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 – 0:0511 turns
♪ Good morning everybody. Welcome to this regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, our last for this calendar year and we're glad that you're here. We have a very full agenda today and Mr. Allen would you call the roll
please? Ms. Wolfe? Here. Mr. Carbajal? Here. Ms. Gray?
Present.
Ms. Farr?
Here, would you all
Roll-call vote Passed 1–0 Moved by Janet Wolf · Seconded by Joni Gray approve · 1 under review
Show transcript
Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. We're gonna go into public comment and Supervisor Gray, I understand you wanted to make a comment.
Yes, I do. This weekend we opened the Orcutt Library which was just a remarkable feat and so I brought a picture for everyone to look at. That's me with scissors in front of my face and that's Mayor Lavinino telling me how to cut the ribbon But we went from a library that was 2,000 square feet to a library that's 4,000 square feet in a brand new building in a place where there's parking.
The library staff told me that on Saturday they were open from 10 to 2 and 1,500 people went through the Orcutt Library which has to be a record in itself. So I wanted to thank my fellow board members it's just you guys thank you thank you thank you. You have smiled on Orcut and it's all because of what you've done and there we are with the Orcut library. I invite you all to come up. Just one of the interesting things that happened is the library that was in Orcut 1922 Had a metal gate made out of sucker rods, because this is an oil field town.
So we have this gate made out of sucker rods that says library. Well about a year ago that gate showed up at my front door and I don't know where it came from or how it got there but eventually Diane Corral, Diane LaFranchi she's a descendant of the LaFranchi family called and told me, oh yeah I dropped it off. I thought you might want it. So the library now has the gate that was in front of the library in 1922. We're making a real effort to try and put photos of old Orkut and I'm just really thankful. Thank you very much. The Orkutt Library
And thank you Supervisor Gray for all of your hard work on that and your advocacy. We know it's just going to be a wonderful resource for the Orkut community, and also points out I think the needs that we have throughout the county for all of our libraries so I'm really glad that Orkut was able to meet this milestone and now we'll look forward to trying to do an upgrade in some of the other libraries that we have in the county as well.
Mr. Allen actually any other members of the board that want to make public comment at this time? Otherwise I think we have one member of the public
Yes, Madam Chair and members of the board. We're going to go to Santa Maria for Doug Coleman.
Good morning Mr. Coleman.
Good morning. On behalf of Katya Osagian I'm his North or Santa Barbara County representative and just want to say how much we appreciated Joni over the last number of years and personally my family and I just think that Orchid has a huge treasure in Joni And we just want to thank her again for all the hard work that she's done, for the community and for us and for this nation. Thank you again, Joni. We love you.
And all the best to you.
0:05 – 0:118 turns
Supervisor Wolf? Thank you Madam Chair. I think the four of us sitting here would have so many words of appreciation for Supervisor Gray Because she is such an amazing classy woman, she's asked that we not talk about her. Not shower her with praise right here. It is so difficult to do but I'm going to honor her wishes and it's very difficult because She is an amazing. I tried
to explain to Janet that you have to have a funeral so your friends can come and I'd really like to pass on the funeral, so.
So I just am going to say thank you. You're
welcome it's been great fun.
All right, there's no other public comment. Supervisor Lavagnino?
This is a big change for all of us and for me particularly because I've had the honor of being real close to Joni for the last two years. You look at, well for me it's really going to be different because I've been coming to Santa Barbara for two years. SPCAG APCD meetings I've been riding with my dad and Joni and Lupe And I'm going to be a lone guy in that car from now on.
I guess Peter will be there and Alice Patino and Francis Romero. Everything moves on, but it doesn't mean we forget those who have come before us. You know when I look on my wall and I've got all those supervisors that have retired, you think of all the great things that they've done. Joni, you can leave with a big smile on your face. I think just the Orchid Library anywhere anybody looks in Orchard they're going to see you and remember you Union Valley Parkway, what Old Orkut looks like now compared to when you first came into office. Everything you've done with the parks and I know nobody likes to be forgotten and there's no way anybody can be up in North County and forget about you so I love ya and I would just wish you all the best and George.
Supervisor Carbajal.
Well, if we have some rambunctious supervisors I might as well join the ranks as well You know this board if you look back over the last 20-30 years There's been enough acrimony to go around and I think Every there's been a lot of contributors to that but I think one of the things that our board has really tried to do is to get beyond a A lot of those skirmishes that have naturally plagued this Board of Supervisors. And it hasn't been easy, one in particular that I am particularly keen on is this North-South divide and I got to tell you that For me, it's always not been a real issue but there's a lot of people that have really promoted that. And it hasn't really gone to promote the type of camaraderie and civility that we want in our county and on our Board of Supervisors.
And I will tell you that Supervisor Gray, at least as part of my tenure along with the rest of my colleagues, we have really worked hard Getting beyond those north-south issues. And a good part of that credit is attributed to Supervisor Gray and I say that because we are going to have new members on the board in future elections in January, and I don't want that to be lost because it's so easy to play those silly games and not do the people's work And I think Joni Gray has worked hard to address that divide with all of us. And I give her lots of credit for that. Joni, my hat's off to you because I know you've traversed many boards of supervisors and I think that you founded upon yourself in recent years with all of us To try to find that common ground when at all possible, and you have been great.
I'm going to miss you.
0:11 – 0:173 turns
And I'd certainly like to echo what my colleagues here on the board have said. And just to continue on with what Supervisor Carbajal was talking about, we always hear the expression that all politics is local. But my corollary is that all local politics is personal. It's personal relationships with constituents, with staff, with other electeds and particularly with our fellow board members.
And having that atmosphere of collegiality that has been talked about is absolutely key in doing the work, doing the people's work and doing the work of the county. That is a benefit not just for people in my district but for the people in all of the county and in all of the districts. So again, I know that this is probably not what you wanted Supervisor Gray. But please, please accept it as the outpouring of warmth and affection that we have for you in the respect for all the work that you've done here on this board for the people of Santa Barbara County and the people
Supervisor Gray. Well, thank you. I really thank you so much. I leave the county with a very heavy heart and this is the second time I've done this. It happened to me in 1980 when Supervisor Fletcher was not reelected and in that time the board actually got along well And they had their disagreements but they actually got along well. And then it deteriorated into, and I can't put a time when that happened, it deteriorated into we are from North County and so let's go down and explain to those poor souls in Santa Barbara how to act.
Well surprisingly didn't work really well. And I have to admit that I tried it the first couple of years because I thought that was my job. But because we worked together so much at a time, you know we're together at least once a week for really heavy decisions. So it doesn't work and I'm glad I learned that because now I have the Orchard Library, Clark, Union Valley Parkway all those kinds of things but I was just reminiscing with Mike Allen about starting.
Fourteen years ago when I started, Mike was here, Bob Geis was here And that was it, except I was hoping that Mr. Thorndike would show up today so there'd be one more survivor. But obvi darn he just couldn't make it down. So we go through many changes and as I started out the heavy heart thing is because you department heads and you folks that work for the county are really smart and really dedicated and really hard working And really fun to be around. So everybody pat themselves on the back and we will just continue to be the county we are, so thank you very much. Thank you!
Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Steve Lavagnino · Seconded by Salud Carbajal approve the first two items, the resolutions first and then we'll take up the balance of the admin calendar after that
Show transcript
Thank you if I could ask Pat Wheatley to come forward Madam Chair It is an honor for me to present this resolution to Pat Wheatley For her many years of service as the first five executive directors. She was the first director of the First Five Commission since it started 14 years ago. She has an extraordinary career that was topped by this latest public service post that she's held, but her career has really been to Be a champion for children and families.
I think we all know that especially low income families, but not just low income families. But children, all children in our community needs a champion and needs champions to look out for their interests, for the well-being. And Pat certainly has been a pillar and a champion in making sure First five in particular dollars go to strengthening families, the safety net and the well-being of our children.
Pat you have made major contributions to our community your leadership has been extraordinary on the first five commission and I want to recognize you for your many years of service in helping to helping improve our community thank you for your service Mr. Allen if you could read the resolution
0:17 – 0:222 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. This is a resolution honoring Patricia Wheatley upon her retirement from the County of Santa Barbara. Whereas, Pat Wheatley is retiring after serving as Executive Director of the first five of Santa Barbara County where she has worked to develop programs and educate our community on the benefits of early childhood education.
And whereas, Pat began her career serving at risk in vulnerable communities working for Catholic charities where she developed personal relationships with the youth and their families that helped lead her to become a welfare rights worker for the elderly blind and disabled And whereas, Pat Wheatley along with her loving and supportive husband Joe and beautiful daughter Julie came to Santa Barbara to put down roots and raise their family. In doing so she embarked on a great adventure meeting individuals who inspired her passion for community service including Ida Cordero, Bill Cerrone, and Roger Hero.
And whereas, Pat went on to serve as Executive Director for the Community Resource Information Service and developed a comprehensive service system including a merger with Helpline, the 24-hour Crisis Intervention Service, the CRIS Directory, Share A Home For Senior and Handicapped Adults and the Volunteer Bureau of Santa Barbara. And later went on to assist in the development of the Adult and Aging Network.
And whereas, with the passage of Proposition 10 in 1998, California Children and Families Act now known as First Five. The County of Santa Barbara established the First Five Commission and chose Pat Wheatley to serve as the first Executive Director. And whereas in this role, Pat has fulfilled a vision of impacting the lives of young children and their families by creating a system that provides them greater opportunity to maximize their full potential. She repeatedly refers to her service in the first five as a blessing and a gift through which she has tremendously impacted the lives of children from zero to five, from Quiama to Carpinteria.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors Pat Wheatley upon her retirement as Executive Director for the First Five of Santa Barbara County and further commends her for her leadership in helping create A Santa Barbara County where all children can live and thrive in safe, supportive, nurturing and loving environments. Enter school as healthy active learners and develop resilience and achieve their potential. Passed and adopted today by the board
Thank you. Those that know me well, these, and Jonah you can, I don't know if these aren't the easiest things but they are done with such gratitude. I've worked in Santa Barbara County. I was born and raised in Santa Barbara and left for ten years and came back with our daughter, my husband and I and started in social services Many, many years ago and it has been a blessing and a gift. As Michael said thank you. I really do feel deeply honored to have had the opportunity when Prop 10 passed in 1998 went into effect in 1999 A friend from the county called and said, do you remember Prop 10? And I said, I think I voted for it.
And then the adventure began and I applied for the position and was very, very grateful to have been accepted. Prop 10 truly is a movement for the importance of young children and What we've been able to accomplish here and throughout the state is to raise that importance to many, many fronts. And I am so grateful to have worked in a county with supervisors that have been so phenomenally supportive, a commission that has been supportive, and the staff of First Five, many of whom are here today who really, really make it work But what a lot of people don't see is the work that Bob Geis and the County Auditor's Office, and our county council, and all of the departments. We end up working with the Ag Commission. We end up working with so many different departments in this county.
So the First Five movement isn't just about First Five and the First Five commission. The First Five mission is about the county of Santa Barbara and the state of California. And I deeply thank you and I want to thank my family for all the support of picking me up at airports and aero squadrons early in the morning, and all of those things because it truly has been a team effort. My grandson was born in the middle of this period of time and now he's in the third grade so It's very, very special and thank you. I'm deeply touched.
0:22 – 0:296 turns
Thank you so much, Pat, for your service. You really leave very big shoes to fill and you're going to be greatly missed. Right. And then the next presentation resolution that we're going to present is to Morell Brooks. Morell would come forward. Morel and her husband Chris are pillars of the community and just outstanding citizens of Santa Barbara County. After retiring as teachers, a long wonderful career they stayed very involved in their community in the Lompoc area particularly in Vandenberg Village. In so many ways which you will hear in the resolution But on top of all of that, Morrell was willing to be my planning commissioner. Which as any of us who have done the job know or have spent any time in the Planning Commission hearing room is an enormous job and out of all the boards and commission assignments that we make is probably one of the ones that is not only the most visible But takes the most amount of time.
And I have been so appreciative of all the time and effort that Morrell put into that in being so hardworking and so gracious to me, to the people of Santa Barbara County, to the staff, and to really moving forward so many of the important land use issues that come to the planning commission and particularly the third district. So you're going to be missed, but I know that you're still very involved and we're still gonna be working together on a lot of important issues particularly for Vandenberg Village. So Mr. Allen would you read the resolution please?
Madam Chair members of the board this is a resolution honoring Morelle Brooks for her service to Santa Barbara County Whereas, Murrell Brooks has served as the third Supervisorial District Planning Commissioner for four years representing the largest most geographically diverse district in the county. And whereas, Murrell Brooks played an active role in the adoption hearings for Los Alamos and San Ynez community plans and ensured that hearings were held in the San Ynez Valley so as to enable maximum community participation.
And whereas, Morell approached her job as the Planning Commissioner with an incredible work ethic and was always thoughtful, well-prepared, respectful of other commissioners, the public, and the staff. And whereas, Morelle Brooks has been a very active member of our community including serving as a member of the Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara County, the Lompoc Vandenberg American Association of University Women, the Santa Barbara County Commission for Women, the Vandenberg Village Association, as well as the Grow the Village Library Committee, and then the Planning Commission.
And whereas, Morelle Brooks has demonstrated an outstanding dedication to public service and will continue to remain active and involved in the community affairs as she transitions to new endeavors for the continuing betterment of Santa Barbara County. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors honors and commends Morelle Brooks for her service and contributions to our community passed and adopted today.
I want to thank first of all Supervisor Farr, who I consider an expert in land use issues. And when she asked me to serve as her planning commissioner, I was honored and I continue to be honored. I was glad to be able to serve third district and the county for those four years. As I traveled throughout the 3rd District, it was just...I took it as a great responsibility. Going from Vandenberg Village over to San Ynez Valley down Highway 1 along the Gaviota Coast into Isla Vista It's a huge and very varied district, and I certainly learned quite a bit about it. And I took the responsibility for the district and for let's say the county very seriously, and I was delighted to serve for those four years. So I want to thank also my fellow commissioners.
I was listening to the very nice presentation for Supervisor Gray And I felt that the whole time I was on the Planning Commission for those four years, our commission also we got along very well. We always try to work for compromise and consensus, and I think we were able to come up with the best projects for the community by sharing with one another and giving and taking where necessary. So I think that is important. I also want to thank very much the planning and development staff. I used to sit on the other side. I'd sit in the audience and I'd be up there and I would be ranting and raving about something Well, your perspective changes when you're on the other side of the desk. And I was just always impressed with the professionalism of the staff.
Anytime I had a question they would call me to set up site visits. It made the job so much easier and I did appreciate that. Some people think that Santa Barbara has too many regulations No, I don't think so. I think the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development has good regulations, there's rights and responsibilities that are laid out there, and when people follow the process it's a good one, very good one. And it allows especially the public to get involved in the communities to get involved, and I learned that.
Lastly, I'd like to say We had a good four years. San Ynez Community Plan, Los Alamos Community Plan, the Elwood Pipeline ended the barging on the coast. I saw wonderful projects out in Isla Vista. I think Isla Vista is really being transformed. There's kind of a young generation of developers taking an interest in Isla Vista and I was very glad to be part of that process.
I will go home now, I will continue reading my latest novel. I will put aside the EIRs and the negative decks and I do appreciate all the work that you do and thank you for this honor.
Thank you so much. All right, we'll now turn to the balance of our administrative agenda. And I think that we have some items that both board members and the public want to pull.
Madam Chair, we have requests to speak on items A3, A4, A8, and A13 with a request from the public on items A3 and A4. OK,
well why don't we just go ahead and take them in numerical order then? So why don't you start with A3.
0:29 – 0:4518 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. Item A3 comes to the board from the auditor controller. The request is that the board receive and file the 2011-2012 expenditure summary of county vendors over $100,000. And we have requests to speak from Steve Labard and Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria.
OK I think that Supervisor Lavagnino you wanted to comment? Do you want the public first? So who did you? Mr. Caldwell?
Mr Labard to be followed by Andy Caldwell.
Good morning, Supervisors. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'd like to start out first by thanking Joni Gray for everything that she's done for the 4th District, especially for Old Town Orchid. I'm here today representing Labarge Computer Center. We've been in business in Santa Barbara County and Santa Maria since 1979 for 33 years. We're a local vendor and we have one of the vendors for the sales contract that's brought up Auditor Controller's report for the year, which shows that sales to us were approximately $650,000. And our competitor, the sales to them were about $1.6 million. That concerns me quite a bit because basically the way this contract was put out and everybody had good knowledge of this from all the IT managers to all the department heads that whenever they went out to get bids for service work or anything computer related with purchases, That they were supposed to go to these three vendors that had been predetermined to be good solid vendors for the county and get bids before they buy the equipment.
So as time goes on through the year, we keep wondering why and why we don't have any business? Well come to find out many of these departments have bought in 3, 4 or $500,000 worth of equipment from the other vendor and they never give us the opportunity to bid on the equipment. So this has, unfortunately we don't find any of this out until it's way too late. We've already lost a business. We've already had to lay people off. We already had to put all of our employees on a furlough And this is all while I'm trying to be, you know a good citizen and do my part in helping out with different community events and different veterans groups and everything else.
So it kind of takes me away having to fight this battle from what I really enjoy doing helping out in my community. And the other vendor that is a local vendor he was in a local vendor for 14-15 years but He managed to wiggle his way in there and become a local vendor just and meet the minimum requirements. So this is what I feel like I've been given in return, and I'd really like to meet with the county CEO to see if there's some way that we can't rectify this so that because everybody wins when it's a competitive bid. When it's competitive bid, the county wins The taxpayers win, everybody wins. So thank you for this time to speak and hopefully I can meet with the CEO and see if we can't do something to rectify the situation. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for being here.
Mr Caldwell?
Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. I've been a customer of Labarde's Computer Center. You know what? Can I wait till Salud comes back because he's been one of the biggest fans of this local vendor program since its inception thanks to Naomi doing it even before. I guess he is back. Thank you. Can I start over? I've been a customer and fan of Labar's Computer Center since I was working at Union Sugar.
And I have found this company to be incredibly honest and competitive and competent in everything they do. And I, too, want to thank Joni for her many years of service. And Joni will remember the number of meetings we've had over the years with regard to the local vendor program and getting it started, which again, we want to thank the late Supervisor Naomi Schwartz for that. But I have to tell you it's incredibly frustrating To know that your contract, the county contract requires all approved vendors to be given a notice of bidding opportunities.
And for one of the longest standing local vendors you have in this county doesn't get the bids. There was one instance where Supervisor Centeno looked into it and Labarge could have saved one department $50,000 on one contract. I have to tell you and this is bad news but there's been times when I've complained or Labarge complained they've had retaliation taken against them by some IT people in these county departments We don't understand why in this fiscal crisis your department heads and your IT purchasing agents wouldn't want to do everything they can to save money.
Because the equipment's the same, whether they buy it from CompuWave or Labarge, the equipment is the same. It's the price that's lowered. And I don't need to remind you that Labarge has also been your maintenance provider and has had a stellar record. It makes sense to buy and have the maintenance contract with the same local vendor that's been giving the county excellent service for 20 years, but they're being frozen out. Why?
I honestly am at a loss I hope, I've never brought this up to CEO Waller. I hope that we can meet with her. Supervisor Lavinino, I haven't brought it up to you because I didn't know how bad the situation has gotten cuz Labarge doesn't complain. I made the inquiry after I saw this list and asked why is CompuWave two-and-a-half times higher than you when you consistently beat them in price, and you're the longest running local vendor we've got?
Thank you.
And I urge them to come here today. Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Levin.
Thank You Madam Chair I'm not going to speak to that issue because I'm not aware of it, but it's obviously something now that it's raised. I'll be involved in that. But I guess my concern is just that the report was great and it did raise what Mr. Geis was saying. I think one of the things that came out of this report is we have 306 contracts over $100,000 I think we counted 95 of them or over $500,000.
But you know, I think this all came out of the response to the grand jury report on a failure of oversight But what I'd like to do is see if we can bring this back as a D agenda item so that we can discuss, okay now we know what the contracts are. First off, there were so many of them and it's...I loved the way it was presented. It was very easily detailed out but one of the things for me that was lacking was it didn't say what the contract was for. So some of them were a little bit confusing What I'd like to see now is what's the next step with, and I don't know what we planned on doing with this list. But I mean, I'd like to see what's the next step in the process of how do we identify or how do we prioritize?
Mr. Geis, I don't know if you wanna come forward but it's like, what do we do with this list now? No, we've got the list. We all understand what the contracts are but that wasn't really what the... That was one part of what the grand jury was asking for so what's the next process?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Lavanino, I think you hit it right on the head. The first thing missing from the report is what it's for and we don't capture that data. And so that's one of the things that immediately came to us is to say oh we need to improve this list include additional information that you know you can't sort by that category. You know you could use that report for another thing. I'll tell you the first thing on the list that hit me There's $11 million contract to the state, so that's the contribution for the courts.
What that made me think of is we're one of only 20 counties still making a 6.8 million dollar contribution to the courts maybe now is the time to You know, try and get some relief from that payment since we could be, you know, we're doing realignment. I put that idea to Chandra. She said give me a position paper on that and we're working on something like that but the idea is of the smallest 10 counties in there There are only 50 million of the 489 million still being paid to the court, so maybe there's opportunity for relief. And of those eight counties, five are building new jail facilities. So maybe there's a nexus to say hey is it time? Could we do something with Prop 30 and realignment and get some relief there? So there's a lot of other ideas in that report about really saying you know, what else could we do with it?
You know there's some pretty big contracts out there where we have multiple agencies with multiple contracts all going to the same service provider. Similar to what we had with LHCDC and how are those pieces all working together and how are we doing the monitoring? You know one of the things I suggested is give me another position So that we can constantly monitor these contracts and, you know do a selection. And we said well bring that back into budget hearings were broke. We understand that but I still think that monitoring components there. We have an item later on the agenda today about Contracts and trying to do some additional work at the front end, but I've told Sean there's also some work on the whole contracting process. Getting it automated, making it more efficient, getting them renewed annually in a timely manner, making sure all the standard provisions are in there.
We have one person in my office reviewing 306 contracts for accountability. What does that even mean? What am I doing for that? So there's a lot of work there.
And that is something I would like To hear at budget time also, because I think you're right. If you have one person looking at 306 vendors and $206 million in contracts, you're spinning your wheels. We're not getting done what we need to get done. So it might be one of those positions that makes us as much money as it costs us or saves us as much money as it costs us. So I'm very interested in what the follow-up is going to be.
And I don't know if we want to bring this back as a D agenda item or just talk about it during budget. Chandra, do you have any idea what you'd like?
Chairwoman's supervisor. Perhaps after we hear the item today that goes into a little bit more detail, you could make your decision at that point what next steps you'd like to see whether it be a D item on this specific issue or follow up on the compliance piece that we're going to present later today.
Actually, I would like it to come back as a D item before budget because I think that Mr. Geis has raised a number of issues including due through the legislative committee we want to look at this issue of paying money to the courts and relief and connection to building a jail and all that which might be a result of a discussion about this issue of which then certain Certain actions would be recommended, including perhaps staffing increase that would come up then during budget as well. But it seems like we should have some sort of a preliminary discussion to get into some of these, including the fact that we have one vendor with multiple contracts coming from different county departments and information as far as how they are coordinating or if they are coordinating.
So Supervisor Carbajal-
Thank you Madam Chair. I did hear Mr. Geis loud and clear about The limited staff he has, so I would hope that if he needs additional resources to be able to complete this project that you let us know because I think this is of paramount importance to our board and the organization. So I think it's important. Andy brought up a collateral issue that has always been front and center as it relates to the local vendor outreach program and us trying to promote more procurement for our local businesses at least provide them we do have an advantage program But as part of the automation issue that you raised, Mr. Geis, as part of our policy as it relates to under and over $100,000 when we go to an RFP or not, I don't think we want to stifle the organization because you want to provide enough latitude to purchase items, procure items even outside of our area items especially when you have items that can't be procured in our area.
So I'm not saying go overboard. But certainly there's a lot of room to improve whether it's automation, whether it's that local vendor issue so that our local businesses could get more of this business. So I like to explore and if tonight I might bring back or we consider in the future that in addition to what Supervisor Lavinino has raised that we really look at how we can continue to enhance the Local Vendor Outreach Program because I think Mr. Labarge raises a good question, I mean if there are opportunities to give more businesses locally our business We would all benefit our economy benefits our local residents benefit So to the extent we can beef that up to make sure it's working better or more optimal I think that would benefit all of us so I'm looking forward to having that as a piece Not necessarily connected if it could be connected great But if if it's separate That's fine too, but I do think that's important to focus on as well.
Thank you. Supervisor
Wolf? Thank you Madam Chair. So in the board letter it talks about Mr. Geisert your office is working with CEO Waller's office to construct a policy for the departments when they go out and complete these contracts. So when is that policy coming back to us? And I assume you also are including county council
0:45 – 0:4923 turns
in these discussions. Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf it's on the agenda today so...
Well that's what I was wondering if...
That policy is more related kind of to one part of the contracting process. It's really the front end of the process and getting the departments a couple more tools when they're out going into a complex contract. I think some of the other process, it's getting back to what Supervisor Carbajal says and Supervisor Lavinino. I think the whole contracting process is ripe for continuous improvement. You know we do pretty good with 306 contracts. It's a big burden on the departments to get a contract done. Big burden on county council and a pretty good sizable burden on us. We tried to do what Dennis does in his offices, separate the contracts out to different staff and then we go, ooh there's 40 different types of contracts we're in and it's pretty complicated and that doesn't seem gonna work in our department but I think the whole process after today's discussion later on, that's part of this continuous improvement we need in the whole contracting process.
And the importance of doing it at the departmental level is of utmost importance because that's the genesis of all of these contracts. So regardless of, you know, yes it's good for you to look at it and your department to look at it and to monitor which we do need to have but we need...and this is something that I think that the board has talked about with county council in bringing us Contracts and making sure that certain provisions are included in the contracts. So we have to make sure at that early stage that the contracts are done appropriately and that our staff is trained. to implement these contracts.
And I would agree, and I'm a real fan that the contracts belong out in the departments who have the expertise of doing those kinds of contracts. I wouldn't want anybody but our own office writing our audit contract of how do we do an audit? We have the expertise to write that contract. We use the GFOA standards to implement that contract along with the county standard terms and conditions, and that's the right place for them.
You know, so that's what this kind of tool is to kind of give the department some more tools on the front end and you're right. Training is an essential part of that once we start putting things in. Thank you.
Thank you. Supervisor Gray?
Oh thank you.
Am I
on? I don't know when it becomes historical and when it becomes just Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting And I've learned way more than I was able to learn 10 years ago about what's being spent and how it's being spent. So now you have the tools to figure out how to do it, and that's a huge part of what's going on here. And I think there's two goals. One is to monitor, and one is to try and find a way to do it maybe more effective and for less money. Now you have the tools to do with so it's kind of exciting. Thank you.
Supervisor Farr, just a comment. I'll also miss you, Supervisor Gray. Oh, thank you. And I'm one of those guys that appreciate it. I've been around a long time getting along.
I was counting us, the three of us, you, Mike and I.
There's a few more but thank you.
Well, I meant that we're here all the
time. Thanks Bob. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your being here. All right so we've concluded that item direction is to
Well I'm not sure what the, where we went with it. I mean as far as pull it and make it a D item? Or bring it back.
Bring it back as a D. Okay.
I
think we can go ahead and did you want to go ahead and approve this for today? What's in the package?
Oh yeah that's fine. The report isn't going to change so I'm okay with that. It's just the direction
to bring
it back for follow up. Direction
would
be to bring it back for follow-up.
0:49 – 1:0017 turns
Okay great now we'll go to A4.
Madam Chair, members of the Board. Item A4 is from the Auditor-Controller. The request is that the Board receive and file the Fiscal Year 2011-12 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report, the Fiscal Year 2011-12 Annual Fund Account Activity Reports, and the Fiscal Year 2012-13 Fee Schedule for the countywide Orchid, Goleta, South Coast, Santa Ynez, Lompoc, and Santa Maria Development Impact Fee Programs.
And we have a request to speak from Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria.
Mr. Caldwell?
Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. And as Salute and Joanie are aware, I bring this up every year because it never ceases to amaze me. If somebody wants to build a 2,000 square foot 7-Eleven in the Orchid area, the traffic fees alone Or slightly less than $180,000 traffic fees alone for a 24-hour convenience store. That same store in Lolita or Nolita the traffic fees would be $680,000 a year.
Your staff will tell you that this is based on engineering, but the bottom line, the cost of construction doesn't vary that much from the north to the south. Land does catching up to levels of service might, but is that really the problem with a guy who wants to build a 7-Eleven? And does 7-Eleven's actually cause traffic trips or do they save traffic trips? Do they actually help people to walk to the convenience store versus drive to the grocery store?
The whole issue of these mitigation fees is fallacious. But I want to say something different to you, there's jurisdictions throughout the state of California that are cutting their fees in half Trying to jumpstart the economy because somebody having to write a check for $680,000. That's not the cost of land, that's not the building, it's not the inventory, it's not insurance.
That's just a traffic fee. Somebody having to write a check for nearly $700,000 to sell Slurpees is a steep hill to climb, a tough road to hoe. So jurisdictions are cutting their fees. The other question is, you know because you are doing construction, construction bids are coming in lower than they ever have. So what's the justification to raise these fees in the middle of a recession? To raise these fees when other jurisdictions are cutting their fees into half as an incentive program and to cut these fees when we're in a recession, to raise these fees when in reality you've freeze salaries What's the justification? Because somebody in LA says they should go up.
That's a convenient excuse but it's not a rationale. You should lower these fees, you should create an incentive program And you should rethink the way they're structured because they are exorbitantly high to the point that they discourage business and job creation. Thank you.
Supervisor Lavinia?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I requested this item be pulled as well and that was basically my point is the whole time I've been on SPCAG is I've seen construction costs drop. They've come in considerably less than most of our estimates but when I was reading the staff report it says It's mandated, and I'm trying to figure out where the mandate is coming from. And what is the justification for a 3% increase when it seems like we would be where we need to be or higher than where we need to be at this point? So I see Mr. Levin approaching.
Mr. Levin did you want to respond to that?
Gregory Levin, Auditor-Controller's Office, Division Chief for Advanced and Specialty Accounting. Thank you Supervisor Lavinino. The report that is being considered by the Board today is required by General Government Code section 6600 and the sections that follow that in the Government Code of the State. And they are pursuant to Development Impact Fee Law which requires that you notice annually both the receipts and the uses of development impact fees And in Santa Barbara County's situation, we have local ordinances that were enacted to allow for the application of the fee. Those ordinances require that the fees be increased annually and related to a construction cost index based out of Los Angeles County. And so annually what the Auditor-Controller's Office does is we review the construction cost index put out by The Engineering News Record And we increase the fees by the amount of the change in that index.
It's done by construction of the ordinance, it's not a application of judgment on the part of any county employee if that answers your
question. I guess my follow up to that would be has that index ever gone down? I heard you say it's mandated to increase, but has
it ever been mandated to decrease? If the index does go down, it would decrease the fees. Since I've been preparing this report which has been three years now, it has not gone down.
Okay. I think all of us sit on SB CAG so I think we all are aware and I don't know who puts this index together but there is no way that it costs the same to build a road as it did The reason why we're getting UVP done right now is the fact that all of our bids have been coming in at 40 and 50 percent of engineers' estimates. So I'm not sure which government agency's putting that index together, but it's
faulty. To respond to the question, it's an index produced by McGraw-Hill as part of the engineering news record.
Thank you. Supervisor
Wolf? Thank you, Madam Chair. Discuss this mitigation fee in the past and one of my concerns is. I guess opposite of Supervisor Lavagnino's concerns, I've always felt that we needed an update mitigation report to get the true cost of what it is costing for the roads and the libraries. I know our schools do mitigation reports and what our county has done since I've been here is that we have not done a new mitigation report We have just gone through the process as you have suggested.
These are fees that are useful to the community, literally to mitigate the effects of some of the construction that occurs in our community. And I know in my district, we have 130 home development that is moving through the process. We have a new hotel that's being built. These folks are paying their mitigation fees for the parks and the roads and the schools and so forth. It's part of the responsibility and part of the law as you point out for moving forward and building these developments and understanding the impact that it has on the community. So I, and I also think that this report is good because it also shows our accountability of where our fees are being spent. And we have to do that by law so I always find this informative but I wish at some point we would do a more in depth mitigation study report rather than continue to do the steps that we do increasing it by the LA standards.
Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you Supervisor Wolf and actually I agree with both Mr. Caldwell and you Supervisor Wolf, strange as it may sound. I think that from Mr. Caldwell's comments about the disparity in the fees is really true. It's quite striking And I think when it comes to construction costs, whether the market is up or down that it really doesn't cost that much more to build certain things in Goleta and Orkut as it does in other unincorporated areas. Yet the fees are radically different.
And so I agree with Mr. Caldwell on that, and I also agree with Supervisor Wolf that it's time that some of these fees were looked at again and updated. And the opening of the new Orcutt Library that we heralded this weekend and that we talked about this morning is a direct connection with the fact that Orchid has a library fee and a public administration fee. So that there was an opportunity to have funds that had built in that pot of money over time so that when an opportunity presented itself, that a new library could be built and staffed and stocked With the use of these fees and we have these needs all over the county and and the needs continue to be there because. The impact fees are either not there or they're just not sufficient to meet whatever the costs are.
And I would also agree with you supervisor love and you know that you know the cost of gone up and down. But some of these fees have not been changed in decades. And clearly, the costs have gone up in that period of time. So I do think this is also something that needs to come back to us. That it's always been the practice that when a community plan was updated, that a fee study would follow on that. And I've certainly had a couple of community plans in my district that have been finalized where there has been no follow-up fee study to that. So, I'm hoping that we can take a look at that this year as well.
Thank you Chairwoman, Supervisors. This discussion has been one that staff has had as well about the need to update our entire mitigation fee program and it was my intent as a part of the 13-14 budget to build funding into that that would enable a consultant contract to come in and do that analysis of the fees. As I know your board is aware part of the requirement is to look at what the needs are in the community And obviously compare that with the community plans to calculate the cost of making those improvements and then conduct an engineering analysis that actually spreads those benefits across what the new development would be. So, that was sort of our intent was to bring it forward as a part of the budget if your board desires to bring that forward separately we could certainly do that as well.
Well, as long as it's on our radar for this coming year. Thank you. We have two more admin items that have been pulled just to do a little agenda management. It's my intention that we do those items. We conclude the administrative agenda. We go right into our departmental agenda item number one and then the board will be taking a break. So if you're here for items D2 or later it's going to be at least an hour probably so. All right I think the next one was A8.
1:00 – 1:1021 turns
Yes, Madam Chair. Item 8 is in the County Clerk Recorder Assessor. The request that the board consider recommendations regarding a second amendment to the contract for the development and implementation of a new integrated property assessment administration and valuation system. This requires a four-fifths vote.
Okay I think that Supervisor Carbajal and Supervisor Wolf wanted... Is there anybody from the public that want to speak on this?
No requests to speak from the public on this.
Thank you. Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I remember voting for this item a number of years ago and it was quite a weighty significant item because it's supposed to improve our ability to be able to enhance our operations and increase our revenues or tax revenues that are supposed to be coming in. I remember initially we kicked it off with... It was a three department approach the auditor, the treasurer and the assessor I will tell you what's really important for me is to get clarification on a number of issues. I don't know that today's hearing lends itself to a few of the questions that I'm going to throw out in terms of what I'm looking for, so it may be best to really continue it.
One, I saw that the deadline has been moved now dramatically. With a three year difference, it seems in terms of the progress and the completion of this project. Two, I know we have a consultant from Colorado. I'm wondering how much travel costs have been incurred and is considered to be incurred in the future again for this contract? And the percentage that that is from the overall contract?
And just in general, the overall cost obviously has increased. I rarely see a contract that mushrooms in cost or in timelines in terms of the progress and the estimated deadline for completion as this one. So you can try to answer those questions now but I think there's going to be a lot of data that I really hope to be able to receive from you along these questions that I've raised. So unless there's some major timeline constraint, I would rather it come back to us in January so we could get a fuller understanding of what has transpired, why we've mushroomed in cost, why we've mushroomed in timeline and I understand also there are some meetings Have been playing with CEO Waller that haven't occurred, that need to occur.
Because I've asked our CEO for some of this information perhaps that meeting would have transpired. We, I wouldn't be asking for a continuance but again rather than get into it, I would rather we continue into January Madam Chair.
Thank you Supervisor Carball.
Supervisor Wolf? Oh thank you Madam Chair. Thank you, Supervisor Carbajal. You articulated those points very well and I would be in favor of continuing this item mainly because I do have some significant concerns. This was a contract that we approved that was over $1 million and now we're being asked to approve a second amendment for it appears to be about $300,000.
When we enter into these agreements And especially this one, it was laid out to us the importance and the value of this. And I think that's why we all moved forward and supported it. When we have a significant change like this, I do think it's important for the board to better understand what's involved and the implications. And to get some assurance that this will be completed, I think now the new timeline is the completion date of 2014. Is it 2014 or 2015?
Yeah, June of 2015. OK. So it's
even later than I originally read in the report and that was originally presented to us. So the fact that this was such an important project for our county, and now to know that this will be done in 2015 is extremely concerning. And so I think the suggestion that we That we have a more in-depth discussion as is warranted. Thank you madam chair
So Mr.. Holland, is this all right with you if we go ahead and can or there any issues with us continuing this to the January 15th meeting
Yes, we'd be happy to bring it back on January 15th for the departmental item. Your questions are good questions. The cost has gone up. I wouldn't characterize it as mushrooming and in projects like this just in general for sometimes them to go over the anticipated time is not That unusual, and we would hope that this would get done way before June 2015. That's really our anticipation but we can go over that all in more detail on January 15th and I would just appreciate if you have any other questions if you could send those to us ahead of time so that we can be sure to prepare for those questions on January 15th, that would be all I ask.
Madam Chair, if I could just follow up. I think this also goes back to what we were talking about as far as contract issues are concerned. Now certainly this contract came to the board but I'm wondering if county council has looked at the contract to make sure that The vendor has met their responsibilities before we move forward and extend it. Or, not necessarily just extend it but to pay them additional funds because we want to make sure that they have met their obligations to date.
Madam Chair, we have reviewed the second amended contract and we did note the same issues that the board has discussed It is legally sufficient for your board to approve the amendment. And I believe they disclosed that this is the second amendment, but yes we have been looking at it making sure that it complies with the county contracting policy.
I would like a little clarification so you looked at some of the issues that were raised and you are confident that the vendor has met their obligation?
We have looked at the proposed amendment. I do not believe that we evaluated whether or not there was merit to the desire to continue The contract, but we did review to assure that the amendment is an enforceable agreement. But let me ask Ms. Ryerson if she's-
Let me just say this in answer to Mr. Holland then. I think then it would be important to have some input from county council when it comes back to us in January. Thank you.
All right, so our direction is to go ahead and continue
now. Madam Chair, if I could just add, I would like to hear eventually from Mr. Geis and Mr. Hagan. Initially there was this vision collaboration not so much now but there was this big project and there was a hurrying associated with his effort because we were going to realize this project and it was supposed to be done in 2012 because we were going to bring in more revenue and it's going to be great Now we're saying three years more, 300,000 more, a second agreement. We already have another amendment and quite frankly there's a lot of talk in the organization about how effective this project has been or is not and the bottom line is we just need to deal with those issues head on. Let's just be transparent about what it is, what it's not.
Have there been glitches? Nothing in the report talks about any glitches but I'm assuming there has been. And those are the types of issues that we just need to know about. But we can't just have an admin item that brings this item for us, shows the extension going from 2012 to 2015, $300,000 more and... The only thing I will say Mr. Holland is I don't think this is typical.
I know you referenced that it's typical for some of these projects to mushroom like this I will venture to disagree with you, but I really want to understand better. My only purpose for continuing is to really understand what have been the challenges where we're at now and where we're going and I think that's it. And oftentimes Mr. Hall and I will also say that many department heads when they have significant items coming before the board It's a reciprocal communication, whether they initiate a meeting with us or what have you. So I just want to encourage you to also when an item like this comes up with flags as significant as this it's good for us to connect in advance as well and the meetings with our CEO are absolutely critical and I know that some meetings were canceled.
All right, thank you. So when the board approves the balance of the administrative agenda it will be with this being a motion to also continue? Or do we need to take that as a separate motion?
You can make a separate motion or you can include that on your motion to approve the rest of the administrative agenda but we'll make note of that and continue until your January 15th meeting. As
a D item, OK. And then I think the last item to be pulled is at my request and that's A13. Mr. Allen?
1:10 – 1:1415 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board, General Services Department, the request is that the board consider recommendations regarding the First Amendment to the Bill of Sale for the Kachuma Marina concession. This is Lake Kachuma in the Third District and this item also requires a four-fifths vote.
Okay although it doesn't say that on here says majority
yes I'm asked to clarify that by County Council and the department
Okay, my request is simply that we also continue this to the agenda of January 15th. It probably can stay as an A item but I just didn't have enough of an opportunity to really talk to staff about it. I think that there's some more information that probably should be included in the staff report and this particular issue has a bit of a history over at the last few years and so I just want to be clear about what we're doing here CEO Waller.
Chairwoman, I was just going to confirm that I've spoken with staff and to hold this to January 15th it works for timelines as well.
Okay and we can plan to bring it back as an A item I think will probably be okay by then. Alright so that can be a part of our motion as well to continue this. Alright with that I think we don't have anything else on the administrative agenda so have a motion to approve with those amendments.
Madam Chair, if we take A4 separately I want to vote it.
Okay. All of the administrative agenda with the amendments except for A4? I'll second that motion. That was your original motion, Supervisor Carbajal. Is that all right to take A4 out? All right. Second by Supervisor Wolff. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right and so we need a separate motion on A4.
I'll move item A4
Roll-call vote Moved by Janet Wolf · Seconded by Salud Carbajal
Show transcript
Mr. Lavinino? No. Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Mr. Carbajal? Aye! Ms. Gray? Aye, Ms. Farr?
Aye.
Passes 4-1.
Alright thank you. Let's just stretch for one minute and we'll have staff set up for our D item and then we're going to continue right on before we take a break. Anybody that wants to speak to this item should fill out a speaker slip in the back of the room and put it in the box right up there that Mr. Pisanis just held up. Thank you. Take your seats. We want to go ahead and get started with our first item on the departmental agenda, which is...
I haven't had to use this all year. Shall I use it today? All right, everybody take your
seats.
I have to pay the bill. Here's my bill right here. I think it's not out of proportion to the general population. There are so many. All right, so we're going to take up our departmental agenda item number one a presentation by Cal Fire on the state responsibility areas.
1:14 – 1:316 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. This is item one from the county executive office. It's a hearing to receive and follow presentation by Cal Fire on the recently implemented statute response state responsibility area fire prevention benefit fee.
All right we'll start off with our fire chief. Chief Dyer good morning.
Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm here to introduce CAL FIRE Unit Chief Robert Lewin who's come down from beautiful San Luis County to make a presentation before your Honorable Board on the SRA fee.
Thank you, Chief and honorable Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors. Thank you for having me here today. I think it's a wonderful idea that you have invited CAL FIRE here today to give a presentation to you and certainly your citizens. They certainly are entitled to hear from someone from the department about these fees And so I'm going to go through a rundown of some background on the fees and some of the fire protection, fire prevention that occurs in Santa Barbara County by the state. And then certainly avail myself to any questions and hope to answer most of those. Certainly I won't be able to answer all of them but I'll do my very best.
I do want to point out that in the audience today is one of my division chiefs. It's Division Chief Brendan Blue if he could just raise his hand for a second. And I point him out because he is his division actually includes Ventura and Santa Barbara counties He also is responsible for our camp that's down in Ventura That runs a hand crews, and so he is he actually lives here in Santa Barbara City. He is down here And he represents me he's my liaison down here to your department as well as Ventura County Fire Department
Well thank you for being here appreciate it
And just a little bit of background on our organization before I move into this presentation in that my responsibilities are as the unit chief of San Luis Obispo. That, of course, includes administrative support to Santa Barbara and Ventura counties certainly It is your chief, Chief Dyer who is essentially the unit chief for Santa Barbara County. He acts as an agent on behalf of the state of California when he wears that hat.
He does that under contract and I'll have a presentation in this, some slides on that to further explain that. And likewise in San Luis Obispo County we have the reverse of that. I am also the county fire chief in San Luis Obispo County, and I too have some contracts with city and districts. So the similarities between your county and San Luis Obispo County are the same but the opposite if you will it's the reverse of what we do so hopefully that gives a little bit of background into the relationship that we all have. And I am fortunate to have good relationship with Santa Barbara County and Ventura County and that certainly is what the citizens expect of government.
So moving into the presentation now, just some background on the fees. The fees were part of the budget in 2011. They were passed by the legislature and then signed by the governor. In that legislation, relatively simple, it designated the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to work on their regulations on how to implement that legislation. And then the Board of Equalization is the department in California that's responsible for issuing those fees.
And it took a long time to, you can imagine June 11th was when those fees were legislated but it was not now until recently that the citizens in Santa Barbara County, the habitable structures in Santa Barbara County received their bills. The Board of Forestry is currently working on permanent regulations to implement those fees. They're operating under emergency regulations right now and they're not complete. That's one of the reasons that we don't have all the answers to the questions that the public has.
So what are these fees? Well, the fees are not new monies coming to CAL FIRE. Our department like the rest of the agencies in California both local and state have had severe budget cuts during this recession and we certainly had our hits in CAL FIRE. These fees will provide some stable funding for our department. So there's not anticipated any additional services as a result of this. You won't see more fire engines, you won't see unnecessarily more work but some of that is still yet to be determined.
So some background on what does it mean to be state responsibility area. Good government term but what it really means is it's those areas in California that have watershed value and also are threatened by wildfire and as we all know and certainly in Santa Barbara County we all know That wildland fires are an ever-present threat every fire season as we move into our May to November droughts that occur here in the Central Coast and throughout California.
So you can see the Kachuma Watershed obviously is a easy example of the areas that are important to Santa Barbara County in the protection of wildland fires, and so... And of course also the rangelands Of course, important to your cattle men and women. And further just good habitat protection is important. In California, the areas in red here are the areas that are designated State Responsibility Areas and it's 31 million acres across California.
So what about the other areas? Why aren't they included in the State Responsibility Area? Well, a lot of those lands that you see are federal lands. Those are lands that are either in National Forests, National Parks, Bureau Land Management Lands and other Federal lands, military reservations etc. And then other areas are just don't have a wildland threat you know you can see the San Joaquin Valley in this map does not have a wildland fire threat although we do get some grass fires in there and things like that but generally not an area designated as a wild land area But, and then other areas of course are incorporated cities. They're excluded and then further just areas that have enough development in them that they don't have a wildland fire threat.
Specifically in Santa Barbara County, the area in yellow here is the areas that are designated State Responsibility Area. You can see it's pretty vast. Of course, the Los Padres National Forest of course takes up a lot of Santa Barbara County and those areas do have a wildland fire problem as well but we are not funded To protect those lands, the United States Forest Service is.
However as you know in this county we have a good relationship with the Los Padres National Forest, your chief and as well as my responsibilities are to make sure we have a good relationship with them and when we do we provide aid to each other. They come into fires off the forest and we go into fires on the forest and we do that immediately. We don't wait for requests, we do it as part of the normal dispatching process.
And some areas to point out in this map of course is that band of land that is between essentially the front country, Santa Barbara City, Montecito area and the forest. There's a band of state responsibility area there that is while narrow is important and as you can see the areas around Vandenberg there's vast amounts of ground in there as well So there's quite an area in San Ynez, you know. So these areas impact probably all of your districts and certainly are important to be protected.
So how do we do that? Well let me before I go there just look at some of the fire history here in Santa Barbara County. The newest fires being in red. Names that I'm sure all of you are familiar with. Names like the Tea Fire, the Hesisita, the Gap, the Gaviota, Sudden, Zaca, Mare, La Brea. After all my years in the fire service, I was on the ground on many of those fires myself here in Santa Barbara County.
Certainly large and destructive fires that have struck Santa Barbara County. I would venture to say that Santa Barbara County probably has one of the worst fire regimes in the world for devastating fires. And your firefighters and mine have the scars to show that. And some of these fires, while they aren't the larger ones, they certainly were an impact. And I know that people in this room probably were impacted more recently by the ones along the front country.
So, how are the fire prevention fees sent out and to who? They're based on whether you have a habitable structure in the state responsibility area. So a house that or some kind of structure that people live in. Including mobile homes, of course, and manufactured homes. In Santa Barbara County there's 14,000 habitable structures approximately statewide 850,000 as a comparison in San Luis Obispo County we have almost 30,000 habitable structures The fee is set at $150. However, if you're protected by a fire department such as everywhere in Santa Barbara County or either protected by Santa Barbara County Fire or by a fire district then you receive a $35 reduction in that fee bringing it to $115.
If somebody were to receive a fee for more than one hundred fifteen dollars they should appeal that fee and get that corrected. That would be not appropriate in this county. What about you know buildings with multiple units will apartments there's only going to be one fee associated with that but if it's a condominium complex where everybody has their own parcel number then they would receive each of those condominiums would receive a fee Barns and other types of structures, agricultural commercial those types of buildings that are not for habitation do not receive the fee.
So what is fire prevention? Because it is a fire prevention fee. Well, fire prevention involves many things. It's certainly fuel reduction clearance and removal of vegetation that is a threat along roadways and around communities, large areas where we do prescribed burns, fire breaks, the public education programs that we do. Those are all types of fire prevention programs that occur.
So I asked Santa Barbara County if they could provide me with some recent projects that they have and there's a list of several of them that are currently going on. You have a good Fire prevention staff here that's working hard. They could be bigger certainly, we could fund them greater it would be my hope but they do receive funds from the state and as well as funds from you to do fire prevention work and they're doing a good job and I can say that Chief Dyer has that as a high priority and he and I talk about what more can we do? And we're continuing to work together to try to come up with more projects.
Some of those, one that's close to my heart on this presentation is the Tepeskay Canyon one. I was one of the incident commanders on the fire, La Brea Fire where Tepeskay was threatened and clearly that community needed some work and it's good to see that that was realized not just by your fire department but also by the community, the fire safe council in that community others Recognize it in there that you can see here. They're doing a lot of work to try to improve evacuation routes And of course roads are also good places to stop fires So what is our role Cal fire the state in Santa Barbara County as I mentioned?
Santa Barbara County is a what we refer to as a contract County There's six hundred seventy three thousand acres in Santa Barbara County and And so what is a contract county? Well, there's several counties, six counties in the state that are considered contract counties. Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Santa Barbara and Ventura. These counties act on behalf of CAL FIRE. They're essentially an agent for CAL FIRE when it comes to wildland fire protection.
It is something that is allowed in regulation The advantage of this is it means that you don't have duplication. You don't have a Santa Barbara County Fire Department and CAL FIRE with stations side by side, inefficiently protecting the county. You have efficiency because if we can fund those stations and those stations can serve both for the needs of the county such as structure fires, medical aids, hazardous materials etc., Do wildland fire protection. There's a much efficiency gained by that So even though Cal Fire doesn't have its red fire engines roaming around your county on a daily basis They're here, but they're white and they have County employees on them And your firefighters are Some of the best firefighters in the world. I can assure you they have a lot of experience and I've worked shoulder-to-shoulder with them throughout my career, and I can assure you they're every bit as good as mine And I think highly of my firefighters So what happens when there's a wildland fire in this county?
We immediately are notified. I send an agency rep to that fire That's usually going to be chief blue and we begin the process of making sure that you have the full force Of the state of California behind you on that firefight your Fire commanders will assume incident command of that incident And we will provide them any resources that they need to appropriately fight that fire And we've been doing that for as long but long before I was born so What else do we support? We do support fire prevention programs and education in this county, as well through the contract.
Some look at some of the projects that we've actually had our own people working on in Santa Barbara County. Some of you may know that in Ventura near Camarillo, we have a camp, an inmate fire camp. It's called Ventura Camp until last year it had five juvenile Ward, juvenile inmate firefighters on those crews supervised by CAL FIRE captains with a realignment. We didn't use that term in 2006 with the realignment of that camp with juveniles. Those juveniles were no longer available so we ceased that program and we added three California Conservation Corps crews led by CAL FIRE captain down there.
So those crews provide direct work in this county and we hope in the next year or two to repopulate our camp with inmates if that works out with realignment. So with that said, I gathered up some numbers to see how much work we've done in the past and as you can see there's a lot of hours and days that our crews have been working directly in Santa Barbara County on fuel reduction projects and other fire safe projects
1:31 – 1:3729 turns
Supervisor Wolk. Thank you, I'm sorry to interrupt your presentation but I'm curious about the Santa Barbara City line there because you had mentioned that the SRA fees do not apply to cities just to unincorporated counties so why is that there?
Well, of course prior to June 2011 there were no fees and our department was essentially fully funded as a general fund agent department. So our resources were have been and continue to be used throughout communities that have needs for fuel reduction projects. Santa Barbara City obviously has a need for a good deal of fuel reduction projects, so those crews have been working in incorporated cities, outside incorporated cities everywhere.
I would guess that with the fees coming around that there may be a change in that policy but I haven't been given any direction yet.
So it's interesting when they crafted this legislation to not understand that what you do is not just in unincorporated areas. The work that you do does impact incorporated, the cities. So it's just interesting to me that they're not included as part of this fee given your past service to the cities. Thank you and I know this is a legislative issue so thank you.
Supervisor Gray.
What is COMB?
Kachuma Operations and
Maintenance. A combination as I'm assuming...
It's the Kachuma Operations and Maintenance Board, isn't it?
Okay.
So what I was looking for was work that was done in the Orcutt, Guadalupe, Santa Maria area and other than Tippiscay, I don't see a whole lot here.
I know I've personally been on some prescribed burns south of Orkut myself in years past when I was actually running crews. As recent, I couldn't tell you how many projects occurring in there but You know, we need to if we haven't and there's a need. We look for areas that are... We look for target hazard areas the most volatile areas and you know the Orchid area probably doesn't rise as high as say the Front Country or the Tepescay or areas around Vandenberg etc but I leave that to your fire prevention staff. We're game on doing these projects wherever they're needed
Yeah, and I think if you go – because I'm going to continue to try and understand this. If you go to your map that has the – it's a Santa Barbara County map. It's the one that I got from you, Chief, that shows where all the fires are. We just didn't have a whole lot of fires in Orkut in that area. Thank you.
OK. So continuing on, and just to give you some numbers on what the state provides to Santa Barbara County as far as the contract, we fund nine fire stations, nine fire engines in those stations, two bulldozers, two prevention officers, one pre-fire management, a captain, dispatching staff for funding of $6.4 million. And that is essentially what we would have here if we were in the county. So those numbers are based on what we would provide at our rates to Santa Barbara County.
That concludes my presentation here with a shot of the tea fire.
Alright, a whole lot of lights up here and a lot of questions so we'll just start at the end here. Supervisor Gray?
Oh, thank you. Do you have still an ability to explain how a citizen appeals the procedure or should I be asking somebody else?
No, I can do that. Thank you. So if citizens are able to get on our website it's firepreventionfee.org It's a simple page and on there is a click for redetermination, is the euphemism that the appeal has. So hit the button for redetermination and that will open up a form and they can submit that form. It's relatively simple to fill out and it's been filled out by many people I assure you.
And if they're denied their appeal, what's the remedy? Do we go to Superior Court or how do we continue to press this
issue? I don't know the answer that. I would assume and maybe your county council has a better answer for me. I would assume that becomes a civil matter because it's a fee but I know that there's penalties associated if you don't pay within 30 days
And then the last question, Dennis, if you've got the answer to that. The last question is if you pay the fee but you feel that you don't fit within the definition does that immediately cause you to just have to continue to pay the fee because you didn't fight it soon enough like an administrative remedy kind of thing?
So if you don't, I'm sorry I'm not following. If you don't pay the fee...
You pay the fee.
Pay the fee.
You write the check and then but you have a question as to whether or not you really should have paid the fee because you don't feel you fit within the definition So at that point in time, are you just out of luck because can you then go on with the appeal?
No. I guess my recommendation is if anybody that receives this fee feels there's a means for disputing it they should definitely file a redetermination
But pay the fee.
Pay the fee, I mean that's up to them whether they, but they will receive a penalty but if... No they haven't
gotten the penalty because they paid the fee
so now they've paid... They should pay the fee and file a redetermination and then they will get back, they will receive something back and most of them are going to be that yes they still have to pay the fee.
And now we're looking for where, what's the remedy from that point forward council?
1:37 – 1:439 turns
I think partly the remedy is going to be how you characterize what we're talking about, a fee. If it's characterized as a tax which is what proponents of pending litigation are indicating then of course you pay the tax and then you appeal. I think ultimately your appeal through the administrative process when you pay the tax that you're challenging and then I think you'd go into superior court. Under the fee process, I would just suspect although I haven't seen any cases but I would suspect that it would be a writ either a general mandamus or an administrative mandamus. Most likely a court trial as a general mandamus.
So the controlling issue here right now is whether or not it's fee or tax and that determination has to be made?
Yes, that is a subject of the current litigation whether it's tax or fee. Of course the tax issue is a constitutional issue.
Do we have maybe an estimate of when that decision will come down?
No, I don't. I've been tracking. It seems to be picking up some momentum across the state and the plaintiffs have amended to add additional plaintiffs so that they're... well they can't do a class action. They're close to a class action in terms of the number of plaintiffs and different Thank you Chair.
You're welcome, Supervisor Gray. And I just wanted to say that I went online because I got the fee and I did pay the fee but this is the petition for a redetermination. The unfortunate thing about it is, Other than the other box, other reason box at the bottom. The reasons that you can check are pretty constrained and all of them require a lot of documentation which is difficult for people to understand what kind of documentation if they're going to try to go forward with this in any fashion is necessary so you have to show maps You have to show your property tax bill, you have to show all of this stuff. So I think anybody that is concerned about it should go ahead and file one of these anyway and do the best they can if only so that the state understands the depth of unhappiness that is out there about this.
And
that's why I asked the question chair because I'd gone on and looked at this and thought oh come on, it's just so Not explain, doesn't explain itself.
Right but if you don't pay the fee first within the period of time then you are subject to these other penalties and other problems so you do have to do that.
Supervisor Wolf? Thank you Madam Chair. First of all Captain I want to thank you for being here. Supervisor Levignino and I had the great pleasure of meeting you when we were discussing our aviation program, so we appreciated your expertise on that and your time in working with us. So thank you for that and thank you for being here. And I also want to thank you and your CAL FIRE red trucks and your crews who we do see I think I speak for myself and my constituents that we are appreciative that when these fires occur in our front country, in particular, that we see your fire trucks. Of course, we see other fire trucks from different counties and communities but we're glad to know that you're there. You're our neighbors.
Painted Cave folks are extremely happy to have you. I also live in the SRA and, you know, paid my fee. I know that there are a lot of people who are concerned about this. The way I look at it is that this was a maneuver in Sacramento to pull money out of CAL FIRE to fulfill or fill a budget gap in the general fund and so that this was a way to get additional resources to put back into CAL FIRE's budget. As you stated, it's not to enhance the budget but to keep things at a stable level.
It does impact a lot of people and for me today it's just for me to better understand as my question was earlier about the cities why they're not included. I also want to ask you about mobile home park, the mobile home owners Because you made the distinction between apartment dwellers and condominium owners. And you said that condo owners, they have an APN number. Maybe this is a question for Mr. Holland. Do each individual mobile home owners have an APN? Or is it the park owner that has the APN?
1:43 – 1:5921 turns
Do I need to press any buttons here? No, you don't. I wasn't prepared for a question on this subject but in general most mobile homeowners do have an assessor's parcel
number. So then that answers the question and it sounds like the law was drafted to include parcels that have an APN. I thought maybe mobile homes would be exempt.
We have parks at least one that I know of in Orkut They don't have an APN. It's part of the park, so I think it depends. There are some...it just depends.
So if it's a parcel, you have to have a parcel first and then you have to have the number of dwellings on that parcel. So say you have a parcel and you have three mobile homes on that parcel, you're going to get three bills. If you have one apartment building with three units in it, you're going to get one bill. So it's habitable structures on a parcel. That will be... so if you had a mobile home park that was in state responsibility area You know, 20 mobile homes on it. There's going to be 20 fees that are going to go to the owner of that parcel.
The
mobile home park? If it's in state responsibility area. Now there are some but generally most of the mobile homes in our types of counties are people and they have some land put up a mobile home. Now I want to just say that this map was not designed for billing, it was designed for fire protection and there are problems with this map and if someone thinks they have been inappropriately mapped in state responsibility area there's a line that shows that its in the wrong place We didn't go down to the granular level when we reviewed these maps in 2010. We were using this for fire protection.
It was a very good thing to be in state responsibility area because if you were in state responsibility area, that meant the full force of the department, Cal Fire, was coming to your aid when there was a fire. Now, of course, when we review the map in 2015 it's a five year cycle I am confident that We will be looking at the granular level down to the parcels of our reviews on these maps, to make sure that we get it right.
But we know that there's some mistakes I saw in my county. There was a map where the map had shifted and there were some homes that were inadvertently included and there were some that probably should have been. We're fixing those. Those people are getting their refunds based on their appeals. And even if they didn't appeal it but we identified it based on their neighbor appealing, we're trying to deal with that. It's not. It's not that clean but it's we're working towards trying to do it right and I don't doubt that it'll get better over time so.
So let me just direct if I may Madam Chair question to Mr. Dyer, Chief Dyer. So have you heard of any of those instances in our counties? In our county where folks are saying that they are included in an SRA when they're really not?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf, there are some areas that might exceed the density criteria that's defined in the SRA. There are some areas though that even though they exceed the density criteria they still need to be in the SRA so To answer your question, moving forward we're working with CAL FIRE to look at some of these areas that might need to be taken out.
And we'll act on that with CAL FIRE under CAL FIRE's direction.
Okay so when will you have that information for us?
Well it's a, the map is not up for review until 2015 and other than those where it's an actual mistake in other words an area that could be re-evaluated. It was appropriately evaluated for SRA. Those will remain until 2015 unless some policy changes in the interim. It's the areas that were just a mistake. In other words there was a map shift, there was something. Those are going to be corrected as soon as we find them and those are occurring And I don't, you know, I'm following along in Ventura and Santa Barbara. And I haven't seen a shift problem in a map or but there are going to be that we've noted around the state that there's some issues where people have wells on their property and they were getting a separate bill for mostly when they had mobile homes for those so that's being corrected as those are Highlighted so we're trying to get it to be appropriate, but if so again if people feel like they've you know They got two bills instead of one.
They looked at the map on the online You can see it on that page and there there should be out when they're in because it looks like there's a mistake They should definitely put in a redetermination and explain that they don't need a lot of paperwork if they take even a Just put their address on there We will look at the map and then we'll be able to make that determination.
But the flip side though is if you find a mistake, will you be assertive and notify a homeowner? Because some people are not going to file appeals they're just gonna go ahead and pay but if there's an error Cal Fire will take the initiative. As
soon as we identify it yeah I mean I can tell you that like your personnel and like I'm sure you get in your offices People call me and I listen to all my personally make all the call backs. And I found one street that had six or seven homes on it that were inappropriately built, we fixed it. And I don't know if they've received their refund yet but I would imagine they have
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Captain Loon, because as you said the map was never intended to really be a billing tool what would be the mechanism to try to get the mapping looked at before 2015?
You know I think it would be, you know we base this off our rules in the legislature. So in other words the regulation says we must do a review. It came about, this current map process came about in 1991 and it says this review will occur, I don't know if they use the word periodically or five years but this is what we've been doing so to change that I would assume would either require a look at the regulation, or so maybe that's a call to your state legislators.
I'm not exactly sure what it could be like. I can tell you that I talk to my leadership about this every week. We certainly didn't expect this legislation and we're working hard to make it work.
Okay. And you also mentioned, thank you that right now you're working under emergency regulations moving towards permanent regulations. Is that an opportunity to affect the mapping and to make some adjustments to all of this given? I mean, I haven't even had a chance to speak in either has Supervisor Lavagnino and some of the rest of the board but I have to tell you in my district 60% of the population lives in the unincorporated area And for a lot of the communities, you would not see any difference between the people that got the bills and the people that lived in the incorporated cities.
There's been no assessment of relative risk in relation to the resources that it's your charge to protect. It's absolutely appropriate and vitally important that we be a contract county because our County Fire Department does provide all of this, that you would have to have to provide on a regular basis to all of these wildland and rangeland areas that we do have.
But to have people build that live in urban areas far from the wild land interface is very discouraging. Or the fact that they are charged the same amount as somebody who does live way out, that does increase the risk. And so there's this great inconsistency about all of this that has really got people very upset about it. Supervisor Lavagnino?
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to piggyback on what you said because it kind of leads right into one of my questions and the haphazard implementation I think is obviously if we had our fire departments or Cal Fire had been in this at the beginning instead of this being a political shell game then I think it would have been the implementation would have been a lot better like you said you didn't know it was coming so One of the things for me is that, and I've been fielding phone calls from folks up in Tippiscay and I'm trying to explain to them don't blame Cal Fire.
It's not their fault and it's not our own fire department. This is a political move to try to gain some general fund relief but I'd like to know if in our ledge committee did this ever come up before it?
That's why we're
having this meeting. Then my question is if our lobbyists didn't know about it and our ledge committee obviously didn't find out about it I'd like to see us get out in front of this a little bit as far as, you know one of the things that you had talked about Supervisor Farr is let's fill out the challenges so we let the state know how many people are affected.
I think it would be incumbent upon us as the county to memorialize our opposition or our concern with the state on this issue, to say we as a county didn't like the way that this was implemented and you know, I'd like to see us make a move in that direction. But I'd like to hear from the public as well but one of the other things I want to point out and I'm trying to educate our folks in Tippiscay is And maybe you can speak to this as well, is that I've heard about a third of the money they had estimated would be coming in is actually coming in at this point. So my fear is that a lot of people are opposed to this and they're not writing the check and they're holding out. And so I think the main thing out of this today is we need to educate folks that a lien can be placed on your property.
Now I don't know if this would ever get to this point The lien could be placed on your property and a foreclosure could occur, so pay the tax. And I know Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is one of the folks fighting this and also, I'd also like to see us through our Ledge Committee there's a bill being introduced by Senator Tent Gaines to repeal this and I'd like us to get on On board with that as well. So I guess there's no question there, but I want to hear from the public. But I think it needs to be pointed out to folks, especially all the people that I'm getting calls for. They're upset with fire protection and I'm like, it's not those guys they're doing the job.
We're just not gonna see any increased activity, but it's more of a budget shell game than it is a fire tax so.
Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. And I think that we'll probably want to come back and revisit that after we've heard from the public. But first Supervisor Carbajal and then we'll go to the public.
Thank you Madam Chair. I think to address Supervisor Lavagnino's question... The reason we're having this hearing is because it did come up during our legislative committee Discussions and we felt that it was such of a significant issue in so many questions existed that it would be best to have such a public hearing to try to address as many of those issues as possible.
Obviously in my district it's somewhat of a mixed bag, whether this is something the residents are supportive of or not. I know Montecito Fire District took a strong position against this is my understanding and I know that there's a reduction that will apply to Carpinteria, Summerland and Montecito but in Mission Canyon Most of those folks have been really proactive as well. And again, there's a mixed bag of wanting to support this but having the lingering question of it seems that this is just a supplementation of resources that were sucked out to help the general fund.
But I think working in good faith, the residents who are in high fire hazard areas for Mission in my district want to be supportive of this, but they want to make sure they understand this new prevention program grants or efforts. What formulas are going to be used? How much more money is going to be spent because they have been at the forefront of achieving some of these grants to do a lot of fuels reduction in the Mission Canyon area. So if they're going to continue More funds and maybe even an enhancement. I think there would be more support for this but not knowing that it sort of creates a mixed bag for that community.
So I think Supervisor Lavanino raises a good question of how we should look at this legislation that's coming up but I need to do more of an assessment throughout my district to understand how people really feel about this Whether it's throw out the baby with the bathwater, absolutely this is a tax or we don't want it. Or it could be constructive and useful but here's a list of questions and a list of issues that we think would make this better. And so whatever legislative posture we ended up taking in the future One is obviously up or down. The other one is just not necessarily up or down in support of this, but what are still a lot of outstanding questions and issues that exist that need to be addressed at minimum so that this could allay some of the issues and concerns that our residents have in our area?
So I was hoping that you could elaborate a little bit more. I think you touched on it briefly, but whatever you know about enhancement of grants or services would continue to exist and what kind of formulas are being contemplated or if we're not there yet?
Supervisor Carpajal, I might be able to answer that. We did receive a letter from Ken Pimlott the director and the first question was what new fire prevention programs or projects are being funded with the SRA benefit fee? And this came out of our alleged committee discussion. The response is for the moment funds are being used to pay for Cal Fire's fire prevention programs that were formerly funded from the general fund So there are no new grants going forward. And I think that this is a lot of the frustration too, that even though it's good as you said that we don't have duplication of services from the public's perspective what we see is a duplication of costs at minimum with no enhancements, with no additional programs and the letter goes on to say that talks about the wonderful programs that are already in existence that you're doing which are really really important But that this new money that is being paid, is not going to pay for more of that.
Which we would certainly welcome. So I think that was something that came out of the Ledge Committee. We thought okay well then where's the grant money and how do we apply for it? And you know how do we do that but there is no new grant money.
1:59 – 2:0514 turns
Madam Chair then if I could just get clarification on a sentence in our staff report. The bottom of the first page says the $150 fee For her habitable structure is intended to fund new prevention programs in areas where the state of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires.
I just think that's probably not accurate.
I know, but I'm just trying to get clarification
I think the only thing I can add, Supervisors is that one of the jobs of the Board of Forestry is to come up with the specifics on how to develop grants. The legislation does talk about grants and how those are going to be distributed, how they're going to be used is not identified yet by the Board of Forestry under their permanent So, you know I'm sure that they're obviously a board that can receive information and I'm sure they'd like ideas from you. So that may be a way that you could have some influences to address that specific issue with them as they develop permanent regulations.
Thank
you. All
right well let's go ahead and go to the public then Mr. Howell?
Madam Chair members of the Board we have five requests to speak. We'll start in Santa Maria with Mr. Caldwell
Good morning again, Mr. Caldwell.
Madam Chair and members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing Colab. I would encourage your board to do several things that are proactive. First off, I would ask the board to vote to join the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in a lawsuit because they are challenging this. What has been said in no uncertain terms here is the state of California had a hole in their general fund And instead of raising a tax, which they couldn't do because they didn't have the votes. They just called it a fee to backfill the general fund. Not only can you not count on enhanced fire services, there's no guarantee that Cal Fire is gonna still be made whole in spite of this tax.
Because the general fund of the state is still not whole. So we would encourage residents to go to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association website at hjta.org, fill out their protest and let the Howard Jarvis taxpayers know that they're protesting because there's a good chance if Howard Jarvis wins the lawsuit, the people that have protested may get their money back. But it would help if you would represent people not just by a quote-unquote complaint, but legal action. And I wish that your staff had actually given you more information about your legal options here.
You know the bottom line here is you have had to tighten your belt. City governments, county governments have tightened their belt. The state has done virtually nothing to tighten theirs they just keep asking for more money. The other thing you should do is you should ask for Doss Williams and Hannah Beth Jackson to come before your board And specifically and publicly request that they support the bill to rescind this. We're all for providing fire protection, but we're already doing that as your board knows we're already paying for this.
And the state is paying for it in some degree as well. But if the state can't make ends meet, then the state needs to tighten its belt not double tax the residents and I would ask for you to think about what if this had to come out of your general fund versus the individual pockets of your residents? Would you be more vigilant and more aggressive in joining the lawsuit if it was 1.4 million or 2 million out of the general fund when you realize you're getting nothing for this? There are no additional services, it's just a tax. In our opinion we concur with Howard Jarvis, it's an illegal tax. And we ask that you would join the lawsuit because as a county joining it would send a better message to the courts and to Governor Brown. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Colwell.
Our next speaker is from Santa Barbara. It's Rudolph Henderson to be followed by Joe Armendariz.
Good morning, Mr Henderson. Thank you for being with us.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to say that this is a tax in straight violation of Proposition 13 And on the envelope that I received from the Board of Equalization, it says special taxes on it. And then it says State Board of Equalization P.O. Box, Sacramento, California and that's what the envelope says. If to answer your question about how do you take and get information on your property, go to your computer and get a visual picture of your property.
And then go through it and point out where your fire hydrants are and how soon the fire truck can get to your place. And support Howard Jarvis.
Thank you. Thank you. Joe Armonderos to be followed by John Gamper.
2:05 – 2:1210 turns
Good morning, Joe Armendariz representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. I've been doing this so long I remember when you used to use microphones or whatever those are called. You know, I don't know what caused that fire but I'll tell you what it wasn't because we're undertaxed okay and the reason why people are upset about this tax is because we are the highest tax state in the nation We pay the highest income taxes, the highest corporate taxes, the highest sales taxes.
Our property taxes thanks to Howard Jarvis are relatively low as a rate but they're relatively high because of the assessed value and the fact that property in California is so much more valuable than places in other places around the country. What we do know is that no matter how much money we give the government, they will spend $2 for every $1 we give them. There was a story just a week ago that talks about how even within a couple of weeks after Proposition 30 passing social service budgets at the state level are now $2 billion over budget already. Just in anticipation of those new revenues, now the legislative analyst has come forward and said we now see structural deficits for the next two years. A month ago they put out a report that showed surpluses And here we are, not even a month after Prop 30 and now we're looking at deficits again.
The fact is that you know and I agree with Steve and Andy the county needs to do more than just complaint. You need to do more than just facilitate people filling out forms on their computer. You have to join the lawsuit. The Taxpayers Association of Santa Barbara County is supporting it Howard Jarvis is leading the fight. I would urge you to join the Jarvis folks and represent the 400 plus thousand people in this county. We're talking about roughly $2 million a year that are being transferred from the private sector to the public sector, 127 million statewide. That's a lot of money. That's money that's not going to be spent on shoes, restaurants, hotels. What does that mean? That means less revenue for the county.
Joe Holland came up to me before the hearing and he said, this isn't our fault. This isn't something that we're doing. I understand that but I would submit to you that it's in fact kind of your fault and let me tell you why. It's Board of Supervisors, its city councils, it's the state legislature. Every time you pass regulations, every time you do things that undermine economic growth, the state has less revenue And when the state has less revenue, they come up with creative ways of finding new ways to tax us. So I would ask that notwithstanding the fact that you don't have personal responsibility for this particular tax, I would ask that you focus on 2013 with a comprehensive coherent economic development strategy to get this economy growing again, to create more jobs and to create more revenue for government.
Thank you.
Thank you. John Gamper followed by L Ted Sands.
Good morning, John Gamper. I represent the California Farm Bureau Federation. I'm here at the request of Terry Bontrager of the Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau. I am so happy that I was here on this auspicious day to celebrate your retirement and work with you over the years. I fought the SRA fees or SRA tax for over 20 years. It was originally proposed as a $2 per acre charge back in 1992 by John Vasconcellos Lloyd Connolly picked up the effort and raised it to $6 per acre on ground that might only rent for 50 cents to two dollars an acre. So even at two dollars an acre on some of the ground in this state, in the wildland area, if you want to see more development in the SRA one way to do that would have been to put a per-acre charge on landowners in the SRA.
Then they resorted to a per parcel charge in 2003, it was subsequently repealed as a result of our lawsuit against the Superior Court. We never got it to court but I was told that because of that lawsuit and the briefings that were filed that they realized that they did not have a legal fee. This charge is no different. There is no return to source on this fee, it is clearly a tax that was passed by a majority vote which is unconstitutional under Article 13A and it will be probably thrown out.
The lawsuit was officially filed December 3rd, only about a week ago. The press release was October 3rd but the actual case was filed in Superior Court in the drop box on December 3rd so we're a ways from a court date. The reason why your lobbyists didn't hear about it is because there was no public hearing on this. It was a budget trailer bill that was passed in the first extraordinary session without a single public comment.
And the impact of this over the years, our arguments have been the impact on mutual aid. All those different colored fire trucks that come down to help defend Santa Barbara County. Mutual aid issue is right on the front lines of this issue because local fire departments who provide structural fire protection are going to be severely hampered in their fundraising capability because of this charge.
That's something that we just have to deal with going forward once the tax is proven to be illegal. One item that we've supported over the years in fighting this is a surcharge on fire insurance policies. Cal Fire is the ultimate fire insurance policy for the state of California, whether it's earthquakes or fires in San Diego, in Malibu, or here in Santa Barbara. They are the ultimate fire protection, fire insurance policy for the state of California. It's not just protecting the wild lands so that our reservoirs don't silt up anymore, wouldn't silt up due to erosion which was the original purpose of the SRA in the first place. Protect the wild lands, the watersheds and that is of course a statewide benefit because it provides water to all the people in the state of California.
Now if we did provide a very modest surcharge or surtax, we could call it now since there's a supermajority in the legislature to pass a tax. There would be the possibility for what you would pay for a MoCo coffee whatsoever at Starbucks on your homeowner's insurance policy. We could probably raise enough money through It was to fill a hole of $94 million that was cut, and the cost of collecting this fee is more than Cal Fire spent on fire prevention statewide.
In years when the state was overflowing with money, when the treasury was overflowing with money. They never spent more than $12 million annually on fire prevention but yet it's gonna cost 15.3 million to collect this hopefully 94 million which I don't think is going to occur
so... Thank you Mr. Gamper. I really appreciate you being here. I know you had to change your schedule to be here. One question I just wanted to ask you if you would come back to the microphone. Is the Statewide Farm Bureau Organization joining the lawsuit?
We've assisted Howard Jarvis in finding plaintiffs, folks who are surrounded by irrigated farmland for example that are in the SRA. People with multiple homes to make the best case. We are not joining at the Superior Court level but should the case be appealed obviously we would file an amicus brief.
Okay thank
you. Supervisor
Grant? Which Superior Court is this going to be filed in? Sacramento. Sacramento thanks.
Thank you.
Our final speaker is L Ted Sands.
2:12 – 2:2920 turns
Thank you Madam Chairman for calling this. I must say it's one of the few times I've appeared before the Board of Supervisors where we were singing the same song off the same page in the same key And I'd also like to say how much I admire public service officers such as firefighters, peace officers and others. I've been fired at by enemy bullets but I'd rather face that than the fires that we have had in this area.
I find it also difficult to understand how a line can be drawn. We've lived in Santa Barbara County for nearly 40 years. We went through and were burned out Painted cave fire. The fire was slowed down by the freeway, but it moved into the city of Santa Barbara. You cannot have lines of demarcation under those circumstances. Why are there lines of demarcation on taxes? And this is a tax not a fee.
I've had to change my comments significantly because they have been answered by your questions. And I want to thank each of the supervisors for their deep thought and consideration of this issue, and I think I'll shortcut this even more by recommending that you participate very actively in having a reversal of this game that is being played I would also like to recommend that each of you read carefully the bill that came out in the state administration.
I have read it, its very heavy reading but it begins by setting aside certain fees that have nothing to do with fire suppression or fire control. Funds should go in first before ever applying for that. It is a scam, and I'm sorry to say that. But it is. Please defend us as you need to. Thank you very much for
your attention. Thank you so much for being here. Supervisor Lavinia?
Madam Chair, without any offense to any other public speaker, Mr. Sands, you are the best-dressed public comment person we've had since I've been here.
Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
You
know, I neglected to mention that Mission Canyon Which is part of my district was on the cusp of pursuing a tax assessment for their community when this fee came up, came forward. And it quite frankly, it undermined their interest and the feasibility of moving forward with such attacks. So more so is the interest by that community to really understand What does this mean? Now they're paying what they thought they might be paying for an assessment to help them enhance the reduction in fuels in that community.
And now, um... This has really provided a complication to that. So again another reason why they really have an interest in understanding on what are we getting now in terms of these grants so I just wanted to reiterate that. I didn't say that in my previous comments
Thank you, Supervisor Carbajal. Supervisor Wolf? Thank you Madam Chair and I'd like to piggyback on what Supervisor Carbajal said because when we sit here and we talk about imposing taxes, we've had those discussions numerous times in the impact that it would have on our constituents from roads taxed to fire fees. We have so many needs in our community And so we've had those public discussions.
And to know, and I thank you sir for providing some context that this kind of happened when the midnight oil was burning and there wasn't a lot of public comment and that the legislature can go forward In part a fee, a tax whatever on parcels just like that when we agonize over this for our own departments and our own folks. So it doesn't feel right and I think this board will decide what further action if any were going to take.
Supervisor Lavagnino talked about another bill that's being processed. I think that before we take any action today, that we hear these items through the Ledge Committee. We talk to our lobbyists in Sacramento before we join any lawsuit. I think we need to talk to our county council and better understand the implications of What I don't want to have happen and what I feel very concerned about is that we take a position where we are making a statement that we are not in support of this, and then what ultimately happens is that the CAL FIRE is never backfilled with funding. And so you are then in a deficit position And so you cannot provide our citizens with what we need. So I just suggest that before we take any significant action, that we make sure that we know what we're getting into because I really don't want that to happen as unfair as this whole situation may appear.
What's that phrase? I don't wanna cut off our nose to whatever. We just need to move cautiously, I believe in this.
Supervisor Lavagnino.
Thank you, Madam Chair and I think that's probably exactly why the governor took it out of CAL FIRE because he knew it would be difficult for people to explain that when you're dealing with fire obviously it's very touchy. My question is for County Council is what is included or if we have another hearing on this bring back to us what is included in joining a lawsuit? What are the potential costs for us You just give us some guidance there.
One of the considerations that your board would need to be aware of is A, can the county legally become part of while it's not a class action at this point. It's proposed to be a class action lawsuit or do we join as amicus as suggested by one of the speakers when the matter goes to the appellant court? Or do the counties join together in a separate lawsuit From the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. There are a number of issues, including standing for the county to join the lawsuit. We've not yet researched that.
I've not yet seen Eldorado County is the only county that I have heard through the County Council Association that is supporting this litigation or this litigation but yet I haven't seen them on any of the pleadings so I don't know how their support is manifesting itself.
Do we know if any other counties have at least expressed through resolution opposition?
The last information I had, and it may be stale. It's a couple of months old. I think there were two counties recently in the information that I received from the County Councils Association, a number of counties As the bills have come out, county councils are more actively looking at it like we are here. And there is some discussion but Reticence on the part of my colleagues to pursue this litigation. And I think part of it is practical, as they have commented that the legislature now has the ability with two-thirds vote to make it a tax if that were the direction the litigation was going. So county councils are really in kind of a holding pattern now and they're exploring pretty much where we are right now.
Okay. Well, I mean, I'd like to see us take some action and whether it's not to call another hearing to get some further detail but...I don't know anybody up here that's in support of this and because it was a last minute, you know we didn't get input when the legislation was going through. We didn't get to voice our opposition which I think we would have been opposed so I think Have it go back to ledge, and you guys take a look at the new legislation that's coming out. And then we make a formal opinion of whether we want to support Senator Gaines' bill to overturn this or we figure out a way to join the lawsuit. If that doesn't make sense then I think we need to do something.
Supervisor Lavagnino, I agree and so I kind of would like to propose maybe a three-part action. One is that we write a letter of opposition that includes what we're hearing from the people in the county as well as the other concerns that have been raised today and delineated. And I think that You know that if it's a matter of raising money, that there are other ways of doing it. That may be more equitable and maybe one of them is because of the fire history in Santa Barbara County... ...that you can't necessarily make the delineation between the incorporated and unincorporated areas as Supervisor Wolf said. Or we need to look at the mapping so that those areas that are clearly very urbanized areas and don't necessarily meet the definition of impacts to the wildland watershed areas, you know, need to be changed.
That relative risk needs to be assessed and so that the flat fee doesn't really work and that you can still raise money but that, you know, the fee needs to be different depending on your So I think that's one thing we can do. I think another thing we can do is that we can ask for it to come to closed session. For a report on the litigation and some of the issues that Mr Marshall just talked about, if that's the appropriate venue when we're talking about impending.
And then the other is clearly for direction that our legislative committee continue to follow it, that we have an update on what is going on with existing legislation as well as any new legislation. And that we decide what action we're gonna take as a part of that. So that gives us something that we can do right away Our unhappiness with how this has been rolled out and how it came about. And all these various concerns as well as following both the legal and legislative in the future. Does that sound reasonable? If that's a
motion I would second
that. Supervisor Carbajal
Before we second the motion, I'm hoping that could... You know, I agree with everything you've said. I would just not... Maybe it's semantics. I think Supervisor Wolf outlined a good strategy which is basically what you said about our Ledge Committee really looking at this new legislation whether we can or want to participate In it County Council doing a little bit more research and bringing us more facts in terms of how many other counties would have you.
Implications on one course of action or another I think that's all great. I like the letter approach. In outlining all the concerns we have. But I wouldn't, I'm not ready to go as far as saying it's an opposition letter other than a letter of major concern with stipulated issues and then we could have an opportunity to take an opposition position in the near future but I think to take an opposition position now then forget about everything else. We'll just be on opposition permanently and I'm not ready to go there so as long as the letter isn't categorized as an opposition but rather These are strong concerns we have that are still outstanding.
I'm very supportive of your motion, if it could be characterized differently. But maybe I'm in a minority here so I'm just...
Supervisor Wolk? I actually agree with what Supervisor Carbajal said. I would just maybe reorder some of the things that you noted. I think it's really important for us to have that Ledge Committee follow-up meeting because it may be that there is, I mean, I'm sure that there may be one bill right now but there's probably more out there And what we should do is get a report from our contact in Sacramento on what is exactly going on. And perhaps our letter will be in support or in opposition of those bills that are already out there, and I do agree that we should ask county council to To bring us into closed session.
I think it is. It's premature right now to write a letter of opposition. I think our letters should follow our ledge committee meeting, so you folks have your ledge committee and then maybe bring us back a letter. And outlining what we should do or shouldn't do. I think you've heard all of our concerns. The reason, the thing that I worry about in opposing this is that I want to make sure that Cal Fire is not harmed by an opposition. That the state legislature just decides fine, we'll get rid of this fee but we're not going to back fill the money so Careful in our, in our approach. So I would just change the order of what you're suggesting and have our letter be brought back to the board so that we can look at it and approve it.
And I think that it's appropriate to bring the letter back to the board and maybe that's when we can talk about some of this and maybe it's more semantics and not something solid but I have to say Being unhappy the way this all came about, but you know and I take your point about we don't want to harm Cal Fire in any way. But for all of the concern that's out there in the community, I think a lot of people don't even really understand as I said to my staff, we're paying for dead horse here. The fee that we're paying now is already done. It's for a year that's already passed, and we didn't have any opportunity to comment. We didn't have any opportunity to try to tweak it. We didn't have any opportunity to say yes, we want to support you in raising the money but we think this is a better way to go.
And so people are now paying this fee, a lot of them not even realizing that it's not for the current year, it's for the past year and they're going to get another bill who knows when maybe not that long For for another $115 per habitable structure. I think that you know, I'm very concerned about what I feel to be kind of the capricious nature of who gets charged and who doesn't? I mean apartment dwellers don't get charged but condo dwellers do.
You know, habitable structures are homes but they're not any kind of a commercial building which you know could cause risk and be it just as at much risk as somebody's home. So I think that I have gotten a large volume of calls of all types and comments that my staff has calculated and I just don't want Certainly I have heard so then maybe if I if I could Madam Chair. Then, then okay.
2:29 – 2:3721 turns
Maybe we should have a letter written first that expresses our concerns. I think what we were, Supervisor Carbajal and I expressed the issue about opposition but I do think that it's certainly reasonable to express some of the issues and concerns that we have. And go ahead and do that first. Do the other two items and then after the Ledge Committee it may be that you're going to come back to us with another recommendation.
So I think that's fine. I am wondering who we're going to send the letter to, and I suggest... Well, I guess that's a... We definitely need to send it to our own representatives with certainty.
Especially the ones that voted for it. That would be good.
Well, I mean, I think there's probably a number of people that you know that we would want to send it to. Supervisor Carp, can
I just say one more thing? I do feel a sense of responsibility in not And not having followed this at the inception and taken more of a role in understanding this. Because I do remember the issue of an SRA, I think I had emailed Chief Dyer about this a long time ago when it first came out. But I never really realized the implications nor did I understand the large amount Territory it was going to involve in the number of constituents. It was going to involve what I always assumed was that if we're covered by the county fire, we wouldn't have to pay this fee. It was just folks who were Who are not covered by the county. I was, I was wrong.
I think that was everybody's assumption and that's why it was such a shock. Supervisor Carbajal then Supervisor Lavagnino then Supervisor Gray.
Thank you Madam Chair. I guess I just want to make it very clear. I'm very concerned about this as well. I am just saying I want to retain the right To oppose this either legislatively, legally But I just want us to kind of be a little bit more thorough in understanding all our options, all the facts. And that's what I'm saying. I agree with the motion entirely. I just think here is a list of our grave concerns and really just reserving our opposition until we're ready to take a strong position on this if that is the direction we decide on. So just want to make sure That weak word is not how I see us proceeding. I see us proceeding as thorough and making sure that whatever action we take, it's based on as much information as possible.
Thank you. Supervisor Lavagnino?
Thank you Madam Chair but the problem with that to me is that we talk about being premature and we need to be thorough. This thing's already done. It was already passed. People have already paid it. They don't think this is premature. Our actions are premature. They think we're taking too long to get to this so I don't know what more we're going to hear if you're for it or you're against it.
I think what we can decide in the future and what needs to come back to us is how we deal with future legislation. This thing, this has already been cooked. Either you like it or you don't like it. Write a letter whether you call it grave concern or opposed. I guess the semantics but you know, I think that it needs to go to our legislators, our lobbyists and also the governor's office.
And then I'd like number two and number three as well discuss litigation in closed session and then come back on other proposed legislation we get informed on that. But I think it's pretty clear what we need to do with what's before us right now.
Supervisor Gray. Thank you, I think the letter should go. I think it should go as proposed by Supervisor Farr. I think it should also go to CSAC. I think that's an important place for it to go and however the greatest thing we could do is to get our constituents that actually have even a slight objection to this, to object. So it would be very powerful and helpful if on our website we just simply said if you would like to protest the fee, this is how you do it. I'd love to see...
Put a link on our... Yes,
put a link on our website because if we could get half of our constituents... Three-fourths would be a dream to just go in and protest. That is the Is the very best message we could send.
And I totally agree with you, Supervisor Kraft. All right so we have a motion?
Are you going to add to your motion that we're gonna put it on the website? Yes. Thank you. That's a
good idea. Yeah. I'll second that motion.
CEO
Waller. Thank you, Chair. I was just trying to get clarification on the order and the intensity of the letter. There was discussions several directions on that so perhaps you could clarify that for staff so that we're doing what you want us to be doing?
Okay, I think that it was the will of the board that the letter come back to us before it was sent. So I think that and I'm happy to help draft a letter with Mr. Buzanich or whoever in your offices. We're going to be involved with that and then we would plan to bring it back to the board in January. In the meantime, the next time the Ledge Committee meets I think also in January whenever that is we would take this matter up and then I think also at our first regular meeting in January on the 15th this should be on the closed session agenda. Is that helpful?
Thank you Chair.
And if we can put that link up on the website right away that would be great.
Thank you I think we have a clarification we need.
Okay thank you and you know I really want to echo what Supervisor Wolf said, I'm sure speaking for the whole board, we really appreciate you being here. We realize we put you on the hot seat here today for something that was nothing to do with And I hope that you take away the fact that we are so appreciative and grateful for what CAL FIRE does for Santa Barbara County, for always being here. And again none of our, the ire that may have been expressed here by the board or the public in any way is aimed at CAL FIRE. And we certainly don't want to see your department harmed in any way. In fact, we wanna see new money going for new programs and new grants and a further bolstering of the work that we do. So thank you for being here. Thank you for the presentation.
And thank you Chief Dyer for arranging that and for making that happen. All right, we have a motion. Supervisor Lavinino is the second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries so we'll hear about this again in January. Thank you everybody that was here for this item. Now I think what we're going to do is Mr. Marshall, I think that we should have our break and then I think we should go into closed session and then I think we should have lunch and then, I think, we'll come back after lunch to pick up the departmental agenda item. So why don't you go ahead and read what's on
2:37 – 2:394 turns
Thank you, Madam Chair. In today's closed session item you have a conference with legal counsel, existing litigation, Naples Property Owner Association v. California Coastal Commission, etc., or et al., County of Santa Barbara v. California Commission on State Mandates and Schaefer v. County of Santa Barbara et al. You have conference with real property negotiators. The agency negotiators are General Services Director, Mr. Leponis and Mr. Ron Carlantini, negotiating party Westar Associates. You have conference with labor negotiators and you have public employee appointment director of Department of Social Services, director of Department of General Services.
Thank you, Mr Marshall. I don't anticipate the board probably being back until what? Maybe 2 o'clock? Hi, everyone. You. Good afternoon, everybody. We're going to come back into session. Mr. Marshall, would you do a report from closed session please?
Thank you Madam Chair. Your board conducted closed session on each of the noticed items and there were no actions reportable occurring during either any of these closed sessions. Thank you.
Thank you. And I'm going to do a little agenda management here. I'm hoping that we can finish departmental agenda items number two, three, four and five. I think we'll probably end up needing to continue items six and seven which the CEO has said is fine. So why don't we go ahead and start with departmental agenda item number two?
2:39 – 2:455 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. Item two is from public health. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an environmental health services body art fee resolution for fees related to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics. And the board asked
if we could reexamine those fees and come back with a fee structure that might be. Thank you, Mr. Brumman.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. Thank you, Michelle. As Michelle mentioned as a result of the request from the Board we did go back and made a few extra efforts with regards to the fees in the way we approached the program. One of the things we did is we contacted a lot of the other jurisdictions that are involved in the body art program to see how they're doing their program and compare it to how we were operating ours And we also formed a body art ad hoc advisory group, primarily consisting of many of the people who spoke here at the first hearing.
We met with this group of people on November 20th to discuss their issues and concerns. The meeting went very well, I believe. Everybody that was there expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet and discuss the issues and a chance to be heard. They wanted to make sure that we were aware that their primary concern is public health and the sanitary conditions of their shop both because they're professional and because it's their business if somebody gets infection or gets sick as a result of their work it reflects on them in the industry as a whole What we did is we shared with the people in the ad hoc committee how we developed the fees, the hours that staff has spent in the program, how the fees broke down. How we approached the program and we got their feedback on The figures that we gave them and the way we operate the body art program.
And as a result of the discussion, we were able to offer them a different type of approach that would result in lower fees for the registration fee for the body art practitioner by adjusting the way we do our work. The other issue that the board had issue with was the cost of the sponsor for a temporary body art event. And we did this, there was one person in attendance who is planning on sponsoring an event later in May of 2013. He was in attendance and his position was that he liked the fees as they were. He would rather pay the large fee himself than be able to charge the practitioners that attend the event We were able to, again by adjusting the way we approached the program actually lower his initial cost and maintaining the cost for the practitioners who operated his events.
The practitioners who attended the meeting were all very supportive of our approach and although they still thought the fees were a little high they were supportive of them. They thought they were a good compromise. They understood the approach that we took and they were happy with that. They also expressed an interest in meeting again to talk about other issues that they had. And so we did promise them that after the holidays in January, we would reconvene the committee to kind of talk about their other issues and their other concerns. So at this point...
The fee resolution before the board is a result of the consensus achieved during our ad hoc meeting and the changes to the fees are in three areas. The annual facility health permit fee has been changed as you can see, the fee we initially proposed was 365 and it's essentially the same. The other fee that has changed is the annual practitioner registration fee which was originally proposed to be 300 and we've adjusted that down to 205 And the remaining fee that was an issue was the temporary event sponsor fee, which was initially proposed at $11.50 and we've adjusted that down to $8.25.
And on the chart you have in front of you, we showed you the spread of fees between our benchmark counties, the high, the low, what the average is and where we fall in that scheme. So what we have at this point, that pretty much concludes my presentation at this point. Our recommendation is that the board adopt the fee resolution relating to body art practices and I thank you and will answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you Mr. Brumman. Supervisor Levin, you're next.
Thank you Madam Chair. First off, I just want to say I think it's great that you met with the folks that were here and the fact that they're not here today is probably a good indication that they at least had their voice heard They still think that the fees are high. But I do appreciate the fact that you went and listened and heard them out. My question, I guess would be what do we do different than if we look at our benchmark county fees?
And we look at the average. What do we do differently that you explain to them that I haven't That makes us considerably higher than the average of our benchmark counties.
2:45 – 2:4912 turns
Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino, two things. We did actually have several people here who actually submitted speaker slips but they had to go back to work their day generally starts around noon so they could not stay however they said this need be I could call them and they would run over here really quick to speak with you what we had done originally is it was our intention that we went to each shop and There are a number of, in most shops there are a number of practitioners in each shop and our goal was to make sure that we interviewed each practitioner. And when they initially registered with us they would give us the hours and days that they worked and we would check that and we would go during these stated hours and days however it would frequently change as a result if they had no appointments or whatever the case may be so it resulted in us having to make multiple trips back and forth to try to identify each practitioner What we found out from other counties is they basically go to the shop once, and they interview and inspect the people who are there and the equipment that are there at the time.
And they just don't go back again. So we've essentially adjusted our schedule that we will essentially do the same thing. It's essentially the same, but I think after a period of time when we implement this new practice our time in the program will probably go down and the fee structure should stabilize at that point.
All right. Supervisor Levin, you know that answer your question? Any other questions from the board? Supervisor Wolfe? No? Nothing right now? All right. Well actually Mr. Allen, you said you had two speaker slips but we're not sure whether those people are hearing.
Yes Madam Chair. Is Kenneth Knox still here today? And then our other slip was for Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria. Mr. Caldwell, are you in Santa Maria?
No, he had to leave.
Okay then we have no request to speak.
Okay thank you. Supervisor Carbajal?
I just wanted to thank you for going out and meeting with the stakeholders in this industry and appreciate that you were able to come up with pretty much consensus on what's before us. It's never perfect, but I want to recognize you because it just demonstrates your good work and the professional approach that you took in trying to get on the same page. So thank you very much.
And I'll make a motion to accept the proposed fee schedule as proposed in the staff report.
Do we have a motion Supervisor
Wolf? Yes, and I'll second it and also want to thank you for reaching out to some of these folks. I'll leave it at that. I think you've done a very good job. Appreciate it.
Thank you, Supervisor Wolf. We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?
I'm going to be a no. And I do want to back it up by saying I appreciate you getting together with them. For me just the average of the benchmark counties with us being higher, I just can't support that.
Thank you. All right, thank you very much. We appreciate that. We'll go ahead and have staff set up now for departmental item number three from public works.
2:49 – 3:0212 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board, item three is a hearing from the Public Works Department to consider recommendations regarding the Honoda Park Road Bridge. This is county project number 863002. This is in the third district.
I'm not sure that it's on. Is it on?
Madam Chair. Now
we can hear you, Mr. McAuliffe.
Good afternoon Madam Chair and board members and as the clerk mentioned Public Works is before you today to present the Hanano Park Road bridge replacement project specifically we are seeking your boards approval of the project itself the final mitigated negative declaration and we're seeking your authority to solicit construction bids our presentation today will be a team effort between myself and Chris Nedden our Deputy Director of Transportation During our presentation, which will be a short discussion, we'll cover three primary areas. We'll go over the project scope, the environmental benefits of this project and then we'll close on the recommendations.
So let's go ahead and orientate your board on exactly where this bridge is located. The yellow circle there is the project site. It's due north of the city of Buellton, south of the intersection of Highway 101 and 154, and the bridge itself is just to the west of Highway 101. And it's located in the central area of our county. The existing bridge itself was built in 1916 and serves the residents, businesses and travelers on this northern section of Henada Park Road.
The structure is the only ingress and egress for these properties north of the bridge and is the only emergency access for these residents and businesses on this portion of the road. As your board knows, Caltrans comes in and inspects our bridges on a two-year cycle. And when a bridge gets rated for its structural capacity the system is very similar to the pavement condition index system that we've spoken to your board on.
A few times in the past it's a zero to 100 scale. Zero being the worst, 100 being the best or new structure. This past year, when Caltrans reviewed the structure, the sufficiency rating for the bridge was a 26. The last inspection prior to this year, the sufficiency rating was a 43. So based on the inspection history, the existing structure is degrading at a very rapid pace In fact, Caltrans is so concerned with the condition of the existing structure they've now put it on annual inspections. And we threw in a couple photos so you could see why. The concrete now is starting to spall off the beams and on the foundation walls.
And in order for a structure to stand, the concrete and steel have to work together. Concrete's a great material in compression But it needs steel when it's in tension, when it's being pulled apart. So when there is no concrete there we have major concerns with regard to the structure.
Excuse me just a moment. Supervisor Lavinia?
So we're still using this bridge? Yes.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavinia that's correct.
Don't we have any legal, I mean... If it's deemed functionally obsolete structurally deficient week. I mean, do we have any liability on this? It would seem to me like We should close it and find another way around.
Based on Caltrans last inspection, they believe legal loads can still go over. But that's why they're concerned and they're going to look at it on an annual basis now. They do believe when they come out next year and they look at it we're probably gonna see load limits on it so they'll take us down from the legal low limit today for traveling on our road to some number below that Which I wanted to mention too, that could potentially be problematic for the fire department because if those load limits go on there they probably will not be able to cross the structure with a fire engine fully loaded with water. So that's why we're here today. At this point in the presentation I'll turn it over to Chris Sneddon to take you through more details of the project scope.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Sneddon.
Hi. Thanks Scott. Good afternoon. So as Scott mentioned, the inspection has shown that the bridge needs to be worked on obviously with a sufficiency rating. The estimated cost for construction of this project is $2.5 million dollars. Fortunately the federal FHWA and the state provide funds for these types of projects because they see the importance of taking care of these bridges.
The Federal Highway Bridge Program will pay for 88.53% of construction. There's also a special program for rural roads like this that have kind of low volumes because it's harder to find funding for them, where federal and state toll credits will pay for the remaining 11.47%. So the project is fully funded right now. The caveat to that is, to get these funds you have to follow pretty strict guidelines state and federal guidelines for bridge replacement or retrofit projects. So at each step of the way along the project we submit what we're doing to Caltrans and FHWA and they have to approve it so they had to approve based on the sufficiency rating authorizing us to go ahead with the project to retrofit or replace Then when we did a feasibility study, they have to approve that.
Then they have to approve the environmental document and finally the type selection of the bridge that will build. So those are the strings that come along with the funding but once you do those steps, you can get these projects funded. This gives you kind of a snapshot of the project timeline. This project was actually brought to your board in 2000 with its sister bridge, which is Hanada 225 down the road a little ways and approved and also the mitigated negative declaration for those projects was approved.
Since then this project has kind of evolved. The 225 bridge was replaced And the project has evolved over time through the feasibility study that was done and that was completed in 2007. And it looked at the various options for dealing with this bridge, including retrofitting existing structure, replacing a bridge on a new alignment or replacing the bridge on the current alignment.
Replacing on the current alignment was a preferred option From a technical and structure standpoint, so we then proceeded with the detailed design and the environmental work on the project. We also worked with the Historic Landmark Advisory Committee throughout the process starting in 2000 really but really got intense based on the interactions we had with the Hanada 225 project And so those three things factored into further evolution of this project to revise the preferred option to what we call the new preferred option. And that's what you can see in this kind of little schematic here where the horizontal alignment of the bridge stays the same, but the bridge is longer and it spans the entire creek now and it spans the existing bridge so that the existing bridge is preserved in place.
And I'll talk a little bit More in the next slides about why we did that and the benefits of doing that. We took this to the Historic Landmark Advisory Committee in 2011, and they approved the project. They started a kind of ad hoc committee that worked with us on some of the historical aspects. I should stop here and mention that the existing bridge is not considered a historical bridge by the federal standards or SHPO. But there are local people who consider it a kind of historic locally bridge, so we tried to address some of their issues and work with the Landmark Advisory Committee to get a project that would be something that works with their view of things.
We then we've completed the detail design, or the 65% plans of the detailed design and the environmental document for the project. And that was circulated in the summer and we received comments on that and we've addressed the comments. Next slide. This gives you kind of a, another kind of sketch of the plan view footprint of the project. The green area is the grading limits of the roadway and the dark green is the bridge footprint, the preferred option footprint.
You can see underneath that in orange where the existing bridge is today. So one of the nice things about this preferred option is it's built entirely in the county right away and it's in areas that have already previously for the most part been disturbed and graded during the original roadway construction The preferred alternative, this slide kind of explains why we chose the preferred alternative. Why the preferred alternative came about from a regulator environment or permitting standpoint what it's called is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative or LEDPA if you like acronyms but essentially what that is is that it takes into account or we took into account three things which is what's the best geometry of the roadway and the design from a technical standpoint How can we address the historical values of the community by preserving the bridge and preserving historical elements that are important to them?
And then avoiding environmental impacts, first of all if we can. And mitigating for them if we can't. As you can see that larger footprint what we do in that respect is bring the bridge out of the creek and as soon as you do that you're really limiting a lot of the environmental impacts to the riparian creek area which makes it a lot more palatable from a permitting standpoint.
Once you establish what is the LEDPA, from a federal perspective by the way, they won't permit a project that is more environmentally damaging than that. The bullets here kind of explain that in a little more detail. As I said it's constructed in the right-of-way. It preserves the existing bridge. It also preserves a lot of oak woodland, creek riparian habitat and abate maternity roost It preserves the heritage oak trees, so the really big oak trees that are very old. None of those are coming out. Some of the smaller oaks will be cleared out for the roadway work.
It also will leave the creek bed undisturbed as I mentioned and that avoids the Corps of Engineering permitting process which is kind of an important And then as I said, it will minimize grading and impact in retaining walls because it's built in the existing roadway prism. And actually building this new bridge that's above the old bridge brings the road and the bridge more in keeping what the topography used to be out there because they cut the topography down to put in the road back in 1916 when they did their original bridge.
This kind of gives you an idea of what it looks like out there and what we'll be doing. This line right here is where the topography used to be, so you can see they cut this down and this is the corner of the bridge to put the bridge in. The new bridge will be more up along this level, kinda where the ground used to be. As we go through and do this grading, this is the kind of stuff that's going to come out. The smaller oak trees and the more brushy stuff to do the grading and get the bridge in there.
But for any oak trees that are removed, we'll be replanting at a 10-to-1 ratio. We're also going to be revegetating any of the graded slopes and restoring any habitat that does get disturbed with oak planting. And with that I'll turn it back over to Scott for the recommendations.
3:02 – 3:0715 turns
Mr. Chair and board members, the recommendations are contained in your staff report and I see we show A through C on the screen. There's also a D as well about the mitigation monitoring plan. Those are our recommendations for you this afternoon. I won't reread those but we are available for any questions you may have and that concludes our presentation.
Thank you. Any questions from the Board on this? Mr. McLaughlin, as this is in my district and you know we've had a lot of discussions about this and one of the things that was a special concern to me was the historic nature of the bridge which we have talked about. And even though there are a lot of good reasons which you've outlined for doing Or the least intrusive into the environment as far as if you had to reroute the road or even temporarily do that.
One of the things I'm wondering whether you can consider and counsel whether this is a possibility we could even do now, is in the mitigation monitoring program in the MND it talks about the fact that because the bridge isn't being removed I'm just wondering whether we could put that in as a mitigation. Anyway, because even though the bridges are being removed it's pretty much being obliterated because the new bridge is coming over the top and you're going to be able to see the old bridge from the side but the whole historic view of it, the context of it and all of that is going to be gone forever. So I'm just wondering whether that's something we could do today?
Madam Chair, maybe before I, Councilor Jumpson just to let your board know and you know madam chair. We've already gone through that process of photo documenting it and turning that into the appropriate authorities so that work has been done.
Okay because I didn't see that as part of the mitigation monitoring is because there's no monitoring to it was just already done?
It's been done as part of the process today.
Okay because I don't see where is that documented in the paperwork that we have?
Madam Chair, when we worked on the document for 225 it was included in that package. Because remember as Mr. Stenton mentioned earlier this started back in 2000 and this project was married to 225 the bridge is directly south of this one so at that time both of those bridges were photo documented and the appropriate agencies were notified and provided that information
OK, so can that information and any other information that was covered in that document that is in addition to this document, can that be appended to this document? So that we have one packet where you can know everything about this bridge altogether.
Certainly.
Counsel, Mr. Gazzone are you all right with that?
Madam Chair, Supervisors. You have before you for consideration and potential adoption the proposed mitigated negative declaration so you can either direct changes to that document or you can simply having heard that there's already been photo documentation performed you might just direct staff rather than modifying That proposed mitigated negative declaration might just, as part of your action, direct staff to provide a link in the agenda minutes to that other environmental document that contains the photo documentation so that rather than modifying the current environmental document you're just providing a link to a former action that already addresses this.
Okay. Do we have public speakers, Mr. Allen?
Madam Chair, members of the board, we have one request to speak. Mr. Kenny Hollister?
Good afternoon Madam Chair, Supervisors. I'm just here to represent our family which has one of the properties on the north side of the bridge. I wasn't sure if there was going to be opposition here today so we figured I better show up and make my point and this is definitely in support of the approval of the project and that's pretty much why I'm here. Thank you.
So no other public speakers, any other questions or comments from the rest of the board? Seeing none I'll go ahead and make that motion with the addition of that link be added so we can have all that information together. Second by Supervisor Carbajal. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries thank you very much. We will move right on to our departmental agenda item number four.
3:07 – 3:2140 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board, item four is from community services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the second amendment to the agreement to provide affordable housing. This is the Stonegate project. This is in the Orchard area in the fourth district.
Mr. Parker? Thank you, madam
chair and members of the board. I'd like to introduce to you Dinah Lockhart Our deputy director of community services who will be providing this board report.
Good afternoon, Miss Lockhart. Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors. We are here to request the boards action to approve the second amendment to agreement to provide Affordable housing at the Stonegate development project. This second amendment will have no net impact on the requirement to build restricted units at Stonegate. The board is being asked to approve and execute three original second amendments to agreement to provide affordable housing, and direct staff to record the executed second amendment.
The Stonegate development was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 10, 2006. The project is a 44-unit development located in Orkut. Of those 44 units, the developer was required to provide ten restricted units. A restricted unit is an affordable unit. The first amendment to the agreement to provide was approved and executed by the Board of Supervisors on October 4th, 2011 which identified the restricted units and established a schedule of when those units were to be constructed.
The developer has requested a second amendment to the agreement to provide which would propose a new schedule to ensure that the 10 restricted units are built The developer has also requested to substitute Lot 1 with Lot 5 as one of the 10 residential lots used for a restricted unit. The second amendment to agreement to provide affordable housing changes the timing of when the restricted units are to be built and stipulates that the development must complete construction. Of 10 restricted units in the following manner, two restricted units are to be constructed concurrently with the construction of 2 market rate units.
No additional building permits will be issued until certificates of occupancy are issued for the two restricted units. Prior to completion of the units, the developer will commence marketing of the restricted units to eligible homebuyers. The above schedule will continue so that for every two market rate units built, two restricted units will be built and marketed concurrently until a total of 10 restricted units have been built and issued certificates of occupancy.
Building permits may then be issued for the three remaining market rate units. The requested changes to the timing of the development of the restricted units and substitution of lot one with lot five will have no net impact on the developer's requirement to provide the 10 restricted units. In summary, the board is being asked to approve and execute three original second amendment to agreement to provide affordable housing and direct staff to record the executed second amendment.
That concludes my presentation and I'm available to answer any questions the board may have.
Thank you, Ms Lockhart. Any questions? Supervisor Gray this is in your district. You
know we've had many ups and downs on this project and other projects in Orchid because they got approved in 06 and 08 when the housing market just changed radically so in order to continue with the development of the community we needed And so I would recommend that we approve this proposal.
OK, thank you. Actually, I think we have a public speaker. Mr. Allen?
Yeah, Mr. Wells, Mr Tony Wells, we have one speaker.
Thank you, Commissioner. That's what I call Ms. Farmer. That's how
far back we go, huh?
I know, I know. And then with Joni, I go all the way back to when we were kids. I think I had hair and weighed 100 pounds less. You're still cute. I'm not anymore. The only thing, you know I've been working on this project way too long and we lost our tail end on it this last few years because the market was so bad. But I want to remind the county that I have provided more affordable housing than all builders combined in Orchid. I think I must be up in the 60 plus range now of pure affordable detached, not apartments but detached housing. And Mr. Commissioner Supervisor Lavanino and his father and I did a project in Santa Maria. I did 220 affordable houses there with a TEFRA resolution so we've done our best but the only thing I ask of this Is restricting me to starting only four houses is crazy.
I mean, this is a scale of an economic scale that we can't live with and I've been trying to tell county housing Mr Parker but he's bigger than I am so I couldn't argue with him too much but You know, what we would like to do is for every two houses we build, build two affordables. They're afraid I'm not going to get them done. The last six or last 12 units of affordable, we did. Dixie and I did. We lost $1.3 million on it. But we did them when we were doing a 110 lot project. So we were able to build them with the money that was being made on the other housing. So what I'm asking? For every one house I deliver, every two houses I deliver you'll get two affordable units. This is the fastest way that ten affordable houses will be put on the market for affordable housing to handle.
The safeguard for the county is they're not going to issue any more building permits unless I'm underway with the affordable housing. I can't close escrows until I've got the affordable housing done so I'm not asking for Somebody to say gee Wells go ahead and build all you want But if you don't it's going to be really tough for me to do the attempt affordable houses our lenders Don't want to do straight affordables. They have to I have to have a market rate product to be done at the same time so And what people don't realize is when your planning commission was on tour with me that back when we were doing a lot of our stuff through Orchid. You know, I took them out to all my different tracks and I think we've probably done six in the Orchid area which I think constitutes something like 650 or maybe 700 houses.
They couldn't tell the affordable houses from the market rate so it's not that I'm going to go in and build some dingbats. I mean, I can't do it or you won't sell the market rate next door. So I know that Mr. Parker and his organization are fearful that, you know, we're not going to deliver but I've done so many of them. I've never gone in and fought the county on affordable. So what I'm asking today, can you show something on the screen?
No? Actually Mr. Wells your time is up.
So I can't say anymore. There's just two, one little sentence in a paragraph that just keeps me from building as many as I can and giving you as many as...
Okay well let me just ask you a question first. Is what's before the board right now okay with you? No. I see. So you're asking for something
different? Well, the only thing is if you make me wait on the first two affordables until the notice completions file means I can't start any more houses so four will all be built, the track's been done, I will incur $81,000 worth of interest on my land debt just waiting to finish these four houses. So what I'm saying is You're asking me to build affordable houses, but you want to surcharge me or you want to make me spend $81,000 in excess interest just waiting. I mean, I could probably go in right now and build eight or ten houses which would give you eight or ten affordables market rate.
Thank you Mr. Wells. Thank you.
You know Supervisor Farr that creates a bit of a problem and And maybe we should put this over because I want to tell you how incredibly important it is that we get these places built in Stonegate. It's a beautiful development, it's a big part of ARCA, it works really well and people wait in line to get into the development. What I'm hearing is Tony saying that he can't build, you just can't build them.
I mean, I don't know what's going on here. So I'm sorry to have to be doing this at the board level.
Okay well let's go ahead and turn to staff and see what their
response is to the public comment. Because what is going on here because we need these, we need to do it and how do we get it done? Because we all know that what used to be affordable is now market rate so that's
Madam Chair, members of the boards and Supervisor Gray. After this letter was actually docketed Mr. Wells gave us a call late and he's really looking to try to pull more than the four building permits that this item will restrict him to. We of course as staff want assurances that those affordable units, those restricted units are going to be built. We feel that the only way we really have to do Is to make sure we control the issuance of building permits.
So what he's asking for today, I believe is to be able to pull more than that limited number of four when he pulls his building permits to build.
So Mr Parker just so that I'm clear right now the ratio of pulling building permits for market rate to affordable is
Right now, as it's presented to you today, he can pull four building permits at a time and he can build two affordables and two market rates concurrently. And I believe what he is asking for is to be able to pull more than that, say eight at a time and build four market rates or And for affordable at the same time.
Okay, but so he's not asking for a different ratio of market rate to affordable just to be able to pull more building permits at one time?
That's my understanding yes.
He's nodding his head. Supervisor Carbajal.
Am I correct in understanding that all he's asking is for more To avoid the redundancy of doing it twice, but the formula of building would still be the same. Four and four, two and two, two and two or four and four? That's correct. Okay so he would still follow that formula of not build any... He would build two and then he would be able to build the other two and then they would just continue to follow that formula. That's correct.
I'll make the motion that we do it that way.
OK, so actually you made a motion and it was seconded. So you're going to rescind your motion or amend your motion so that it's four and four eight at a time rather than four total two at a time? Two each? Does that work? Actually, Mr. Wells we need to have you on the microphone so I will recognize you.
If we have ten pre-sales of a market rate, I'll build all ten houses and that's what I asked for. I'll build the two and two or one in one. I'll make sure that for every market rate house I built, I will build an affordable house. So for every two market rates, I've built two affordables. So if we go out there, if our sales crew gets going and sells 10 because the interest is phenomenal
It is
you get you get all your affordables at one shot. You know, I was telling Mr Parker, you know, I did 72 houses at one time building so it's not like we don't know how to build 20 houses or 10 houses or whatever. I mean, it's something we've done all our lives. So that's all we asked for would build the same ratio just don't restrict me to only four houses at a time until the notice of completion are filed. That means that I only start Four houses every hundred and twenty days. It's it just kills me economically. OK.
Thank you
Mr. Wells actually Mr. Wells I want to make sure I understand this correctly but it doesn't mean you would build two affordables and then six market you would be able the same formula same formula commensurate to equal to market rate affordable market rate affordable
using your analogy of six if I build six market rate I've built 64 okay
that's my motion
Okay, so staff can the language be amended so that there's not a specific Number on there just that the ratio of whatever is pulled is equal market rate and affordable
madam chair Yes We can we can amend that in fact. We have something on the board here which illustrates what that recommendation would be
Madam chair I guess I just want just one last I'm sorry for beating this to It doesn't matter how they're sold, if two are affordable. I'd hate to build six or eight market and then say oh but we're going to build six or eight next. It's two and two, two and two because then you're ensuring that they're being staggered and built at the same time. I hate for the argument to be made yeah but I pulled all these permits so I could build Eight market, but I'll build the affordables later. No, no, no it's two, two, two, two.
The formula still stands? Correct.
And we have the developers agreeing with that also. Everybody okay?
Okay. Council do we need to have Mr. Wells on the microphone agreeing to this new language?
3:22 – 3:3441 turns
Can someone also explain, counsel, how what Supervisor Carbajal just stated is different than what was recommended initially?
Madam Chair, Supervisors. The language could be amended to reflect that whatever the number of market rate units to be built shall also equal the number of affordable restricted units to be built concurrently at the same time. An issue might be whether or not those affordable restricted units need to be completed before the market rate units additional permits for market rate units can be pulled.
OK, so right now his total requirement to build affordable units in this project is 10. And have any of those been built yet?
Madam Chair, Supervisors, I believe the answer's no.
So if Mr. Wells wanted to pull 20 building permits he could build all ten affordable and ten market rate and that would be okay with this new language.
Madam Chair and Supervisors, if that's what the board wants to do and allow those 10 and 10 to be built at the same time. The language can be amended to reflect that. Well
I just don't want to put a specific number on it. I think that's where we're getting hung up. I think what we want is the ratio of equal numbers of affordable and market rate whatever number of permits he decides to pull at one time and not be limited to two and two.
The summing block was 2.
Correct.
I think that the stumbling block may be that the affordables need to be built before he's, the builder starts the second round. So he could start them but they may not necessarily be completed and what we want to see is we want to see them on the ground so I think that's what we all want. I just want to make sure we have that language.
Madam Chair, I think we're getting to the nut of the issue and that is concurrently as two for example if two are being done market rate two are being completed affordable and then so on and so on. What we're trying to avoid and forgive us for being distrusting it's not you it's just we need to protect the public's interests. What we don't want is I built all 10 market rates, not a lot of money. I was going to build the other affordables that you guys let me pull permits for but I built all the tents so we don't want that. We want an equal amount of completed market, completed affordable.
Mr. Parker did you want to respond to that?
Madam Chair and members of the board, I think it would be in our best interest to make sure We in some way control the number of building permits that are pulled at one time, be it eight, be it ten. And that we not allow any additional building permits to be pulled until we have certificates of occupancy on however many affordable units have to be built in that first pool of building permits for instance.
If Mr. Wells would like to pull eight building permits in his first draw of building permits, the first four, those four affordable units should be built, completed and have certificates of occupancy before he's allowed to pull any additional building permits. So we need to be very careful about how we structure that statement so that we know that we have those affordable units up front and completed and available for occupancy.
Supervisor Levin, I don't think we've heard from... But now
we've got no over here. So I'm getting lost and it sounds like I'm hearing the same thing and sometimes it seems like it works. And why doesn't that work for you Mr. Wells? I'm lost. It seems like you guys are saying the same thing to me and one's good and
one's not. No, it's a time delay. You know what I mean? When we go in to build four affordables at four market rate, we finish them all at What and then if I have let's say four more sales of market rate, then I have to start for more affordables. What Mr Parker saying is if you start for Then you got to wait 120 days till you get your certificate of occupancy before you can start anymore housing That just that's his market restriction that just that stifles us economically You know I mean, when you build over 60, you don't even question what's happening in the county. You always have cooperated with the county. You've built your roads. You've built six parks. And you come back and you say, gee guys, let me build concurrently two houses and get them done and finish them.
I'm not going to go out there and start. The affordables will finish before the market rate because they're easier to build. So all I want to do is have the open Checkbook, shall we say to go build 10 houses and 10 market rates. You want ten market rates? You'd like you'd love to have them all at one time the last 12 We did you sold him just like that you had a lottery and we sold all twelve But we occupied them all same time let me do this same thing over again now It's only ten I'll only lose a million won't lose a million three
Madam chair yes, I'd like to suggest that our lawyers and our staff get together I think everybody knows what we're trying to achieve here is And I think there's an answer where we're all there. We just can't seem to get it together. So what is the language that protects a formula that allows us to complete equal amounts at the same time concurrent before you go on to the next batch and then concurrent next batch so that.
Yeah. I mean this is what he's asking. I think that's what we're all OK with but we're just concerned that the affordables not be left to the end or Or or be put in a circumstance where we're not realizing that requirement. So I just think if they put their heads together they'll tell us what the appropriate language or condition is
and let me just go back to that we do they're selling it's working it's it's moving it's the kind of thing that is what we'd like to see happen in the community And we need to figure out a way so it can be worded and it sounded as if he said. If I want to affordable to market or for affordable for market, it certainly sounds as if everybody saying the same thing.
We're, we're dropping the football here or whatever ball.
Okay yes I agree with that part. I think what I'm also hearing is that Mr. Wells is saying a time delay that is frustrating to him. There's 120 days to get certificate of occupancy so perhaps somebody can speak to I mean, you're building. You're done. You get your certificate of occupancy and is his frustration then that he can't pull any more permits until he gets to that end point rather than kind of having it overlap?
Is that what you think the issue is?
Madam Chair, you know, I'm not sure what his frustration is in terms of the timing there. It may be a problem with the overlap but You know, our goal is to ensure that those four or five or two affordable units were built and they were completed before he can move on to pulling other building permits.
So let's go back, Mr. Parker, and talk about the number of days between—and maybe we don't understand that—the number of days in being able to move in? I don't know what's going on here. No, well
a certificate of occupancy is different than being
occupied. So Tony why don't you come up here to the mic so we can ask him and don't talk on and on just make it quick okay? What you're saying is you can finish them, but then you have to wait 120 days for... Okay. What's going
on here? No, I'm sorry. What we're talking about is if I start four or eight, then they won't let me start any more housing until the certificate of occupancy has been issued on the first four affordables, which means it's gonna take me 120 days to build up and then get a certificate of occupancy. So before I can start more affordable and more market rate I'm 120 days down the road and then how
do we avoid that hundred twenty days.
Let me start as many as I want as long as you get your guys
issue an occupancy certificate of occupancy faster than one hundred and twenty day
no no no that's how long he says it takes a construction period we're talking about it's not the certificate occupancy but I guess the easy thing to say is that we would like to deliver all 10 for you at one time if we're allowed to build 10 market rate. And that way there's no, there's no lag or for every time I start two The title company, Margo will tell you this. I can't close an escrow until planning and development, and Margo has talked to the title company, yeah let him go ahead and close we've got the affordables. The building department's not going to issue any more building permits if I'm not building the affordable. So I mean the county has all the stop gaps without having to deal.
Mrs. Wagner will tell you that, I mean that's how we got stopped the first time. I was dealing with Mr. Anthony about the possibility of reducing the amount of affordable units in there and buying them off and it was just way too expensive so now we'll build all ten just give us the room to build them and the speed to build them with I'm not making myself clear.
No, I think you're fine, Mr. Wells. And so it looks like your project is 44 units, 10 of which are affordable. So 34 are market rate? That's correct. So if we amend this language so that you can come in and pull 20 building permits, 10 market rate and all 10 affordable, and then you build all those and you're done, Then you don't have to wait for anything anymore, right? That's correct. Then you can pull all in any order depending on the market for the balance of the 24 units market rate units that you still have to build. You
remember me Mrs. Barr.
And why can't we do that? Is everybody okay with that? So I think when I'm looking at the existing language here when we're talking about two and I think, you know, if we can amend the language so that he can go as high as 10 or, you know, 10 each. Then, I don't know, I would think that if I were in your shoes, I would pull the 20 and build them and be done with it and then you can do what you want, your timing can be what you want for the balance of the market rate.
And that's all right with you? Of course. OK.
Yeah, CEO Waller.
Chair Farrar I've looked at both our attorney and our staff and that's certainly something that we can do as I know your board is aware there's a little bit more risk associated with that but it's certainly something that as long as your boards comfortable with it we can adjust the language to do that.
I'll give you my personal guarantee. I'll go over and ring his neck personally if it doesn't get done, so how's
that? Okay. I have a process question, Madam Chair. Yeah, go ahead. So when this project was originally approved, it was one-to-one. You have to build one market rate and one affordable.
I think when the project was approved and excuse me for interrupting, it was going to be built just boom all of the houses at the same time. That was what the market was in 2006. Tony that's right, right? So now the conditions have changed so that's why we just assumed they'd all be built at
once. Supervisor Wolf, members of the board. The first amendment changed it to be developed one-for-one which was approved by your board last year in October.
So before we did that, that amendment what was it? What was the original plan?
Anthony can you
speak to that?
3:34 – 3:3817 turns
Madam Chair and members of the board. My understanding is the plan was there was in agreement with the Board of Supervisors there's a number of lots that were designated to be built for affordable. And sold as affordable, and when those lots were built they were sold market rate instead. And thus then in enforcing to get the affordables built we came forward with a restriction so that it was based on a ratio.
You know I just have, I think it's just a process issue for me right now. We had this issue come to the board. We did an amendment for the one-to-one. Now we have the amendment that says that the developer is required to complete construction of two restricted units and commence marketing of such restricted units prior to the issuance of any billing permit for any market sale unit. So he has to begin the marketing of those units, which means that they're completed. I think for the integrity of what HCD has done in the past and our requirements at the beginning, and we've already made one amendment, now we're being asked to make another amendment to help the developer, which seems reasonable. And I think someone may have even thought set up here four-to-four That also seems reasonable.
But to give carte blanche and say you can just go ahead and build all of your market rate before we have any affordables on the ground, I don't believe that that is... I don't think that's what we're saying.
No, we were saying you could build all the affordable and the equivalent amount of market rate which would be ten and ten If he wanted to pull the 20 building permits. So instead of the four and four. And then he would have all the affordables done as well as 10 market rate, and then the balance of the market rate, then he could build at any pace that he wanted. Okay so instead
of the four and four it would be the ten and
ten? Could be as many as ten and ten. Yeah. And so I guess as long as we're talking about process, I'm always a little concerned about amending language on the fly here. So I'm just wondering whether we do want to take up Supervisor Gray's suggestion and based on the discussion that we've had here and particularly since Mr. Wells' comments came in after the docketing that we go ahead and continue this so that you can talk with him and council can work out The language based on the direction that we have given here so that we can make sure it's thoroughly vetted because I'm a little concerned about missing something by approving some different language.
Council?
Mr. Wilson?
Madam Chair, I think that we're comfortable based on what we're hearing from the board by simply changing the number two to 10 and everything else would remain unchanged. Yeah,
let's
do that. OK. All right. Change the number 2 to 10. That's my
motion.
OK, Supervisor Lavagnino, you're good. Actually, Supervisor Wolf may have beat you too that second. All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you all very much.
Joanie, I'm going to miss you kiddo. You know we worked together through thick and thin so many deals and I just want to say thank you so much for all the... No no let's go somewhere else! Thank you very much
And I just have to say that I had, I think, my most memorable site visit with Mr. Wells when we were doing the Rice Ranch project and a bull came out of nowhere and I was wearing a red coat so we...
No no, I said get in my car quick! I could see the headlines in the San Maria Times, you know, Planning Commissioner Gordon in front of Mr. Wells and so it was a lot of fun. Thanks.
Thank
you.
Alright moving right along I'm going to now go to item number five.
3:38 – 3:4419 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board, item five is from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Orchid Community Plan 2012 amendments. This is in the fourth district.
All right. Good afternoon, Dr. Russell. You're going to start us off?
Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. I will be very brief. In response to the discussion that we had last week concerning this issue, we have brought you three options for your consideration. Option one mirrors the recommendation presented at the Board of Supervisors hearing last week on the fourth. Option two would separate the Orchid Community Plan 2012 amendments into two separate actions.
This option allows the Board of Supervisors to take action on the regional basins policy and Clark Avenue level of service reduction amendments during this hearing. And continues consideration of the Keysight 22 wetlands delineation removal until February 5th, 2013 Board of Supervisors hearing. Option three would further continue consideration of all the Orchid Community Plan 2012 amendments until the February 5th 2013 board hearing.
Both options two and option three provide additional time to consider the scope of the amendments and consult with the property owners concerning the language to be redacted from the EIR and the community plan. That really concludes my presentation, and we are available for questions
OK. Thank you very much. Supervisor Gray, I think that option two was something that you had talked about last time. That's what I thought and
I don't know if they had a chance to talk to Mr. Adam and get his input? He has a speaker slip in. It's his brother that does the talking. So did you folks have a
chance to lecture him? Madam Chair, Supervisor Gray, I spoke with Rich Adam on two occasions and I know that Diane Black also spoke with him So it is our understanding that they would support option 2, but perhaps they will confirm that.
OK.
And Mr. Adam has a speaker slip in. He's in Santa Maria.
Good afternoon, Mr. Adam.
Members of the Board, I'm Richard Adam. I represent Adam Brothers Farming Incorporated and Iceberg Holdings each of which are parties or were parties to the lawsuit in question. We believe option number one is really unworkable for the same reasons that we identified last week namely that The redactions that are currently proposed or too narrow. We really have no Opinion as to option number two or three They both are adequate in that they provide time for us with a party one of the parties to the lawsuit in question to work with County and to finalize the various documents that the court order referred to. And there are many of them, including the Orchid Community Plan and so we would defer to you as to whether you wanted to choose option number two or three obviously.
Okay, thank you.
I will be here for any questions if you'd like.
Thank you very
much. Supervisor Wolf? Thank you. Dr. Russell, if we went with option two and you continue this conversation does this, it would seem that this process then has to go through the environmental process again. As you recall that was my concern last time So many meetings and public input, gathered public input to get us to where we are now. So that if indeed you go back and change the document it does seem appropriate that you will have to go through the process again or at least give the public an opportunity to comment.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf because this is a court order it may not require the same Level of environmental review that would normally be required of the amendment. Perhaps I might look to County Council to comment further on that.
Ms. Van Molen?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, under option two there is a final supplemental EIR which analyzed generally the changes that would be considered at a future hearing. It's possible that an addendum would be enough to address that but it is also possible depending on the nature of the changes We might need more than that. So it is possible that there would be more environmental review, but at this time it seems that we'd be able to rely on what's being done today if your board elects this option too.
So the lawsuit issue is actually moot. It's really what the changes are and how significant they are, is what I'm hearing you say that if... That there may be a reason to have a more expansive review based on whatever changes come out of these discussions. We just don't know right now.
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, that's correct. We can separate out the action that results from the litigation and we can evaluate that separately.
3:44 – 3:476 turns
Okay so that was the only public speaker that we had. Supervisor Gray? I'll move
option two.
Second.
Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Joni Gray · Seconded by Steve Lavagnino continue items six and seven on today's agenda to, I think the meeting of January 15th because we're going to have to make some adjustments in agenda review anyway as to that schedule
Show transcript
Supervisor Gray? I know it's your district supervisor but he's my old friend. I want to close in honor of Wayne Perry. He is the father of Michael Perry and Wayne Perry and Yvette Perry. And just a typical Guadalupe family. Wayne was born and raised in Guadalupe, he was 67 years old so of course I think he was young. He died of a heart attack on the job. He's worked in agriculture all his life basically at coolers and plants and so on.
He liked barbecues, doing buggies, and doing things with his friends He has a fabulous family, and a couple of his sons were probably the best football players Regetti ever fielded. And his daughter was probably the most outstanding woman athlete we ever fielded. So Wayne Perry, we're going to miss you a whole lot buddy. Thank you.
Thank you. Anybody else have anything? Super, well I just wanted to mention, I don't know if somebody else was that I wanted to also close in memory of Peter Sklar who you may have read passed away at age 50 survived by his wife and two children he is the founder Which he founded in, in 2003 and of course went on to be enormously successful here. And anyway it was a great sadness that he passed at 50 of brain cancer so a memorial will be announced later and donations can be made to the Cancer Center of Santa Barbara. And according to his final wishes Ed Hatt is going to continue.
So. Madam Chair I was gonna say the same thing but I, I was informed by your staff Reference Peter Sklar, he is a first district constituent. Lives in Mission Canyon, well lived in Mission Canyon and his wife was also a member of the Mission Canyon pact that we put together awhile back. And if you recall we actually honored Peter, I presented him with resolution when he started Because it's been such of a successful venture. So he's, he's gonna be greatly missed and it's a real tragedy that we lost him.
3:47 – 3:492 turns
Great sadness. All right and with that, we've concluded today's agenda and we will be adjourned until we meet again in the new year on January 8th. Happy holidays everybody.
♪ Hi. you