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.0:00 – 0:0913 turns
Good morning everybody and welcome to this regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors of March 13, 2012. Mr. Allen would you call the roll please?
Ms. Wolfe? Here. Ms. Gray? Present. Mr Lavagnino? Here. Mr Carbajal? Here Ms. Farr? Here Would you
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
Anything else that we want to pull on the agenda? If not I'll go ahead and entertain a motion to approve Motion, second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries all right let's go ahead and take our resolution and when we're done with that we'll come back to
public comment and Supervisor Carbajal I'm going to go ahead and turn to you to introduce this wonderful resolution you're going to present
Thank you Madam Chair, if we could have Erica Reyes come forward to the podium please. Erica is going to receive this resolution and again this is a resolution proclaiming March 10th through the 18th AmeriCorps week in Santa Barbara County And while Mr. Allen is going to go through the particulars of the resolution, I just want to point out that the one thing that I realized was glaringly omitted from this resolution was The Peace Corps is associated with President Kennedy having started it. The AmeriCorps was started by President Clinton and there was no reference to President Clinton, I just wanted to reference that because of his significant legacy in starting this program. And Erica here I think represents the program working with the County Education Office and the Santa Maria YMCA And she'll be saying a few words after.
So Mr. Allen, if you could read it please?
Madam Chair, members of the board. Item A1 is a resolution proclaiming March 10th through 18th as AmeriCorps Week in Santa Barbara County whereas since 1994 nearly 775,000 AmeriCorps members have served in non-profit organizations public agencies and faith based organizations nationwide providing over 1 billion hours of service to build capacity expand service develop new partnerships and create innovative sustainable programs And whereas each year 80,000 AmeriCorps members serve communities throughout the country to meet critical needs in education, economic opportunity, environmental stewardship, disaster services, healthy futures and veterans and military families. And whereas AmeriCorps members recruited trained and managed 3.4 million community volunteers in 2011 and over 72% of AmeriCorps alumni choose to pursue a career in the public or non-profit sector.
And whereas, the Santa Barbara County Education Office coordinates a chapter of the AmeriCorps program that serves over 800 at-risk students annually throughout the county of Santa Barbara by providing essential educational services such as daily tutoring and recruits hundreds of volunteers to support educational programs and service projects that benefit local schools.
And whereas AmeriCorps fills critical needs within our local school system that have arisen due to budget cuts impacting staff and service levels, and the work of AmeriCorps members is an essential component to the educational success of at-risk students. Potential funding cuts to AmeriCorps programs across U.S. may impact their local programs. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors declares the week of March 10 through 18, 2012 as Ameri Corps Week in Santa Barbara County And commends all residents who volunteer their time and energy as part of the AmeriCorps program passed and adopted today.
Good morning members of the board. My name is Erica Reyes and I am a volunteer recruiter working with the Santa Barbara County Education Office AmeriCorps program here in Santa Maria to get volunteers into our classrooms as teachers request to help out with anything they need, as well as in our ACES after school programs. So I've been doing that since last August and I'm getting near the end of my term and it's just been an amazing experience but on behalf of Santa Barbara County Education Office, I'd like to thank you guys for recognizing the work that we're doing In the last, since mid-year we have served 875 students in promoting literacy and reading in schools throughout Santa Barbara County which has resulted in them improving by entire grade levels in their reading.
Skills in addition our volunteer and recruitment program has mobilized over 1,200 volunteers In near 9,000 hours of volunteer service throughout the county in promotion of education and literacy and community building efforts here in Santa Maria and Throughout the entire county so I just want to thank you guys for recognizing the work that we're doing And hope that you guys will continue support of the program with education Budget cuts happening the last five, seven years and only continuing. Programs like this are vital to providing all the support that we need in our schools and in our classrooms.
And just for all of your awareness AmeriCorps is also on the chopping block potentially so your continued support definitely means a lot at these times. So thank you for that. And I have a little present for you. Especially good for Mr. Carvajal last night, Carpinteria passed the banning of single-use bags so I have some AmeriCorps bags for you.
All right, yay!
Thank you. And Erica is a graduate of UC Santa Cruz and maybe before you go Erica if you could maybe share with us why you were drawn into working with the AmeriCorps because I think for those that are watching sometimes the big question is how did you get connected? It might inspire others to do the same.
Yeah, so last June I graduated from UC Santa Cruz with my degree in sociology. I've always had a desire to work in nonprofit work and do community building kind of things as well as dipping into politics. So I'm very happy to be in front of you today but it's just been...I wanted to give back to my community as much as like I could and AmeriCorps provided that avenue and has given me the freedom and flexibility to kind of work towards my career goals as well as serving in a capacity that helps the entire community. So it's been really good and it's also influenced me to continue into politics a little bit more. I currently serve on the Lucima Unified School District school board, as the youngest trustee from representing Nipomo so AmeriCorps has definitely given me that drive and ambition to keep going and doing things.
Thank you, and Supervisor Lavinino is holding his seat warm for you when you're ready to go into this.
Thank you. I have seen the AmeriCorps volunteers at work at San Inez Elementary School when we were over there for the Dr. Seuss reading day a couple of years ago and you really do provide such an important service and if you are improving whole grade levels for school children that's incredible and really really an important service So thank you for that. Supervisor Gray?
Yes, thank you. Congratulations Erica. I wanted to even though this is not it's an honorary resolution and we won't be presenting it. I'm going to be talking about a couple deputies and so I want to go to that now. Thank you very much. Chris Nelson is retiring and Chris has been a deputy for 26 years So thank you, Chris. And thank you for all you've done. He's been a great deputy and a custody officer. Anita Grace Diaz. So we were losing two folks in our sheriff's department that have been a big part of it. So thank you, Chris Nelson and Deputy Diaz Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Gray. All right. Let's go to public comment then Mr. Allen.
0:09 – 0:1724 turns
I'm sure we have five requests to speak. Actually, we have six. One in Santa Barbara. We're going to start in Santa Maria though with Kevin Kennert to be followed by Richard Vail.
Okay and I just want to remind our public speakers that you do have up to three minutes and the lights there on the podium kind of tell you where you are so go ahead.
I tried to condense my entire speech onto one page it's tied right at three minutes so hopefully be patient with me Dear members of the board, approximately eight years ago my neighborhood was covered in dirt due to the farming practices of Darren G. He paid to have our homes cleaned. One year later my roof leaked causing ceiling damage inside my home. A roofing company came out and found that the fine-grained dirt had filtered way underneath my ceiling tiles and had caused premature failure of my tar paper expansion and contraction caused it to rip wide open and water poured into my home Dirt storms from Darren's property have hit us several times, and the latest one was on March 6th of this year. It was similar in magnitude so now I must have a roofing company come out and open up all my valleys in order to get the dirt out again because I'm sure it's there.
I have an estimate for $5,000 for that. The wind is being told as an act of God, and so he's not controlling it or he can't do anything about it. But the wind and the normal debris in that is not damaging my home. My home continues to be damaged by Darren's inability to prevent topsoil from leaving his property. A dense fog of fine powder would not fill the air if his land was not bare and dry.
In addition to the dirt and loud noise from his pumps, the volume of toxic chemicals that blanket my neighborhood and filter into our homes year after year has to be a health hazard. We have repeatedly tried to compromise with Darren but he continues to implement ineffective solutions year after year. I called DB Farms on March 8th. They believe adequate measures were taken and they refused to accept any responsibility for March 6th. In reality their attempts to be proactive as in this case fail us year after year DB Farms provides a significant revenue to our community. I think we all understand that in these hard budgetary times, I can understand the county's reluctance to disturb that source of revenue. However, DB Farms' right to farm does not include a right to cause repeated structural damage to my home.
In this case, I believe their right to farm this property needs to be revoked. And I'm coming here asking how can I start that motion? I'd like to see how many people are here supporting me from my local neighborhood and I've got a list of 20 people growing who want to be on this list petition whatever it is that we do so you know he says he's making changes year after year The only changes I've seen are the continuing decline in my home's structural integrity and the increasing risk to my family and my neighbors. Thank you very much for hearing me.
Thank you, thank you for being here.
Our next speaker is Richard Vail to be followed by Jeff Pawley. Good
morning Mr. Vail
Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to address the board this morning. I'm going to mirror some of the things that Supervisor Gray is already aware of, and comments were made by the previous speaker regarding DB Farms located in Orkut Community Plan Keysight 22. DB Farms operators have repeatedly and most recently this month, as mentioned on March the 6th, failed to successfully manage the soil condition of the field resulting in abnormal dust storm events constituting discomfort to residents health hazard and costly cleanup measures in time and dollars to area residents. As mentioned a wind warning was in existence on the date of the sixth however by mid-afternoon surface dust had abated or ceased in total from area farms The opposite occurred from the DB farm site as a dust cloud continued to increase from the field in intensity and density and intensity of dust and dirt producing a cloud 30-40 feet in height enveloping several blocks of homes, rolling over residences reducing visibility and depositing layers of dirt and debris upon a wide area well beyond those properties in the near proximity of the farm site.
I have photos which will provide the staff provide you an opportunity to see the origination of the cloud itself and the impacts on the neighborhood. Briefly regarding the noise pollution, last year again mentioned previously DB Farms expanded cultivated acreage at or about the same time they instituted a vehicle engine as a means of pumping the water. From the outset, use of the engine has produced long periods of excessively loud and disruptive noise unlike that produced by any other farm in the area over the years and currently.
DB Farms operators were contacted by homeowners The supervisor's office planning and development but failed to take any action last year indicating they would do something to mitigate the noise at the close of the planting season. On March 5th, the pump started again anew with excessive noise disrupting the entire neighborhood. If any steps were taken in the interim, they were ineffectual.
Regarding the right to farm, my purpose today is not to attack DB Farms' right to farm but to challenge those practices at this site that have destructive or disruptive conditions imposed upon the surrounding community. I would ask the board to direct staff or appropriate department to further review the grievances aired here today Conduct some form of conflict resolution and mitigation of complaints against the practices versus the complaints. And in the long term, potentially enact a Santa Barbara County Conflict Resolution process attached to the County Right-to-Farm Act modeled to that of San Luis Obispo County or City of Gilroy or others. Thank you very much for your time this morning.
Thank you.
Supervisor Gray? Mr. Vail, when you were talking, you said that there's a farm, there is another field... I missed this.
There are several fields in the area.
Next to the D...
Yes, surrounding
it. And they control the dust on...?
They did. As the photos I think will demonstrate on a couple of the photos, fields that were tilled Other fields were affected. In the morning of the 6th, there was a wind weather warning and a condition did exist and there was dust that could be observable throughout the valley and surface dust blowing from a number of farms but by mid-afternoon all that had faded and the storm that affected the remaining neighbors in our area and the surrounding area came exclusively from DB Farms And I think the photos will demonstrate that. I have others if the board would like to see them.
Thanks, because I missed that and wanted to hear that for sure. Thank you.
Thank
you. Oh, and the other question was, remember last year they told us they were going to take care of that pump?
They did.
But they haven't done one thing.
I don't know if they haven't done one thing but it started back up again on March the 5th and it still is audible within the house. Now, I am a good distance. I'm not a neighboring property. I am a good distance from the farm and with doors and windows closed dual pane windows doors you can hear the pump operating inside the house starting sometimes from 8 o'clock in the morning until late evening and outside the backyard is just not usable.
Thank
you. Thanks
Chair.
Yes thank you. Next speaker. Our next speaker is Jeff Pauley to be followed by Brenda Artopias.
0:17 – 0:249 turns
Hi, thanks for letting me speak today. My name's Jeff Pauley and I live on Beverly Drive approximately one block east of DB Farms. I've lived there for the past 11 years. The first five years were great terrific no problems no issues nothing. The last six years there have been some issues no doubt about it. Some serious issues with DB Farms. Last Tuesday, DB Farms sent out a flyer to our neighborhood warning us that it was supposed to be very gusty winds that day and that their meteorological expert has said that was going to happen and there might be a chance some dirt would blow off the fields so they recommended this is in a flyer they recommended that we should close our doors windows cars in the garage stay inside you know the whole bed some people think that might be mightily neighborly but I knew better Twice in the past few years we've had some pretty serious damage from sandstorms from the fields, roof valleys like other people have addressed, windows, solar panels, cars, the whole bit.
Some people even had damage inside their houses because windows were left open or whatever. And about two years ago, this had happened before and Darren evidently was out of the country at the time or out of the area. He realized that he was negligent because he had a farmer plowing the fields on the windiest day you could ever imagine. So he offered to pay for cleaning our houses a couple years ago and he knew he was negligent at the time.
So he sent out this flyer knowing that this was going to be a problem. I mean, this is premeditated. This wasn't a surprise. He knew what was going to happen no doubt about it. I called DB Farms on Thursday and the secretary said that the storm is an act of God and not negligence. She also admitted that they were in between crops between strawberries and carrots and they pulled the plastic off the fields. They knew this was going to happen.
And so like predicted dirt went everywhere. And I mean it's not just a little dirt we're talking about quarter inch of dirt on everything. I mean, siding the house and who knows like Mr. Keinert said you don't know about roof damage that's going to happen the first time it rains. So this is one issue just the dirt and this has gone on numerous times. The other issues is the noise from the pump About one year ago he dug a new well that was close to the houses and it's the loudest pump you could ever imagine. It sounds like, it sounds like a diesel semi truck idling in your backyard. And we're a good distance away from it and depending upon which way the wind is blowing I mean you can't even sit in your backyard. I mean it's just not even possible.
I mean it's really really loud And, you know, he fired it up about a month ago too. It's the same thing as like we had a little reprieve for winter. He stopped farming or it was raining or whatever but here we go again and last October, November, December it was pretty rough You know, my feeling is that he's got to figure out a way to muffle this sound. He's got to figure out a way to secure the soil you know and ideally it would be great if he just stopped farming out there of course. Thank you Mr.
Paul
your time is up. That's my feeling. It's a big problem for sure thank you.
Our next speaker is Brenda Artopius to be followed by Carl Artopius
Welcome, Ms. Artobias.
Thank you. Good morning and thank you for the ability to come speak. We have lived in this area for over 10 years but it's only been in the last years that these people have been talking about that we've had the problems that have occurred. And can you hear me first of all? Yes. Okay good. Progressive downgrading of the use of our home, the value of our property and our health due to D&B Farms, Mr. Darren G.'s refusal to operate his farming prudently To avoid as much as possible the sand, fine dirt, dust particles being dumped on our home and property in huge quantities during windstorms. Whereas other farmers in the area do mitigate the sand, dirt, dust problem as much as possible.
And by the way we live at probably what's considered ground zero. Ours probably gets it the worst of all. We have pictures that show that severe problems come up from D&B farming. Other farmers operating this is our driveway by the way We have sand dunes on it. Other farmers operate properly in very close proximity to DNB farms, and they're keeping the problem controlled on their property.
In the past years when we and others complained vehemently that he has dealt with a problem by using professional cleaning crews and telling us he's trying to keep the pollution down, he tells us that but the severity of the problem continues over and over In September 2010, the deluge of a windstorm was so bad that it took four days for professional crews to clean our home. Mr. G paid the bill.
I tried to get a copy of the bill but they wouldn't give it to me because I didn't pay the bill. This year D&D Farms put a letter in some mailboxes saying about that and I'm not going to go into detail yet if that's been said. When we called after the winds came on March 6th this year his staff said we are no longer cleaning up and I'm quoting You received a letter telling you it was coming.
Although his staff said Mr. G would call us, a call never came. The reality is that D&B Farms continues to disk huge areas and have them bare all at one time often for considerable amounts of time. Now he does not even return phone calls. We called a professional cleaner after the current storm to come out and got an estimate and I have a copy of that. It's over $3,000 for cleanup.
And this is because the roof, the gutters, the entire house on all sides, all of the different patios, the sidewalks, everything inside is totally immersed with this dust. Here again it will be a nerve-wracking time for us as a family of cleaning up this huge mess and this time it appears Mr. G is refusing to take any responsibility. In addition to failing to farm prudently with respect to residential areas near his farm, Mr. G has also created an extreme nuisance by installing a car or truck engine as they've mentioned, as power for water pumps near residences. The irritating noise goes on for hours and hours and hours.
Thank you. Your time
is up. Okay that's it. One thing is I washed some towels afterwards and I thought that they were clean when I put the dryer, put them in the dryer and then lit little The thing that you put in there, the little sheet that usually comes out white when you do it. It's beige. That means that's happening to our lungs.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Carl Artopius to be followed by Dr. Robert Johns in Santa Barbara who's our final speaker.
0:24 – 0:299 turns
Yes I I'm not double dipping, my wife is pretty well giving the presentation. I did want to bring up a couple points that I've noticed. One is that the engine that everybody talked about is a Chevy big block driving on water well. Now that Chevy big block has no muffler on the system at all, straight pipes. Also his walls that he's put around it only go halfway down or three quarters of the way down and they're not all the way around the building there's no insulation on it so you know in my industry we insulate for noise control it very well I'm not sure why we can't control this This pump.
The other thing that was not brought up is that numerous times I have called the sheriff's department at three in the morning, four in the morning because he's got tractors running down his fields and we listen to it you know you finally give up. The Sheriff's got a lot to do. The trouble is he's he's go two or three tractors running out in this field And they got gates up and they can't get in. One time the sheriff had to take a flashlight, shine it at the tractors and they finally pulled them over. So these are some of the things that we've lived with, we still live with. We recognize that a farmer has to farm, that's what he does but he has to be cognizant of the fact that you know he's got neighbors too so that's all we're asking is that some way we'd be able to control this character.
Thank you.
Thank you for being here. Supervisor Gray, this is in your district. It's very surprising to me that most farmers don't want to lose their soil so I'm wondering whether we're going to contact the Ag Commissioner's office or APCD or if there's some way that we can address some of these concerns?
No, I completely agree and the thing I think that is the most I tend to want to believe people, and I'm not getting good answers from the farmer. It's very upsetting. So I contacted Ms. Waller this morning when we got the letters and Mr. Marshall. And so I think I'd like for the two of them to address what we're going to try and do. And I think one of the things we need to do is a dust ordinance possibly.
So if I love to have them talk about this.
Thank you Supervisor Gray. CEO Waller or Mr. Marshall?
Yes, I have some people back in the office now looking at this issue. Just starting hearing about this morning, one of the things we want to do is work with the Air Pollution Control District to determine whether or not there is a regulation controlling dust particles. I know in the Central Valley there are efforts to control farming dust regulation requiring watering.
The other issue we would look at One would be the noise. I'm assuming we have a noise ordinance in the county, we need to work with P&D on perhaps some regulations. Those are sometimes difficult but those issues can be proved up and the other issue we would want to analyze would be whether or not this constitutes a public nuisance that would be actionable. Those would be the kind of regulatory frameworks and the CEO may have some others that have occurred to her but those will be the three
Thank you, Mr. Marshall. CEO Waller?
Chairwoman, Supervisors, Dennis and I didn't get a chance to talk but basically we are completely aligned in where we're going on this. It's my understanding that APCD is investigating. I don't know that they've made a decision yet on the violation We will stay in contact with those individuals. On the pump, I recall this issue coming up several months ago and I don't know what the outcome was on that but I just sent an email to our planning and development code enforcement folks and asked them to follow-up as well and get back to us so we'll have some information probably later this week for you all.
I can add to what the, what we're going to get from P&D they're going to say that they went out and they tested it and they ran a noise test and it passed. So we're stymied. Isn't that right you guys? That's what keeps happening. They go out, they run a noise test and say it's not a problem So, I think what we have here is a problem that nobody sees except the people that are living through it.
And that's why we need some kind of a way to address the noise nuisance, which is one issue. But the dust issue, we just have got to come up with some kind of ordinance if the other farmers are able to do it and so that's why it's so frustrating. And then we all know too, if it would rain We wouldn't have this problem. So that's why I'd like to turn it over to staff and get us to move in that direction.
Actually, I'm sorry we can't take the comments from the audience but Supervisor Carbajal wanted to make a comment.
0:29 – 0:357 turns
I know we're working on a buffer ordinance and this may be apples and oranges, but certainly I would encourage our planning and development staff to look at these issues. And they probably are being considered as we look at that ordinance in the near future. But these are exactly the issues that everybody's concerned about. Pesticide drift, dust drift, and noise.
When there's the ag-urban interface how do we address? There should be something that bumps up Mitigations or procedures that are utilized because of the proximity between homes and ag. Certainly, we don't want to overreact to burn agriculture. But the reality is that this is a problem and we have to address it. And this points to us how being proactive is better than being reactive because now we're fumbling around. What do we do? What do we do? And yet the quality of life of a number of residents is being impacted and we need to be more proactive as government. So I would ask us to look at a comprehensive approach to how we deal with all the various policies, all the various agencies to deal with the interface issue because if not we're going to continue to have these issues on an ongoing basis.
In my district, Cuyama, we have similar issues as well and when we address them in a proactive way we avoid problems in the future so I think it would be good to look at it comprehensively.
And I want to add that I'm really conflicted because I am so ag and so pro-ag, but everybody has a responsibility to get along is what you're saying. And I felt that the people who testified today addressed that. They said we understand there's a right to farm. We want to farm. We want people to farm. But how do we coexist? And that's what we're looking for. So, it hasn't been noticed that it's an issue today. So what I want to do is ask us to move it into the staff level. They've seen the problem. I think everybody here gets the problem today. We all get it. Everybody thinks we get it right? Okay. So we get the problem now let's get after it.
Thank you. Thank you Supervisor Gray. All right next public speaker Mr. Allen
We're going to go with Dr. Robert Johns in Santa Barbara and then come back to Santa Maria for our colleague Zulu who will be our final
speaker. Dr. Johns?
Yes, thank you Madam Chair. Good morning Supervisors. I see the problem also and I think you have measurements that could solve the problem And you need to go to the area where the problem exists and not use so much outside data. And that's exactly what I'm attempting to do here today. We do have a problem, and we need sort of like a scam warning for the county.
You see it's very psychological So not all of us see it. Some of us do not understand psychology, and you have to be something of a psychologist to understand the Levy Syndrome. I'll just put it that way. Does that strike a fear in the hearts of the supervisors? If you've been around here long enough, you know who Levy is. He scammed the city and had a fallout Right now, how many years later? Over 20 years later the city is still suffering from the Levy Syndrome.
Right down there on State Street near the beach they're trying to put up one of the levy scam projects and that's what's going on right now with the second big scam, the Caruso scam. And this county needs an ordinance, I don't really need an ordinance, I mean sort of a lever, a levy, a lever? Sort of something to detect when a scam is coming along. Historically we have it Someone bills the Paseo Nuevo, pardon me for my lack of Spanish.
And then they say well he's successful and then all of a sudden he starts getting loans from everybody and now, and he's a bum. They had to pull him out of his office, they pulled him out of his home, the sheriff did. And if I told you where he was right now people would be running at him right down the street trying to get him. So the Caruso pie in the sky I know it hasn't gone through yet, but it's scam.
And Carvajal you're involved in a scam. You should have recused yourself last week, but your corrupt county council allowed you to participate and vote. You got $15,000 from him. You're a part of the scam. So we'll put this to Carvajal Caruso scam. And the years down the line, this county will have to be paid for your scam. Thank you Madam Chair.
Our final speaker is Carly Zulu here in Santa Maria.
0:35 – 0:4820 turns
Good morning. D.A. Joyce Steadley wants violence in the public to continue to receive federal funding to protect her and Dan Pedersen and other officials from county charges or charges of conspiracy, murders, and attempts of. The current complaint filed upon me for allegedly committing battery and cruelty to a child by endangering the health of victim witness program D. A. Joyce Steadley post chemical enhancement infection easy T for anger was never my idea. Violence is not my idea. The complainant in this case I told twice leave me alone.
To escalate the interaction to this level, victim witness staff Lisa Field said again with emotional intensity she won't stop unless you do something. Strike her, hit her, batter her. I didn't and now the DA wants me to make me pay for not doing it. This is surreal. I in no way seek to harm others but the DA just said that the victim witness staff will not stop harassing me.
Who do you know that will indict and or file appropriate criminal charges complaint upon DA Joyce Sedley and victim witness staff Lisa and Doug Fueld? Those county employees are responsible for the soon-to-be medical murders of a mom and dad that you know in this county. You, the board have the public turn to you to say what is next I stand here in self defense by person because the Public Defender's Office has absolutely no point at this juncture D.A. Joyce Steadley boasts about the protection she provides to victims of rape and hand out t-shirts at UCSB with student pattern Monroy for the Women's Center Sexual Assault Awareness Month campaign.
However, in every woman's face in a public display to support her victim witness program she normally fails to protect county constituents for PISS. How many women have to be raped until you're satisfied? How many men and women have to be medically insulted for fraudulent medical care from medical research? Thinking means correct strategy. Consideration means thinking of plans to advance realities.
I have inculcated upon you and the FBI the need to step in, take control of this Attorney's Office victimized program and insult every American family. I draw myself to an honest confession of the simple fact that I've always been a FBI agent, lying in wait to expose the federal program to mayhem and insults and murders. The beginning and end of criminal DA's, especially in this county is always about my care and concern for women.
In the interim all I hear from Ken Watts is how Hooper was a quote criminal as he cannot consider conspiracy or intentional hurt by public members as it is quote too painful. FBI Director Jacob Hoover considered and accepted a calculated risk, hired me. That meant he was devoted to political powers that inhibited the FBI from defending the U.S. Constitution, me, and protecting the public from government officials i.e., Department of Justice, District Attorney's Office involved in keeping people's belief in an illusionary ideal, God. God never existed.
That concludes our public comment. So we've already done our administrative agenda, so we'll go ahead and we'll move into our departmental agenda item number one. Staff wants to go ahead and set up for that while Mr. Allen reads it into the record please.
Madam Chair, members of the board. Item number 1 is from the Treasurer Tax Collector. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Montecito Retirement Association conduit financing
Thank you. Good morning Mr. Hagan.
Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. The item before you today is a conduit financing for the Montecito Retirement Association. Section 147F of the Internal Revenue Code provides the mechanism For qualified 501c3 non-profit organizations. The ability to issue taxes in debt. A little history of this proposal, in 1993 the county acted as the conduit financing arm for the association and those proceeds were used for their Casa Dorinda facility Again in 2004, the county was approached and we acted as the conduit financing arm for the refinancing of that debt from 1993.
Today they have the ability to call that debt and to reissue new securities in the amount of about I believe it's $12 million. The Debt Advisory Committee heard this item on January 31st and recommended it for approval with certain conditions. The first condition was we would hire our own bond counsel to limit or mitigate any risks to the county of this financing.
Secondly, the association was asked and they agreed to compensate the county for any costs associated with our bond counsel and staff time. And so, our bond counsel and which is Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe and the bond counsel on the deal that was also hired by the association Quintin Timig reviewed the documents and certain provisions were put in those documents to limit our risk.
One of them was The bank agreed to acknowledge the county has no liability for any of the repayments of the debt. And additionally, the association indemnified the county for this financing. We have had history in this type of financing before in addition to the Montecito Retirement Association. The one that comes to mind is the Academy of the West. The county acted as a conduit. There's members of the association I'm sitting behind me, Robin and Ron.
And additionally Gary Hicks their financial advisor and Brian Quinn from Quinn and Tibbing the bond counsel on the deal is also here and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have on this.
Thank you, Mr. Hagan. Questions? Supervisor Carbajal.
Thank you Madam Chair. This is something that we've done in the past so it's pretty straightforward. I appreciate that the Debt Advisory Committee unanimously agreed to move forward on this. It was the Debt Advisory Committee correct?
That's correct yes.
And I appreciate the Montecito Retirement Association. It's kind of hard to say that, I always think of Casa Dorinda so it throws me for a loop but I appreciate that we had a double assurance of their bond counsel and our bond counsel that we were able to hire to double check the risk and to make sure that the risk is minimal to none for the County of Santa Barbara.
You know I feel very comfortable moving forward with this. I'll make a motion to move forward with this item.
Okay, let's see if we have any public speakers first.
No request to speak.
All right Supervisor Wolf?
Yes, I serve on...I'll second the motion. I serve on the Debt Advisory Committee. We had We had some very good discussion about this particular issue, and we did send it back as Mr. Hagan said to work with the association and I feel very comfortable in the recommendations as we move forward so I'm fine with this. Thank you.
All right, thank you for the advisory's work on this. Thank you Mr. Hagan. We have a motion we have a second all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you our next item number two is a time certain at 10 o'clock so the board will take a break until then. I just wanted to let everybody know the order that we're going to take for this item. First is, we're gonna have Mr. Allen read it into the record Then Supervisor Wolf has asked to make some introductory comments. Then we will have the staff presentation, then I'm going to ask council to comment on a letter we received from the mobile home owner group on various language changes to comment on that. Then we will have the board ask whatever questions they want to then we'll go to public comment and then we'll bring it back to the board for deliberations and a vote.
So, Mr. Allen why don't you go ahead and start us off and read it into the record please?
Madam Chair members of the board item number two is from planning and development The request is that the board consider recommendations of the County Planning Commission to approve case numbers 11 ORD 17 and 18 which would amend respectively the county land use and development code in the county coastal zoning ordinance To implement amendments establishing a permit process for the closure of mobile home parks
Thank You supervisor Wolf
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make just a brief comment and to thank our staff and to thank the folks who are here to speak on this issue. Protection of the mobile home park owners has been an issue since I've been on the board. And in this particular case, the closure issue is something that is already set in state code. And what I think some of our mobile home park owners have brought to our attention is the fact that we can be more specific and in fact enhance the protections.
So this is an opportunity for our board to take that action, and again I want to thank staff. This is a very important housing stock in my district. I have almost 1,000 mobile home park owners in my district, and I know in the North County as well. I think Supervisor Gray has even more than that. So this is an important This is an important group for us to look at. We have in the past talked about rental protections. We've passed an ordinance for rental tenant protections. This is a unique housing subset of our mobile home park owners, our mobile home owners and our park owners too because they are providing this opportunity for folks to live in their parks. So in any event I'm pleased to have this before us. I look forward to the discussion And perhaps looking at certain areas within the ordinance that's been drafted.
I also want to mention and thank the Planning Commission, all the planning commissioners who also worked very hard in crafting an ordinance for us to look at today. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank You Supervisor Wolk. Supervisor Carvalho?
Thank you Right from the onset, I want to give the Planning Commission lots of kudos for trying to bridge all interests and trying to find a balance here. And I think they did a really good job. However, I think it's up to us supervisors to assess how strong we want our public policy to be in support of the residents and the people that are here before us today.
So just maybe save you a little bit of angst, I'm going to be in your favor of making our ordinance stronger And dealing with the legal issues as they come about in the future. With all the other 30 or 40 jurisdictions that have stronger ordinances, so just want to let you know where I'm at.
Thank you Supervisor Carpajal. Mr. Hunt?
0:48 – 0:568 turns
Good morning Chair and Supervisors. I'm Jeff Hunt, the Director of Long Range Planning Division. With me today is Glenn Russell, the Director of the Planning Development Department and Paul Clemente, the Project Manager for this item. Approximately one year ago in March 2011, the Board directed staff to return with an ordinance addressing the closure of mobile home parks. The ordinance before you is intended to clarify the process To close a mobile home park it has gone through Planning Commission review Departmental review and has been subject to a half dozen or more meetings with the representatives of the mobile home park residents And Paul will now give the staff presentation
Thank you Today your board is considering proposed mobile home park closure ordinance to regulate park closures within the county Staff's recommendation is that your board take the following action. Make the required findings for approval of the amendments, including CEQA findings, approve the notice of exemption and adopt resolutions amending the Land Use and Development Code and Coastal Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission.
As some background on this item, the California Government Code requires applicants seeking to close a mobile home park to complete a report that assesses the impacts of a closure on the park residents. It also allows the local jurisdiction to require the applicant to mitigate the impacts of the park closure on the ability of the displaced residents to find adequate housing in another mobile home park.
The law states that these mitigation measures cannot exceed the reasonable costs of relocation. This ordinance will address the closure of a park or its conversion to a different land use and specifies the permit process, contents of a closure impact report, and relocation assistance to be provided. It also outlines circumstances that may allow for an exemption from some or all of the requirements of the ordinance.
The park owner has the ability to begin the closure process at their discretion, but there is also a provision within the ordinance that will require the park owner to begin the permit process if 25% or more of the mobile home sites in a park are unoccupied for more than 90 consecutive days. To close a park, both a Conditional Use Permit and a Closure Impact Report must be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval.
The Commission's decision on a CUP or Conditional Use Permit is final unless it is appealed to the Board of Supervisors in which case the board makes the final decision. The ordinance requires the applicant to file a closure impact report prior to approval of the conditional use permit. There are six central components that the closure impact report must contain.
The number of mobile homes affected, a description of the impacted households including family size, whether the tenants rent or own and what the current rental rate is. A list of vacant mobile home spaces within 25 miles. A list of alternative housing within 25 miles available to displaced residents, an estimate of the relocation benefits to be provided and a list of the professionals assisting the applicant with the closure process.
Varying amounts of relocation assistance would be offered to permanent residents of the park depending on whether they are a mobile home owner or renter or non-mobile home owners such as a recreational vehicle owner To be considered a permanent resident, the resident must reside in the park at least 270 days a year and be able to provide documentation of that effect.
At the Planning Commission hearings on December 14th and February 1st public comment and commissioner deliberations centered on the relocation assistance that will be required specifically how much the park owner should be required to pay for mobile homes that cannot be relocated The overwhelming amount of public testimony came from mobile home owners who wished to see a requirement for in-place value.
There was also testimony from representatives of mobile home park owners who argued that requiring in place value would go far beyond the reasonable cost of relocation. In place value takes into account factors such as location, space rent and the park amenities in addition to the value of the mobile home itself. Current in-place values range from $10,000 to $318,000 countywide with a median value of $147,000. Ultimately the Planning Commission voted to unanimously recommend a version of the ordinance that includes in place value as one of the relocation assistance options while leaving the decision makers with the discretion to choose which options to require at the time the permit comes in.
The first assistance option would be for those mobile homes that can be relocated to another site within 25 miles. The applicant may be required to pay relocation costs including all costs associated with breaking down, moving and installing the unit and accessory structures, hookup fees and permit fees along with housing expenses during relocation for up to 30 nights and any increase in space rent for 12 months.
The estimated average total relocation cost is about $23,000. If the mobile home cannot be moved because there are no vacant spaces or due to the age or condition of a mobile home, the applicant may be required to pay a lump sum of 12 months of rental subsidy which is the difference between current rent and the fair market rent for a comparable unit as provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
They may also be required to purchase a unit at its in-place value. For non-Nobleham units such as RVs, the applicant would pay relocation costs for the moving of the unit to a new space. If the unit cannot be relocated, the applicant would pay three months of fair market rent according to Housing and Urban Development or $7,000, whichever is greater. And for Nobleham renters, the park owner would pay three months' rent over $7000.
An applicant will be able to file for exemption from some or all of the relocation assistance for one of two reasons. If relocation assistance eliminates all reasonable economic use of the property or if closure is necessary as part of a bankruptcy proceedings. In either case, a financial report would be required including the financial history of the park, estimates of property value if it were developed under different use, cost of necessary repairs and improvements to the park and any other information the applicant believes is pertinent to their request.
To conclude, once again staff's recommendation is that your board take the following action. Make the required findings for approval of the amendments including CEQA findings, approve a notice of exemption and adopt resolutions amending the Land Use and Development Code and Coastal Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff is available to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Now I'd like to turn to Council because we did receive a letter with some very detailed suggestions for language changes to the ordinance, so I'd like you to go ahead and comment on those.
Madam Chair and members of the Board I went through each, as you requested, I went through each of the changes that were requested in a public comment letter and I looked at them in the context of the government code which applies to mobile home closures.
Actually, I'm sorry, Ms. Van Molen. I'm going to change what I told Mr. Hunt earlier and I think as you go through if you've got a slide that will show what these language changes are, I think that would be helpful for everybody in the audience as well as the board that may have not been able to read that letter closely.
Madam Chair, actually I have hard copies of a draft with some of these changes. Okay
that would be good but if you can also put it up that would be good for everybody else to
follow. We have electronic copies of it it's not a slide or PowerPoint but we can scroll through okay
0:56 – 1:0416 turns
Madam Chair, so there are two versions. One is for Article 2 and one is for the Land Use and Development Code but that the changes are similar. And so what we can do is pass them out and we can put them in the back of the room and then I can talk through each of the changes.
OK.
Then I think we'll go through the land use and development code changes because those are the ones that are cited in the public comment letter.
No, I think that this is Mr. Fossett's stuff. Because he was representing such a large group and the comments were so detailed, I thought that council should be able to review it and tell us whether they thought that they were something that we might want to consider or not. Madam Chair? Yes, Supervisor Wolf.
As Council goes through these items if I have a question on any particular language would it be alright if I just ask County Council at that time so we don't have to jump around?
Yes, I think that's probably appropriate. Okay and copies of these are going to be available in the back for members of the public. All right so we have an attachment C and an attachment D, and Council which one are you gonna be leading us through?
Madam Chair I'm gonna be going through attachment C which are the changes to the County Land Use and Development Code.
All right. Go
ahead. Madam Chair, members of the board. So what I did is I looked at each of the requested changes in the context of government code 65863.7 which governs mobile home closures and the mitigation measures that your board has the discretion to impose. And then I also looked at each of the items to see if it was an item that was previously considered by the Planning Commission And so I went through each in that context.
The first request to change was a change to Section 3589-070, and it's the introduction to the conditions of approval language. And the requested change was from may to shall and That changes it will require that the Planning Commission impose all of the conditions each time so it takes away the discretion of a case-by-case basis and that's a policy call for your board.
This change was made with a change that was made later in the exemption section, so it's important to look at those two together but I'll get to that when I'm going to do them in the order that Mr. Foss suggested The second change
requested. I'm sorry, just a moment. Supervisor Wolk? Thank
you. So Rachel my question is... I understand the shall part but not be limited to what I was talking about. You know I spent a lot of time trying to analyze this sentence and so when you say not limited to That means that it could be a lot of other things that are that's not in this ordinance. Which, in my mind could be nothing so I'm wondering why you need the phrase but not limited to?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf I think what the language is intended to say is that it shall include these conditions and may include others as well. But what are the others? You know, it's hard for me to think of a particular circumstance off the top of my head. But what it does is it gives a little bit of discretion that in addition to these conditions there might be something that's appropriate as a mitigation measure in a particular case.
And as with every condition there would need to be a nexus and a rough proportionality to that condition for the particular closure.
Okay, well I won't belabor the point. It just makes me feel uncomfortable that we have that language in there and we don't know really what it references and I think that it would be okay to Pull it out because we don't know what the, what it is. But maybe, well we'll hear from the public about that I hope as well.
Well Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf you're correct your board would have the discretion to delete that but not limited to and then in the future the Planning Commission would be limited to requiring only what's listed in the ordinance. Thank you very much.
Yes?
Madam Chair, members of the board. The second requested change is in the section right below that at 3589-070A and it's a change from May to Shell and it's consistent with the other language throughout that section as well as the introductory language change. And that's within the discretion of your board to make that change The third requested change is in section, also in Section 35-89070. It's 2A and there were actually three requested changes in this section.
The first is to add the language to a comparable mobile home park at the very beginning That change was considered by the Planning Commission in that it's actually listed above, in Section 1. And I think it's consistent with the intent as it's already listed in Section 1. The next change in that section was actually the order of A and B And so that change was done.
As the section currently reads, the applicant is required to provide both A and B. So whether or not the order has changed has no legal effect of what's required for the applicant. So I went ahead and made that switch the order. And then in Section A There's a change from May to shall and that shall language is consistent with all of the other conditions. And that's actually how it originally read, and then it was changed at the Planning Commission from shall to may.
In the last requested change It's at the end of 35-89-070, under B. And it's deleting the language unless waived by the resident. That was a change that was considered by the Planning Commission and it's within your discretion to retain that language or delete it. It's on page 6?
1:04 – 1:1013 turns
Kind of that middle paragraph that starts no later than 30 calendar days. The third
line down. And Madam Chair, there was actually so one additional change that was requested and But it's placed in a different location. So, in the public comment letter after the discussion of in-place value for relocation assistance for mobile homes that cannot be relocated there is reference to an exemption When the estimated value would go beyond reasonable cost of relocation.
So what I did was actually added a section to that effect in the exemption section, which is 3589-090. That's at the bottom of page 7. At the bottom of page 7, and it's section A1C. And so what that does is gives the applicant the option of applying for an exemption in a particular case where the relocation assistance that's being required would exceed the reasonable cost of relocation. And that says prescribed in government code section 65863.7 And that's all the changes. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
All right, thank you council. I appreciate that very much because I think that at least some of the public speakers here today will want to speak to these changes so now they know that we've gone through them and they can speak to what's before us.
Madam Chair,
Supervisor
Wolf. So Rachel just in summary then there are of all the changes that were presented to us you feel that legally they are acceptable? I think there was one case where you said we have discretion but that you find no problems with these changes.
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf That's correct. I think as I said it's Part of it is a movement of the language from one place to another. But when read together, that's correct.
Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Unless we have any other questions or comments from the board, we'll go ahead and turn to public comment. Mr. Allen, how many speakers do we have?
We have about 15 speakers.
All right. Let's go ahead and start then.
Madam Chair, members of the board. We're going to start in Santa Barbara with James Richard to be followed by Derek Weston
Good morning. Good
morning Some California mobile home owners have not been protected by a closing ordinance when their park was closed. At the recent Planning Commission hearings, the speaker for the WMA told the commissioners that relocation of these mobile home owners has been smoothly accomplished but the speaker knew better. I personally communicated with the state specialist who does the most mobile home relocations in California.
I exchanged several emails with her and spoke to her on the phone. She said that when there was no strong closure ordinance, displaced mobile home owners were usually given less than $30,000 for so-called moving costs. With that sum Only a very few mobile homeowners could move their homes to another park. Even then, these mobile homeowners in addition had to pay out of pocket for a space in the other park.
She strongly recommended that we have an ordinance that would provide fair compensation to the mobile homeowners. Then the displaced mobile homeowners would be able to purchase a comparable home. At the hearing, several speakers also stated their opposition to mobile home space rent controls. The speaker for the WMA said that the park owners did not gouge the mobile homeowners when rent control was lost.
The speakers knew better. They knew that space rents are usually doubled or tripled after rent control is lost. For instance, Santa Barbara City lost most of its mobile home space rent control in 1984. Mobile homeowners who remained in their homes could keep their rent control. However, buyers of the mobile homes could be charged whatever rent the park owner wanted.
Within 10 years space rents in Santa Barbara City Mobile Homes rose to over $600 per month from $294 per month. The park owners in Santa Barbara City had increased their incomes by over 100%. In addition, some park owners simply took over the homes when the mobile homeowners could not pay the increased rent. The park owners then simply rented out the homes for three times the space rent or they flipped the homes for a large profit.
One of the speakers represented a company that has first-hand knowledge of this. That company owns or operates 20 mobile home parks in California and they know what the rents are. Thank you.
1:10 – 1:1711 turns
Next speaker
is Derek Weston to be followed by Dr. Robert L. Johns.
Good morning members of the Board of Supervisors and Chair, my name is Derek Weston and I'm speaking on behalf of Lacombra Mobile Home Park that park has been owned by one family for over 30 years they have no plans on closing the park All of us are extremely sympathetic to the residents who are speaking to you today and who I know have spoken to the Planning Commission.
Although I represent a park, I ask you to believe that we are sincere about that. The reason we are concerned about this ordinance is that we believe it is not actually going to achieve its objectives. It looks good, but it just cannot be effective in awarding the amount of compensation that is specified in the ordinance because it asks for an unreasonable amount of compensation from the park owners themselves and does not look to any other possible sources of funding.
It is fundamentally unfair, and ultimately that creates legal problems and constitutional problems to ask only one segment of our society to bear all of the costs that the park residents may incur if they are displaced. Especially in this case, because Santa Barbara has had rent control for over 30 years. So in the case of Lacombe Mobile Home Park those owners have already incurred costs in the ballpark of $4 million dollars of reduced revenue and current time value as a result of rent control. They're not complaining about it but that is a reality. A very very significant reduction in income And that reduction in income is one of the major factors that makes in-place value so high.
So to now ask park owners to compensate displaced residents for in place value, you're really asking them to pay again when they are the ones who have been providing affordable housing for so many decades in Santa Barbara County. I have grave legal concerns that it is constitutional because of taking issues and that it complies with state law to require that in-place value be paid.
But if I'm incorrect about that, And there really is a legal possibility of requiring in-place value. It still is not going to happen because the number is simply too vast. If you have a 100 unit park and the average in place value is $200,000 per unit that's 20 million dollars. There is no chance that any park in Santa Barbara County and maybe anywhere in the state has that basic land value That means that your ordinance is really saying you can take any amount of money from the park owners as long up to a limit that the county decides is too much. So no guidance is being given at all and I think that it's just a bad way to approach this legislative problem. It looks good on paper but I think if you research it in California, you will not find Any place that has paid anywhere near that order of magnitude.
So you're adopting an ordinance that looks good, but I think it is not in fact going to give the residents what they are asking for.
Thank you Mr.
Your time is up Oh, I'm sorry. I misread the clock. May I have 15 seconds to finish?
Fifteen.
I urge you to look at other possible sources of funding such as the state of Washington which has a tax on sales of mobile homes so that you really have a source of funds to compensate displaced residents. Thank you.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Dr. Robert L. Jones followed by Elaine Abercrombie.
I do not manufacture these conspiracy theories, Supervisors. What I do is I ferret them out, examine them and expose these conspiracy theories like this one possibly began in 2008 after the election when old Joe Holland was kicked out and put over here on the assessment board. And then he raised the rates, and then the assessment rates, and then the owners raise the rent.
Beginning of a conspiracy theory coming here now in 2012 to kick the owners out. Now when you talk about... I'm sorry, kick the persons who live in these mobile homes out Now let me continue along with this conspiracy theory, okay? Now Hitler and Mueller had a planning commission in the smacks of relocation. Are you kidding me? You want to relocate people? And when Hitler relocated he exterminated And when you relocate people, you exterminate them psychologically. I'm telling you this board does not think psychologically. You think about an argument that you're going to have with your planning commission because you found some area here that you think should be tightened up.
You have no thinking, no thought about the people in these homes that you were trying to redevelop And sell to the owners. You want to redevelop this. All you think about is the redevelopment and the tax dollars you're going to get back to this county, which you will scound anyway, board members in Carvajal. Now let us try to imagine Hitler and Himmler sitting down and relocating a group of people. That's exactly what you are doing, Carvajal.
with your unfair assessments and higher rents, and then moving people out. Now what I want to say here is that people matter. Of course you lie when you say people matter because all you think about is that moving them out. When you move somebody out of their homes, out of their existence, out of their what matters Then you've killed them, you've destroyed them. You have exterminated them.
Did you know that the number one reason for suicide in this country is a stress of moving? You Board of Supervisors, you disgust me.
Next speaker.
Our next speaker is Elaine Abercrombie to be followed by Sharon Rose.
1:17 – 1:258 turns
Good morning. Madam Council and council members, thank you so much for your service to our county. I'm the broker for Abercrombie Fine Homes and past president to the Association of Realtors here in Santa Barbara and the Multiple Listing Service. I also live in a mobile home and I sell mobile homes. For the past 12 months our mobile home sales have netted Agents income of $437,000. That's from Carpinteria to Goleta.
For the whole county it's a lot more I'm sure for the 7500 households that we have in our County. Buyers and sellers want some security as to what would happen should the park sell. If there is no security with this ordinance, sales will fall off dramatically. I urge you to put some clarity and some certainty into this ordinance for homeowners. The use of shell would be so much more clear than may.
And the in-place value at market rate is much more clear than just in place value As far as incomes for park owners, I know that Santa Barbara Rancho Santa Barbara makes over $2 million a year in the rental income. So I don't think it's that much of a loss to have a place for our homes to sit. Equity is built in mobile homes as well as condominiums and homes, stick-built homes. And I know that you don't want to penalize first time homebuyers for buying a mobile home just because they can't afford a regular home.
Do you have any questions for me? I don think so. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Sharon Rose, followed by Jamie Wyrick-Rodriguez here in Santa Maria.
Good morning.
Good morning Board and Chair. My name is Sharon Rose. I am Executive Director of the Mobile Home Owners Project and a member of the Renter's Housing Roundtable. These advocacy groups represent renters and mobile home residents. I live happily in a 750 square foot mobile home We have close to 9,000 affordable mobile home units and parks in our county. In contrast the county has some 4,400 affordable units.
When you add these numbers we find that almost two-thirds of the affordable housing is provided by the private sector, by park owners and mobile home owners. I feel the county has an interest in protecting this affordable housing stock whether it's addressed in this ordinance or not. I understand also the concerns about property rights and I want to remind everyone that in mobile home parks there are two property owners, a landowner and a homeowner who rents a space.
It has been stated that a park owner should not pay fair market value if a park closes because they have subsidized residents for years with rent control. Please understand that rent control is a restraint that protects vulnerable populations against predatory rent practices. Rent protections only exist because abuses have occurred, as in Huntington Beach I also want to say that in the relocation section of the ordinance on page 6 under 35.89.
There was a phrase added that a waiver was not about the waiver, that unless waived by the resident this was added and it's harmful to seniors who may not understand the benefits of the waiver. We would like to add a sentence that says no later than 30 calendar days following the effective date of the CUP That the resident will be notified in writing of the applicable relocation costs and assistance to be provided. And I'm going to submit that language here.
Thank you for your listening and for your service to our county.
Thank you. Next speaker?
Our next speaker is General Roderick Rodriguez. He was nominated by Robert Faust. Good morning.
Good morning, thank you for having me. I would just like to address and support the change in the language and in the different areas. For the changing it gives addresses several problems if this is corrected number one while it gives accounting necessary authority to require all the conditions outlined in 35.89.070 It gives the county the discretion to require none of them.
Number two, it dilutes the ordinance to the point where the four relocation assistant measures under A or B are optional. It shifts the burden of proof from requiring the park owner request exemption to the MH owners having to fight for any condition met. In administrating an ordinance there needs to be a uniformity and certainty This change opens up a fight in every case over where the discretion of the county may choose. The county need not burden the staff with the commission with extra work.
To correct these deficiencies, we request that the board change May to Shell in section 35.89.770707070 Introduction to the 35.89070.A to read Approval of the condition of the permit shall include reasonable conditions of approval in compliance with the government code section 65863.7, which shall not exceed the reasonable cost of relocation for displaced mobile home park residents and shall include but not limited to the following measures 3589.070 conditions of approval a relocation for sale In compliance with the government code section 65863.7 and 66427.4, the county shall apply measures to cover but not exceed the reasonable cost of relocation for displaced mobile home park residents.
By adopting the PC recommended draft after approving these and other changes requested by the homeowners, the board will bring the draft ordinance in line with a model ordinances throughout California and restore key missing components. This will be fair to all mobile home owners and park owners who should be equally protected as follow fellow residents in other jurisdictions. Thank you.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Robert Faust, followed by David Evans.
1:25 – 1:327 turns
Good morning. My name's Robert Faust. First off I'd like to say that I heard correctly what the county staff attorney has said. I sort of support that. If I misheard her, then then I don't but I think I heard her correctly. Number two we look at the details of this ordinance and of course the devil's in the details And I'm only going to talk about one or two points. And the point I'd like to make first off is, for instance, the agenda letter to the board indicates under the summary, the ordinance will provide the county with a discretion to require the mobile home park owner to mitigate impacts on park residents. For example, number one and then number two, the in-place value of the mobile home. In other words, the county could require the park owner to buy the property or maybe even at less value Giving the county some wiggle room on case-by-case basis.
You know, as a resident of a park That concerns me. If we don't get the fair market value of our homes, then we're looking at a significant loss and it's going to be really cattywampus problem for everybody in the park because almost no one is going to be able move their homes to any other part because there are no other places to move them to. If we look at the provision itself, you know this .070 conditions of approval.
Approval of a conditional use permit shall include reasonable conditions of approval in compliance with the government code Which shall not exceed the reasonable cost of relocation. I'm not sure why we can't use the word, which shall equal the reasonable cost of relocation. Therefore, we have a balance in terms of not exceeding the reasonable costs for relocation but not going down below the reasonable costs for relocation for park residences.
But then we come over here to 2B. The applicant may at the discretion of the county be required to buy the mobile home And pay the in-place cell value. The applicant may be required at the discretion of the county. Now, there's no place that I can see in this ordinance which defines and specifies what discretion of the county means. So, I'm concerned that there's this lack of definition so that we know what we're dealing with. You know as a resident you know are we looking at a fight over every Everything now. I know that we're looking at a At a frame of reference, I'm a resident and I'm looking at this ordinance from one viewpoint the owners looking at it from a different viewpoint I'm just looking at something that's going to be fair We just want a fair deal and that's basically my point.
We'd like a fair deal Thank you very much.
Thank you Our next speaker is David Evans, followed by Jane Felron. Okay, Supervisor Wolf?
Madam Chair just to clarify an answer I'm not sure if I heard you correctly but I do want to clarify with Council that we are in the section about the relocation for homes that can't be relocated it will be based on the appraised fair market value As determined by a certified real estate appraiser.
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, that's correct the proposed language in the revised version that I handed out this morning says that the applicant shall be required to buy the mobile home and pay the in-place sale value which shall be the appraised fair market value as determined by a certified real estate appraiser who is acceptable to the county.
And sir, if you could just hold on one quick second. Because I'm looking at the findings and this is in attachment A and maybe you can look at this while we hear from the other speakers but I notice in the findings that the word may is still included in the findings and or if we accept this And as recommended, it seems that we need to modify the findings to reflect the same language. So just as a thought that maybe we can talk about later. Thank you sir.
Yes my name is David Evans I'm with the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association so I represent Mobile Home Park owners And we're opposed to the ordinance for obvious reasons from our point of view. There are about 480 cities and 58 counties in California, only about 40 have an ordinance like this and not all of those use in-place market value so about 93% of local jurisdictions do not go beyond state law And almost all cities and counties in California have mobile home parks. And they're able to close a park when that situation arises without passing local ordinance.
Mobile home parks are not cash cows, or this would be a burgeoning business. In fact it's a stagnant and even a little bit dying business. Years go by and a new mobile home park is not built in California. Even though it would be, by state law, exempt from rent control. You could build one in Santa Barbara County, a brand new mobile home park and it would be exempt from your rent control ordinance but it's not happening. If they were cash cows investors would be building them.
Everything has its useful purpose. The building that we're in now one day I suppose will not be here. And you're making it even mobile home parks have their useful purposes And one day every mobile home park will need to shut down, but they're not going to be able to with this ordinance. Not unless the developer or the owner is virtually a billionaire who just can't afford to do it. So even if you have a run-down little trailer park on a very visible corner that just about everybody agrees needs to be turned into a different use I don't know how you're gonna do it unless the person that owns that park has got very very deep pockets One speaker mentioned there was a city up north, I'm trying to think where it was.
I forgot the name of it, where they did this and I checked and they did close some parks with in-place market value. They closed several of them but I think it actually proves our point. That's the only place in the state where they have ever done it No place else can you, unless that developer must have had incredibly deep pockets because no place else can you pay in-place market value and close the park.
For the local governments to implement in-place market value, you're telling the park owner that it's going to be a park forever and ever. And in most cases, you're going against the advice of your attorney because we feel strongly it goes against state law We believe it's unconstitutional that it exceeds reasonable relocation costs. So we're, for those reasons we oppose the ordinance and would urge the board to follow state law as it exists. It is impossible to close a mobile home park quickly in the dead of night.
Thank you Mr. Evans. Our next speaker is Jane Fallon to be followed by Marie Pounders
1:32 – 1:386 turns
Madam Chair and members of the board, I'm Jane Phelan. I'm speaking for the Homeowners Association of Sunny Hills and we are very delighted with the work that the staff at County Council and Planning position has done over a long period of time to strengthen this bill. We commend the work that you have done articulating all of our issues, talking with us on many occasions.
We want the boarding to be approved. We hope that the submission will go through. Particularly for those mobile homes as mine is in Sunny Hills would not be able to be moved. The age of it, it's a lovely double wide with a sun extension. I live right on the lovely field and everything so that's a very different situation than a run down trailer car on a busy quarter.
Thank you for working so hard and I encourage you to go with our strengthening
recommendations. Thank you. Next speaker is Marie Pounders to be followed by William Hogarth.
Good morning supervisors. I am absolutely thrilled at what I've heard here today. I am with the Golden State Manufactured Homeowners League of California. I live in Los Osos, in San Luis Obispo County and I am the representative for Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo County with GSMOL. I have been on the stakeholder committees for both counties and for the city of San Luis Obispo, for the development of the conversion ordinances for the area.
And in preparation for today I actually researched 12 of the conversion ordinances throughout this state to examine especially the consistency of the options which would be available to mobile home residents if their parks were to close. So I want to thank Rachel, especially for her work on analyzing the suggestions which were brought to your attention from the Nesbitt group.
And thank the board for looking into that Because what I found with the 12 jurisdictions ordinances was an absolute consistency in either shall, shall, shall, shall with the options or simply a statement of pay, pay, pay, pay. There were no discrepancies, no differences in language in how the different options to pay were presented in the ordinances. There was a complete consistency of language And a complete consistency of content, intent. And when I spoke with the person from San Luis Obispo County prior to coming here He said to me there must be consistency of intent, everything in the ordinance must be crystal clear because remember you're planning for tomorrow not just for today. Everything must be clear to everyone who reads the ordinance because this is not just for the parks of today but for everything that happens tomorrow and I think with the changes you are making this ordinance will be Legally defensible and it will be clear for everyone.
So I really thank you, and I think with the changes that are being made you have a very strong consistent ordinance floor. And one that is fair to both because you have the exemption section which clarifies any problems that a park owner might think could happen if he or she feels that the relocation costs might be unreasonable. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Our next speaker is William Hogarth to be followed by Andy Caldwell.
Good morning, Madam Chair and fellow supervisors Basically, I'm supporting what the previous lady just said. I encourage you to recognize the tremendous number of hours of research and efforts that have been put into our findings that have been spearheaded especially by Ron Foss and Bill Hines Ron's columns have educated thousands in our city as to the needs for this law and the improved changes that the Planning Commission works on. Correction, the Planning Commission works on so many issues, this one is paramount to Nesbitt and to GSMOL.
There are 20 parks within the unincorporated part of our county, and I would leave you with one final thought concerning may and shall. A judge never says you may pay a fine or you may do 30 days. There is a reason for that.
Thank you.
1:38 – 1:4611 turns
Andy Caldwell to be followed by Joanne Marmoleo
Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. You know we understand the plight of people on fixed incomes and in this form of affordable housing and we certainly don't want anybody taking advantage of them however these houses don't last forever And you need to think down the road what you may actually be perpetuating and preserving. You may be putting people in a no-win situation as these homes deteriorate over time.
You know, you already have rent control and now you want to add this? And the most important question is not in your staff report. The most important question is when was the last time a new park was permitted and built in Santa Barbara County? What you do to preserve their homes and their rights and their values and their equity undermines the ability and the desire of anybody else to invest in creating mobile home parks, which is your most affordable form of housing.
So you're in a catch-22. The more that you do to preserve their rights and their values, the more you do to discourage anybody from creating the most affordable housing type that you have. And in fact I haven't seen any of you pounding the dais when a community plan comes in front of you saying where's the mobile home parks going to be in this part of our community? Because in reality most of you don't want them in the neighborhoods you represent So what you're doing here is somewhat hypocritical. You're saying how important this sector is, but you don't do anything to facilitate more of it in our county.
When was the last time land was zoned in a community plan or designated in a community plan for mobile homes? You know, the other thing I can't tell you how many times I've heard complaints from the ag community that somebody put a mobile home on an AgZone piece of property and the county told them to remove it. So you're not facilitating that form of affordable housing either in areas where the landowner would welcome it and there are no neighbors to complain.
The other thing is it would be interesting, these people have rent control They entered into, in many cases a contract for rent. But what happened to the cost of housing in the last 20 or 30 years? What happened to the cost of apartment rents in the last 20 to 30 years? Have these people actually suffered, or have they actually benefited? You haven't done the math. You haven't done the comparison to see whether or not they are actually getting disadvantaged or they're advantaged by what you have right now.
So I think you need to take a long-term view of this, a macro view of this. And I think you need to look to yourselves as whether or not you're actually being hypocritical and saying this is so valuable to us but we don't want any more of it. Thank you.
Thank
You Mr. Caldwell.
Next speaker is Joanne Marmolejo to be followed by Ron Foss.
Good morning. I'm Joanne Marmoleo Board President of Santa Barbara County Action Network And SBCAN works countywide for affordable housing. The recently released draft ordinance contains many features found in the model ordinance, but it has some serious problems. SBCAN along with many other organizations and individuals supports the Northern Santa Barbara County Manufactured Homeowners Group's proposed additions to the ordinance.
They've identified shortcomings in the draft that needs to be changed. We ask you to do the right thing for affordable housing in the county and support an ordinance with those changes. A clear and concise ordinance is needed to support Santa Barbara County's 2011 Legislative Platform Priority Commitment, that mobile home parks are an important source of affordable housing. Thank you.
Thank you. Our final speaker is Ron Foss.
Good morning Supervisors. My name is Ron Foss, I live in Sunny Hills and I'm representing the Northern Santa Barbara County Manufactured Homeowners Team and also speaking on behalf of the South County Manufacture Park residents. First of all, we are grateful and support the revised draft that the council had presented to you. I think it responds to every one of our requested changes.
And so if my time runs out, that's the most important thing I could say. Let's review a bit where we've been during the past 18 months. We mobile homeowners have worked hard among ourselves, our committee and other residents and with staff commission and the board to develop understanding of how the model ordinance presented to the county should function to protect the property rights of homeowners and park owners.
The model ordinance presented to the county officials over a year ago had received thorough legal vetting before its adoption by San Luis Obispo County, which the county officials there had insisted be legally defensible and fair to both homeowners and park owners. And yet the draft release last fall had many deviations from that narrowly defining cost of relocation Fortunately, County Council affirmed at the December hearing that there are no published Court of Appeals cases on reasonable costs of relocation.
So there are no legal barriers to adopting the in-place market value supported by case law and the overwhelming weight of local government precedent with over 40 jurisdictions having adopted the ordinances with this protection. County Council also affirmed at the February hearing that state codes provision cannot exceed reasonable cost of relocation, does not state that required mitigation shall not exceed the reasonable costs of relocating a mobile home. It is much broader.
The Planning Commission's recommended draft restored many positive features found in the model ordinances and had rejected staffs prior position regarding the in place market value. And as we've pointed out, the recommended draft had contained detrimental language changes particularly from shall to may that fortunately the revised draft presented today has restored.
And it has been stated while Well, we feel now this as presented today while it gives the county the necessary authority to require or it does give the county the necessary authority to require all the essential conditions. And that it also overcomes the point where we had about some things that would be optional. These are not required. Thank
you Mr. Foss. Supervisor Levin.
Mr. Foss
just for a minute. I hope people out there that wish to frame public issues and those things would take a look at what you've done over the last couple of weeks, months. You're a real good example of how to frame issues. I think you've taken this, people could look back on this as a textbook example of how to work with county. You came in and educated me. I think you probably talked to just about everybody here on the board. You mobilized your folks behind you with energy And you came across legal issues, you took it to our legal department and worked it through there. So I just want to congratulate you and think you did a great job on this. Thank you very much.
1:46 – 1:5319 turns
If I may, I'd like to thank everybody that's worked with us. And
I'd like to add to that because he was so patient because we started what? How long ago? It's been a while. Yes. But was patient and worked it through. So thank you, Supervisor, for pointing that out. And Ron, you really were a textbook on this.
Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Gray. Thank you again, Mr. Foss. Supervisor Wolk?
Thank you. You know, I just want to echo what Supervisor Lavagnino said about Mr. Foss and all of the people who have taken this issue up and really did a terrific job and I think it's one of these issues that's really brought together the North County and the South County as I have never seen before. And you know this is such an important issue, it is and of course I represent the second district and we did just go through a community plan And from the moment of visioning to the community plan, there were always statements in that plan about the importance of maintaining our mobile home park residents and the importance of affordable housing. So yes it was not included as a new zoning change but the fact of the matter is that We are so proud to have the mobile home parks that we have in the second district.
And I know the people in Santa Barbara that are down there, have also worked tirelessly on this issue. That you Rachel have looked at these issues, we've talked about them and you are in a comfortable position for all of us to move forward. So I'm almost resistant to take away all the issues that I brought up but I do want to just follow-up on a couple of them because if it If it makes sense to change it and it makes this ordinance consistent with the findings, I'd like to do that because we have to make the findings. So the issue on the findings between May and Shell has not been changed.
And I want to know from you if we can move forward and change that portion of the findings, which is 2.2.1 that talks about the compensation for the mobile home unit owner from May to shall.
Council?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf. Yes, you have the discretion to make that change and I would recommend that if you are... If the board is adopting the revised language for today that the findings should reflect that. And so it would actually be a change in finding 2.1.1 as well as the one that you mentioned, 2.2.1 All right.
Madam Chair, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion
Actually, I think that we have a couple of the people who want to speak first. And actually before I go to the board, I just want to make sure that staff and council don't have any comments they want to make based on the public comment that we heard. Is there anything you want to say at this time?
Madam Chair, we have no comments to make.
Okay, thank you. Supervisor Carbajal and Supervisor Gray.
Madam Chair I have nothing else to say. I was just going to make a motion as well. I think we beat this to death. We've come a long way. Congratulations to everyone. Want to recognize our council for doing a good
job.
Supervisor Gray?
Thank you. Mine is a question and I leaned over and asked how many...I wanted to know how many mobile homes constituted a park? And he told me any more than two And then I wanted to ask a question about, in Orca there are five mobile homes on the corner that are very very old and will they fit in this with as large as this is? That's what I need to have answered.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Gray that's correct. The state law defines mobile homes and our LUDC as well, mobile home parks has two or more on a lot that leases them out so that would be included as well.
Thank you. All right before we go to the motion I just wanted to say that I certainly am in support of this with the changed language, the amended language that we've seen today and I hope that the maker of the motion will go ahead and make the motion in that way You know, I think it's important to remember when we talk about the housing element and providing affordable housing that it doesn't just speak to new development of affordable housing. It talks about the importance of rehabilitation and conservation of existing affordable housing because otherwise we're never going to have enough affordable housing to meet all income levels in our county.
You know, it's clear that our mobile home parks provide thousands of affordable units that we would be lost without because they do provide the kind of housing that we're trying to meet the need for. So housing for seniors, housing for young families is starting out, housing for disabled people because mobile homes can easily be converted for accessibility or purchased that way So I feel very comfortable with going forward with this, with all of the changes. And I do think that the exemption language that's in there does provide an avenue for an owner if they need some special consideration. So with that, Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you Madam Chair. Given what Supervisor Gray asked about the definition of a mobile home park, I think that needs to be included in the definition. We have left that out. I think if I can include that in my motion, I don't think that would constitute that we have to go through a whole new reading that seems like a minor change doesn't it?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf. The definition section you see there is what we're adding to our entire land use and development code ordinance and that already has many more definitions within it including the definition of mobile home parks that we just described so that is already in our LEDC.
Okay, but I think just for this ordinance sake it wouldn't. I think it just makes sense to include it because someone would if someone was interested in this ordinance they may not go through the entire LUDC. Do you see that as a problem to include that here?
1:53 – 2:0917 turns
Council.
I mean if it is that's fine.
Madam Chair, Supervisors the definition already exists when this ordinance gets adopted it would be folded into the LUDC so that definition is already within the LUDC.
I'm going to make it no problem we're just gonna move through all right madam chair I will on item A in the recommended actions I move that we make the findings for approval as listed in the proposed amendment Attachment A, where the change is recommended from may to shall. And then determine that the adoption of this ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA and then adopt the ordinance that is presented to us today as attachment C, the newly revised ordinance attachment C. Is that enough language to ensure that we know what we're talking about?
Okay. And then the second part B is for the coastal zoning ordinance amendment, which is basically the same thing. So that's my motion.
All right, so that the two attachments are going to be consistent in the new amended language that we've seen today. Okay? I have a motion, I have a second. Supervisor Carbajal all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Why don't we take five minutes and then we'll come back with item number three. All right, the Board of Supervisors come back into session. We're going to take up agenda item...
It's on. Agenda item number three just for agenda management for those people that are interested in item number four, the Homeless Death Review Team Report that will not be coming up until after the board's lunch so probably not until one o'clock or after. Okay Mr. Allen would you read this into the record? Madam Chair and members of the board
Item three is from the County Executive Office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the funding of the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District ongoing operations.
Okay, thank you. Before we turn to Ms. Waller who is going to make the presentation, I just wanted to say that what came back to us wasn't what I thought that we asked for so I'm going to turn to Supervisor Lavagnino who was the maker of the motion because he may want to make some comments that Ms. Waller can then address in her presentation.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I already made these comments to our CEO so we had discussed this and basically as the maker of the motion in the last whenever we saw this the last time I think it was through the city hearings and we felt as a board had made direction to come back with specifics on how we would handle a property tax transfer And after discussing that with Ms. Waller, she had said that she heard that and also provided us all these different options which I'm okay with looking at all of them but I think we had given direction. So what kind of I wanted to do in this meeting is...and she had stated that she's got all of this put together on the property tax transfer today and I think we're going to hear some of it. My concern is just, I want to make sure that when we go into our next meeting whether that's next week or if it's in the first week of April that we get whatever information we have and we are ready to implement a property tax reallocation formula before we get into our budget discussions.
I think it's important that we handle it now so that Make sure at the end of this hearing that we notice everything properly, that everything's taken care of so that we can address this in a timely manner and we get this matter put to bed. Okay?
Thank you.
Ms.
Waller. Thank you Chairwoman, members of the Board. The item before you today is funding of Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District ongoing operations including a property tax transfer. Mr. Bozonich if you could bring up our slides for me. Oh, this is going to be a challenge. Would it be possible to get them up on our other ones as well? And I'll go ahead and start out.
So as your board will recall there were several challenges that were noted in the CityGate report The cost of current service level is increasing faster than the revenues, and we're predicting in 13-14 approximately a $4 million gap. They recommended that we continue our efforts to reduce costs and increase revenue. They made recommendations for service enhancements. And they also noted that we have capital needs of approximately $89 million that have no identified funding source.
By way of a little bit of funding history, In 2002 through 2012, we have seen budget growth in our fire department of approximately $20 million which represents 40% of their budget. In 2004 the board approved increasing the property or excuse me the Prop 172 allocation from 2.25% to 9.75% over a period of five years. Currently, the 11-12 estimated amount is about $2.6 million.
Beginning in 2009 your CEO fiscal outlook report projected a gap in your funding for fire operations. In 2011 you approved the Los Padres National Forest Property Tax Exchange, which is a permanent and ongoing $312,000 a year. And also in 2012 you approved an aviation service combination that would be provided by the Sheriff totaling about one million dollars.
As far as needs go our current estimated needs via the CityGate report were that in 2013 you would have about a 1.8 million dollar gap just to keep your current level of service In 2014 and for the next three years after that, you would see approximately a $4 million gap in each of those years. Again I make mention of the fact that additionally we have capital improvements that are not currently funded and if we were to choose to fund those via some sort of a bond, we would anticipate approximately six million dollars a year that would be needed for debt service.
Additionally, the CityGate report identified some enhanced service levels and if we were to take what is roughly the first phase of those 2012 through 2019 we would need additional $9.6 million dollars of ongoing In addition to what I had mentioned as far as the gap. And then in 2020 through 2027, an additional 7.7 million and that would be on top of the existing plus the 4 million gap plus the 9.6 million.
So we looked at some cost reduction strategies in addition to the fact of enhanced revenue. We looked at salary and benefit concessions We are considering retirement alternatives and we're certainly encouraging service and supply cost management. On the funding option side, the CityGate report had several things for us to consider. The first was enacting an oil production tax which was discussed by your board and the board declined to move that forward. Increasing the general fund allocation, shifting the tax rate percentage from general fund to fire district Increasing the TOT, proposing a parcel tax or increasing fees for fire services. An additional item that I put on for your consideration today is whether or not increasing Prop 172 percentage is something you'd like to consider.
So let's go through these in a little bit of detail. The general fund is the first option I'd like to discuss. Currently, 9% of the fire revenues come from general fund. If we were to try to close that $4 million gap I mentioned, we need to increase the general fund contribution more than 80%. In terms of revenue potential, the $4 million gap would require 66% of a projected general fund growth through 13-14.
The action required to adopt this would be the board adopting the budget.
The next item is the property tax transfer by way of background, this would shift funds from the general fund to the fire district there would be no increase to our taxpayers this would be merely an internal shift of funding overall the current percentage is a little less than 12% Which is relatively low compared with Ventura at 15 a little over 15% as was noted in the city gate report.
However, if you consider the current tax rate The general fund contribution currently provided the Fire District and their Prop 172 funds, you get an effective rate or a comparable rate of a little over 15%. Using that same analysis for Ventura who gets about $2 million dollars of general fund contribution. Their rate would be about 15.4%. The revenue potential from this particular option is about $2.4 million for each 1% increase that you would do in a property tax transfer. So, roughly in terms of current... Excuse me just
a moment. Supervisor
Wolf? Sorry, CEO Waller. You were comparing Ventura and Santa Barbara and you said that in Santa Barbara if you took the tax rate plus general fund plus 172 would be 15.08. And then you were comparing it to Ventura but what you said about Ventura would be If you included the tax rate in general fund, it would be 15.4? Yes. But you didn't include the Prop 172. They
don't receive any Prop 172 or they actually consider their Prop 172 in general fund. They don't make a determination between the two of them so that 2 million represents whatever they get in 172A and General Fund. Okay
thank you.
So as comparison if we were to increase the rate to 15% We're looking at an additional 7.3 million, 16%, 9.7 million and 17% 12 million. And those are all in terms of current dollars obviously that percent would increase a little bit as the property tax for the county overall increases. The action required if you choose a property tax transfer is the negotiation between Santa Barbara County and Santa Barbara County Fire District.
And it takes board approval of a tax transfer agreement with appropriate findings. If you were to look at a TOT, transient occupancy tax You should note by way of background that the current rate in the unincorporated area is 10% and we get about $7 million annually. Goleta RNA, which will come to pass in 12-13, will reduce the county's TOT by approximately 1.3 million dollars.
Also of note is that Santa Barbara County's current rate is 2% lower than many jurisdictions such as the City of Santa Barbara. The revenue potential is about six-tenths of a million dollars per 1% increase. The action required is two-thirds voter approval for a fire designation. Your other consideration could be to do a general tax, which would only take 50% plus one but then it would come to the general fund only and would not go directly to the Fire District.
A parcel tax is another option. By way of background, there were successful parcel taxes in 2011 in some cities. These ranged from about $78 to $85 per parcel. There were also some parcel taxes in 2011 that were not successful. It should be noted that there are relatively few parcels in Santa Barbara County which greatly restricts our ability to get the necessary revenue for the fire department The revenue potential is about one and a half to two and a half million dollars. And a parcel tax for fire would require two-thirds voter approval.
Fire service fees, the current fee collection is $3.1 million. And fees are updated regularly, they're reviewed regularly, and they are based per your board's direction on full cost recovery. Fire service fees must be tied to specific services and cannot be used for general funding of fire operations. There's very little revenue potential because, as I mentioned, service levels provided by these fees and the cost of providing them and the fees charged must all be equal.
By way of reminder, fees take a board majority Or in the case of determining that instead of a fee you wanted to do a tax, again the two-thirds voter approval. The last option which was added on here and was not included in the CityGate report is Prop 172. By way of background, Prop 172 currently funds our Sheriff, Probation, Public Defender, District Attorney and our Fire Department In 11-12, fire had 9.75%, which is roughly equal to $2.6 million. If we were to try to close the gap with this particular option, 25% would relate to $6.9 million. Revenue potential for each 1% of shift, we would estimate $275,000 annually and the action to implement this would be a board resolution.
What I have also provided for you is the CEO's proposal for a balanced solution. What we would be doing is solving for the funding gap in current service only. What I would propose to your board is $2.1 million dollars in ongoing salary and benefit savings due to wage increases and retirement. expect that we could contribute $2.1 million of ongoing additional general fund.
This does not include funding for enhanced services nor for capital debt and I would believe that both of those, we would need to look at some sort of future designated tax to be able to accommodate those future levels of service in capital debt. So the recommendations that I have for you today are to receive the report from the CEO on possible funding sources for ongoing fire department operations. And I would recommend that you defer funding decisions and direct that ongoing funding of the fire department operations to be discussed as part of the FY 12-13 CEO proposed budget. That concludes my report to you today, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
2:09 – 2:1510 turns
Thank you Ms. Waller. Supervisor Carbajal?
Could we go to the previous slide please? The one before that. CEO Waller, the sub-bullet of the first bullet in terms of benefit salary and benefit savings are those desired savings that we haven't achieved or savings that we have achieved?
Chairwoman, Supervisor, I'd be looking at savings that we have not received because to date we have deferred wage increases but we have not actually had ongoing salary and benefits. So these would be new increases that would need to be negotiated with the fire union.
Thank you. Thank you.
Supervisor Lavagnino?
Madam Chair on that then To get to 2.1 million on the ongoing salary and benefit savings, what are we... I mean, I know we don't want to do our negotiations here. We're going into a closed session so I guess we're kind of stuck on what we can talk about on that. I'll withdraw my question on that one.
Okay. Supervisor Wolf?
You know it seems to me that you know that this I think the CityGate report was very enlightening and I think the issues that you bring before us are also important issues, not just to the fire department but to the county as a whole. And many of the options that you presented to us were dealing with going out to the voters for some type enhanced revenue, be it the oil tax, be it TOT or the parcel tax.
And you know unless this because we need four-fifths vote from this board to move forward on any of those three and we've already dealt with one if this board doesn't want to move forward with any revenue enhance enhancements to go out to the voters well then that takes that off the table so You know we have two members of the board who did, you know I think we need to come to some understanding about that because that would certainly help the discussion. If we are to consider an increase in TOT then somehow we need to Get these items on our agenda so we can deal with them as a board. Now I may be reading the board wrong, maybe we could have four-fifths vote to move forward with the TOT.
I don't know but at some point we only had two choices. We either increase revenue or we decrease service and You put up something about the salary and benefit savings. That's a possibility, their contract is not up I don't think until 2013. But you know that's a one-time, well it could be ongoing. And then we have and then you've got $2.1 million for additional general fund which is great but because we're not seeing the entire budget we don't know how that will impact other departments So, I'm feeling very much in an uncomfortable situation. I think this information is important but certainly not in a position as Mr. Labagnino said to make any firm decisions. The issue of the tax transfer as you talked about, that was some interesting I guess maybe the fire chief may want to respond to that because I know that's something that he's talked about a lot.
I never thought about the comparison of the amounts in totality, so I would be interested to hear about that. I also understood that there was maybe the possibility doing that tax transfer in small increments to get them up to a point that was more realistic. But now I'm not sure what is realistic, so we do need to have a full discussion about this. So I just wanted to throw out some of the issues and concerns I have. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and from the public on how we're going to address this issue.
Thank you, Supervisor Wolf. Supervisor Carbajal? Thank
you, Madam Chair. I think all these options are great. Some we've been considering, some we're going to consider. Certainly our continued meet and confer process may yield something that will help in this regard. But I really thought from our last hearing despite all these other options which are very worthwhile I thought the one that we were going to really try to focus on is the property tax transfer.
For me it's crystal clear, that is the most viable option. It's just a matter of moving forward, identifying the specifics of how much what percent will yield, identifying an implementation phase in strategy and just getting it done. For me it's pretty straightforward. I'm not confused I appreciate all the options, but I see this one as the viable one that we need to move forward on. To once and for all straighten out the financing, the structural issues with the fire department so that we could have the fire services that I think we all want.
2:15 – 2:2919 turns
Thank you Supervisor Levin.
Madam Chair, I just wanted to piggyback on that as well and then I mean I think that's the one we focus on and then it obviously it then creates a hole in the general fund at that point okay? Then You know, but I think that's the truth that I think we need to look at is. To me, I look at it as something that we deal with next. The first thing that we have to deal with is the tax allocation shift which we all voted on last time and so I'd like to, I mean, I don't know if our CEO has any more information about that of how we might be able to accomplish that but and I know what the recommendation was but I thought that's what the recommendation was last time Decided not to go with that recommendation. We decided to go ahead and tackle it now, and so I guess I'm looking to our CEO to give us either more information or How do we because if I thought we voted on this last time And so unless I'm reading everybody wrong, I'd like to move forward with this.
And where's our plan of how to do that shift? If it's incremental like you said and I think that's what we kind of talked about or we move it and then we have a hole in the general fund then we need to deal with that but that was step number
one. Supervisor, I agree with you. I think that was our direction. I just want us to be as we move in that direction and it sounds like you agree And I don't think any of us are confused by the impact that this will have on the general fund. I think we all know that, so we have to look at the other piece of it too. So if we're willing to do that and you know, I really appreciate those comments but I think we need to have...I agree. We need more information. We did say let's look at this in more detail We did get some new detail, but I'd like to see more of how we're going to implement it and a timeline to bring it in slowly to where we believe we should be. And the other decision... What's our target? What's our target and how are we gonna get there?
Supervisor Carbone
and it's been my understanding that one of the One of the potential concepts is really to do to minimize The immediate impact of the general fund is to do a phase in where it would be incremental It would be part of the The actual growth in the general fund revenues that are realized in future years. So, that would be part of the solution of the concern that we would have so we would know what to expect or not expect as we look at future budgets starting with this year.
Yeah, I'm just wondering if any discussions were had with our CEO and our auditor. Do we have any concepts to consider now? Do we do we have to bring this back and I'd rather come back to us sooner rather than later so that we could just start going down that road.
Supervisor Gray
I'm agreeing with the property tax transfer item. So, I think all five of us agree there and now I'm going to step out. I don't know where to take this. We have in the fourth district some serious good oil producing Folks, but they're hesitant about coming here because of the attitude of Santa Barbara County about oil production. So I don't know if I did, I mean it takes the support of the board to say yes we need to generate revenue. The oil business is there. It's doing it they are producing on Oikork at Peel almost as much as they were producing back in the 40s and 50s And I wish that we could get the board's support to ask our staff to go to the oil guys and say, what is it that we can do to get you to produce more so that we can generate more revenue?
Now I know I stepped out of where we were but I'm stepping.
Okay, thank you Supervisor Gray. You know and it's interesting that you mention that because yesterday I had a conversation with a gentleman from what was Brightburn I guess Pacific Coast Energy now and he talked about how they went from 1500 to 3500 I think Wells or barrels or whatever, they've just like tripled over the last few years and that's onshore oil in Orchid. And so you know I think that we must be permitting something otherwise they wouldn't be able to expand and I'm not saying that you don't have a point that there could be more but I personally have not seen at least for Ontario oil in the northern part of the county that they have been so hampered.
I will also say on the transient occupancy tax, I think that this is definitely something that needs to come to us. I'm certainly supportive of this and perhaps there would be enough support on the board that we could put it on the ballot and just need a simple majority but I think that's a discussion that we need to have. Ms. Waller, before we go to the public do you have any information now that you can share with us as far as this idea of an incremental tax transfer?
Chairwoman members of the board in response to your direction last time which said bring back a report on the Transfer. I did bring other options as I mentioned, but also recognizing your specific desire on that we did put together some thoughts for your consideration. Dennis if you could bring up some slides for me please? So next steps if we want to move forward with implementing the tax transfer.
We need to discuss board direction on the amount of transfer that you would like, either in terms of specific current year dollars or specific percents that you would like to achieve. We have put together A growth sharing plan, which you may want to consider that would allow us to move forward incrementally. So as an example what we could do is we could start with the 12-13 proposed amount in the CEO's proposed budget obviously that has not been shared yet but where were heading would be Increase the amount that we give to the fire district. Currently, we give them $4.9 million, 3.9 directly to the fire operations, 1 million that we were going to transfer to the sheriff for the aviation program and I would be proposing an additional one million.
So if that were to be where the board wanted to head, that would give us about a 14.34% comparable tax rate And then if the board chose to, what we could do is each and every year after that we could give one quarter of the entire property tax increment general fund growth to the fire district. And we could do that until such time as we reached whatever percentage it was that you chose. So in this particular instance I used 16%. And if we were to do that based upon our analysis of what we think growth in general fund will be, that would take us about seven years to achieve that. So that's a possibility as far as how we could go incrementally and then Dennis if you could just go real quickly to the next slide for me.
And then if your board were to choose that some action steps that we would need to do Staff would need to draft the impact report. As I mentioned before, there are four findings that the board needs to make in order to do the tax transfer so we would need a staff to put together information that would enable support of those findings by your board. We would need to draft the resolution actually making that happen We believe that we could be back to you with both of those pieces by your May 1st board meeting. And at that May 1st board meeting, you would conduct your public hearing to consider the effect of the property tax transfer You could make your findings and you could actually adopt the transfer resolution on that day. If you were to do that, the implementation would begin at the beginning of 12-13 which is pretty much the earliest that you could actually do the tax transfer as that's the start of our new fiscal year.
So just some items to consider seeking board direction on where you may want to go with this.
Okay thank you Any comments right now? Madam Chair. Supervisor Carbajal.
You know, I appreciate that. I think it's also a little confusing when you consider all the nuances. You know for many years we've been talking about this specific possible tax transfer as a strategy And I know I've been talking to Chief Dyer for many years, maybe even before you came on board CEO Waller. And when I was looking at my very large files And I came up with some scenarios that I think we kicked around, old forms and strategies. And I guess with your permission CEO Waller, I would like to ask Mr. Dyer to perhaps Give us some feedback if this is along the same phase in approach that we had discussed many years ago and I know the conversations have evolved over the years as well.
And I'm just wondering if this fulfills the concept that I know we kicked around like, I don't know it's been over a year?
Chief Dyer? Supervisor Wilk?
CEO Waller, can you go back to the previous slide so as Chief Dyer is speaking. We at least have the example in front of us.
And Madam Chair, I don't mean to put you in a contradictory position with your boss. I'm just asking you to tell me what based on our previous discussions if this is what you and I had discussed because I'm trying to reconcile both things and it has nothing to do with what CEO Waller presented. I am just trying to go back to those discussions that I had with you and the information that I think I pulled out from my files Madam Chair, members of the board.
This is uncomfortable up here. I think what we spoke of early on was there's really three ways to do this. There's an incremental and I think the auditor can probably speak if the auditors in Santa Barbara or if we have a representative here but the thought was to do an incremental transfer to all the tax rate areas from the general fund to the fire district I was told at the time that that was not the preferable option for the auditor because they would have to change the tax rate areas four times over the next 4-5 years or how many years it would be until we got to 16%. Then in working with the auditor, we believe you can do the transfer on the front end Set the money in a designation and then the fire district repays the general fund back over four to five year period, subtracting the general fund contribution.
Getting the fire district out of the general fund immediately counting that the general fund contribution plus an incremental part of the growth so it would be if the General Fund grew 25% you take that dollar amount and payback The fire district keeps that amount but pays back the remaining amount of the original transfer. And it's kind of complicated, we'd need to probably see it in writing and then the final option is to do it after a five year period and transfer some of the money incrementally to the fire district from this designation.
Supervisor
Carbajal.
Mr. Dyer, I'm going to try to give my perspective of how I understand this as I understand this it's Council first of all needs to say are that are all three options legal? Which we're going to get feedback at some point from council, not today in the future. And then it's my understanding you could do it one of three ways. You could do it annually. You could do it in the front with some kind... It's basically a payment method by which it happens. It's just an accounting method on how it takes place or you could do it in the rears. It is front, rears or annually and the question becomes how do we do it in a way assuming we all agree that is efficient, legal and appropriate. But that becomes the mechanics by how we get there. The first question is the different percentage scenarios what do they yield in addressing this financial challenge we have?
And once we agree on that we agree on the method by which we accomplish it.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal it's absolutely right. The original thought all along was to do this only with incremental growth of the general fund. with growth so that the net there would be no net loss to the general fund. And if the general fund grows more, you know each year then that growth part a portion of that growth would help the fire district get to 16 percent even sooner than seven years it could be four years could be three years depends on what the growth is
2:29 – 2:3612 turns
Okay. So, well it sounds like we have a couple different options and the supervisor Carbajal said council hasn't really weighed in on this but counsel just for the purposes of discussion in looking at what is up on the screen here can you comment on that?
Yes, as a matter of fact I spent some time with the auditor's office really melding the legal principles of section 99.02 with the tax system and this system appears to me to be legally sound whatever numbers you put in It's basically a combination of a lump sum transfer followed by, for a period of years, by a transfer the percentage and those numbers are flexible. The baseline transfer or the percentage to get to whatever in this case example 16% whatever Percentage you want to get to I think well that is Legally sufficient subject to your board making the findings that the CEO has mentioned in her report But yeah, I think this I think this is doable.
Thank You supervisor
Thank you, Madam Chair. So basically all we need to do today is what you need is a number so that you can at that point then create the impact report find out what that does to our general fund so that you can then make the findings in the May 1st meeting. Is that correct?
Supervisor Chairwoman, I need the number and I also need some idea of how quickly you want to move forward to achieving that number. As I mentioned in this example what I was proposing is 25% of the growth each year until you get to that number however I need guidance on is 25% where you want to be? Is 50%? Is 100%? So that's the kind of information...the two pieces that I would need Thank you Madam Chair.
I'm not at this point, I don't want to consider more than 25%, but it might be good to have two options. You know, I think we have to remember that we've made a lot of cuts in all of our departments and so when we think about the increase in property tax, I understand and agree with what the Chief is saying that we're not cutting it into any of our general fund.
But on the other hand, we need to bring back our general fund to where we were in our property taxes is the biggest piece of that. But I also understand that the fire department, we need to make some really big structural changes to ensure that they are funded to the level that they need to be funded. So I'm okay with a 25%. But we need to hear from Mr. Geis what that means and maybe another option of 20%. So, you know, we have a couple of options to look at the 16% did that come from Chief Dyer?
I can't remember was that pretty much where we want to land is 16% based on surrounding counties.
Sorry, chief. I had you sit down too soon.
Yeah, yeah.
Madam Chair, members of the board. I think between 16 or 17% would work because I think in using Ventura County as an example, I think it's a logical one because it's right next door but there's differences you know they get 15%, but the property tax revenue is based on the volume of parcels or buildings, the percentage, the allocation percentage and also the valuation An example is even though Ventura County gets 15%, if you compare fire stations, they have 31 fire stations and a budget of $135 million. So they're roughly a little less than double the size but their budget is two-and-a-half times the size So they get much more money for their 15 percent than we get. We're at roughly 54, 55 million and we have 16 stations.
So thank you for that so in addition to the other two options I suggest that we look at 16% and 17%. So we can see what the higher amount is as well and how long it will take us to get 17%. So you're going to basically have four scenarios and that will give us an opportunity to look at that. And just as an aside, I heard from two supervisors that there is some degree of interest in looking at a TOT.
Oh, we have three? Okay it looks like then That that is something that maybe we can give you direction to staff to come back to us. And I don't think it's going to be ready for November, but something that we can look to in the future because if we can do that, I think that will also help Give us a sense of balancing, like I said before the revenues with making sure that we can cover this department and not forget and also lift up some of the other general fund departments.
Okay. We have some public speakers so I'm just wondering if you can go ahead and go to the public and then we'll continue this conversation. All right Mr. Allen?
Our first speaker is Andy Caldwell here in Santa Maria followed by Joyce Dudley in Santa Barbara.
2:36 – 2:4311 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. Believe it or not, I hate sounding like a broken record that you need to plan. We agree that the fire department needs more money part of that is pensions which nobody's mentioned today specifically. I'd like to know what the pension costs were but you've got a jail to build and he got a jail to staff You also have other public safety functions that they can claim they're underfunded as well.
And we have a public infrastructure problem where the road department is in the hole somewhere between one and $200 million, doing streets and bridges and road maintenance. So you've got a huge problem on your hand and I applaud Supervisor Gray for thinking outside the box, i.e., how do we bring more revenue in? And sticking out like the sore thumb is the oil industry. Cat Canyon by itself is estimated to have 100 million barrels of oil that are recoverable.
Do the math at $100 a barrel. So the point here is as we want public safety fully funded, we want it staffed But you don't have a plan. And it's easy for you to take snapshots of one department at a time and say, by golly we're going to do something about this because we support public safety. We support probation. We support the DA. We support sheriff. But it's all meaningless until you get down to your budget hearing and look at the whole pie.
For instance, it would be a no brainer for us to shut down long range planning And P&D in the middle of a recession and fully funded fire department right now. Congress right now is debating offshore oil off of our coast. Now we're talking real money, we're talking billions of dollars and maybe upwards of a trillion dollars in revenue. But I know when Joni, by watching Supervisor Gray brought this up, I can look at Displays of disgust on a couple of board members' faces, like we could care less about oil. We don't like oil, blah blah blah.
You know the point here is you're not leading the county out of the recession. You're not even playing defense against the state which is making the recession worse and you're protecting your sacred cows Let's have a couple of workshops before the hearing and tell us where you're going to get the money from. More than likely, we're going to support it but you can't rob Peter to pay Paul when they're all public safety because that's where most of your general fund monies are going. Thank you.
Thank You Mr. Caldwell. Our next speaker
is Joyce Dudley and Senator Barbara.
Good afternoon
Good afternoon. Oh, it is afternoon. Madam Chair, Supervisors Wolf, Leaveny, Nogre and Carbajal. Good morning. Well when I initially came here I thought we'd be talking about Prop 172 funding and I see that there's been no discussion about that so let me talk about the property tax issue. Revenue and Taxation Code section 99.02 paren f Talks about what's required in order for there to be a transfer of property tax revenues. And one of those, as Ms. Walla pointed out was that a transfer will not impair the ability of the transferring agency to provide existing services.
I support what Chief Dyer said, that he wants to make sure there is not a decrease in the general fund. Clearly we all need the funds from the general fund it's how we are existing now so I think that it sounds like this going to be hearing perhaps May 1st When we can hear whether this will affect the other agencies. I can tell you that on behalf of Sheriff Brown, Probation Chief Taylor, Public Defender Montes de Oca that all of us are concerned about public safety but that we are all equally concerned that the fire department received the funds it needs so I look forward to the hearing in May after the budgets have been resolved to some extent to see how it will affect all of us. Thank you.
All right, and that's the end of public comment on this item. So we'll go ahead and bring it back to the board. Supervisor Carbajal?
Yes, I too am very interested in the TOT issue. I just will say that I think at some point in the future we do need to touch base with the hotels involved I think if I recall correctly, 70% of not 80% of the TOT comes from the first district. And I just say that so that we keep that in mind as we have those discussions with our hotels. As we get ready to embark on a TOT measure that I think is worthwhile considering and I should hope that it does come back to us for consideration in the future.
I like the 16%, the 25% phase-in, and any other derivative there are as mentioned by some of my colleagues to consider. But that's the one that seems to be something I'll be really looking at and it's good to have more data. The more data the better but that's just sort of where I'm at.
Supervisor Lavagnino?
Thank you, Madam Chair. And well I think we're ready to make a motion. Does anybody have anything else that they want to talk about? I'd like to try to move this. I think make a motion that we receive the report. We direct staff to return with a plan to implement a property tax transfer On May 1st, I'm sorry that sounded a little weird. We're not going to implement the transfer on May 1st but we will receive the report and have a hearing on May 1 that would talk about implementing the property tax transfer that would begin in 2012-13 That inside that plan, I think we all agree that we'd be at 16%. There may be other options that would also look at 17% of what Supervisor Wolf talked about.
And inside that, we're also going to be discussing options too where that will come from including the incremental growth through the property tax at 25%, I think we all kind of agreed on 25%. 15, 16, 17? Oh yeah. 20, 25 okay that sounds good.
And Supervisor Lavagnino would that then include all the steps that need to be taken so that the board could be noticed to take action that day if we wanted to? Absolutely
and also that we have a have County Council look at the revenue and taxation code 9902 F as As Joyce pointed out so that we make sure that we're following, that the findings are there.
2:43 – 3:017 turns
All right. Anything else? It's a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, all right. The board will go ahead and break for lunch and close session. And we will come back in about an hour for agenda item number four. Mr. Marshall would you tell us what we're going to talk about in closed session?
Thank you Madam Chair. Your board has one item on your closed session agenda this afternoon, Public Employee Performance Evaluation Planning and Development Director. Thank
you Madam Chair. So should we be back at 1 or do we need a full hour? We'll be back about 1. We have our departmental agenda item number four. Mr. Allen, would you read that into the record please?
Madam Chair and members of the Board, Item 4 is in Public Health. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a Homeless Death Review Team report for 2011. Thank
you. Good afternoon Dr. Wada, Dr. Lennon thank you for being here with us.
Thank you. Chair Farr, members of the board, this next item is from Public Health and it's a report on deaths among homeless people in Santa Barbara County. The Homeless Death Review Team was created in 2008 to review homeless deaths and their causes, compile statistical data to identify trends, and explore means to prevent premature deaths in this vulnerable population. The findings that will be presented today are from calendar years 2009 and 2010 We all recognize that the issue of homelessness is extraordinarily complex. It is most prominently related to housing and affordable options, but it's also impacted by the economy, employment, education, mental and physical health issues, substance abuse, a lack of services in some areas yet for others there's reluctance to accept services.
For these reasons, data is so valuable in helping us to bring awareness to the issue and highlight areas where we can improve with the goal of preventing unnecessary deaths in this very challenging vulnerable population. So before I pass it over to Dr. Lennon, I would like to thank him as a lead on this project. He's been working very hard on this initiative And I would also like to thank the rest of the Homeless Death Review team. There are other county departments that participate, ADMHS, DSS, the Sheriff's Department as well as community partners like Cottage Hospital, Casa Esperanza and Parish Nursing. So with that, I'll turn it over to Dr. Lennon to go over the findings for this year.
Thank you. Thank
you, Dr. Wada. Sheriff Farr, members of the board The Homeless Death Review Team continues to meet quarterly to review deaths for residents of Santa Barbara County experiencing homelessness. If you remember, the first report was a 15-month report and so to improve consistency of data reporting we realigned the data for this year's report into a calendar year So the two years that we're reporting on would be from January 2009 to December 31st, 2009 and then January 10th to December 31st, 2010.
So I'd like to start where we left off at the last report, which is the recommendations that were made. And some of the recommendations that we really wanted to look into were the sharing of resources between county agencies and advocates and our partners, which would hopefully improve access to housing and improved care And then try to increase street outreach, outreach to where people are found most often.
We were somewhat successful in that right after the report was given we dove right into our Project Healthy Neighbors for the fall at Casa Esperanza and then we collaborated with Common Ground Santa Barbara for the large very large county wide vulnerability index survey And through that vulnerability index survey, there came a working group which is still meeting every two weeks we meet in order to discuss the most vulnerable that were taken off of the list in an attempt to house those as rapidly as possible. If you've never heard of vulnerability index survey it's based on data out of Boston Healthcare for the Homeless And it's a scoring system where you take demographic information and medical, mental health information. And then it scores the person based on that information and basically looks at the risk of death over the next year.
And so those that are most risked, you want to try to house as soon as you possibly can. So through those efforts we were able to secure benefits for patients, facilitate referrals across county agencies Enhance and coordinate processes. Every two weeks we find something to improve upon, and updated data which is not on the original report but we have now been able to house 36 previously homeless individuals and 17 families with 54 family members so over the last year we've been successful in housing 90 individuals that were previously experiencing homelessness So we are very proud of that and want to continue in that effort.
Our outreach, we tried different collaborations. The most successful collaborations that we're finding today in reaching out to people where they are most often is the collaboration between public health department, ADMHS and restorative courts who do outreach, street outreach on a regular basis And our public health nurses and mental health outreach personnel and restorative court have been successful in outreaching to individuals that are very resistant to coming to the standard of care, established care model that we currently use in most of the agencies.
So those are some of the things that we worked on and that we were successful with. We weren't successful in everything, and I'll get more into that later on. The next slide is demographics, and the demographics are taken directly from the death certificates. And again this is from the two years of data or all data information from 2009 and 2010. And Caucasian males between the ages of 50 and 59 years old, again represented the majority of the decedents.
And the average age of death is 52 years old, which unfortunately is about 26 years less than the national CDC average at 78 years old. Table 2 actually shows the demographic data. I don't know if we can flip between the different tables or not. Okay. As I said, most of the race data show that Caucasians were most prevalent with the decedents. Twenty-three Hispanics and 86 percent, most of them are U.S. citizens and again there's a high number of veterans unfortunately they're experiencing homelessness in the county.
Next slide. So manner of death again is taken directly from death certificates, natural causes listed most often. Accidents would be next. We actually had one suicide listed for 2010 so a total 1% for all data. 1% undetermined, that case was because the unfortunately the body was so decomposed at a time it was found that it was undetermined of actually how manner of death occurred.
And then 24% of the death certificates do not list a manner of death and that's because only coroner's cases will include a manner of death When a private physician is asked to complete a death certificate, we complete a worksheet which basically includes just the cause of death and some information as to the last time the decedent was attended by us. But it does not include manner of death. And so since the coroner did not consider that as a coroner's case, that information is left blank. That's why you see such a high percentage of no manner of deaths listed. Again, no homicides were listed on death certificates for this year which similar to the previous report is somewhat underreported when you look at other reports throughout the country.
But one death was listed as blunt force head trauma with unknown time and location. Next slide? For cause of death for all data for the two years, again drug and alcohol substance abuse as a combined category was the number one cause of death. Cardiovascular related category and if you look at table five or figure five, table five in the report that gives you the information to break down the actual cause of death which has been categorized It was interesting if you take as a single category cardiovascular disease and separate out drug and alcohol, then for the 2010 deaths, cardiovascular disease actually became the number one cause of death.
All other causes were 28%. More deaths are occurring indoors than outdoors, even if you take into account that some indoor deaths are hospital deaths. Still most deaths occurred indoor than outdoor and then deaths are occurring again throughout the seasons fairly evenly so there's really no significant trend that you can find from the different seasons As far as related health conditions, and this is a true prevalence of condition looking at the number of decedents allowing for one condition in the category compared with a total number of decedents in each report year. You can again see that alcohol is identified in 76% of the decedents, illicit substance 53%, cardiovascular disease and mental health are approximately 49-48%.
Interesting, if you look at what we call dual diagnosis where there's a mental health condition in conjunction with substance abuse 89% of the decedents were duly diagnosed. So in summary, you don't have to look very far in the data to realize that use of drugs and alcohol is very prevalent in the population. Mental health conditions present a large portion of the population.
Those with alcohol and substance abuse pose substantial challenges. They're often resistant to treatment. But it does point to the fact that we really need to look at seeing if we can improve those resources and increase the number of resources needed for acute treatment and services. And not only for acute treatment, but we need to look at what is happening after the acute treatment. Oftentimes someone goes, is willing to go into a acute treatment facility for rehab But after that, there's a limited number of resources for them to go to in a transitional type setting.
Often they're not ready to go into permanent housing at that point. So we need to look at clean and sober environments in the county to see if we can improve upon the services there and possibly increase the number of clean and sober housing situations that we can offer to someone that is willing to try to remain clean and sober. One of the, you go on to the next slide please.
One of the other challenges that we found in the data was that again, we're seeing a large gap in the last time of decedent access services to the time of death. For a public health department, it's at least a year between the last access of service and time of death. And even if you take alcohol and drugs separately for mental health, it's multiple years of the last time that someone actually was treated.
for those conditions and the time of death. So again, we know that their current model of stationary clinics even placed in locations where a majority of the homeless people locate is not always successful And so we really need to look at again more outreach, more street outreach. We have started to collaborate, public health has started to collaborate with Doctors Without Walls. So at least we're getting them on board as volunteers and I'm a volunteer for Doctors Without Walls now so it's kind of A situation where we're sharing each other's resources, but regardless it does improve the street outreach portion. But I would like to even look at more street outreach.
One of the things we were not successful with in undertaking was increasing number of public health nurse hours in Lompoc due to funding challenges and also we wanted to look at mobile clinic Potentially outreaching to those in areas where people are congregating and resistant to going to the traditional model, where clinics are stationary. So that's something I would really like to undertake and look at even more over the next year.
Another area that was actually highlighted by the Vulnerability Index Survey was the fact that there's an extraordinary amount of resources that are used within the homeless population For hospitalizations and whether it's emergency room or actual hospitalizations, the report actually shows in an appendix some of the data from vulnerability index survey. That's about $3 million for a one year period. Looking back to the one year period was about $3 million of resources that were needed to treat Those experiencing homelessness throughout the county and respite care is an area that we'd like to research more. Currently, Casa Esperanza in Santa Barbara and Willbridge are the only two agencies that provide any kind of respite care and of course the resources not only the funding But the personnel is limited in providing the amount of respite care that's needed.
Oftentimes when someone is discharged from the hospital, they go home and they might have in-home supportive services to help them recuperate. Well if you don't have a home and you're discharged through the street You don't have those resources available to you, and oftentimes these are the folks that are bouncing back into the emergency rooms or being readmitted into the hospital. And I think that's part of the trend of why you see such a high cost of $3 million for care for the homeless in the hospitals and emergency rooms. So we'd like to look at somehow improving the number of respite care facilities and increasing the number. There currently are no respite care facilities in North County whatsoever, and we only have two very limited facilities in South County.
And of course, housing is paramount to promoting health and preventing deaths. And like I say, we're very proud of what we're doing with the working group, the Vulnerability Index Working Group with Common Ground Santa Barbara. And you talk about multi-agency. This has been growing almost every two weeks. We're including more and more agencies. It's phenomenal just...we're basically doing it by a go-to meeting And there's so many people that are so excited to be involved in this and to try to help get people housed, get them better services and get them healthy. That this is something that we really want to continue and hope that we'll get the support to continue it in the future.
So that's the end of the presentation. So if anyone has any questions, then we'd be happy to answer them.
3:01 – 3:084 turns
Thank you so much Dr. Lennon. Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank You Madam Chair first of all I want to thank you Dr. Wada and Dr. Leonard for just doing an extraordinary job of pulling together this report and your ongoing efforts to address this issue in our community. I couldn't help but to fixate on the 89% dual diagnosis categorization of the individuals that have been included in this report. You know, long ago and for years like all jurisdictions in California we struggle with the so-called dual diagnosis effect strategies for treatment And it's always sort of something that is elusive to all of us.
I know that we put drug and alcohol division under the mental health department, so I guess one of the things I would really like to understand without digressing from sort of the other insightful issues in this report is how are we doing in dealing with dual diagnosis. Obviously, you've identified the nontraditional approach of maybe having a mobile van. I remember a mobile van became available to us.
We couldn't act on it for a lot of reasons and the American Indian Clinic revitalized that called the CAL and is now being used in various capacities so I can't help but think why didn't we jump on it back then Maybe we didn't know it as we do now, the lack of effectiveness we were having with the homeless. But how are we doing with dual diagnosis? I know there's always funding and program service barriers that come from the federal and state government that sometimes bind our hands but it would be great to see how far we've come Certainly, it's great to hear that you think outreach is really the most effective non-traditional approach to servicing a lot of this population because they just don't go to the clinic system even if they are in neighborhoods.
And certainly, the biggest finding that That I saw here was that we need to do a better care of respite care. And if that's a need, again pulling all the stakeholders together to see how we can achieve that in North County and in South County because like you said, I think sometimes it's actually cost effective to have the respite care than to have somebody who leaves and comes right back and we're spending multiple times the dollars that we would be It was You can answer some of those questions for so long, especially about the dual diagnosis. But more importantly perhaps explain to us your recommendations in addition to working with all the stakeholders on identifying solutions to the issues that have been identified in this report like the respite care.
Unless we put our heads together and work towards a strategy it won't get done. If we need a more effective treatment via outreach, unless we put our heads together, multi-jurisdictions, cities. You know, we talk about housing strategies working with cities. Well, we need to work with all our partners so that everybody's part of the solution. There's a tendency for everybody to look at the county as the solution, but we know that's not always the case. Some cities do a lot more than others and this is where we cajole and encourage everybody to be in an equal partner with us. So anyways I hope my diagnosis is the biggest issue.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal. Dual diagnosis is like you say currently part of the mental health program so I'm not sure if Dr. Dietrich is here or wants to try to address anything with that but it certainly is an ongoing problem as outlined by their report My hope with the mobile van unit or doing more street outreach, whether it's backpack medicine or working more with Doctors Without Walls is to take a multidisciplinary approach and have on the van All the agencies together have a doctor or clinician, have a mental health provider, outreach social worker, other staff members that can assist the whole patient. Not just try to treat the medical illnesses one time and then try to go another time and treat the mental illness or the substance abuse but have everyone there on board So that the whole person can be treated and whatever that person needs.
Sometimes in my, what I've seen is that it's very hard to even work with a dual diagnosis because you can't really even determine what type of mental illness a person has until they are somewhat sober, clean and sober. That's not always the case I mean you certainly can sometimes diagnose someone even if their alcohol or drugs are on board if they're schizophrenic to me that's going to come through loud and clear without having to have someone completely clean and sober but I know that's a challenge that I've heard from ADMHS is that they need to have someone clean and sober at times in order to really And that was a challenge in the previous report, was that some of the serious mental illness that was being reported was challenged because it wasn't diagnosed by the psychiatrist or provider through mental health.
It's not like services aren't being provided in the 2010 report. 100% of those diagnosed with serious mental illness received treatment through mental health services, but I think we can do better. I completely agree that the dual diagnosis is something that we really need to put our heads together and work on.
Thank you. Supervisor Wolf?
3:08 – 3:159 turns
Thank you. I have just a question so I better understand really how this works, so as a doctor who goes out into the community and let me step back. Let's say someone is homeless and they're a diabetic and they go to the hospital and they're treated and then they're released to respite care, let's just assume, and then they come back out on the street There's still a diabetic and someone like Doctors Without Walls, you run into this person. You may not be sure, you know, you may not have seen this person before so you don't really, you may not know what the problem is.
Is there any, like I know it, I know you can't force people to do this but you know like the bracelets? Like if you have You know, an emergency bracelet. I mean wouldn't that be helpful? That if someone is in the hospital and they're diabetic that you know medical information and so forth is put on a bracelet so that when you see them out in the street or whoever sees them at least they have a little bit of a head start to know what the situation is with this person. Again, I don't think we can force it on anyone. But could it at least be offered or is it just a crazy idea?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolff, I don't think any idea is crazy to put out there when you're trying to identify medical problems in any individual. Whether or not that's something that could be put in place, I don't know if those bracelets are free or not. I think
they're like $15 or $20. Well maybe that's a lot. We have over 5,000 homeless in
the county it
would add up.
But we would have to look at and work with our collaborators or our partners, certainly looking to the hospitals to provide the lead. As you say most of the people experiencing homelessness that don't seek medical attention at our clinics regularly visit the emergency room or the hospitals And we have no way of identifying what diseases they have if they don't show up with their medications or with a discharge summary, which often is the case that they do not show up with any kind of records.
Now I can tell you that we're in the midst of electronic health record implementation And part of the phase two of that implementation is going to be remote access and we are working on a volunteer program. That's how we have Doctors Without Walls partnering with us right now, and I'm a volunteer for them, they're a volunteer for us. We're looking to try to get remote access in place so that perhaps you could even access records from your phone out in the fields, out wherever we need to treat people that will have access to those medical records. That will certainly help you know to be able to identify disease and help know where to go and what to do to treat these folks.
That sounds like a great idea and I think it kind of gets to my thought just having that information however is best to get it. Thank you
Are there comments or questions from the rest of the board at this time? I just wanted to make a couple of comments. First of all, I just think that it's incredible that you have come so far, so fast since the first report as far as the collaboration and referrals between departments, the enhanced coordination, the process improvements I'm hoping that the discussions that are going on amongst all of the Advocates in the various groups involved with homeless issues as far as reorganization that would result in streamlining and more cost-effective delivery of services across the board is something that I hope will be coming to our Board for discussion fairly soon. And it seems very clear that the Housing First model is, is the model and that even those people That have been living on the streets for a long time that are very resistant to receiving services still seem to do better once they're in housing and become more receptive.
To those services something that I'm hoping that we will be able to track as we go forward to our statistics about the veterans Because I'm assuming now that the 14% that you say are veterans, are probably older veterans or the Vietnam era veteran. But I know that we're hearing that more and more there may be veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan that are younger, that would certainly have their life expectancy shortened even more so by living on the streets. So if we can start to track that data, I think that's something that would be really important to know and also to share with the Veterans Affairs.
To help better provide services for them. And then to kind of piggyback on what Supervisor Carbajal was talking about with the respite care, you know I know that funding is really a problem across the board for all kinds of services but I also believe that if we don't start to quantify the needs that we would like to see met that we are never going to know If there are opportunities available to help meet those needs in the future. So I would be interested to know as you go forward, let's try to quantify the need for respite care. Let's try to quantify the need for detox beds and where we might need them throughout the county. So if we have them in the South County but we don't have them in the North County I think that would be really good to know.
And the mobile clinic, I think is really huge. You know we have the Community Health Center of the Central Coast or whatever they're called that's in San Luis Obispo County coming down into Santa Barbara County as far as Los Alamos with their clinic and this is obviously not for the homeless population it's for the resident population and that provides a huge benefit And I think probably, you know, communities like Quiama or various places already need to be served in that way. So I think that's another need that we need to quantify. How much money are we talking about? Because it's not just the county here that's looking at this but in the partnership it's the county It's the cities, it's the non-profits. It's the philanthropic community.
It's all the advocates. There are some people in the community that are very concerned about this issue that have a fair amount of money that they might be willing to donate for a specific cause. So again I think if we can get specific information out there we might be able to start to work on addressing some of these needs. But another excellent report. Mr. Allen can we go ahead and go to the public?
Madam Chair, we have about eight requests to speak. We'll start with Dr. Robert Johns and Senator Barbara, followed by Karim Neal.
3:15 – 3:2111 turns
Thank you, Dr. Wada since you've come aboard this homeless death thing has taken a dive that means We've had less and less home. We've gotten to the problem now the issue mainly here is The supervisor Carbajal you are the most ill-informed Supervisor on this board And they say you have power, you have nothing. These homeless deaths occurred and it's just almost dropped off at the end.
That's because people are beginning to see that you have nothing to put to this. You misdirected this group by talking about dual diagnosis when we need to be talking about the real issues at hand and your budget reports indicate from the last few years, you have beds for mental health people in Ventura. That's dumb! And other things going on here, Carvajal Not only do you have dumb beds in Ventura, you have no program for people like what we're talking about. And I'm going to curb my anger because I don't like ignorance.
You have no programs here for people just like Supervisor Wolfe said, well what if you do have diabetes? You see and send them back out into the street or any other type of degree I was going to say Carvajal again, but I'm trying to curb my anger at the ignorance of this county. Talking about a mobile clinic coming from San Luis Obispo down here and we're wealthy? We're rich? We've got everything here!
And you, Carvajal are trying to cut the budget on everything you can possibly cut.
By the way
There was this modest little association. Dr. Johns,
County Council wants to speak.
I
got 52 seconds!
His continued comments directed personally at board members off topic. He should be instructed to speak on the
topic. Dr Johns you can leave the microphone now.
Thank You Madam Chair when you tell the truth you get anger don't you? Racist
Our next speaker is Corinne Neal to be followed by Darla Kaiser.
Yes, hello thank you my name is Corinne Neal I'm a community organizer with Families Act. Families Act is an organization that focuses on advocacy for people who have mental health issues substance use disorders Barbara County Board of Supervisors Face down on the ground, police officers checking his pockets. And I was going to pick up a salad and I just want to give a personal testimony as part of what I have to say today. That it saddens me that people who are homeless end up going into jail and into a revolving door of having to endure being incarcerated.
I want to put a focus on a woman I met on the street. It was a dark night, and I had nowhere to stay. And her name was Frankie. Frankie let me sleep in her spot with her blanket for an entire night. Frankie shared with me that she was abused as a child and that she was an alcoholic. Frankie was very kind, Frankie took me in and we talked and you know I'm also a master's in social work and I would diagnose her as someone who has alcoholism and post-traumatic stress disorder But she was a real person. She was very special to us. I later found out she was founded behind a liquor store and I just feel very strongly that we should be able to reach out to this population so that special people like Frankie did not end up dying alone on the street I commend you for your efforts in trying to mobilize volunteers.
I support that wholeheartedly. I also support the idea of more residential treatment. I had a friend who was discharged from hospital to the street, and I just would say that there are definitely people dying who could be helped. Mental illness and alcoholism are treatable The homeless population is a vulnerable population, and I would support any effort to increase the number of volunteers who are outreaching to the homeless.
I support any creative ways that we can come up with to increase a residential treatment center for people who have mental illness and co-occurring substance abuse disorders. Thank you.
3:21 – 3:3314 turns
Our next speaker is Darla Kaiser to be followed by Emily Allen.
Good afternoon, I'm with the Consumer Advocacy Coalition. It's an organization by, for and about people with mental health challenges. In response to the Homeless Death Report, mental health disease is 48-63% of those with mental health conditions also using drugs and alcohol. Access to housing is paramount to promoting health and preventing death. We need better coordination with housing and supportive services to prevent the deaths of the most vulnerable who are homeless.
The Consumer Advocacy Coalition has had people either been homeless or risk of homelessness, and we know how important this topic is. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Emily Allen to be followed by Deborah Barnes.
Good afternoon Supervisors, Chair Farr. My name is Emily Allen and I'm with the Homeless Education and Legal Project of Legal Aid. And I remember coming to the board a few years ago and calling for action in response to the deaths of people who were homeless that seemed to be occurring too often. The Board directed the Homeless Death Review Team to examine the deaths and report back, and I have to say that I'm impressed with their effort.
They've worked to provide you with specific information about the numbers of decedents who are physically vulnerable, have mental health conditions, and are duly diagnosed. Along with the Common Ground effort surveying people who are homeless, you now have a lot of data. And now is the time to do something with that information. In order to save the lives of the most vulnerable people who are homeless there's an identified need in Santa Barbara for coordinated interdisciplinary outreach teams that can provide mobile service to vulnerable people who are homeless and to people who've been housed and need supportive services to maintain their housing We also need home-style respite care for people leaving the hospital who are homeless and medically vulnerable.
The County of Santa Barbara needs to look to what other communities are doing, the communities that have established successful interdisciplinary outreach teams to move people from street and transitional housing into permanent supportive housing. In Santa Barbara County this can be done cost effectively by working with the growing volunteer movement. County departments like public health, social services, mental health and the alcohol drug program need to go outside of clinic walls and shelter settings to meet people where they are.
This is not just about more resources but rather using resources effectively. Now is the time to partner with the growing volunteer movement to provide care that is humanitarian builds on best practices and it's cost-effective. Thank you very much.
Thank You Ms. Allen
Our next speaker is Deborah Barnes followed by Suzanne Riordan.
Good afternoon, thank you for letting us be here today to speak on this important topic. I am Deborah Barnes and I'm with Worth Street Reach, an outreach that has a volunteer base. And we are one of the few volunteer bases out there in the street in the trenches every day working with our friends, the urban nomads. At this particular time, we are seeing more need for respite care and medical help than we've ever seen.
When we're in these particular locations on the streets, the bushes, the parks, the benches, the creeks what we see is astounding. The amount of vulnerable mentally ill on the streets unable to defend for themselves properly is serious and not being addressed. Many of the deaths in the review that you are discussing today are mentally ill deaths that could have been prevented There is a chronic situation of little to no support services for them. Those gifted with extensive knowledge in homeless community on the ground are now gone and they have not been replaced.
There is a serious need for supportive services, much more outreach such as I am doing with my team and to know the streets And we need a mobile clinic, seriously we need it. Not from San Luis Obispo, from Santa Barbara County. They need to support the valiant efforts that Doctors Without Walls are currently doing. We need supportive services, foundations of support for those we hope to house and respite beds from cottage hospitals revolving doors sending the poor out into our community directly from their services I want to address here at this point, too. They send them out after hours when they cannot go to county to get medication and there's no transportation.
It's been awful what we're seeing. Please find a way to help those who are vulnerable and voiceless in our community. They are someone's children. They were once loved. It could be any of our children by just a simple medication mistake or an accident. I thank you for paying attention to this today and supporting this effort.
Thank you, Ms. Barnes.
Our next speaker is Suzanne Weirton will be followed by Rob Fredericks.
Good afternoon, Supervisors. I'm with an organization called Families Act and this organization was created specifically to address the tremendous crisis that our community is facing in terms of people with dual diagnosis, people with co-occurring disorders, mental health disorders and alcohol and drug problems. And these days the Alcohol and Drug Mental Health Services Department is no longer giving full services to people who have these combined disorders if it appears that they won't qualify for disability benefits. So there's a whole class of people that are even more vulnerable than they were before, and this is people that are considered to be primarily people with substance use disorders and only secondarily people with mental health disorders but how are you really going to know who's who?
So, our organization early on created a task force on co-occurring disorders and with a tiny little budget we tried to address the issue. And out of this task force that met for a couple years we produced a report that we've just now come out with and we're calling it In Search of Solutions to Santa Barbara's Revolving Door. The revolving door is an incredibly costly thing as we have seen And it's costly in terms of lives, and it's costly in terms of money. So we wanted to sound the alarm bell and alert everyone in this community that we've got to come together and come up with really creative solutions. We've proposed some solutions. We've identified some of the most glaring gaps out of our whole continuum of gaps that we have in this community for treating this population.
And the population is really truly several subpopulations And for some of the people that we're most concerned about, there's a huge lack of treatment beds. I think you all know Tawna Wakefield who is now working in the jail as the discharge planner and she said to me, Suzanne get the beds! We need the beds. We've got judges if you take the time to go to our courts, you'll see that the judges that we have are very willing to send people into residential treatment rather than going to jail. Another huge gap that we've got is jobs. Many of these people would like to have a job but they think they're never going to get one in this economy so we'd like to focus on those aspects. We need a variety of residential treatment beds And we need a jobs program for this population.
We want the city and the county to work together, to form a group to work together on this crisis. The city's impacted by the homeless population but they don't seem to have any ideas, any creative ideas in terms of solutions. The probation department is now getting a lot of money. A whole partnership is getting money to serve the non-non-nons, the nonserious Non-serious sexual and nonviolent offenders. And guess what? These are the people that have alcohol and drug problems, and to a certain extent mental health problems. Let's all work together. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Rob Fredericks to be followed by Mike Foley who is our final speaker.
Good afternoon Mr. Fredericks
Good afternoon Chair Farr and Supervisors. I'm with the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara, and our agency has been one of the lead agencies in the Common Ground efforts over the past year. And first off, I want to commend the great works of Dr. Wada, Dr. Lennon, and Ralph Barbosa of Public Health They've done an admirable job, given their limited resources and it's been an honor.
And just working with them over the past year of helping to Get people housed, quite frankly. That is the foundation of what we need to do is get folks properly housed and until we can do that, we also need to provide services for those that are out on the streets. Dr. Lennon's report really speaks to the need for a more effective collaborative model in how we address the homeless issues and we've been working on a collaborative impact model that will create a true continuum of care for people moving from street to home.
And we do hope to bring that, as Chair Farr mentioned, we hope to bring this model to your board very soon that will hopefully get your endorsement. It's something that really will make a true difference throughout the entire county in how we coordinate our service delivery and coordinate the housing. Really the one other item I want to talk about is the idea of the CAL, the Clinic on Wheels. And this is an idea whose time has come and if we have the Clinic on Wheels it exists, if we can get some support and partnership from the county to help get that mobile unit out there working with the volunteers, we could truly save lives and that's what it's all about.
At the Housing Authority, we housed two folks from the vulnerability index survey that we surveyed last year at Artisan Court. And shortly after being housed those two individuals passed away and it breaks our heart at the Housing Authority to do all this work in getting people housed and then have them shortly thereafter pass away. It's like you know where we've done too little too late in order to stabilize their lives So if we can do something before they're housed to stabilize their medical conditions, that would really help.
Thank you.
Thank you.
3:33 – 3:4820 turns
Thank you Chair Farr and members of the board. I have a prepared comment but I wanted to just reiterate what you've heard so many times and what many of you have said, and that is the incredible honor that we have to work with Dr. Water, Dr. Lennon, the Healthcare for the Homeless staff and all the folks in the clinics who are working to help homeless people.
We often hear a separation in our language around calling this president or your board instead of our board. Over and over again, I hear people say our public health department. We can all be so proud of them. My comment is this. Over the past year professionals, county staff and advocates have gone over and above the call to turn the tide on this issue People are being housed straight off the vulnerability index due to intense collaboration and coordination. Volunteers are rallying to fill in gaps. We've embraced the community impact model as a vital way forward, while also bringing people together to develop organic solutions as well.
Everyone is working overtime to restructure homeless lifeline services including Supervisor Carbajal, all major jurisdictions in order to save money increase efficiency and house more and more people with the necessary in-home support to keep them there. But without your help in driving immediate change and ongoing support in three specific areas, we will fail.
First, the alcohol and drug and mental health system must be immediately reformed. Please implement the Blue Ribbon Task Force proposal I detailed in a recent communication with you. Number two, please find a way to replace the rapid rehousing and homeless prevention funding that has kept nearly 1,000 people off our street over the last three years through the Federal Recovery Act. Without it homelessness will increase like a giant aftershock Number three, reallocate existing programs and resources to vastly increase the concept of street outreach and the restorative services. And reallocate resources to make single point-of-access services a reality now rather than later.
So the best possible mental health system that involves everyone, volunteerism, rapid rehousing and centralized access to intake. Wherever those things are happening simultaneously in the United States homelessness is decreasing and money is being saved on the investment. So please bring your full authority and direction to help us with these items.
Thank you Mr. Foley. That was our last public speaker All right. Dr. Dietrich, I'll call on you to come to the microphone.
Thank you Chair Farr and Supervisors. You know, Dr. Lynn asked if I wanted to speak and I would like to make a couple of comments. I appreciate all the collaborative work that we've been doing with public health and with our stakeholders. As you know our CARES unit serves a number of people who are indigent even though We're hard pressed to afford to do that. We are still serving probably about 150, 200 people who have co-occurring substance use and mental health issues who have no way of getting health insurance and we're managing to take care of them. We also spend $800,000 out of our budget on homeless services and we have three outreach workers, homeless outreach workers from CARES.
I think Chair Farr you know a little bit about a project we call ACTO where we have psychiatrists who's actually going out and meeting with individuals and trying to identify what their challenges are. So I think there is no question that there is an unmet need and we are working together with stakeholders in public health and we look forward to continuing to do that Because there aren't enough resources, I think what really would help has been mentioned is a way that we could put something together that's multidisciplinary. That you might have mental health staff, alcohol drug probation, restorative policing and we know in our own department how important peer support has become for our own consumers and so the volunteer-peer aspect of it I think could also be valuable We have MHSA money for housing that we've used to actually develop housing.
We have some more of that left, and we're looking forward to applications to get that going. So I feel that we're right in it, and I just want to make sure that the board knows that, and we look forward to continuing to work with everyone because it's very challenging situations. And I know as I talked to you recently Supervisor Farr when one of our psychiatrists went out to Isla Vista he's been going every week to visit someone literally kind of detoxing her in the homeless park there.
And the challenge for people who have substance abuse is that they're not qualified under federal law for disability, so they're going to be under big challenges with an income source. But I just wanted to make a few remarks because I know this is mental health and substance abuse. It's very important, and I just want you to know that we take it very seriously.
Thank you, thank you Dr. Dietrich for being here and for your comments and for the collaboration that your department has done with public health and the other departments at the county to improve the delivery of services. Okay with that we'll bring it back to the board any additional comments or action is to receive the report and determine that receipt were exempt Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you Madam Chair. I want us to do more than just receive this report, I want us to try and follow up on some of these glaring challenges to see if we could at least come back with some articulation as you said earlier Supervisor Farr What is the unmet need? What are the dollars? How can we, not just the county but all stakeholders work towards meeting some of those needs.
But I think until we articulate more specifically the challenges that we see and maybe even have some brainstorming around how we might be able to get there. I think we'll never get there. We'll have another report, these same findings will come up, we will pat ourselves on the back for doing such a great report and we will have done this community a disservice by not At least quantifying if and when we have the resources, how we could get there either multidisciplinary in collaboration with the cities.
Just will find a solution but we got to understand what that blueprint looks like so I'll make a motion to receive this and be determined that these activities are exempt under CEQA. But I would appreciate it if he could come back to us. Next time he comes back to us, whether it's in six months or next year, I'm not sure when but you should come back to us with sort of what is the next step?
If we had the resources what we could do and we don't have the resources at least we are that much closer to taking steps forward or to going before the cities. You know recently we had a matter in Lompoc The city of Lompoc took great pride in being part of the solution. Well, let's take pride in solving our problems on these issues. We could do that also in Santa Barbara. We could all work together towards a common goal. So I'll make a motion to accept the staff report A and B but also with the action that it come back to us And again, I'll let you decide Dr. Wada whether that's six months, four months or a year but to come back to us sooner rather than later in perhaps with the next step quantifying these a little bit more and if that doesn't make sense by all means let me know.
I'm trying to give you the best direction as possible. That's motion.
All right, that's a motion. Do I have a second? Discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you again very much. Thank you everybody that spoke. All right, the board is going to take at least five minutes here and we'll allow staff time to set up for the next item. All right, the board will come back into session here. We're taking up our last item of the day, agenda item number five. Mr. Allen would you read that into the record? I'm sorry. Madam
Chair we're going to have a quick report out of closed
session. That's right, we've had to do that before thank you.
Thank You madam chair just a quick closeout your board had one matter agendized and they completed that item no action to report
Thank you. And Madam Chair, our final item of the day is Item 5. It's from Planning and Development. It's a hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the Keysight 3 project case numbers 06-GPA16, 06RZN7, 060DVP15, 0600TRM4, TM14714, 10CUP1. This is located approximately half a mile south of Clark Avenue US 101 intersection in the Orchard area, the fourth district.
Thank you. All right, and just so everybody knows the order of the hearing will be that we will hear this staff presentation first seven about seven to ten minutes The board could ask questions Of course at any time and then the applicant will have up to 25 minutes for their presentation Again for board questions Then we'll go to public comment then staff comments And then the boards deliberation and decision And ex parte, I guess we should probably do that.
Supervisor Gray?
This has been going on so long it's almost hard to remember who you talked to and who you didn't. I've talked to many of the neighbors and I talked to Ernie and John... Who are Ernie and John? The developers. Okay. And the people that were the developers prior to Ernie and John. So it's been going on a really long time.
Thank
you.
Supervisor Gray, do you have any? Excuse me, Supervisor Wolfe? No I don't. Okay. Supervisor Lavagnini, do you have any ex parte on this particular item?
Yes I do. I met with the proposed developer Mr. Franklin and I've driven by it about six million times. All
right and Supervisor Carbajal?
I met with Mr. John Franklin as well that's it.
Okay thank you and I have no ex parte to report although I am familiar with where the site is. Okay, Mr. Zorovitch?
Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board my name is John Zorovitch I'm the planner for the Keysight 3 project The project is located, the project consists of 138 acres of vacant parcel in the southeast portion of the Orchid Planning Area. It's located adjacent to Highway 101 south of Clark. Adjacent land uses are the Sunny Hills Mobile Home Park and also to the west are one acre estate lots as well as residential ranchettes consisting about five acre ranchettes.
The proposed project consists of 125 residential units, single family lots. 85 of those are located or clustered in what we refer to as the Northern Mesa, the northern portion of the project site. An additional 40 units are located in a central portion of the project site referred to as the Creekside development. They're just located north of the Orca Creek area. South southern portion of the project site is proposed to be open space.
The northern portion of the project site also includes what is referred to as a multifamily orchid residential. It's also referred to as the MRO zone. The MRO zone originated through the Focus ReZone program, as part of the 2003-2008 housing element update At that time, your board approved the MRO zone and approved rezoning eight acres of the project site to the MRO. The MRO allows for a density or specifies a density of 20 units per acre. And so there's 160 units identified in the MRO zone. There was a project EIR or program EIR that was prepared as part of the focus rezone project and then that EIR contemplated the impacts associated with development of 160 units on this site. So the EIR does not include impacts associated with that as that was already done previously by the board.
The proposed project, the tentative track map does include the MRO zone as it provides the boundaries for the MRO zone within the rest of the project site. Access to the site is basically two points. One comes from Clark Avenue across Keyside 2 and then down around the mobile home park, Sunny Hills Mobile Home Park into the development. Another access point ties into Chancellor Street which is a private road Kind of that goes south and then west of the project site, which ultimately ties into Stilwell Road. The applicant has satisfied or shown to the county satisfaction that they do have an 80 foot public access easement along Chancellor Street to provide that secondary access.
The Planning Commission found that the project was inconsistent with several of the Orchid Community Plan policies relative to the preservation of open space as well as the protection for the visual and biological resources on the site. They also found in their December hearing that, you know, as a result of the project intruding in the open space areas there were fragments of open space areas that were inconsistent with the Orchid Community Plan Open Space Plan.
The figure on the right is taken from the Orchid Community Plan. The Orchid Community Plan has a discussion obviously of this key site, it notes its close proximity to Highway 101 and identifies it as a gateway entrance into the orchid community. The southern portion of the site has a variety of sensitive habitats and also has pockets It's fairly steep terrain. The central portion of the project site is constrained with the Orchard Creek floodplain, and as a result, the Orchid Community Plan has a specific Keysight III policy which limits development to the northern Mesa area. And then therefore it calls out the central portion and southern portion of the project site, the rest of the site for large contiguous open space area to protect their resources and avoid those constraints.
There is a slight It's a 75-foot corridor along the Northern Mesa, which is also identified for open space to act as a buffer between any future residential development on the site and Highway 101 traffic noise.
3:48 – 4:068 turns
Let me go back one.
I just want to call your attention. So the Orchard Community Plan, if you look at this property line, it's basically an extension of it across the site. Everything south of that would be identified as open space This is just the same figure I showed a moment ago of the project site. Again, if you take this line and bring it across, you'll notice that the entire creek side development and the roads serving that site are all located within the open space area.
This is a close-up view of the creek side development. You'll see not only does it intrude on the site, it does end up providing fragments of open space. The Planning Commission during their December hearing found that the intrusion in the open space and the fragmentation of the open space did not preserve or did not provide open space and natural resource protection as was envisioned in the Orchid Community Plan for the one large contiguous open space area.
Planning Commission also found that because of these intrusions, that the project was not in the interest of the general community welfare. Focusing a little bit more on these, on this development here. Those lots are relatively range in size from about 9800 square feet to about 20,000 square feet. Probably the average is around 10 to 12,000 square feet and your board letter notes that there are other projects in the area, in the orchid planting area which have similar sized lot development. Those are away from the highway 101 noise and emissions and also do not intrude into open space.
This slide here on the left identifies or lists some of those projects that have that similar size lot configuration which have been approved. Those with an asterisk have been approved but have not yet been recorded. For example, the Rice Ranch project has portions of it recorded and have some lots which are this size and obviously some of the remaining 500 lots which have not been recorded there are some of these similar sized lots still yet to be recorded.
The bottom line on this is that if you look at the table, there's over 300 lots in the Orchard Community Plan area which have been approved and yet only about 20% have been developed upon. The board letter also notes that there are other key sites in the Orchid Community Plan for which the existing zoning would allow for similar sized lot development however the county has not yet received any applications for those.
What this would suggest is that the build out of the Orchard Community Plan so far is satisfying the needs of those similar lots without having to go into the open space areas. The Planning Commission at their hearing determined that, they recommended denial and determined pursuant to this section of CEQA that CEQAs does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. As a result staff prepared notice of exemption which was included as attachment two to your board letter Ultimately at the board, at the December planning commission, the planning commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors make the required findings to deny the project specified in attachment 1 of your staff report. Determine the project to be exempt as I just indicated and deny the project and the associated case numbers with the project.
That concludes my presentation. I know the applicant is also prepared to give a detailed project description, I kind of touched on it so if you have questions those may be addressed during his presentation. I'm available for comments. Okay thank
you any questions from the board at this time? Supervisor Lavinino do you have a question? Mr. Zorovich actually I have a question about the houses around the upper lot When the board designated that, and that could be built out right now at up to 160 units. Is that right? Was there an expectation that the property around it, at least to the north and to the west would be a part of that to help satisfy any open space requirement for the project? No.
Yes or no?
Madam Chair, no. There was not an expectation.
Okay. So whatever might be built in that area has to be confined within that particular footprint?
That's...Madam Chair, that's correct.
Okay. Thank you. All right well if there are no questions right now then we'll go ahead and turn to the applicant Mr. Franklin
Good afternoon, Chair Farr and Supervisors. Thank you very much for taking the time to hear this we have been Processing this for I think you can recognize oh six on some of the application documents So we've been at it for a bit of a while here. I want to thank the Planning Commission the North County Bar NBAR group and staff also to help us over the years because we've refined the plan based on a number of their comments and And made it better overall.
I'm going to try to go over the project in a little more detail, the Mesa area of the Creekside. Talk a little bit about parks and trails, visual screening that we've worked on and then have some closing comments. All right? Just elaborate this is a page out of the tentative track map give you a little better sense of the access area. This is Clark Avenue up here. We take access down through Quayside 2 I'd like At that point, as Mr. Zurbuch pointed out these are one acre lots and these are five acre minimum lots here. Thank you.
I'll get into each one of the areas in more detail but overall what we have is we've worked to create the trail system buffer that I'll talk about along the 101. We've actually increased it from the minimums required in the Orchid Community Plan from the 75 feet up To a minimum of 125 feet back, we've added berming and screening that we think is very effective for visual screening uses on the site.
There is a large expanse of open space down here. We've modified the plan over the period to take out some estate lots in this particular area. And we've created road alignments, a couple extra roads in here than we initially anticipated based upon fire department requirements. All right? This is the trail system, I've sort of screened back some of the landscaping and such. The Orchid Community Plan requires a fairly extensive network of trails on Keysight 3. They don't all connect to anything so we're sort of in space here with these trails but they would be required as part of the development.
Starting over on the west side, there's a trail that would connect to the Chancellor Road area here. The Orchard Community Plan talks about trails going through this area but we have a trail that comes up and it's outside the roadway area as sort of a gravel paved area I'd like I'd like The trail requirements also continue on, and these are all the public trails. There is a requirement for a multi-purpose recreation trail emergency access trail to go along the frontage of the creek area and that emergency access trail I'm The trail continues on over to the east side and then has a public multi-purpose trail, much smaller.
Biking, hiking horses things of that nature and goes along the east side of the project and terminates up here at Keysight 2. It would continue on with a trail that would go through Keysight two and then up through Keysight one also. One thing that we have added, we noted as we feel was a deficiency in the plan is when the public's being invited into these trails into otherwise a private area all the other roads are going to be private roads.
There's no staging area for somebody to come in with a car or bike on a car something like that rather than you know parking along the streets and the private street areas so we created A staging area at what we felt was a fairly convenient spot for the public to come in and then they can have more of a public oriented parking area. It could expand if it was otherwise required, but we otherwise put one in there. All right?
Oh, sorry. If you back up one, I'm sorry. The private network of trails then on the project itself is a private network of trails along the bluff edge that would connect in for the residents here. There's a series of parks in these open space areas and park in this particular area. There's also a park which would have half-court basketball area, little more active play area. Those are the private trail and park amenities.
Just to give you a sense of the homes that we've planned and their sizes, in the Mesa area there's three product types planned up there. There's a small lot single family detached cluster, single story and two-story. There's 59 of those they range in size from 1100 square feet to 3300 lots and excuse me 1100 to 1600 feet lot sizes 3300 to 5500 square feet There's a lot of opportunities for start-up families, even moved down families, seniors to go in there. There is one plan that has a master bedroom down and bedrooms up so that seniors could be in there with their children or visitors coming in and having bedrooms up above. There's also a larger lot detached cluster home. The home sizes there range 26 to 3,100 square feet and lots sizes from about 8,000 to 1,300 square feet more on the 8,00 square foot range and then we have the multifamily Product 160 units and although nothing's been designed or proposed there because we don't have a plan for it, not required at this point.
We would speculate that it would probably be units in the range of 1,000 to 1,300 square feet and it would be two to three story product. In the Creekside area, we have much larger homes and now there's 40 of them ranging they're all single story Ranch style homes 2,800 to 3,300 square feet and about 10,000 to 20,000 square foot lots averaging probably in the 12,000-13,000 square foot range. All right?
In the Mesa, a little more detailed here. The smaller detached cluster homes are in the northern area and along the easterly side. A little larger single family detached homes are buffering the larger lots up existing larger lots and then along the view perimeter of the bluff area this is the MRO area as I talked about before the park areas there's a park that we're planning for A little bit of older children, here's a little park area that would be focused on some of the younger kids in terms of play equipment. Here is an overlook gazebo area and then we also created another park open space area to split up the road and design along this area. We worked very hard with the NBAR A lot of recommendations from them in some of the siding, changing the curvilinear nature of the road, varying the setbacks on the homes along the roadway.
And we increased the setback as we talked about from 75 feet which would be about here to 125 feet and we've put a lot of work on the landscaping treatment for the visual protection there. Just very quickly, this is the cluster product, the single family detached cluster product. It's built in pods of six units and four units so they're accessed through an alley into the garages and then they have a walkway to get to the front of the homes in the back or right off the sidewalk on the front.
This is the four-plex one, single story ones that would be up against the edges as required by the Orchid Community Plan and then the two storey units out front. They're very similar ones of four unit cluster and the other one's a six one all right. Architecturally I'll just pause here for a second these are the single family small detached ones all right Here's a look for the four-pack units that we have, elevations for them. All right?
Here are the larger lots that we have in the Mesa area, little larger sort of they're all single family more ranchette style. All right? And here's another version of that product also. All right? Next thing I want to do, there's been a lot of questions as we've made presentations on the MRO. The MRO you don't see any footprints or anything on all the plans because it was approved with a by right approval is sort of the quote if you will and the next I'm So there's two buildings, it's a six-plex and an eight-plex building. This is elevation of the six-plex building, two and three story units.
All right, and here's the eight-plex building that we used. So it would be large footprints of large multifamily units there could be for rent, could be for sale and none of those decisions have yet been made but I wanted to give you an idea of the type of design that would be compatible with the approvals that went along with the MRO zoning because there was a lot of design approvals that were inherent with that approval all right The other thing that we've been presenting before is a cross-section over the Mesa. People are interested in seeing how dominant that MRO area would be, some people had envisioned very high tall buildings being created using those same units that I showed you before. Here's a cross section up here if you come up the slope The bluff area up to the upper mesa, we've created a bit of a berm here for where the trails would be.
We come into the multifamily space or these multifamily buildings. They've got internal roads that would access their garages. We continue on with the multifamily buildings until we reach the main roadway which would be this area right here and then we transition to the smaller detached clustered units The six packs of those, three units that you're seeing here. We have the 50-foot setback from the mobile home park as a property boundary and then the mobile home park would be there. So it gives you a bit of perspective hopefully on the upper mesa and what the MRO zone would look like in a cross section.
In the Creekside area, very quickly we have 40 single family detached homes here. We have the public trail that goes along the southerly edge. We believe we've screened it quite nicely. We have the public staging area as talked about and then the public trail that would continue on. We have two points of access basically one from the westerly side one down into the central area to access the homes and It sits right at the base of the bluff and about 150 feet or so away from the creek riparian area.
4:06 – 4:2327 turns
Yes, Supervisor Wolff, just a moment please. Mr. Franklin?
I'm assuming that those access roads are public to get to the staging
area. Chair Farr, Supervisor Wolff, the roads are all private All the internal roads are private roads being maintained by a master homeowners association. The county will have an easement...
So how does a car get to the staging area?
We don't have any gates accessing the area and it'll be through a county easement over those roads that we can work out, Unreasonable we can get an easement for county rights to get into those areas. And then they can also eventually, you know, you can walk from off the site along the trail from Chancellor or from the Quayside to Clark Road area. But the reality is people are going to use the roads so we should accommodate it rather than trying to work to restrict it.
I've done enough developments to know that it will happen so let's provide for that type of access there.
Okay, so you have the staging for cars but they're private roads. So really the only way you can get there is by going over a private road unless the county Builds another road or something to get to that?
The characteristics for Keysight 3, either through Chancellor or across Keysight 2 down to Keysight 3 from the north. They're all off of from either Stilwell or Clark to the north they're all private roads to access the public trails into Keysight three. That's the reality. I think
it was nice that you had a staging area just don't know how anyone is going to get there
But we're not restricting them from the north at all coming into public and we don't have plans to. Okay, thank you.
And actually as long as we're on that subject Mr. Franklin generally private roads don't have to be built to the same standards as public roads so will these how wide will these roads be?
There are a variety of widths all of them meet the county and fire department standards for width.
That's actually not what I asked you though how wide are they going to be? How many feet?
They range from 24 feet to over 40. I apologize, I don't have the exact widths that are going to be there.
Are they curb gutter and sidewalk or just street?
Yes, some are curb gutter and sidewalk only where there's no houses and parking requirement. Other areas, they're full curb gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the area so it varies throughout the area.
Okay, will there be on-street parking allowed?
Yes.
And specifically to the road to access that Supervisor Wolf was talking about how wide is that road going to be?
Which access route, excuse me?
I'm not sure. I think that's where we need you to use the pointer to tell us if a member of the public was coming onto the site and if you have a bigger map than that, that might be helpful. What would their route be?
If we can use this one on the easel then? If someone was trying to access this staging area would either come through from Clark across Quayside 2 and come down the road like this Or if they were coming off of Chancellor, they would come through Chancellor across this road and either down this particular road or down this road down to that staging area. This road I believe is 40 feet wide because it provides for parking on both sides. This road here is only 24 feet wide because no parking... It's in sort of an open area where no parking would otherwise be required so as I said, it varies in terms of the road width and what parking would be allowed.
Okay. Thank you, because this has been an issue in previous projects that are private roads and they're built to much narrower standards and they don't allow on-street parking and sometimes things get very crowded and particularly if there's no assumption that there's going to be through traffic from the public then it can be problematic. And I also wanted to ask you then about the maintenance so all the facilities are going to be privately maintained by a homeowner association? Is that what you said?
Yes, there'll be a master homeowners association over the area except for the area that would be otherwise dedicated to the county. The open space being dedicated to the county.
Okay but all the roads and any other landscaping? All
the roads and the landscaping basically from this point north would be all maintained by the Homeowners Association. Roads, landscaping, trails, parks etc.
Okay thank you go ahead and proceed
then. Alright we can go to the next slide. Here's some exhibit examples of the elevations for the houses there, all right. Next one. All right. Okay. Visual screening, a lot of conversation on visual screening all right? What we've done I'm going to describe a couple of cross sections and then we're going to see a visual simulation that we prepared. The first cross section I want to point out is this one here up on the upper mesa across the 101 into the development Going from east to west, we have the Highway 101 with its split northbound traffic and southbound traffic. We have the property boundary here for the freeway and then we've created this berm environment that we add to add screening. And we've taken and modified over the years the landscaping so that we pull the landscaping back It works to screen the forefront, if you will, of the homes but to still keep available the longer view distances from the 101 which is the criteria here.
And then we also put the public trail that we've been talking about along the 101 on the back side of the berm So that it gets a benefit of that screening for noise issues and things of that nature. And then we have this open space set back 125 feet rather than the 75 that was otherwise required, all right? The next section is one in the Creekside area, a similar description from east to west here. This is the 101. It's a little more elevated on the northbound lanes, southbound lanes, the boundary. Here we've created again another berm. We've provided landscaping such that the trees at maturity would get up to where the housetops are but not get real tall like a eucalyptus for example, to provide that same type of screening I described before with the protected public trail and then the house itself.
On the south edge here, across a creek I just want to describe this is from the roadway here across the house in the lot into the creek area We have the roadway, car park, sidewalk, the house backyard fence. Then the multi-purpose trail emergency trail area up against the backside and then the large open space set back from the creek itself and then we go up the hill to the south there all right?
Visual simulations, this is going southbound at the very corner of the property as you come in here. This is the existing fence of the mobile home park, all right? Now these are with the trees at maturity and we've got behind these trees the houses, the MRO product is placed in there, the berm, the trail system and the road and we've worked to try to protect the long view into the Solomon Hills, all right?
This is looking north into the Upper Mesa area from the 101, all right. And here again the berm area it's a little dark I apologize but you have the berm, the trail area, the trees in the if you can see the buildings here are buildings interspersed in here but we have the MRO buildings as well as the single family detached homes in the Upper Mesa. All right, this is the lower creek side area. Now we're looking again southbound into the low area. The creek area's back right in here where the trees are and then you see the hills to the back all right?
Here is the berm, the landscape on the berm, the trees, the homes behind it and then you see the hills in the far background all right? This is looking northbound. Here's the Upper Mesa area and its bluff. Here is the creek side flat area where the homes will be developed, all right? And here's the berm that we've added in, the landscaping. This one you can see a little bit more of the homes in here but if you recognize, we still have the far tree line that's in the background still provides the long distance vision there as you look off into the sky, all right?
Again this is the Upper Mesa development, all right. And Southern, this is a whole project again and finally what I want to talk about in my closing comments is we recognize that In spite of the staff and Planning Commission's recommendations for denial, we continue to believe that we have a project that will benefit the community. We acknowledge that there is a development that can take place up in the Upper Mesa.
It's actually been studied in the EIR. There was an alternative up there That would provide for the MRO and the 125 allowed units that were up there. And so there's an alternative, it's called Alternative 8. That was acknowledged up there but we strongly believe that the development we're proposing is better overall. We think it provides a good balance for the community, the county, and the owners.
And it reflects changes in circumstances, that's what I want to point out here in my comments over the years. We've worked to try to find the right balance of housing and open space, high density low density encouraging compact development versus the push in the future for future sprawl which will happen eventually. Anything that gets approved here is going to take a number of years. We're just at the tentative map level if this gets approved, we've got a number of years of plans to be approved and development of the site and then ultimately homes. The market is going to have a significant change over the years, we all hope with the economy So don't judge this project on what's happening today in the economy or what's been approved today in the Orchid area, Santa Maria area.
I can show you many studies that when the economy turns we'll eventually have a market where demand again exceeds supply especially in the Central Coast area. Just for your information in the last four or five Excuse me, over the last 10 years new home sales in the Santa Maria Orchid area totaled about 2,500 sales. And in the peak years it was almost 500 home sales. So it's an average of about you know if we take that ten-year period about 250 new home sales and not existing just new homes so the inventory in a decent market period over another ten years is going to absorb quite a few units in the area As Mr. Zorovitch pointed out, there are a number of lots that are planned. We think the additional 40 that are going to be added here will not provide a significant burden on what's already approved in the plans.
And since the 90s, York Community Plan has had a number of significant changes that have influenced the way residential housing has been planned and implemented particularly with our design on Keysight 3. Not insignificant are the relatively new state planning requirements to help meet greenhouse gas reduction, reduce car trips and vehicle miles traveled. You do this by clustering homes, building more compact and walkable neighborhoods, building closer to the major highways and roads with their available transit And in addition to the changing planning environment, you have to acknowledge the fact that the MRO 160 units were approved by the county to meet the housing element requirements. And when they did that approval, they didn't change the surrounding uses.
The surrounding zoning is still RR10. You have this 20 unit to the acre project in the middle of the mesa and And had the RR10 zoning around there. When we were talking a few years ago and I was in front of the board on this, they acknowledged there was going to be another plan that was coming down the road that would sort of surround this MRO area and here's this plan now that we're talking about. But otherwise they left it at RR 10 totally incompatible zoning of high density housing surrounded by very low density housing so I believe that had to change, that's an incompatible kind of design. The MRO area was never anticipated in the Orchid Community Plan. It's EIR and how the Keysight 3 area was judged back in the middle 90s.
Our plan reflects what we feel are the new and updated set of facts and builds a compatible design and mix of housing. We think we support, our design is going to be a great support for Keysight 2 and Keysight 1 for the retail uses and commercial uses that they plan there. We'll have a development where people can walk up to these retail areas. They don't have to get in their car necessarily, ride bikes.
We have housing that's designed for both affordable workforce housing, entry level housing, senior housing, housing for couples, small families, and large extended families. And we think our design is also one that provides a viable and cost-effective market sensitive development so that as a developer, we're not overly concentrated on just one or two product types with the more risky investment in development.
Now, in closing I'd like to talk about the open space issue since this is obviously the key issue for staff's recommendation and planning commission action. Absent the open space issue our plan meets almost all of the goals and objectives of the Orchid Community Plan and the County General Plan and the housing element. Basically staffs recommended this plan not be approved because we developed in the designated open space.
Now don't forget that we're going to have a very significant series of trails that are going to go through that open space area which will impact the travel of animals and things of that nature. Actually you'd be interested in noting When the Keysight 3 plan was being debated back in the 90s and the EIR findings were developed, and the original project description developed it noted that the open space overlay area would be an appropriate area for housing development in a select area of the open space. And it was considered reasonable. The discussion back then noted that using the clustering such that the goals of a PRD zone in an area extending 150 feet from the creek and 75 feet from the Highway 101, and at the bluff of Edge, the base of the bluff area of Keyside 3 would be an appropriate area for housing.
This was being discussed in the 90s Why did they consider that as a development area in the overlay zone? Why do they think that was okay? It's because in the original EIR, it found a development in this area did not impact the sensitive resources. Still provided for usable open space network and corridor for sensitive plants and animals. Stayed out of the flood plain, set back from noise on 101, and still provided adequate public services.
Now it went on further to describe the potential development area would be clustered as we've basically designed our development in the Creekside area. But it seems that because of confusion on the limits of the flood issue, The open space area was adopted without any development down there. Well over the years, the flood issue has been researched in detail and resolved and the development limits north of the creek are well defined and our plan keeps the homes above the flood level and staff agrees with that so our homes here are outside the flood area. That wasn't a known factor back in the middle 90s.
4:23 – 4:3012 turns
Mr Franklin your time is up.
Can I just wrap up here? Yeah,
real quick.
Okay. The plan calls for 98 acres of open space. We have actually more than 98 acres of open space. We believe we have a significant open space area to provide for a corridor that we don't have, as has been described in your staff information. It's fragmented into a series of small open spaces. Yes there are some opening spaces. This is 68 acres over the 98 acres. It is the most sensitive area. It provides a fairly good I'm We contend that totally changed the nature of Keysight 3 and then totally changes in the way you should plan around that particular area. So I thank you for your time, I welcome any questions that you may have and again if this is not to your liking We have the ability, we've done the work and the design. We can put a development up on the upper mesa as I described so if that's your direction to us to do that, we can but we would prefer you to instruct staff to come back with the affirmative documents that allow for this project to be approved.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Thank you. We'll go ahead and we'll go to the public unless the board has any questions or comments at this time? All right. All right, now let's go ahead.
Madam Chair we have about ten requests to speak. We'll start with Dr. Robert Johns in Santa Barbara and come back to Santa Maria for Andy Caldwell. Mr. Caldwell is left so we'll go with Rick Corbo
Madam Chair, do you want me to comment now?
Your name was called now Dr. Johns yes it's about the Keysight 3 project that we're discussing
Yes this is a beautiful project This is a man with a plan and I'm sure that some of it may not meet the Orchid community plan but wow And he even had the nerve to develop an open space. Can you imagine children walking around there, hiking, biking? Trails, oh wow I cannot believe this! And also I heard the word affordable so there's gonna be some affordable units here and then Other larger mixed use.
This is just beautiful. Who's the real estate guy that but anyway I would like to say that we need more projects like this project And the developer is just, I would like to commend you applicant and I'd like to see you continue with this. This is not 20 units to an acre. This is just like it's like developing heaven for people here on earth. Thank you.
Our
next speaker is Rick Corbo followed by Cameron Lorenz.
Hello, I would like to thank the board for giving me this opportunity to speak out against Keysight 3 once again. We are asking that you follow suit with the Planning Commission and also Planning and Development in denying this project as it is proposed. As we heard, that is inconsistent with the Orchid Community Plan from the Planning and Development and also what the Planning Commission has stated the same exact thing.
I'm quite confident that Supervisor Gray and Supervisor Lavinino would not approve such a project Because it goes against the Orchid Community Plan, I do not think it's something that you would desire to leave your legacy placed upon in such a bad design. I also would like to bring up once again Chancellor Road. I just heard today, witnessed it, that if you give them an inch they will take a mile. That road is supposed to be for emergency exit only. Now we are hearing that it's going to be come one, come all, come everyone, come use our And so we would like that to be addressed.
I also hear that the walking trails committee will be here in support of this project, but basically what they are asking of us is for me to do the same to them if I were to go and open up their yard, their gate to their backyard and walk in any time that I would please. This is private property. And I hope that you respect that. We also would like it to be addressed that in the event that it is approved, how will SB Clark or the Homeowners Association of Keysight 3 fund this project?
My understanding is a lot of these homeowners associations have been filing bankruptcy. They can't even fund the projects that they have their walking trails are open space for parks etc. Now you're adding in addition a very large road in addition to that So what happens if we witness what happened to Rice Ranch Project, who just filed bankruptcy? What happens if their homeowners association can't fund that? Now we're stuck footing the bill for nearly 300 new dwellings. That is significant to us because there's only 20 of us homeowners back there that share in this expense. So we're looking at 300 new dwellings versus 20. It's extremely, extremely significant to us.
So I thank you for your time and I really would appreciate a denial to this project. Thank you.
4:30 – 4:364 turns
Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. It sounds to me that the theme of this meeting today has been to thank staff for their excellent work and that's not just because we want to give strokes That's because your staff, your commissions realize how complex things like Keysight 3 development is and how many different kinds of people and communities are affected.
So I would like to thank staff for their excellent work over all these new years and just point out continue the bullets that make us hope that you will take Staff recommendation to deny this plan. First and foremost, it does violate the entire spirit intent of the Orchid Community Plan. Who is going to decide the vision of this particular key site? It also destroys the nature of the gateway community from the Freeway 101.
That it's not to be just anybody's development that this Orkut, it's Orkuts Community Plan. The community character will be terribly destroyed and there are sort of two community characters if you will. One is my neighbors in Chancellor Lode who have built a semi-real private plan on which to raise their children in a kind of horsey situation obviously you can tell I'm not horsey but anyway The other is the other side that we're talking about this morning, and that is a high-functioning affordable housing community of senior citizens in Sunny Hills, Oklahoma.
Both of those situations will be drastically changed and turned on their heads. The violations of the lifestyle, the pollution, the noise, the traffic will completely change the character of that. And perhaps most strongly is what staff said in their report this project is not needed Even if we have an improvement, which we all hope we will, there are plenty of arrangements for this type of housing elsewhere. We don't have to interrupt this beautiful property.
Also added to new bills, we have of course the ongoing foreclosure and short sales in the market area that are Adding to the supply. So please, support your excellent staff and their recommendations.
Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jennifer Weston-Larsen to be followed by Catherine Schuley.
Jennifer Weston-Larsen, Orchid Area Advisory Group Board of Directors Jane, you did a great job in the areas you covered. I actually have a newsletter from the Orchid Area Advisory Group which goes back to 19... it's 1995 and I didn't go looking for this but I just inherited about 15 boxes of advisory group items that I'm trying to go through and eliminate some It goes over these very issues very heavily in terms of the importance of this semi-rural character to all the residents. During the time of the Orchid Community Plan development, they actually sent out information asking what the community wanted It came back very strongly in favor of, we want to maintain our semi-rural character and open space in some of these beautiful natural areas.
And I have to agree that the MRO is incompatible with this whole open space issue. And I tell you, the Orchard Area Advisory Group was very much against that development there. It is as they said at one of the Planning Commission meetings, I think back in July or something, that's the elephant in the room and to think of three story buildings there And what it does to the other issues, you know, the other parts of the development. It is problematic.
Ultimately I have to say I think that contiguous open space is very important and it should be there. The problem was with the MRO, it's something that has been rezoned. I just hope they can do a relatively good job on it but that is problematic. I know it was considered for cumulative impacts, but you know it's not subject to planning commission review. It's not as I understand it subject to any Board of Supervisor review at this point.
But it's a very difficult situation that all those scenic views and the biological issues there are very important So, I have to tell you that the Orchid Area Advisory Group Board of Directors does agree with the Planning Commission recommendation that the Board of Supervisors make the necessary findings to deny the Keysight 3 development project and then go ahead and deny the project as proposed.
Thank you. Katherine Schumeter followed by Richard Cole
4:36 – 4:4718 turns
Good afternoon, my name is Catherine Sheehy and I live at 1705 Chancellor Street. My property borders Keyside 3 to the southwest. I respectfully urge your board today to approve county staff's recommendation and to deny the project and the amendments to the Orchid Community Plan brought forth by the developer. This plan flies in the face of a spirit of the original Orchid Community Plan, which many of our tax dollars funded and much time was spent by the citizens of this part of Santa Barbara County, the Planning Commission and county staff as well as your board to craft.
My neighbors and I have spent many hours over the last 14 years working with county staff To plan and preserve the open space designated by the Orchid Community Plan for this key site. The development should be kept to the Mesa, and not be allowed to spill over into Orchard Creek Corridor. The quality of life as my neighbors and I currently have would be greatly compromised by the noise, construction, destruction of habitat, wildlife visual and increased human population.
At a Planning Commission meeting last summer, it was identified by the developer that with this increased population there would be over 400 trips up and down Chancellor Street a day. This compared to a quiet country road that's gated from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m., every day. Most perplexing, too, has been the absence of any sort of design plan before this for the MRO zone that contains 160 units. But this development alone as a developer describes it will have a serious impact on the quayside in Chancellor Street and will completely change the character of life as we know it.
This quayside is a southern gateway to the San Bueno Valley and its rich architectural wine country. Excuse me, agricultural wine country. It would be a terrible thing for the Orchard Creek Corridor and lower areas of the key site to be developed with cookie cutter style houses breaking up the wild Orchid Creek corridor habitat into pods of open space that have no continuous flow.
Given the current economic conditions and the pending foreclosure of Rice Ranch, the Rice Ranch development in the abandoned Mesa Verde developments to the west seems irresponsible to allow more development. Last December, an inventory of at least 500 plus new homes were identified as having yet to be occupied. These lots should be largely sold before any proposed development is approved. I'd also like too to ask staff that if it is your board's decision to deny today that staff does bring the neighbors and the Orchid Trail system group together to talk about a possible compromise and what could be done in that open space. Thank you very much.
Our next speaker is Richard Cole, followed by Ron Foss.
Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the Board My name is Richard Cole. I've lived on Keysight F, which is adjacent to Keysight 3 for over 24 years and I was there when the Orchid Community Plan was originated. At that time they had mandated that we would have open space areas and no buildings over 16 feet high along with camouflaging so it couldn't be seen from Highway 101.
I feel that I'm in complete agreement with what the staff has proposed and that's to deny this project. And as far as traffic on adjacent roads, they are all private roads and the person that's the developer does not have a right of way between where his road would terminate and the rest of Chancellor Road. It's just a partial right-of-way. I want to thank you for your time, and I hope you deny this project.
Thank
you.
Ron Fossey followed by Lloyd Campbell who's our final speaker.
Was it Mr. Corbo whose name was called first? Might just call him again at the end see if he's returned.
Good afternoon Chair Farr and board members. I live in Sunny Hills across the street from our house, our houses and behind them is Keysight 3 and we're also about several houses from Highway 101. I want to support the staff's recommendation that you deny the project for the reasons that have been so eloquently expressed, both by the staff report and all of the speakers that preceded me. So thank you very much.
Thank you. Lloyd Campbell? And then if Mr. Corbo returned... But it doesn't look like it.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Lloyd Campbell, my wife and I moved to the address of 5735 Vanessa which is the corner of Chancellor and Vanessa Drive and we've lived there about four years. We moved there because of the ruralness of the area, the ranch type development there and I spoke before to the Planning Commission asking that they deny this project and I asked that you would do I'm particularly opposed to the lower section which they call, I guess they call the creek side part of that because that's down where our five acre lots are and it would change our area drastically. Also concerned about the secondary access road which we'll be using Chancellor Drive to have the secondary access into there That we have a gate there now.
It's a privacy gate for Our community our neighborhood and that access would come inside that gate And so I think that would be a concern also that road but definitely need some changes to make it usable the way it is now it would not handle a lot of traffic and so I just ask that you follow the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the project. And thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Thank you, thank you for being here. Okay, that's the end of the public commenters that we have and so we will bring it back to staff if they wanted to make any additional comments. Ms. Black?
Madam Chair, John may have additional issues that he'd like to address and we'd certainly be happy to answer any questions from the board. I just wanted to clarify that several people commented on the MRO portion of Project site and that portion is actually not before your board today. That portion was already approved in the context of the previous housing element for ministerial or zoning clearance approvals, so development of that particular portion of the site will be reviewed at a staff level And approved at a staff level and is not appealable to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. So I just wanted to make that clarification there are a number of development standards and development requirements for that site, but those have already been prescribed by your board when you zoned the portion of the property MRO.
Thank you. Mr. Zorbach did you have any comments?
Just one minor clarification on the use of Chancellor, and that is that the applicant has provided us with documents which indicated that he does have an 80-foot wide easement along Chancellor Street for the purpose of providing public access. So although the Chancellor's private, he does have access to that for his project.
Okay. All right well we'll bring it back to the board then Supervisor Gray this is in your district you
want to lead off? Thank you Madam Chair and I. I really see no need for this project. I think that the numbers that were shown, we've got Rice Ranch, Mesa, they're just not working. I dislike the inconsistency with the ORCAP plan. I had hoped that we'd be able to develop possibly some five-acre ramshacks in what is designated as open space. However, that didn't seem to develop or to work.
I think that the Creekside idea is just not the right kind of housing in the area at this time. I'm not supportive. The trails folks have got some ideas that they'd like to discuss and maybe we could ask people to go back, but right now I just can't support the project that's before us.
Thank you Supervisor Gray. Supervisor Lavinino?
Thank you Madam Chair. You know I guess this is the first time A situation where the MRO is, I've never been involved in this, where it doesn't come to the board or the planning commission. It seems really strange. But anyway, so essentially that's already approved or will be, it's already planned, it's already approved. That will be done at some point, I'm assuming.
4:47 – 4:5311 turns
Madam Chair and Supervisor Labanino, we have not seen any plans for the development of that MRO site. But we anticipate eventually plans will be drawn up and we'll review and appropriately approve this.
Okay. Thank you. So I guess basically it comes down to on the Orchid Community Plan and the plan that we see before us to me We put a lot of time, energy. People put a lot of their focus and energy residence into crafting a community plan. We just got done with the Caltrans Plan. You know I think what good are they really if we don't? And what's the justification for spending the time and money on them if we don' in the long run adhere to the plan?
So I've been down Chancellor Road a number of times I can't imagine. When I looked at this originally, I really wasn't thinking about Chancellor Road as an access point and I think regardless if he has permission or he has an easement or whatever that road is just not conducive to too much traffic on it. I think also you would have a significant problem Whether you have the easement or not, or allow people to come down into that area with folks that have a private road and allowing them access and bringing people in to walk in that area. I'm not going to get into whether or not we need the project or we don't need it. That's markets change. You're the expert in that area as a developer, not me. And if you want to...
Things change that I'm not too worried about that. I just feel that anything below the Mesa is obviously not going to work. I'm kind of disappointed to find out that there is a mechanism where such high density housing can be placed without the neighbors or us, or anybody having any sort of say in that. It's very discouraging But I guess at this point, I'm not interested in pursuing this plan. But because of the fact that to me if we are going to have that MRO there at some point, I don't know if it makes sense to...
We need to start planning for something like that and if the developer wants to come back with some other houses around that, I'd be open to trying to hear what is going to happen around that. I mean, I guess at this point we're given We've been dealt an egg and we got to figure out how to decorate it because I just don't see that fitting into that neighborhood. So, that's where I'm at.
Thank you Supervisor Levin. You know other comments from the board? Supervisor Carbajal?
I guess ditto and dittle. I think it's very telling how this came to us from the Planning Commission and there is nothing like working with the area residents to come up with their self-determination. And I think this is doing that in adhering to the community plans And I repeat that, the community plans because we have community plans that outline growth management ordinances, outline densities, outline how things can develop and sometimes we tend to forget that up here. So I'm really glad to hear people talk about adhering to those community plan standards that are developed. I know once a growth management ordinance that's part of a community plan came before us and for some reason, some of my colleagues didn't remember that. And it's important to remember why we pay so much money to work with our communities and our residents to craft community plans.
And then to not adhere to those standards in those outcomes is a real disappointment. So I just really appreciate what I'm hearing from my colleagues.
Thank you. Supervisor Wolf, did you have any comments? No comments? I have
one last thing, Madam Chair. Is there a way for this to come back as something that would fit inside the working community plan that did not use Chancellor? I mean, I'm not interested in seeing any development down below the Mesa but like I said since we're stuck with what's there does that... You know, I just don't understand what we're going to do with that piece of property now. What would happen now if we do nothing at this point?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Lavinino, the applicant is free to submit a different application proposal for review.
Thank you. And I'll just, yes Supervisor. I want
to say something that's not necessarily on point but several people indicated that Rice Ranch was filing bankruptcy and that's not what is happening. One bank is foreclosing as how I understand it and they still have parts of it that are going to be built so That doesn't mean it's building fast and selling fast, but Rice Ranch Ventures at this point in time are not filing bankruptcy. And so we just need to be sure that you all get that straight.
Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, I'm glad that you said that because I read that story too. So I certainly concur with all of the comments including the frustration about a project of that size and magnitude that would not be going through the regular discretionary review process and I hope that the development standards call for some very substantial screening. And so with that I'll entertain a motion
It's my motion that we follow staff's recommendation and deny the project. I agree with Supervisor Lavinino if there is some way that we can allow them to continue to work on said project without the Creekside involved, I would like to do that but I don't know how to put that into a motion.
4:53 – 5:0218 turns
Madam Chair?
Supervisor Carvalho.
Irrespective of what we end up doing, I will remind you the lesson that I almost learned in another matter is that unless you deny or approve it's important to get the applicant's commitment upfront that they will pay for any continued staffs time because what it is then we're subsidizing it from the general fund and that's my understanding I could be wrong
Well, I would think that we should probably just have a motion on what's before us. And then if you want to make an additional motion or comments to the applicant that he could consider bringing something else forward and talk about that with staff. That might be more appropriate.
Are we headed in the right direction here?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Gray, I think that proposal works to have the motion that you've proposed and then can actually come back and give feedback to the applicant or give more direction to staff.
So the motion then is to accept staff's recommendation and deny the project?
Okay. That's a motion. Have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right, and then Supervisor Gray. And then we'd like
to go to the applicant and ask if there's something that we can do to help you out because obviously you're not jumping for joy.
Chair Farr, Supervisor Gray, thank you for your deliberation. As I indicated we believe in the project but designing a project on the Upper Mesa that meets the Orchid Community Plan requirements is something we can do. There's been a number of alternatives in the AIR so we have one that was analyzed. We can pick up from that one. A lot of design work has been done so we could be back here relatively quickly with a revised plan to present. And we obviously will pick up the cost of additional staff review and things of that nature.
Ms. Black, if I could just make a comment so we all walk out of the room hopefully with the same understanding. The applicant would need to reapply for a revised project and we would obviously use and build upon all of the work that we've done including the EIR but they would need to reapply and we would go back to the Planning Commission and then come forward with the Planning Commission's recommendation on any revised project.
All right. Very good. Thank you very much. So with that, we're at the close of our regular agenda. We have a number of people that we want to honor here and close in honor of. And I'll turn to... Actually if I could have everybody be quiet as they file out of the hearing room please? The hearing's not over with yet. Supervisor Lavagnino, I'm going to turn to you first.
Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to close today in honor of Rosemary Rosie Centeno-Keith. She is the sister of former 5th District Supervisor Joe Centeno. She passed away on March 2nd. Rosie was born and raised in Casamelia. She graduated from Santa Maria High School in 1955 where she was a Psalm leader and she was voted the best personality in her senior year.
So she, as a career, she was a pharmacy technician. She was married to Herman Herm Keith and united their two families where they raised six kids together. And I thought this was very interesting was during her illness, she was assisted and comforted by her nephew is Dr. Joseph Centeno Jr.. So our thoughts and prayers are with Joe and his family.
Thank you Supervisor Loewen-Yuno. Supervisor Wolfe and then Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you madam chair, I'd like to close this meeting in honor of Selma Rubin Yes, I know You know I want to say Selma was 96 but she may have been 97 But I think if she was here. She'd probably say it doesn't really matter because She never let age get in her way. I've known Selma for a number of years, she is...I think she's known I was going to say the South County, but look at she's touched so many people's lives up in the North County. She was a tremendous activist, a woman of honor, a woman who spoke her mind. She was very much involved in the environmental movement.
She was a member of over 40 nonprofit organizations and as we commend the volunteers She was the consummate volunteer. She was a great role model. She's remembered by all of her hats and her glasses, and I remember the back of her car with numerous bumper stickers. And even at her age, she continued to drive. She was an amazing woman. We will all miss her but I think the memory and the impact that she's had on us and those who have been fortunate to know her We know that she will always have a very special place in our hearts and in our minds. Thank you, thank you very much.
Thank You Supervisor Wolf. Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you I just want to echo what Supervisor Wolf said about Selma. She's somebody I got to know many years ago before I had gray hair And somebody who taught me a great deal and became a good friend of my family personally. Many people who come to Santa Barbara County or are involved with government, especially in the South Coast and many of the continued discussions we have in the north and the south, and don't realize that a lot of those values and struggles and challenges that we have in trying to define who our community is very healthy struggles emanated from people like Selma. Somebody who modeled away defined what she felt was a good sense of community not only for the environment but our humanity She always struggled and challenged us to remember what it is to treat those with the least amongst us, and what true environmental advocacy was all about.
It's from its most simplistic form to its most complex definition. And she was just a great lady with a big heart, great personality and she's going to be greatly missed by many so I'll miss her dearly.
Thank you, Supervisor Carbajal. And I'll just also say that besides all the other things that she did what an incredible role model for somebody who carried so much intelligence energy stamina and passion into her advocacy long after most people decided they're going to retire and relax and do other things And to see her show up time after time at all these different events was just amazing and such a good example for all of us. And I think out of all of her legacy, one thing that I will never forget is the fact that Because she either went to jail or is going to jail, El Capitan Canyon is a campground and not a very large subdivision. So thank you Selma for all that you've done and will continue to do for Santa Barbara County even in your passing.
And with that we will be adjourned until next week in Santa Barbara. Thank you everybody. Thank you. you