Carbajal.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:18 – 5:3022 turns

CommentAction NumberProposed5:18:57 · ≈ 2:18 PM

I think I'll leave it to you as a committee to give that some thought, any potential conflicts of interest whether we want to make it a hard criteria. You've got to be from the unincorporated area but I would hope you give that serious consideration because again if you live in a city you might have mixed allegiance, might have an inherent conflict trying

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:19:18 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Well, as with other board subcommittees we would just be bringing this all back to the full board for a discussion and a vote. So all those issues could come back at that time as well. Supervisor Wolf? Thank you Madam Chair. How

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:19:31 · ≈ 2:19 PM

are we advertising these openings?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:19:34 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Yes, Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf will be advertising them on our website. We're putting them in nine or five newspapers excuse me And we'll be sending out a press release. So any other ideas that the board or the subcommittee have in particular to help get the word out? We're more than willing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:19:52 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Okay, and everything goes through the clerk like regular appointments? Correct.

CommentFlood ControlProposed5:19:56 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Okay. I would suggest that if there's newsletters for CPAs, finance directors, attorneys, people with finance, because everyone has a professional Newsletter that it maybe should go in in that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:20:16 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Supervisor Gray. Thank you. Alright, so we still have a number of other recommended actions. The first one is that the Board of Supervisors acting as a successor agency to the Santa Barbara County Redevelopment Agency that we adopt the resolution adopting their recognized obligation payment schedule. There's a motion there and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Supervisor Lavagnino? Alright, and then we have acting as the board that we appoint a single member to the oversight boards as has been described to us which is number 2 A B & C I'll entertain a motion on that Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, thank you. Alright and now acting as the Board of Directors of the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District that we make appointment as number four in our staff report Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, and then last that we act as the Board of Directors of the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and make the appointments as listed in numbers five and six.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. I think that's it. Thank you everybody very much. We will go ahead now and

we will move on to item number four

CommentFlood ControlProposed5:21:47 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:21:48 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Yes,

CommentFlood ControlProposed5:21:48 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Supervisor Gray. Based on legal advice I will have to step out on this when there's a potential conflict of interest.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:21:56 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Thank you Supervisor Gray.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:22:00 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Madam Chair and members of the board item four is from the Community Services Department. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Lornbrook Housing and Community Development Corporation's properties including the Bridge House Shelter.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:22:13 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Thank you. Mr Parker?

CommentBob GeisProposed5:22:18 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. For several years the County of Santa Barbara has partnered with the Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corporation, LHCDC to provide affordable housing and shelter services in the Lompoc area. Since November, LHCDC has continued to pursue disillusion as a corporation and sought to transfer its real estate assets to other entities. This includes the Bridge House Shelter, 56-bed facility located just outside the city boundaries of Lompoc that provides emergency shelter services and transitional housing.

On January 17, 2012 the LHCDC Board of Directors passed a resolution offering to transfer ownership of the Bridge House property to the county through a deed-in-lieu foreclosure. Today staff is asking the Board of Supervisors to decide whether or not to accept the deed in lieu of foreclosure for the Bridge House property. Staff's recommendation is that the Board of Supervisors not accept the deed-in-lieu of foreclosure offered by LHCDC for Bridge House.

Direct the County Executive Officer to work with the community and partner agencies to identify other options to address homeless services in the Lompoc area. Approve funding for Good Samaritan Shelter for services at Marks House, and also receive an update on the status of other LHCDC affordable housing units As the board considers this item, it is important to note that the county does not own Bridge House. The county does not own or operate shelters and the county's core competency is not shelter operations.

Several county departments provide a variety of services to support homeless services such as public health, mental health, social services that support individuals and families in need and those that are homeless and at risk of becoming homeless. The Community Services Department is the recipient of various federal funds that are distributed throughout the county specifically to support non-profits and community partners addressing homeless needs.

These programs include Emergency Shelter Grant, Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program, Supportive Housing Program, and Community Development Block Grant Public Services. The department also administers Human Service Commission funds and general funds for emergency shelter contracts. One potential fiscal consequence of not accepting the deed in lieu and owning Bridge House and not operating the facility as a shelter include $150,000 of supportive housing program funds from Housing and Urban Development HUD that requires Bridge House to remain a shelter until March of 2022 may be required to be repaid.

There are no other fiscal responsibilities of the county related to Bridge House should the board decide not to accept the deed in lieu. LHCDC would continue to own the facility, which includes a number of restrictive covenants. Another recommendation is to provide direction to the CEO to work with the community partners and to develop a comprehensive solution to addressing homeless support services in the Lompoc area.

Fiscal consequences of accepting the property through a deed in lieu of foreclosure and not operating Bridge House as a shelter are, once again $150,000 of supportive housing program funds from HUD to the county requires that Bridge House remain a shelter until 2022. If it does not, $150,000 may have to be repaid. $274,900 of State Department of Housing and Community Development funds were provided to LHCDC to acquire Bridge House. These funds require that the facility remain a shelter until March 2013. If it does not these funds may need to be repaid to the state.

If the county accepts the deed in lieu of foreclosure and chooses to operate Bridge House as a shelter, the transfer of Bridge House would have to be approved by the state. And the county would also incur additional costs. $257,000 is the estimated required funding for annual year-round operations at the shelter. This includes $242,000 annually for shelter operations and $15,000 annually for landscape maintenance services.

The county currently provides $75,000 annually for shelter services at Bridge House. This is far short of the $257,000 needed for annual operations. In addition, although the facility can operate as a shelter currently, renovation costs within the next year to two years are estimated at $150,000. In summary, if the county should elect to accept a bridge house, the county may have to repay $424,900 to HUD and the state, have an annual operations cost of approximately $257,000 annually, and also have renovation costs within the next year to two years of $150,000.

With regards to Mark's House, the City of Lompoc has acquired the property and is contracting with Good Samaritan Shelters to operate the facility. The county previously allocated local Human Services Commission funds and federal emergency shelter grant funds of $16,000 to LHCDC for Mark's House. With board approval the county will enter into a contract with Good Samaritan Shelters to utilize these funds for Mark's House this year.

With regards to affordable housing units that are currently owned by LHCDC and are now in bank receivership Staff would recommend that the Board allow these properties to continue through the bank receivership property process. We would also encourage the banks to seek new owners and property management that would maintain the affordability covenants on these affordable units.

Two properties owned by LHCDC with a private lender in first position are not in the foreclosure process at this particular time. In conclusion, it would be staff's recommendations once again that the Board not accept the deed in lieu of foreclosure offered by LHCDC for Bridge House. Direct the County CEO to work with the community and partner agencies to identify other options to addressing homeless services in the Lompoc area.

And approve funding for Good Samaritan Shelter, for shelter services at Mark's house. And that concludes our staff presentation for this evening and we'd be happy to answer any questions the board may have.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:29:11 · ≈ 2:29 PM

Thank you Mr. Parker. Questions from the board?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.735:29:15 · ≈ 2:29 PM

I'm sorry, I have questions but I would like to hear from the public first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:29:18 · ≈ 2:29 PM

Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:29:19 · ≈ 2:29 PM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:29:19 · ≈ 2:29 PM

Wolf. I have a couple of questions Mr Parker so if we move ahead with staff's recommendation I think it was in the report and the staff report then the shelter stays with LHCDC But I don't understand how that happens if they're not, what is the status of that corporation?

CommentBob GeisProposed5:29:42 · ≈ 2:29 PM

Supervisor Wolf, members of the board. The item, the property would still remain with LHCDC as the primary owner of the property if we do not accept the deed in lieu.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:29:54 · ≈ 2:29 PM

So have we talked? Maybe this is a legal question then. I'm not understanding this, if they retain ownership then aren't we in the same position that we're in right now?

5:30 – 5:3726 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:30:15 · ≈ 2:30 PM

Supervisor Wolf, is the question since we've been told that Lompoc housing is dissolving and this is one of their assets then that asset if it stays with them could be sold then as part of the dissolution of Lompoc housing. That's just to another party?

CommentGoleta Valley CommunityProposed5:30:33 · ≈ 2:30 PM

Yes our position I think in answering Supervisor Wolf's question yes our position would be unchanged The process of dissolution, however that is resolved with the Lompoc Housing Community Development Corporation would address that issue. But we would not be necessarily involved in that except to the extent that staff has already indicated.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:30:56 · ≈ 2:30 PM

So now I'm trying to follow this through then so then if they If they went through their disillusion and then they foreclosed on that property, the bank would own it. If we decided not to, if we followed staff's recommendation there is no bank so you guys I need some help. They

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:31:18 · ≈ 2:31 PM

could sell it to satisfy other debts I think.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:31:20 · ≈ 2:31 PM

They could sell it but okay. So let's say they sell it to buyer A. Buyer A needs to maintain The deeds on it, correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:31:33 · ≈ 2:31 PM

Supervisor Wolfe, Madam Chair that's correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:31:35 · ≈ 2:31 PM

Okay all right I just wanted to get a better understanding of what happens if we move forward with this recommendation so in essence it would stay as a shelter it's just who would own it?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:31:51 · ≈ 2:31 PM

Supervisor Wolfe that's correct although right now it's shuttered so it wouldn't Unless we took them to court to try and force them to operate it pursuant to our regulatory agreement, it wouldn't necessarily stay open.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:32:10 · ≈ 2:32 PM

But it's part of the deed. So if anyone was to buy it, they have to.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:32:17 · ≈ 2:32 PM

That is correct. They would buy subject to those restrictions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:32:21 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Okay but isn't that the same council? This a situation with some of the other properties that have been foreclosed on that we have Loan money to that also have affordability covenants on them and yet we're still not sure depending on the disposition of those assets whether those affordability covenants will be Will be honored in which case we may also owe money on those

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:32:46 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Madam chair, the difference is there's not a bank. That's foreclosing on the shelter There's not a primary lender

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:32:56 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Okay, but I mean if there was another buyer of that property, the county would then- A buyer

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:33:00 · ≈ 2:33 PM

wouldn't be able to foreclose.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:33:02 · ≈ 2:33 PM

But the county would still be in a position of if the new buyer didn't want to keep it as a shelter, they wanted to use it for something else and the county would be in the position to have to through some sort of legal action impose on them the responsibility that came with the property to keep it as That we took.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:33:27 · ≈ 2:33 PM

Madam Chair, yeah it's not all the money and the money that we potentially owe is just 150 from a grant agreement with HUD. The other grant obligations don't continue to have a payback provision the way some of the housing money does.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:33:46 · ≈ 2:33 PM

All right well let's just move on. Supervisor Carbajal then Supervisor Lavagnino

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentAction NumberProposed5:33:51 · ≈ 2:33 PM

Yes, I just want to make sure I understand the information that was presented to us. The one amount of federal funding that we are on the hook on is the $150,000 HUD. The operating state funds of 274 there's another year to go As part of the conditions of service that that center needs to be in place for. So one year, if it's in operation for one year, the $274,900 becomes a mood issue.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:34:35 · ≈ 2:34 PM

Supervisor Carbajal, that's correct. In addition, that amount runs with the land. We're not subject to it so if we don't take it we don't have that.

CommentAction NumberProposed5:34:45 · ≈ 2:34 PM

So the real big issue here and then the other bigger loan issue is one that is county related and we're the ones that are in charge of forgiving that loan or not. So really though the liability that the county has Notwithstanding what others might say that we have other responsibilities is $150,000 cash HUD funding. That's really the issue

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:35:12 · ≈ 2:35 PM

That's correct. That's what the county would be on the hook for.

CommentAction NumberProposed5:35:15 · ≈ 2:35 PM

And I guess, as this is all germane, I just want to make sure I understand our community services department bid or RFP that we recently embarked on. That was contemplated on a 56 bed shelter,

CommentBob GeisProposed5:35:31 · ≈ 2:35 PM

correct? Supervisor CalPERS Hall, members of the board, yes it was put out on a 56-bed facility

CommentAction NumberProposed5:35:38 · ≈ 2:35 PM

Okay, and the reason I ask that is that we are informing the staff report that the average. An average usually will take me down to 20 because it's from 15 to 25. Number of clients that traditionally have been there at the center, right? Is it per week per day or per month? Can you help me understand what that average was taken from?

CommentBob GeisProposed5:36:05 · ≈ 2:36 PM

There were Supervisor Carver Hall members of the board. It was our understanding that there were about 16 clients that were in Bridge House when it closed, when the doors were closed by LACDC. When that RFP went out we did make contact with Good Samaritan Shelters, when we got a response back just to find out is there any difference in cost if there were less clients in the facility. We know it's a 56-bed facility but let's say there were 20 or 25 people. We were told the price would drop to some degree but there were still staff requirements to have at that particular property so the drop in price or the reduction in price was not very significant.

I hope that answers your question.

CommentAction NumberProposed5:36:52 · ≈ 2:36 PM

I guess I'm glad the City of Lompoc is here because I'm wondering Mark's House, which serves a lesser population. How much? I want to look at across comparison because I know that's a different price tag for running that facility but I really appreciate you sharing that with me because obviously if it's 15-25 individuals RFPing something for 56 is quite I'm getting more confused as we do this.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:37 – 5:4311 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.735:37:42 · ≈ 2:37 PM

We had a million, this is the part I don't understand. The property's valued at a million and a half the way it is currently correct? Yes sir. Okay so first off I mean I'm just looking at this maybe I've got to be missing something because the numbers just don't add up to me. So if we kept it let's say we keep it and we take it that and we operate it through Good Sam for another year that takes us off It gets us away from the state payment of $275,000.

But we do have to pay Good Sam $242,000 plus 15,000 maintenance that we estimate. But we also said in a staff report that we might be able to get another $75,000 somewhere through state and federal funding to help us with that. So that takes us down to our operating costs for next year of about $182, 000. I would think it's cheaper for us to keep it for a year as, as a, as us having it and operating it through Good Sam than it would be to give it up. And then we still have the property that's worth $1.5 million. What am I missing that is messing

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:39:02 · ≈ 2:39 PM

this up?

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction5:39:05 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Chairwoman Supervisor, I think the piece that may be helpful to you is the reminder that there is a 60-year covenant on the facility. So that would require the county or someone to operate that as an affordable slash transitional housing for the entire 60 years which we've been told pretty well negates the opportunity for someone to purchase that property at the $1.5 million.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:39:33 · ≈ 2:39 PM

But Ms. Wallert, that 60 year covenant was put on by the Board of Supervisors previously correct? So if the board put it on can't the board take it off?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:39:51 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Madam Chair, yes the Board can rescind a covenant that it places on except in the cases which is the case here but the 150's different because we had a state agreement that was binding on us. But generally, yes. Okay thank you Supervisor Lavinino for

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.735:40:07 · ≈ 2:40 PM

letting me get into this. So that part got cleared up for me now. I'm okay as far as that goes, I know where we're at. I mean, I understand that we don't want to be in the business of owning and operating shelters and I don't want to be in that business either but the math of this works better for me this way but I want to hear what's going on and then I've got some other comments as

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:40:27 · ≈ 2:40 PM

well. All right. Thank you Supervisor Lavagnino. All right shall we go to the public then Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:40:35 · ≈ 2:40 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board. We're going to start in Santa Maria with Larry Lavinino to be followed by Christy Pellerkorn.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:40:44 · ≈ 2:40 PM

Mayor Lavinino, good afternoon.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed5:40:47 · ≈ 2:40 PM

Thank you madam chair, board members. We're not going to try and tell you what's going on in Lompoc. I'm confused on that myself. However, the issue for Santa Maria is that The Lompoc area residents are now in the Santa Maria shelter because they have nowhere else to go. Lompoc is closed and what they're doing is it's absorbing all of the resources that the Santa Maria has, their safety net is now being absorbed by Lompoc residents.

In fact I was told just today that the sheriff brought three members that were mentally kind of disturbed To Santa Maria, to Good Samaritan just this week. Currently the Santa Maria shelter is totally maxed out there. We're full it has exceeded its capacity in fact and Santa Maria we really pride ourselves on on the fact that we take care of our own but we're getting to a point where we can take care of our own but we cannot absorb the Lompoc influx that we're receiving. And in fact, in the Santa Maria Times one of the members of the Lompoc contingency that has come over said hey man I didn't realize Santa Maria has as much better resources than Lompoc so we're really getting caught The thing is, is the model that we have or Good Samaritan has here in Santa Maria.

It can be duplicated but it takes time to do that and right now the homeless community in Lompoc won't be provided that opportunity unless the county does approve the In-Lieu deed. It's hard enough being homeless let's face it none of us want to be homeless but to be uprooted from transitional housing And sent 30 miles away from your family, your support, your community. Your familiar surroundings is only adding insult to injury and you have the ability to do the right thing. To help those less fortunate than yourselves and myself and I hope that you will approve the deed in lieu. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:43:08 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Thank You Mayor. Our next speaker is Christy Alarcon to be followed by Mike Cordero

5:43 – 5:484 turns

CommentChristy AlarconProposed5:43:17 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. I just wanted to provide you a snapshot of what's going on here in Santa Maria at the Good Samaritan Shelter right now. We are at capacity. We've been operating in our overflow shelter. We've been inundated with homeless individuals and that's men women and children from Lompoc that are staying at our shelter.

Our 56 bed family transitional shelter is is also full with a waiting list. And it's just really disturbing to me, both as a resident of Santa Maria as well as a member of Good Samaritan and somebody who obviously cares a lot for the homeless community, to see that some of these individuals are going to come from Lompoc Expecting to be able to get into the shelter and whether that's getting a ride with somebody and being dropped off at the shelter. And then find out, you know we haven't had to turn away anybody yet but we're being inundated when we do get to that point where we're at capacity with our overflow shelter and we have to turn people away. Where will those people go? They're not going to be able to get back to Lompoc they're going to either be sleeping in City of Santa Maria Parks Waller Park which is a county park This is just going to create a whole issue regarding the police department, our hospitals.

You know people getting sick on the streets it could be just a really horrible situation if that shelter is not operating and by shelter operating I mean the bridge house. The last point I just wanted to make was so many of the people that come to Santa Maria that have come from Lompoc Or that are in Santa Maria now, that have family in Lompoc. That's their support network. Their families are there but they need the roof over their head so they come to Santa Maria, they come to our shelter But then, they need their support also. And a lot of them don't have cars. They're getting all of their support here in Santa Maria and then at some point they need to transition back to Lompoc and then the support services meaning mental health, public health whatever other services they're receiving here in Santa Maria, they have to figure out a way to transfer that to Lompoc.

So this whole situation is just really difficult to figure out. And it's somewhat unfair to the City of Santa Maria that they're being inundated when it comes to the cost burden that comes along with what is Basically closing that shelter the bridge house and what we have seen just since that has closed I mean, we have to you have additional staffing in Santa Maria and Mark's house. Yes is open in Lompoc but they're full also so That is really all I have to say at this point But you know, I hope that you take into consideration what I've said and I hope I've given you a clear picture of what's going on right now at Good Samaritan in Santa Maria.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:46:27 · ≈ 2:46 PM

Thank you for your comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:46:29 · ≈ 2:46 PM

Our next speaker is Mike Cordero to be followed by John Lynn back here in Santa Barbara.

CommentMike CorderoProposed5:46:36 · ≈ 2:46 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board thank you for the time. I believe that it is the county's responsibility to deal with the homeless in this particular case given the circumstances that we're being asked to deal with. have been informed that the Bridge House property was once owned by the county before it was turned over to the LHCDC. And I think that it's important to note that the Bridge House is located on 11 acres outside the city limits of Lompoc and in the jurisdiction of Santa Barbara County. Without the Bridge House, there's going to be a significant gap in the homeless services for the Lompoc Valley.

I think there should also be some community meetings to come up with some alternatives that are long-term solutions to this very important problem. And as far as I know, there hasn't been any community input regarding the possibility of some resolutions. Since no one else has responded to the county's RFP for the bridge house, I believe that you have a qualified organization to run the bridge house, that being Good Samaritan.

So I would hope that the county will consider Accepting the deed in lieu of. And as it's been mentioned, many of these people have come to the city of Santa Maria. I think it's just a question of time before that overflow from Santa Maria is then extended down into Santa Barbara. So I think you have a domino effect here that's going to continue to influence the communities in Santa Barbara County and hopefully you can avert that by keeping it going for Thank you councilmember Cordero. Our next speaker is Joe Lynn, followed by Bob Lingle. Good afternoon Mayor. Good afternoon Supervisors as you said I am the mayor of Lompoc because this item came up rather short notice

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:48 – 5:5414 turns

CommentJohn LynnProposed5:48:45 · ≈ 2:48 PM

Specific instructions. So what I'm going to say to you today is based on a lot of closed session discussions and a lot of open sessions discussions, and if you have a question, I guarantee you I can answer it. I was surprised to learn the county staff has not recommended accepting the deed in lieu for the bridge house from LHCDC. I understand clearly the financial liability the county will be accepting. However, as the staff report points out, the county has a role in addressing homelessness issues throughout the county including the Lompoc area. I would go further to say that the county is responsible for creating, coordinating and funding homeless services.

The City of Lompoc has helped and will help with the homeless through the Marks House, and we have given CDBG money to the Bridge House for years. I'm here to ask the Board to support Option B today, and if you can't support that option today a two-week delay in this decision would allow various solutions to be explored. It's unfortunate that the staff recommendations came out on a Friday afternoon of a three-day weekend and our council meeting is tonight.

This timing did not allow time for those affected by the work to create alternate solutions. At the end of the day, it's our responsibility as local government officials, elected officials, to address the needs of the homeless in a caring way. Please direct your staff to work with all affected agencies to craft a solution. And obviously we'd like you to approve the $6,000 for the Marks House.

We stepped up, took the deed in lieu, put our money in, put some general reserve fund money in to operate that. I agree with Supervisor Lavinino if you want to give that 1.5 million dollar property to me, I'm sure I could whip something up for ya and I'm available for your questions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:50:40 · ≈ 2:50 PM

Thank you, Mayor Lynn. Supervisor Wolf? So I do have so did I hear you say that you would take the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:50:46 · ≈ 2:50 PM

property

CommentJohn LynnProposed5:50:47 · ≈ 2:50 PM

personally?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:50:48 · ≈ 2:50 PM

Yes,

CommentJohn LynnProposed5:50:49 · ≈ 2:50 PM

personally. Absolutely not

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:50:50 · ≈ 2:50 PM

personal

CommentJohn LynnProposed5:50:52 · ≈ 2:50 PM

now. I'm not empowered by the city and we're not at. We're not a social service agency. It's not within our bill of work. We will help you with it. There's no question about that.

CommentKelly TraversProposedself-stated5:51:01 · ≈ 2:51 PM

Thank you

CommentJohn LynnProposed5:51:02 · ≈ 2:51 PM

yes any other questions thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:51:04 · ≈ 2:51 PM

thank you. Our next speaker is Bob Louisville to be followed

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:51:11 · ≈ 2:51 PM

Councilmember Lingle, good afternoon.

CommentBob LouisvilleProposed5:51:14 · ≈ 2:51 PM

Well he's tall isn't he? Madam Chair and members of the board thank you for allowing me to speak today We find ourselves both the board and cities in a very difficult situation The collapse of LHCDC has left burden on the entire community It's a situation that if you do not want to be in we do not want to be in but more importantly the people that live in these shelters do not want to be in the situation either.

These are the real victims that we see today. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my surrounding communities, the City of Santa Maria who did step up and help the city of Lompoc, the community of Lompoc with their homeless. They've really stepped up and I want to thank them So I mentioned that it's going to be overflowing into the city of Santa Barbara. In fact, it already has. I believe it was one of the shelters in Santa Barbara that has taken at least one family from the Lompoc Valley into their shelters. It has spread and will continue to spread unless we do something about it.

The situation we find ourselves in with the, the city found ourselves in with the Mark's House. We're probably a little bit more fortunate than you find yourself in. A smaller dollar figure granted but we were able to step up. We've reopened the Mark's House. But the Mark's House was never designed as a homeless shelter it was designed as a transitional shelter specifically for women and children.

It operated that way for many years Recently, since the city has taken it over we have discussed it with the foundation and not this foundation but the Good Samaritan. And it will become a transitional center for families. Men will be able to stay there as well. I encourage you to, like everyone else has so far, to accept the deed in lieu It's something that was mentioned, it's not your core expertise but we all realize that we have more than expertise. We have responsibilities to our community and I believe it is our responsibility as government agencies to take care of people who live here. The old adage, there was a movie, a Lanford movie, if you build it they will come.

Helped LHCDC open this shelter in our backyard. All of the people that lived in the bridge house were not Lompoc citizens, many of them are but they're not all Lompoc citizens or people from out-of-state throughout the county because it was a larger facility I live there It's the people that are there right now, or they were there until it was closed down. So it is our responsibility and your responsibility to take care of these people as they're going out. People are living underneath the bridges. People are living in the transitional centers in Santa Maria and Santa Barbara. We'd like to bring them back to Lompoc. That's where they have their support system but not all of them. But anyway I thank you for taking the time and I encourage you to accept the deed in lieu.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:54:21 · ≈ 2:54 PM

Thank you. Next speaker is Mike Furling, followed by Sylvia Bernard.

5:54 – 6:015 turns

PresenterMike Foleythe Casas Bronze and Homeless CenterProposedself-stated5:54:31 · ≈ 2:54 PM

Thank you very much. My name is Mike Foley, I'm the Executive Director of the Casas Bronze and Homeless Center. I'm also the co-executive director of Bring Our Community Home and Lompoc is my home. Madam Chair, members of the board thank you very much. I have prepared comments. I didn't want to stray away. I want to take the opportunity first to thank county staff for their very very hard work and thank the county attorneys for doing their jobs.

Nine times out of ten We listen to our attorneys and do exactly what they tell us to do. There is that one time, however, when facts, experience and instinct tell you that rebuilding what was unjustly torn down is the only way to heal a wound that will actually get worse if you amputate it. That is exactly the case here. It was stated that it is not a core competency of the county to own and operate shelters. It was also stated, it's not the mission of the county to own and operate shelters. This is not exactly accurate. Supervisor Wolf's office worked very hard to create La Mirada.

La Mirada provides a temporary home for emancipated foster youth. The county owns the building. Those youth met the HUD definition of homelessness, and those youth were counted in the recent Homeless Vulnerability Census. Perhaps the only real difference between La Mirada and The Bridge House is that La Mirada serves homeless transitional age youth, and The Bridge House serves everyone.

Bridge House can serve 50 homeless people, La Mirada only 8. But La Mirada also points to the fallacy in the argument that a $240,000 price tag is too high for a 50-bed shelter. The county spent up to $308,000 per year paid to the Family Care Network for the operation of La Mirada. $308,000 for eight beds, $240,000 for 50. Your report states that the shelter recently held 15 to 25 people per night, but you are not told that this is a direct result of the unconscionable actions toward the homeless on the part of LACDC such as failing to provide food and failing to provide storage.

At this moment we can count 63 people who do or would have qualified for Bridge House Shelter and wanted shelter in the last 30 days. I have been inside that shelter when 50 people lived there. Prior to this report, county staff was following a successful precedent of following closely to the method that saved the Noah's Anchorage Youth Crisis Shelter in the 1990s where county staff took over Noah's Anchorage when Kleinbottom imploded and successfully guided the transition of both their property and the programming to a charity.

And Noah's Anchorage still exists today. Up until Thursday, local foundations had started rallying to support Ridge House. The opportunity existed for Good Samaritan to conduct a capital campaign to purchase the property at full value over the next 12 months or develop a transitional plan to move to another location and allow the property to be sold. The idea that this price tag is too high or that the county would be helping for a long period of time does not hold water.

So while I pointed to how the county successfully dealt with a belly-up Klein bottle, there was also a massive failure related to that. The county decided to keep the South Coast Homeless Shelter for Youth open but decided to close the Santa Maria shelter. To this day people in Santa Maria will tell you that in relation to keeping youth and family safe and together, that was the biggest mistake that was made in the last 20 years. Do not allow that to happen again to our friends who are without homes in Lompoc. And finally, we don't know what the toxicity is that brought this well-oiled solution to a halt. But I do know that Lompoc is rapidly losing its affordable housing stock thanks to LA CDC. We know that Lompoc has an employment rate of 17%, which is depression level.

We know that the rapid rehousing funds that kept hundreds and hundreds of people out of homes is coming to an end. To shut the door on opening the bridge house in that climate, when it can be saved and hundreds of lives potentially rebuilt creates a chilling effect. So this is the one case in ten. Please accept the deed in lieu today. Please make the decision to reopen the bridge house immediately.

And I would just suggest that the idea to sit down and talk about solutions is great, but we've had three months to do it. And at this moment if you don't take that deed in lieu there is no solution and there has been no discussion. The deed in lieu is the way to go. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:59:05 · ≈ 2:59 PM

Thank You Mr. Foley. Our next speaker is Sylvia Bernard to be followed by Joyce Howerton

PresenterSylvia BernardGood Samaritan ShelterProposedself-stated5:59:13 · ≈ 2:59 PM

Board of Supervisors, I'm Sylvia Bernard. I'm the Executive Director of Good Samaritan Shelter. Based on the staff report it actually makes fiscal financial sense for the county to take the property. It would leave the County of Santa Barbara in a positive cash flow and based on the most recent appraisal they completed the debt they just had completed with the debts that are owed on the property. In addition, if the County of Santa Barbara decided to eventually sell the property they could run it as a shelter for just one year and then the State of California loan would be forgivable and repayable at that time. For the last month the County of Santa Barbara has alluded to coming up with a short-term solution and even posted an RFP that Good Samaritan Shelter responded to Not until late Thursday did anyone realize that the county does not have a short-term solution and has not held one meeting with City of Lompoc officials or community stakeholders to come up with a community wide solution.

This is week number five after the shelters have been shut down on January 17th. The county currently has $75,000 put aside for shelter services in Lompoc. Why not allow Good Samaritan Shelter to run the shelter through the end of the fiscal year? Good Sam will leverage additional funding while we come up with a longer-term solution and then sell the property. Good Samaritan has offered to raise the funds to leverage the 242,000. We're not asking the county to do that alone. We've never said that from the beginning.

By giving up Bridge House, once again the Board of Supervisors is returning federal and state funding that has been invested in the Lompoc community that will never be recoverable. This will forever jeopardize services and homeless services as we know it in Lompoc. The county already gave up approximately $120,000 in operating funds For the shelters in Lompoc back to HUD, giving up the property is an even bigger loss on top of that $120,000 hit of operating funds that we've lost. I urge you to not accept the county staff recommendations and please go ahead and accept the deed in lieu so we can reopen Bridge House immediately and get the 63 clients that we've already identified home because we will fill up that 56-bed shelter within the first week there's a need.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:01:16 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Thank You Ms. Bernard

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:01:18 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Our next speaker is Joyce Howerton to be followed by Tom Jenkins

6:01 – 6:078 turns

CommentJoyce HowertonProposed6:01:23 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Good afternoon Chair Farr, members of the Board, Joyce Howerton, Executive Director of Santa Barbara County Action Network and Vice-Chair of the Bring Our Community Home. The Santa Barbara County Action Network, SBCAN has worked on housing issues in Santa Barbara County for the last 10 years. We are also working on tenants' rights, the mobile home conversion ordinance and shelter for the homeless. We are here today to urge you, our Board of Supervisors, to step up and show true leadership by accepting the deed in lieu offered by LHCDC for the Bridge House.

We know the county has not been in the business of providing shelter but now is not the time to turn your back. How the county got involved in this project is an issue that non-profit community, the legal community, and possibly governmental agencies outside our area will be investigating for a long time to come. In the meantime, we have children women and men who have no place to sleep tonight.

The county has made no effort to meet with the Lompoc officials or the community at large. Many who are interested in this issue and are waiting to see what will be done and how they can help. We need a short-term solution and a long term solution to get out of this mess. There are many stakeholders with experience to help you, but you need to contact them and set up a meeting. The fall of LHCDC didn't happen overnight, and countless members of the Lompoc community were asking and raising questions to the county about why the Board of Supervisors were not doing anything. It is not too late to show the community that you'll take action.

We are fortunate in North County to have a shelter provider ready and willing to step in and help. Good Samaritan facilities operate in Lompoc and Santa Maria, they have a reputation for being fiscally conservative and well run and well maintained facilities. We urge you to accept the Deid and Lou contract with Good Samaritan to run the Bridge House so that the less fortunate children, women and men will have a safe place to sleep.

And I would just like to say personally as a Lompoc resident that I can certainly appreciate your concerns about the finances but for years your full board voted to give LHCDC money. The Board of Supervisors through your agency was very involved with this issue. This is a mess, and it's not just Lompoc's mess and the Lompoc community mess. This is a county mess that needs to get taken care of.

You need to step up. The city of Lompoc has stepped up. That community is ready, able, and willing to be involved but something has to be done. We're talking about people here. We are not talking about a facility. We're talking about people and people who deserve better than what they've gotten, so I really encourage you to show your true leadership. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:04:21 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Thank you Miss Howard.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:04:23 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Our next speaker is Tom Jenkins be followed by Carol Benham.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:04:28 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Good afternoon Mr Jenkins.

PresenterTom JenkinsGood Samaritan Board and I'm here to speak against recommendation A of item D4Proposedself-stated6:04:32 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Madam Chair and members of the board, thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today. I'm Tom Jenkins. I am president of the Good Samaritan Board and I'm here to speak against recommendation A of item D4. First, you know, I had a teacher a long time ago tell me that best thing you can always do is borrow brain which means get a lot of people in a room when you talk about ideas and then hopefully in the course of doing so you get the best ideas available usually alternative ones and if nothing else you vet them out very well Even if you come back to where you were, at least you have an opportunity to vet those ideas. You know we look forward to, Good Sam looks forward to you directing staff to meet with us and other stakeholders in the city in order to come up with the best possible solution whatever that one may be.

And we're looking forward to having those meetings. Right now it looks like you have a piece of property worth approximately $1.5 million. Liability is much less than that, but the recommendation is to essentially walk away from $750,000 or roughly that amount, almost $600,000 of your own money invested in the property and another $150,000 in HUD funding that you're going to have to pay back.

Not only does it cost you that, but it also seems to undermine Recommendation B. You know, it would be really hard for me as a citizen to come back and say I really like Recommendation B when I know you've given up $750,000 at any time in the past for a similar recommendation. The sale of a property would seemingly, if you were able to keep all the funds at less than one-third the value be able to recover at least more than what you're willing to do right now.

Operation of the facility for one year would seem to improve your financial stability significantly more than that. But more so, the cost of operation doesn't really seem to be that much of an issue yet as there hasn't been any negotiation on how to lower that cost with Good Sam. Also, not doing Recommendation A provides the opportunity for us to all get together. Determine the right level of service needed. Supervisor Labagnino mentioned that there are numbers lower than what we're seeing in some of our other facilities. We have the opportunity to maybe right size what we're doing. Maybe this is the right size but maybe there's an opportunity for a different size.

Possibly we can reallocate some of those HUD funds from other locations, maybe even transfer the covenants through another location More economical to operate and possibly fit your budget capability better. Thank you again, we encourage you to accept the deed in lieu.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:07:16 · ≈ 3:07 PM

Thank you, Mr. Jenkins. Supervisor Wolf? Mr. Jenkins,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed6:07:19 · ≈ 3:07 PM

excuse me I have a question just in trying to understand the whole scheme of who owns what. So Good Sam and Santa Maria, who owns that property? Is it the City of Santa Maria or does Good

PresenterTom JenkinsGood Samaritan Board and I'm here to speak against recommendation A of item D4Proposedself-stated6:07:34 · ≈ 3:07 PM

Sam own it? Well, I'll let Sylvia address that directly. She probably has better handle on the specifics of all that. Thank you.

6:07 – 6:1216 turns

PresenterSylvia BernardGood Samaritan ShelterProposedself-stated6:07:48 · ≈ 3:07 PM

Good Samaritan actually owns it. We have similar deeds in lieu we have from the state of California, from the county HUD. Actually the county's deed is not on there anymore and through the city of Santa Maria so we are similar in the fact that Lompoc Housing is in that we have covenances on our properties I am wondering

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed6:08:30 · ≈ 3:08 PM

Did we ever consider, or did LHCDC ever consider giving you the facility? Or if the county took it then turning it over to you.

PresenterSylvia BernardGood Samaritan ShelterProposedself-stated6:08:42 · ≈ 3:08 PM

With the county taking it and giving it over to Good Samaritan that absolutely is a possibility that we are open to I can be honest with you is that in the fall, we were seeking some grant funding from the state of California to purchase transitional housing and or emergency shelter. We approached LHCDC with the opportunity knowing that they were going under to be able to purchase either of those properties and the answer from them directly was if that was not an option that neither of those facilities were up for sale nor where they're gonna be shut down So Good Samaritan ironically went after another property for additional transitional housing and received the funding for it in Lompoc, a much smaller facility which isn't exactly for this population.

So we have not had the best history in being able to negotiate with LHCDC but by all means we have recommended to staff that we would definitely be open to taking the property from the county itself Or at least letting the county take it, run it for a certain period of time. And actually if you all sold it you would get your funding back. You could resend the affordable housing covenants and we could reinvest the funding that is owed for the state and or the feds back into property perhaps closer to town where it's more easily accessible for clients. But I think that the deed in lieu from LHCDC to the county makes the most sense at this point.

And then from

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed6:10:00 · ≈ 3:10 PM

the county we could get it to you. That is definitely an option. Thank you Ms. Bernard. CEO Waller, what are your comments on that? If that's been considered as an option?

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction6:10:15 · ≈ 3:10 PM

I have not had personal conversations. I think possibly our staff or county council have, but it's my understanding that LHCDC has said that they would be open to giving a deed in lieu to either the city or another non-profit. I don't know specifically if they've spoken about Good Sam or not.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed6:10:38 · ≈ 3:10 PM

Supervisor Wolf, I believe that they did decline to transfer it to Good Sam earlier. But what if we got it and then we transferred it to Good Sam? I have not asked their counsel that specific question but when I discussed with him that we would accept it you know I said probably we would end up transferring it He understood that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:11:02 · ≈ 3:11 PM

All right, thank you. Supervisor Carbajal and

CommentAction NumberProposed6:11:04 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:11:05 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Lavinino.

CommentAction NumberProposed6:11:06 · ≈ 3:11 PM

You know I guess I would be remiss is somebody from LHCDC here? Because I you know Supervisor Lavinino and I keep having little sidebar conversations here why do we care what remnants of LH CDC Conditions that they've laid forward. They have no more standing other than this deed that they're trying to get rid of It just blows my mind that those folks even have we shouldn't be considering what those people think See, they give us the deed or give it to someone else and we just need to move on but I'm hoping and assuming that we also invited them to be here and And whoever we think is in charge or is available or something because, did we invite them?

CommentBob GeisProposed6:12:03 · ≈ 3:12 PM

They are aware. Supervisor Kerber, hall members of the board, they are aware of the meeting today.

CommentAction NumberProposed6:12:08 · ≈ 3:12 PM

I hope they're watching because this is really ridiculous. Here we're wrestling with all these nuances and your frustration is our frustration. I mean, I sense it in you. Please know it's our frustration as well as we look at what to do here, but it's just aggravating.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:12:30 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Thank you Supervisor Harbaugh. Supervisor Levin, you know?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:12:33 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Thank You Madam Chair I think he covered what I was just going to say so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:12:38 · ≈ 3:12 PM

All right, we'll go back to our public comment

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:12:41 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Our next speaker is Carol Benham to be followed by Jack Poisson

6:12 – 6:199 turns

CommentCarol BenhamProposedself-stated6:12:52 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Carol Benham. I'm a Lompoc resident and a member of the Lompoc Human Services Commission. I believe the county has a duty to take action today that will provide an immediate even if interim relief to the homeless crisis now facing Lompoc, a crisis that has spread to Santa Maria and continues to place an unsustainable burden on Lompok's warming shelter.

The recommendation before you today does nothing to alleviate this crisis. No solution is proposed, I believe that is unacceptable. The county has had many months to plan for the continuation of homeless services at Bridge House. Talks ended between LHCDC and Cabrillo Economic Development in August 2011. after LHCDC failed to turn over financial records. All involved had known it was simply a matter of time until LHCDC would not be able to continue providing services at Bridge House.

LA CDC acted irresponsibly when it closed Bridge House on January 17th with no public notice, giving notice the day before a three-day holiday weekend. To me it seems this recommendation by county staff with no temporary solution or relief being offered is equally irresponsible. The city of Lompoc has been hard hit With a double whammy from the L.A. CDC trend rack, the city's low-income housing stock is in shatters with many properties unsafe, unsanitary and uninhabitable.

If you've read recent news reports, you know people have been forced out of LHCDC properties due to their deplorable conditions. Some tenants forced out of their LHCDC properties actually moved into Bridge House. Now, those people literally have nowhere to go. Bridge House must be reopened with a longer term solution Bridge House must be reopened while a longer term solution is found to the issues appropriately raised by county staff. There is much to be unraveled about LACDC, there is much to be unraveled about the bridge house property but providing no immediate interim solution is not an option I believe this board should agree to take. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:15:23 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Thank You Ms.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:15:24 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Benham. Our next speaker is Jack Boyson will be followed by Pastor Cowley.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:15:29 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Good afternoon

PresenterJack BoysonGood Samaritan ShelterProposedself-stated6:15:31 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Good afternoon Madam Chair, Board of Supervisors. My name is Jack Boyson and today I'm speaking on behalf of Good Samaritan Shelter. I am the Chief Financial Officer for Good Samaritan Shelter. Good Samaritan Shelter has partnered with the county to provide assistance to the neediest within our community for decades and we are looking to continue that partnership in the form of taking over in our offer to take over the Bridge House We provided a response to a county RFP in that we provided a budget to the County of Santa Barbara. That it is our estimate that it would take approximately $240,000 a year to operate Bridge House as an emergency shelter. That's with full time staff, that's with case manager on site. That's with providing the necessary services that will allow people to transition back to being fully functioning members of our society.

It is also our understanding that the county has provided approximately $75,000 per year in human services funding for Bridge House. It was never our intention to put the entire $242,000 burden on the County of Santa Barbara. Whether what our idea was, look let's take the $75,000 that is currently available. That will get us until the end of this year if we can fund the $75k for next year that will get us another 3 or 4 months in that 6 or 7 months we can do whatever outreach we need to do to partner with The foundations with that are interested in providing services or in providing funding for these services as well as perhaps reopening discussions with HUD to get back our HUD McKinney money.

That would take a concerted strong effort of the county, the City of Lompoc and Good Samaritan Shelter. When we get up, and as Ms. Bernard said, we would also consider taking title to Bridge House should that be the direction of the Board of Supervisors. I would be most happy to present that option to our board of directors if that was the county's direction.

As I see it, the county really is only at minimal risk here. Based on a $1.5 million value we've got 425,000 in superior liens of which 275,000 go away if we can just operate this shelter for a year. I really believe the benefits of providing individuals with an opportunity of transitioning out of homelessness in their own community far outweighs the costs that we have involved. The option of directing the CEO to partner with the community in developing an alternative comprehensive solution is admirable, but this will not solve the immediate problem And would take months, maybe a year to come up with this solution. Our suggestion would be take the deed in lieu, get the shelter open and work towards a comprehensive solution. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed6:18:38 · ≈ 3:18 PM

Thank you. Supervisor Wolf? Mr. Boyson, you can tell I'm not letting go of this idea that so did you say hidden title? What did you say that you

PresenterJack BoysonGood Samaritan ShelterProposedself-stated6:18:51 · ≈ 3:18 PM

would be? We would consider taking title to Bridge House. In other words, once you take the deed in lieu and obviously I can't speak for our board of directors but I'm sure that they would look favorably upon taking title to Bridge House and assuming the liabilities if we can show them that there is funding long-term funding that would be available for the operations And that's what's going to take this three to six month period.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed6:19:20 · ≈ 3:19 PM

OK, very good. Thank you. OK. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:19:24 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Our next speaker is Pastor Kalini followed by the Reverend Julia Hamilton.

6:19 – 6:2713 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:19:31 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Good afternoon pastor.

CommentPastor ConleyProposedself-stated6:19:32 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Good afternoon. My name is Pastor Conley, C-O-N-L-E-Y. In November, Nancy Manson approached us in being the warming shelter for the year which we were doing and when I returned from Africa on the 17th of January, I found out that the warming shelter had gone to a full fledged shelter Which we have done every night since. I stay there every night just simply because you want some authority and things there.

The reason why I'm speaking to you today, I don't know why. But I would not want us to get so caught up in the political arena that we forget that we're talking about human beings. One of my gentlemen for instance, we call them guests, we call them friends. He was walking the streets a few days ago and at the gas station, the car had run out of gas and it started to back into a woman.

Of which he immediately jumped behind the car, pushed it and kept that woman from getting hit. This was one of what you would call one of our homeless but he's a part of our community and we're sure glad he was there. That night we honored him. I have a catering business, so I did a big fancy cake and put his name and put you're our hero for the night and we had a big party for him.

We've been doing this and we intend to do it until all of these things are resolved But I don't ever want to forget that we're dealing with human beings. One man came to me just a few nights ago, and his mother is on her third stroke and not expected to live. I'm glad I was there that he could cry and share and not have to go depend on the bottle out under some bridge.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:21:34 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Thank you and thank you for the service that you provide and that your congregation has provided. I've heard nothing but good things about what you've done in opening up the warming center, so thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:21:45 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Our next speaker is the Reverend Julia Hamilton to be followed by Pat Brady.

CommentReverend Julia HamiltonProposed6:21:57 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Good afternoon. I'm here as a minister of the Unitarian Society and on behalf of the Freedom Warming Centers that we help coordinate, and I just want to thank Pastor Doug for coming down when I know he would rather be there setting up for his guests tonight. And I just want to thank him for all that he has done stepping up in this interim emergency period. And they have been open since January 17th. They went from a small group of people each night when the warming centers were operated to over 20 people a night since January 17th. It's been a heroic effort and I just want to note that our core competencies are not to operate shelters either, we are congregations that have come together to serve a need when we heard the call.

And now the call has come to you today, to serve a need that may be a stretch from what you were expecting to do but it's here and we have to deal with it and we have to deal with it right now not three months from now, not six months from now. The people who are out on the street after Bridge House was closed have nowhere else to go. Our warming center season closes at the end of March and then what?

There are a lot of good ideas I think out there for a longer term solution, but there just has not been time to fully flesh that out. And in the meantime something needs to happen. The warming shelters serve a very specific population. It's a shelter of last resort, a lot of people who are struggling with mental illness, with addiction and as they've turned into a more full fledged shelter they've had families show up there. We've had babies sleeping on cots next to everyone else in the shelter.

People who are ready for more traditional shelters, ready for the support services that connect them to have nowhere to go right now. And so the warming shelters are serving in this larger capacity than they're really designed for. And so I just want to say that we have members of our congregation here today, and I'd like to invite you to stand up. They've patiently hung on there because we're here in support of our brothers and sisters in North County to say that our concern for the most vulnerable in the streets is not just here in Santa Barbara but it's everywhere across the county who is at risk.

And we applaud your commitment. Thank you. You can sit down. We applaud your commitment to working with the local agencies, to finding creative solutions like the warming centers several years ago. But in the meantime we do have this moral and ethical responsibility to make sure that no one is turned out on our streets. No one. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:24:27 · ≈ 3:24 PM

And thank you Reverend Hamilton and thank you so much also to the Unitarian Society for stepping up and taking over the administration of the other warming centers. That's been a tremendous gift to the community.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:24:38 · ≈ 3:24 PM

Our next speaker is Pat Brady, followed by Ann Rege.

CommentPat BradyProposed6:24:42 · ≈ 3:24 PM

Madam Chairman and Supervisors, thank you for your time today. I am actually an employee of Good Samaritan in Lompoc but I'm speaking really today as a community member who has lived in Lompoc her whole life which is a long time. Um, I just-I'm very proud of our community for stepping up quickly. Our council did. We took care of the Marks House. I urge you to do the same, even though a lot of time has passed. I think that just the show of support in Lompoc makes me really happy to say I'm from Lompoc, Pastor Doug and his congregation. People from Santa Barbara like the Unitarian Church members who come up and talk to us and see what's going on.

Our City Council who stepped up to the plate. We need to take care of these people and whether it is short-term or not, I urge you to deny your staff's recommendation and let's all sit down together. There has not been enough time to do that but sit down and get a long range solution taken care of. Thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:26:01 · ≈ 3:26 PM

Our next speaker is Anne Rouget to be followed by Rolf Gehling.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:26:06 · ≈ 3:26 PM

All right and after Mr. Gehling the board is going to take a 10 minute break and then we'll come back and finish public comment.

CommentAnne RougetProposed6:26:11 · ≈ 3:26 PM

Good afternoon Chair Farr and members of the Board of Supervisors, it's been a long time since I've stood in front of the board. I'm here as a citizen of Lompoc. I haven't lived in Lompoc as long as Ms. Brady but a long time and been involved with Good Samaritan for the past four years This is an organization that knows how to do take care of our people who don't have a place to go.

They're professional and very knowledgeable I don't need to tell you, you've heard all the testimony ahead and Supervisor Carbajal you hit the nail on the head when you talked about LHCDC where are they? We haven't seen them in six months or so, and Supervisor Lavagnino has it in his head. He's got it figured out. We need a short-term solution and we need a long-term solution.

Bridge House is outside the city limits of Lompoc, and I would really like to see us find a place within the city limits to take care of our Lompoc citizens. But in the interim, we do need to have a place for as Mr. Foley said about 63 people and we really need that and I would appreciate you taking this all in and making the right decision for Lompoc. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:27:37 · ≈ 3:27 PM

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:27:39 · ≈ 3:27 PM

Our next speaker is Ralph Galen

6:27 – 6:323 turns

PresenterRolf GeilingSanta Barbara Rescue MissionProposedself-stated6:27:47 · ≈ 3:27 PM

Good afternoon. My name is Rolf Geiling, as many of you know I'm president of the Santa Barbara Rescue Mission. One of the many organizations that's working to provide emergency services to people in our community and our county who find themselves in acute need. As you've already gotten a sense, you have an issue before you that has incredible repercussions throughout our community because Even before this situation in Lompoc, resources in our need in our county for people in emergency situations finding themselves in need or for food and shelter were stretched thin.

Actually if I wasn't here today because of this agenda item, I likely would have come to you at some point in the near future and make you aware of this. In the last year our agency provided 170,000 meals and 67,100 nights of shelter which represents about a 20% increase over years past that is A client load that organizations like ours have seen throughout the county. It's just increased over the last three years We have been at overflow capacity for as long as I can remember to give you an example In the last week we have 76 fixed beds for men and have accommodated 83 average over the last week more urgently, we have 18 fixed beds for females and have accommodated 26 on average over the last week Thanks to the generosity of the donors and the commitment of our team, we are an organization that is committed to never turning away anybody for lack of space as we've discussed in the past.

But we are really pushing limits of what is reasonable, what is comfortable, and what is safe. So please recognize that any outcome In this process that reduces shelter beds in our county will be devastating. There simply is not any more room for individuals to get absorbed into what system we have, the space simply doesn't exist. That said, I just want to make two specific comments regarding the presentation that we heard that's part of this agenda item. First of all, it's clear there are costs, liabilities and risks inherent in taking on the bridge house but what the report doesn't actually elaborate on is the cost of not doing so aside from the human cost which has already been said from this podium. The reality is that people in need of these services are still going to be in need of service and assistance And they will go to other agencies already taxed, probably not within the scope of their mission to look for help.

So it is likely more efficient and cost effective to provide these services via an entity specifically designed for that purpose. And second of all, should you gone ahead and approve the direction that this report is recommending I hope that it would include something more specific than the simple recommendation to direct the county executive officer to work with the community and partner agencies to identify viable options to address homeless services I hope that in your discussion you would ask for more substance behind this instruction. And with Good Samaritan's response to your RFP, it seems that one of the most viable options has been placed before you already. Thanks very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:30:47 · ≈ 3:30 PM

Thank you and the board will take a 10 minute break. We'll come back at 345 and finish public comment and go to deliberations.

PresenterJack BoysonGood Samaritan ShelterProposedself-stated6:31:12 · ≈ 3:31 PM

Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hi, everyone.

6:33 – 6:431 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:33:29 · ≈ 3:33 PM

¶. ¶¶ ¶. ¶. ¶¶ ¶. ¶. Yeah. ♪ ♪ ¶. Thank you. Yeah. ¶. ♪ ¶. Thank you. You. ♪ Hi, everyone. Hello.

6:43 – 6:496 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:43:52 · ≈ 3:43 PM

All right, let's bring this hearing back to order. We need to continue and finish public comment on agenda item number four to do with the Bridge House Shelter. Mr. Allen who is next?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:44:05 · ≈ 3:44 PM

Our next speaker is Yvette Bernard to be followed by Kristen Cahoon

CommentYvette BenardProposedself-stated6:44:13 · ≈ 3:44 PM

Good afternoon, members of the Board and fellow concerned citizens. My name is Yvette Benard and I have been serving as Program Manager of the Mars House for about a month. And with me, I have Stephanie Fajardo who's our case manager and house manager, and two of our residents, Vicky and Denise that have come with us. Within the first week of being opened, the 19-bed facility was full. Since then we have had to redirect about six clients per day that are unable to stay at the warming center due to the fact that they have children.

These clients have nowhere to go in Lompoc. When we refer to our outside community, they are unable to do so because of the changing of schools for their children. They have children that are attending Lompoc Unified School District and so for them to actually go to Santa Maria and stay there would mean that it would have to uproot the child from the school that they're attending and that is a problem. So they're trying to maintain in Lompoc as best they could So they have their families, their schools. Some of them have jobs and so their support system is in Lompoc. So I would like the board to please consider these families as they are struggling to stay in Lompoc and what is familiar to them. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:45:31 · ≈ 3:45 PM

Our next speaker is Kristen Cahoon to be followed by Joseph Cantempe.

CommentKirsten CahoonProposedself-stated6:45:47 · ≈ 3:45 PM

Good afternoon, my name is Kirsten Cahoon and I am the Shelter Manager for Good Sam's Emergency Shelter in Santa Maria. I am seeing the impact of the closure of the Lompoc Emergency Shelter on a daily basis. Last night at our shelter we had over 89 people with 6 people in overflow which means they are uncaught in our cafeteria. Yes, of course some of these people are our Santa Maria residents but some call Lompoc home When people are homeless, they become stripped of their dignity, money, freedoms, hopes, dreams. And now with no shelter in their community they're being stripped of even the familiarity of their neighborhoods and for many of them their families and support system. Yes we can close our eyes and pretend Lompoc does not have a problem with homelessness.

We can close the shelter and figure that the problem might just go away. But is that truly doing what you were elected to do and what we as helping professionals are committed to do? It's not. So today, we're here to speak up for those who don't always have the voice or the vote but are still deserving of our representation. They're too worried about where their next meal will come from or where they will sleep tonight if they don't have the time or energy to write letters to the press or represent themselves at Board of Supervisors or City Council meetings. So today, we have become their voice.

The homeless in Lompoc need the same opportunity that we are giving the homeless in Santa Maria. Somewhere in their community that they can go and know that they will have a safe place to sleep and a warm meal. With those items covered, they can begin exploring the next steps needed to get on the road to stability. We provide somewhere where they can stay clean, their meds are administered correctly, they have the help to get the services they need, and the people there to support them. We're giving them the hand out that they deserve.

Lompoc is growing by leaps and bounds. The prisons are releasing more prisoners as part of their re-entry program, houses are still foreclosing, welfare is taking dramatic cuts and these things will only bring on more homelessness and more poverty in our communities including Lompoc. Lompoc has homeless. They may be hiding in encampments or under bridges but they are there. The San Maria shelter is accommodating our homeless right now. They're being court ordered to us by Drug Court because the judge knows we will keep them safe accountable And sober. Unfortunately, many of them have to go to Lompoc for probation or to see their families. They have put their lives on hold. The Sheriff's Department are dropping people off in the middle of the night to us.

We will take them because we will never turn them away. They brought us an 88-year old grandmother, her boyfriend and 22 year old mentally disabled granddaughter in the middle of the night because they were found squatting in a home. Their granddaughter had not been given the correct services or care for many years. But now she's part of Good Sam's family, and we've made sure that she's receiving the services she needs to receive a better life.

I urge all of you to step up and realize that we cannot turn our back on the Lompoc community. Last night KCOI reported that burglaries and petty theft are up in Lompoc Maybe this is due to desperation. The desperation for food and somewhere to sleep at night. Let's not wait to see more increases in negative activities in Lompoc, let's unite and make a difference the good Sam way.

I would like to also recognize several people from our Santa Maria shelter that came today to speak but on behalf of time we decided to put us all together if they could stand up. These are people that once called Lompoc home and would love to go back to their own communities where their families and support systems are And also Chris Retzker, who runs our family transitional shelter in Santa Maria where she has a full house and a waiting list. We're all very strongly in support that Lompoc needs a shelter like we run in Santa Maria to give them the same opportunities that we've been given our clients. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:49:18 · ≈ 3:49 PM

Our next speaker is Joseph Agaton followed by Emily Allen

6:49 – 7:0221 turns

CommentJoseph GatenProposedself-stated6:49:29 · ≈ 3:49 PM

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the board. My name is Joseph Gaten. I'm currently living in the GoodSAM, a family traditional shelter in Santa Maria, originally from Long Polk. I have three children and my wife. I was staying out in Long Polk working. I am a roofer by trade. Work got real slow due to the economy drop. Became homeless. Didn't have nowhere to go in Long Polk.

Found out about the GoodSam program in Santa Maria Went through the process of moving my children over there, my wife, myself. And we've been there since and since we've been there, we've had nothing but help. The resources there are just tremendous. I'm a full-time student at Allan Hancock College studying for automotive technology. I am only able to do that due to the resources from Good Sam. We have marriage counseling there. We have mental health. Any resources that we need is there.

It was brought to my attention that they were going to be opening one out in Lompoc. They asked if our family would love to get back over there, which is yes of course we do I miss my family and my kids are not able to see their grandparents, their grandmother etc. And they told us that it wasn't gonna be able to be open so It was upsetting, and then they told us we could come over here and speak our part. And I feel that opening that family transitional center out in Lompoc would be great. And yes on the deed in lieu, plain and simple. That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:51:08 · ≈ 3:51 PM

Our next speaker is Emily Emory followed by Robert Garrett.

CommentEmily EmoryProposed6:51:14 · ≈ 3:51 PM

Good afternoon Chair Farr, Supervisors. When I first read the staff report my first reaction was concern for people who lived in Lompoc who either are homeless or will become homeless but upon talking to people I learned that the waiting list at St. Mark's was growing long and people were being displaced from Lompoc to other communities so it became clear that this was a regional issue And you know, as you know right now county staff individuals and nonprofits are working together on the merger of bringing our community home common ground in the various advisory committees on homeless issues. So now is not the time to take this action.

Now is not the time to close Bridge House indefinitely The goal to provide better coordination and better outcomes is still yet to come. And this vote today is the vote that could save lives and help a family or individual living in poverty, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:52:23 · ≈ 3:52 PM

Thank you Ms. Allen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:52:25 · ≈ 3:52 PM

Our next speaker is Robert Garrett followed by our last speaker Nancy McCready.

CommentRobert GarrettProposed6:52:32 · ≈ 3:52 PM

Hello. I'm actually a homeless person in Santa Barbara, and what I would ask for you to do is take on the shelter like the supervisor asked and consider a few other things as well. On the list it said renovations would cost $150,000. If you were to take it on for a year, you'd be saving over $200,000, and I would possibly put part of that back into the renovation so it would be easier for whoever takes it over after that.

Also, since it's closed there is going to be a lot more people on the street. What I would ask you to do is put a moratorium on camping and illegal lodging tickets and stop homeless sweeps until the shelter is open again so that we're not being punished for this shelter being closed. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:53:26 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:53:29 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Our final speaker is Nancy McCready.

CommentBarbara CluseProposed6:53:36 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Good afternoon.

CommentCarol LeafProposedself-stated6:53:36 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Hi,

CommentBarbara CluseProposed6:53:38 · ≈ 3:53 PM

long time no see. We can't believe that the county can come up with $60,000 for studying poverty yet we close in the same article we can say we're going to close the shelters in Lompoc. We need trade schools, guys to help the homeless learn trades. We need different kinds of programs that we have now than we have now to work to get these people off the streets. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:54:11 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Thank you for being here. Okay, that was our last public speaker. We'll bring it back to the board. Supervisor Lavagnino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:54:18 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Thank you Madam Chair. First I have one question. Who has the keys? Do we have the keys? Does LHCDC, do we know how to even get in this place or how does that work? Supervisor

CommentBob GeisProposed6:54:29 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Lavanino. Board, we do not have the keys. I believe the keys are still in the possession of LHCDC.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:54:35 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Okay. That's problem number one but we'll deal with that as we go. I try to take this in two different ways. One is I thought it was an excellent staff report, actually. There was a lot of really good information for me. But you can only put so much in a report and what we're missing is the emotional side of things. And Pastor Doug said it the best when he said that it's people. We talked about a 56-bed facility. It's actually a 56 person facility and we've got to remember that.

It's hard to make these decisions without realizing that you are impacting people's lives. So I think we all realize that there is a short term, we have come up with a short-term fix and a long-term fix. What I'm leaning towards is, it was clear that we just need a simple vote to remove the county 60 year restriction on the affordable housing covenants which I would think we should do.

I thought what Jack had was a really good idea, was to run it for one year as we look for solutions. I think that saves us the $275,000 that the state would ask for basically we wouldn't have to repay the state. We work with Good Sam on coming up with a plan over the next six months to a year to find what might even be a better location inside the city of Lompoc as an alternative And we explore the possibilities.

But what I'm really pushing for is that somehow we make, come up with an idea of how to move towards an emergency opening of this facility. I think it's strange that we're here, we don't have the keys, we don't know how to get it open and I understand we would have to accept the deed in lieu and then we would probably get the keys but the way it seems working with LHCDC I'm not even sure that that would happen. So it's kind of a weird situation we're dealing with here.

I do want to commend Good Samaritan, and I think it's really important that we identify the people that did, that stepped up. Tom Jenkins, Sylvia and Jack, appreciate everything you guys have done. We could've had a really, really bad situation. We do have a bad situation on our hands but it could've been a disaster if you hadn't done what you did. I thought what our last speaker said was really cut to the point. We spent $60,000 on studying poverty. We have it staring us right now in the face and we need to do something about it. I'm glad to hear what the other questions that were coming from the board. I think it's just trying to figure out a way to come up with a plan of how to... And from what I think what I'm hearing from Good Sam is that if you give us enough time we can cobble something together And we can come up with a plan, because I don't want to see the county in a long-term situation where we're holding this property for 10 and 20 years and we're running a shelter.

But I think it's imperative that we do something and we do something immediately. One last question I have is the $150,000 in renovations, in your opinion Mr. Parker would those have to be done Immediately, or is it something if we open the shelter and we had good Sam run it? Is it something that we could put off for a year or is the roof or what exactly

CommentBob GeisProposed6:58:09 · ≈ 3:58 PM

is

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:58:09 · ≈ 3:58 PM

it?

CommentBob GeisProposed6:58:09 · ≈ 3:58 PM

Supervisor Lavanino members of the board. The $150,000 is an estimate of what repairs may have to be done in the next couple of years. It's probably not something has to be done immediately.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:58:21 · ≈ 3:58 PM

OK well I'll hear what my colleagues have to say but I think we would like to see as a come up with a plan today of how to move down the path Accepting the deed, having Good Sam run it. Not at $242,000 which they said wasn't what they intended anyway but so.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:58:39 · ≈ 3:58 PM

Thank you. Supervisor Wolf? Thank You Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed6:58:45 · ≈ 3:58 PM

I think I think our CEO made this recommendation with a good heart, but also understanding the county's financial situation that we're in. Last year when we were making budget cuts and I had put forth servicing indigent mental health care or child abuse protection social workers We didn't approve it. The board didn't approve it because we didn't have the money, so we talk about prevention but we don't put the money into prevention as much as we should.

And here we are, we're in this situation that makes us kind of look like cold-hearted beasts in some way. Like we don't care and how could we not care when we hear from the people who have talked to us about their stories and when it involves children? But I got to say it's, I get a little resentful when I get emails and people kind of in some ways accusing us of not caring. Of not being responsible because the fact of the matter is We knew from, and Bob Geis was here. He's not here now but he had told us about LHCDC a while back and we stopped funding during our CDBG process.

And I had asked back in November for an update on what was going on with LHCDC. You know what, this is just one big mess and I think we all bear some responsibility in this. But the biggest culprit is LHCDC in my mind. And I think, and I don't know if Mr. Geis is hearing this but I believe that we need to have a forensic audit on every Every single dollar that we have provided to this organization, because when I hear from some of the folks that have been living in certain shelters and they've had to leave because it's uninhabitable. Where has our money been going? So I think we need to know, we need that audit.

Our county staff needs to make sure that those reports every year, that we get them from our nonprofits. And Mr. Parker I know you know we have talked about this but it's not only for our own liability and what we owe to the state and the federal government. It's so that we don't get in these types of situations again. So now we find ourselves in this crazy situation.

I don't even know, and again a legal question, do we have something in writing from LHCDC that is offering us this deed or the property?

7:02 – 7:1724 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:02:12 · ≈ 4:02 PM

Counsel? Mr. Parker?

CommentBob GeisProposed7:02:15 · ≈ 4:02 PM

Sure. Supervisor Wolf, members of the board we do have a resolution that was passed by their board that was willing to deed us the property.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed7:02:27 · ≈ 4:02 PM

Okay and County Council is that sufficient?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed7:02:32 · ≈ 4:02 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf. The offer of a deed in lieu of foreclosure would still be subject to the 2003 Regulatory Agreement. You still need consent from the state before actually accepting the grant deed from LHCDC. That's something that staff had mentioned in the presentation but it is a requirement before you can actually accept the deed.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:02:55 · ≈ 4:02 PM

And Mr. Gazzone, as long as you've commented if the board decided to accept the deed in lieu what is the timing and the process? Because as we've heard the need is now every day of every moment so even if we wanted to take that step how long would that take?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed7:03:14 · ≈ 4:03 PM

Madam Chair, the 2003 regulatory agreement talks about a 30-day notice period. Your staff, CSD staff has already been in touch with the state and with LHCDC to begin that process. It might go quicker than a few weeks and there are some other steps that if you directed staff to pursue obtaining that consent You could direct staff to return at the first available meeting, be informed by the 65402 consistency determination that has already occurred by the Planning Commission.

Make your CEQA notice of exception and then accept the deed in lieu at that point once you have the state's consent in hand.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:03:55 · ≈ 4:03 PM

Okay so we could take that action in a couple of weeks?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed7:04:02 · ≈ 4:04 PM

You could direct staff today to return at the first available meeting, which could be whether it's the first meeting in March or the next meeting after that. To be ready to receive the deed in lieu with the state's consent in hand. There also would be two related fiscal matters for you to consider. One would be if you're going to authorize or enter into an operating contract there would be an associated budget revision with that, which is a four-fifths vote.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:04:29 · ≈ 4:04 PM

Okay, thank you. Supervisor Carbajal? I'm sorry.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed7:04:35 · ≈ 4:04 PM

So we are in the process with the state and and I guess I go back to Supervisor Labagnino about getting the keys do we don't get the keys until that's done And if we don't have the keys, is there a process by which we can get in there and make sure that it's ready so that when the state presumably gives us the approval, the doors can open?

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction7:05:04 · ≈ 4:05 PM

Supervisor Chairwoman, I think that regardless of whether we can physically demand the keys based upon what I've heard the discussions with Lompoc Housing and Development Corporation. I believe that they would be willing to allow us to temporarily Utilize the facility to provide those services now. I don't know that they have given us anything in writing to that But I certainly think that they may be open to that if we're looking for an interim solution While we pursue a more long-term Solution and you know, I like to hear my I've got some thoughts in that regard.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed7:05:43 · ≈ 4:05 PM

I Think that yes, I would like to hear that but I do think that this is sounding like a You know, a track that we can go down. But I do think that as we move forward that we give ourselves that time frame where we transition to another entity like Good Sam. So I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you.

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction7:06:12 · ≈ 4:06 PM

Chairwoman Supervisors, I think it's important to just follow up on a couple of things that I've heard today. First of all the CEO's recommendation, I do want to assure you was made not just from a fiscal standpoint but was actually made from a person standpoint as well And what I mean by that is, I ask you to reflect upon the fact that your county provides over $8.5 million a year for homelessness in terms of social services, mental health, our CSD folks so you do recognize and provide those services Additionally, in the interim after closing of the shelter we have worked very closely with the church to be able to provide them funding assistance to enable them to keep their doors open. Obviously they've gone much beyond just what money will buy but your county has been supportive of that effort.

I also ask you to consider the fact that the services that you already are mandated to provide and you do provide are very, very important. And in that regard, I have great concern over our upcoming fiscal year where I know that you're aware that we're talking $15 million gap and then in 13-14 even substantially more than that. So I do ask as your CEO to give consideration to the entire breadth of services that your county provides. And if we are unable to provide those mandated services, I would think that we would have an even greater impact on those individuals that you heard today which do rely upon the county for their support. All that said, I think that you may wish to consider something that could be a temporary solution for you. We spoke today of the $150,000 that may be required to repay grant if we're unable to operate the shelter.

So, I would propose to you that you take that $150,000 combined it with what remains of the $75,000 for shelter and speak with Lompoc Housing & Development Corp. to see if they would allow us to enter their facility to provide those services over the next 6-9 months while we are able to work with the state to work with the other providers and see if we can find a long-term solution which really builds upon the partnership that all successful agencies have. Not just the county, but the city, the nonprofits, those folks that are the legs of the stool that provide these services so that would be one of my suggestions to you to take that as temporary funding while you're able to work with the community on a longer term solution.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:09:04 · ≈ 4:09 PM

Thank you, Ms. Waller. Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentAction NumberProposed7:09:06 · ≈ 4:09 PM

Thank you Madam Chair. You know all of these possible options are somewhat predicated on or mostly predicated on what LHCDC does. They're like the Loch Ness Monster everybody says they're around or they've seen them but we've never seen them and the fact that they're not here is really disconcerting What's really annoying is that no matter what option we go down, let's take the deed in view.

We got a resolution that this board passed which is promising but we still don't have good clear communication with them. It's my understanding that they're dissolving as a corporation so who do we deal with? Whether we lease it in the interim as CEO Waller leased or use it Short of taking the deed in lieu of, that's predicated on them saying here are the keys. Take no problem. Work it out.

I like a forensic audit but again is there even an entity that we could go audit other than the physical location where they might have some books? You know, to me it just sounds like isn't there any way we could just get the district attorney or auditor and just go in there and seize the property? And then decide whether we should take on a lease, whether we should operate in the midterm, whether we should take the deed in lieu. I mean is there anyway to do that because right now we're working with this amorphous entity that doesn't even have The good will to show up to this hearing to help us with some answers, give and take. It's so annoying that we're trying to solve this and the entity it's all predicated on well if the entity does this and does entity whether it exists or not it's elusive at best.

Can we go over there and seize that property?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed7:11:13 · ≈ 4:11 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Carpall, the short answer is no without risking a takings litigation. The options for the county are to either go with a non-judicial foreclosure or judicial foreclosure action or to accept the deed in lieu of foreclose.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:11:29 · ≈ 4:11 PM

Okay. Well, I'm going to make a couple comments now. As you know, you know, I've been heavily involved in issues to do with homelessness on the various boards and commissions that the county has. And I have to say that from the very beginning, I have thought that the county should take this property. And so in looking at the four recommended actions that we have here, I am going to start from the bottom and go up We've received the update, certainly want to approve the funding to Good Samaritan Shelters for Marks House.

And then in directing the County Executive Officer somebody asked for more specifics so here are some of my thoughts. First that we explore the options of what would it take for the county to continue to contract with a non-profit to provide the service? Consider what it would be to transfer the property to a nonprofit like Good Samaritan to continue to operate a shelter.

Consider various alternatives to other shelters, not at Bridge House as a longer term solution and consider what other alternative uses the county might have for the Bridge House property which is 11 acres if it's not going to be used as a shelter long-term And how we can leverage funding from throughout the county and throughout the community, both through the various jurisdictions, the non-profits, the faith community and private foundations and philanthropists to make this happen.

And then for a, that the county do accept, does accept the deed in lieu. I just don't want to work with Lompoc housing. You know, we've expressed frustrations up here all of us of various types. I think that the shortest quickest way to be able to start to really analyze what is the best short and long term solution For sheltering in the Lompoc area is for us to accept that deed and to go forward from there. And then we do have control of the property, and then we can decide what we want to do with it from there.

Supervisor Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed7:13:38 · ≈ 4:13 PM

If if we go down that path and accepting the property I would feel more comfortable if as part of your motion it's real specific about the time frames And you know exactly what we're going to be doing, because I appreciate the fact that you were talking about maybe keeping the property. But I don't think, I don' believe If it's not a shelter, I don't think that that's anything the county is going to want to keep. I think we know it needs to be a shelter and there's a need in Lompoc for a shelter if we take the shelter We need to say we're going to hold on to it for a year.

And in the interim period of time, we're going to be working with Good Sam. They're the ones who've been here who have indicated an interest so that we can then transfer the deed to Good Sam. But at least now if we move forward and also give direction to staff to get in there Use the funding, the $75,000 and get it open and get it running. But there needs to be an end point.

And I think then I would be fine with that. And then I would just add to the end of it that because of all the frustration And that we have all experienced and the community has experienced, that we do request that a forensic audit be done on LHCDC so that we get a better handle on what was going on. What did we maybe there's and I'm sure there will be some suggestions for what the county can do a little bit better to monitor some of these situations. So I think let's just have a really clear direction to our staff if we take this property on.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:15:40 · ≈ 4:15 PM

And I would agree with that, Supervisor Wolf to the audit and also to see this next year when we do have the covenants in place where it needs to be continued to be used as a shelter over the next year. It's kind of a transitional period so that we can continue to provide that service in some way and then look and see what other options are. Supervisor Lavagnino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:16:02 · ≈ 4:16 PM

Thank you Madam Chair and I totally support that. But I do, and you had mentioned a non-profit and then Supervisor Wolf did throw in Good Samaritan and I just want to piggyback on that. You know, I don't want to get into another situation where we put this out to bid again and we end up with somebody who may be able to do the job or may not be able to do it. We're in a mess right now.

organization that stepped up and they've bailed us out of this situation. And I think it's only fair at this point, and it's good for us that we deal with Good Samaritan at

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:16:35 · ≈ 4:16 PM

this

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:16:35 · ≈ 4:16 PM

point.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:16:35 · ≈ 4:16 PM

Yeah, and I'm fine with it. Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentAction NumberProposed7:16:39 · ≈ 4:16 PM

I'm fine working with just one organization but it's always nice to be able to do a comparison with another organization when you're only negotiating with one organization what are you going to come up with? I think we should say a non-profit and if it ends up being Good Sam, which is very likely that's what we do. But to pigeonhole ourselves, what incentive is there to negotiate with Good Samaritan? There's none. So let's say a nonprofit and we'll work with Good Sam. It's very likely it will be them but we don't tie ourselves to not negotiating the good deal.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

7:17 – 7:2325 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:17:17 · ≈ 4:17 PM

Madam Chair, I would just say that I think we did just try to work with another organization in Lompoc and it's hard to really compare apples with apples in this type of work. I'm fine sending it out or do whatever we want to do but at the end of the day we've got to realize who performs and who doesn't perform because otherwise you're going to end up in the same boat.

PresenterLinda MayoLeague of Women VotersProposedself-stated7:17:41 · ≈ 4:17 PM

Supervisor Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed7:17:42 · ≈ 4:17 PM

Well we did already send it out for an RFP, we got one response and I'm okay going with Good Sam because that's part of us you know I think we're hearing the issue of time is really important. So we need to move forward. I do suggest that we move forward with GoodSAM if GoodSAM would like to re-evaluate their RFP in light of this discussion and maybe work with staff, that of course would be something that we would welcome.

Supervisor Carver?

CommentAction NumberProposed7:18:25 · ≈ 4:18 PM

Madam Chair, I heard from the GoodSAM people that they were willing to negotiate And that's what I expect. This whole RFP was predicated on very sterile facts, and that's not what I'm going to go after. I want something that's going to be in the best interest of the people we serve and the taxpayers. So we need to do something that's going to work for all of us.

PresenterJack BoysonGood Samaritan ShelterProposedself-stated7:18:46 · ≈ 4:18 PM

And as I stated, Supervisor Carbajal, and excuse me for interjecting. But as I stated, Supervisor Carbajal, it was always our intention to go out and get partners within the community to go back to HUD McKinney, see if we can't revitalize those funding. But obviously that's going to take a partnership effort of doing it. Yes? Thank you. That's what I

CommentAction NumberProposed7:19:07 · ≈ 4:19 PM

wanted to hear.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:19:10 · ≈ 4:19 PM

All right, so do we have a motion?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed7:19:13 · ≈ 4:19 PM

Madam Chair. Yes. Just before you clarify your motion it will be helpful to know whether you're moving to direct or to accept the deed today or for staff to return again You do have this requirement for state consent So that the action you could take today would be to conditionally accept or direct staff to return upon receiving consent from that and you'll also need to direct staff to obtain an actual executed deed from LHCDC.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:19:43 · ≈ 4:19 PM

Supervisor Lavagnino.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:19:45 · ≈ 4:19 PM

Madam Chair, my recommendation I mean my motion would be to accept the deed today and then work with the state so we start the clock.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed7:19:53 · ≈ 4:19 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino, what I think your phrasing is And you can do this through the CEO to authorize the, to conditionally accept the deed in lieu of foreclosure. To authorize the CEO to accept that deed on behalf of the county upon receiving consent from the state HCD. And then your decision today has been informed by the fact that your planning commission has already provided a 65402 consistency determination and you are capable of directing staff of executing a CEQA notice of exemption for the existing facility. That's exactly what I said in lawyer

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:20:28 · ≈ 4:20 PM

talk. And then this would come back to us in a couple of weeks?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed7:20:37 · ≈ 4:20 PM

Madam Chair, the CEO can discuss the time frame but if you are going to be, if staff is going to be working with Good Samaritan for a contract on that there would be a fiscal decision to both execute the contract and a budget revision for that execution.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:20:54 · ≈ 4:20 PM

All right. Supervisor Wolf, did you want to say something?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed7:20:58 · ≈ 4:20 PM

Well I was just going to ask if you wanted to include in the motion that

CommentPenny WordlawProposed7:21:01 · ≈ 4:21 PM

all of your

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed7:21:02 · ≈ 4:21 PM

yes the transition that we are wanting to direct staff to look at a one year period of time with the ultimate goal of transitioning to GoodSAM.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:21:15 · ≈ 4:21 PM

Exactly. In fact, I thought you were making the motion and I was adding on but I don't know what we're doing at this point because you had a long list going there. And I agreed with all of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed7:21:24 · ≈ 4:21 PM

it. Poor Mike Allen.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:21:27 · ≈ 4:21 PM

Do you have what we're doing?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed7:21:31 · ≈ 4:21 PM

Yes. And I can work with counsel to clarify this and we'll get it in a minute.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:21:40 · ≈ 4:21 PM

Okay, so you're making the motion and you're accepting her additions to the motions that are here? I am. And comments that have been made today. So I have a motion and I have a second.

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction7:21:53 · ≈ 4:21 PM

Yeah, you have a second all right chairwoman if I could get just a bit more clarification From the standpoint of what you want to do in a transitional manner Do you want us to actually make contact with LH CDC? To also determine if we could get immediately into operate. I believe we do have some funding in an existing appropriation that could be utilized for the next probably 30 days and then as Mr. Gazzone indicated we would need to come back to your board for an ongoing appropriation, so I just want to make sure I understand what your intent is there.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:22:31 · ≈ 4:22 PM

That sounds really good. That's included in the motion also Mike.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:22:34 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Included in the motion and the second? All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you everybody. Actually, I think that we have to. Supervisor Gray is here and I think she has somebody she wants to adjourn in memory of and I'm not sure if anybody else does either. Everybody just be quiet here for just a moment so we can close the hearing.

7:23 – 7:252 turns

CommentFlood ControlProposed7:23:12 · ≈ 4:23 PM

Thank you, Chair. I want to adjourn this meeting in honor of Ernie Rigetti. Ernie died this morning. He was in many ways a mentor of mine. He was my 4-H junior leader when I had a lamb, and had a champion lamb even. And he's a cattleman. He was a member of the Board of Directors of the Community Bank of Santa Maria He was in Rancho Vistadores and you saw him every single year in the parade with his mules, Chloe and Bertha as they pulled his wagon down the street carrying people. So Ernie Rigetti, going to miss the heck out of you buddy so in honor of Ernie Rigetti thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:23:58 · ≈ 4:23 PM

Thank you Supervisor Gray and we will be adjourned now until March 6th in Santa Barbara here. Thank you again everybody. ¶. 2A 3.30 (-0.77') Hi.