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 – 0:1115 turns
Yeah. Good morning everyone. I'm going to convene our Board of Supervisors meeting for June 4th. Mr. Clerk, if you could do the roll call please?
Mr. Lavinino? Here. Ms. Wolfe? Here. Ms Farr? Here! Mr. Adam? Here Mr. Carbajal?
Is there a motion to approve the minutes of May 21st?
So moved.
Motion has been made and seconded. Not having further discussion, all those in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously, we will now move on to public comment. Mr. Clerk?
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board, we have two requests to speak in public comment today. We'll start with Maria Long and our final speaker will be Lee Bethel.
Good morning Chairman Carbajal and Supervisors. My name is Maria Long and I'm the Director of the Freedom Warming Centers for the County of Santa Barbara, and I prepared a report that you should be getting in your inbox later today. What I wanted to do was provide you with a snapshot of what we saw this winter season now that you've had the Homeless Death Review and Report from Mental Health.
The Freedom Warming Centers were created in 2009 due to an increase in homeless deaths across the county of Santa Barbara, and it was named after a Vietnam vet named Freedom. The centers continue in his name. Our mission is to relieve suffering and save lives for our neighbors without homes on nights of inclement weather. Activation procedures take place with two consecutive foreseeable days of rain, temperatures below 35 degrees Scheduled sites are notified within 48 to 72 hours.
Once activated, a comprehensive email blast goes across the county. On behalf of the Unitarian Society and the other clergy we want to thank you for your support last year and this year. And I wanted to tell you who we saw and what we served which is most important. Freedom centers, warming centers are the last resort for the unsheltered homeless. Sobriety is not an option. We accept anybody regardless of their physical, mental or if they're self-medicated. The only thing we ask is that they are respectful. This winter season, as you can recall, the season proved to be colder and wetter than most. And because of this CASA Esperanza was at capacity, rescue mission was at capacity, women actually slept on the floor of the rescue mission chapel and they actually had to turn individuals away.
Transition House provided shelter to families and Salvation Army normally accepts longer term residents accepted 10 people. But here is what we actually saw and compared to last year. Countywide, we provided 4184 shelter beds duplicated and unduplicated guests including emancipated foster youth mentally ill physically disabled those with chronical terminal illness handicapped wheelchair bound unemployed under employed safe parking program participants dual diagnosed substance abusers. Those recently released from jail senior citizens and veterans The year before, we served 1,736 guests on 35 nights.
This year the sites were First United Methodist, First Presbyterian which we call the Biltmore, Trinity Episcopal Unitarian Society, Korean United Methodists, St. Mike's and Isla Vista. The new ones are Carpinteria Community Church, Bridge House in Lompoc, Good Samaritan, Santa Maria. Those that were not activated were due to construction or change in leadership.
We commend our team who have had a very difficult job under very, very extreme circumstances to house and treat all these people. We had very little incidents and in fact I know we saved lives on some account. Special recognition needs to go to Supervisor Lavagnino for his stand down event as he gave us extra supplies as we began our season since we ran out of most.
Looking forward, expected changes include class Esperanza's plan to implement a zero substance abuse policy for clients seeking beds in their winter
shelter.
And so looking forward we're looking to see a dramatic increase In the number of people that we serve, Mr. Foley estimates another 60 people on the streets nightly as they change to a winter no zero-ins policy and again we thank you for your support and thank you for what you've done.
Thank you Ms. Long I gave you a little bit extra time since You're implementing a very important program that the county supports and it deals with lives. So that's why I gave you an extra minute.
Thank you, appreciate
it. Bye. Lee Bethel?
And before Lee... Lee come on up. Before Lee Bethel goes, Supervisor Wolf has a few remarks to say.
Thank you. As Lee approaches the podium I believe Lori Holbrook, Los Prados Camp Manager. Trent Johnson, DPO Senior. Nancy Taylor Ferris, Supervisor at Los Prados Boys Camp. Adolph Garza, Senior Juvenile Institution Officer and Shannon Gillen, the Nurse at Los Prados. Mr. Chair and fellow board members, I attended as we all have in the past the Los Robles graduation last week and as we all know it's one of those most moving ceremonies but what was especially important at this last graduation was hearing from staff and from the boys who graduated from camp about their experience during the most recent fire And I was actually speaking with Superintendent Ceroni about the valor and the bravery that was shown by the kids at the camp, and also the amazing work by the staff.
So with your indulgence Mr. Chair, I've asked them to show us a few of the slides I think depict what went on at the camp. It wasn't just what they did during the evacuation, but in their preparation and the clearance of the area around the camp that I think all of us can learn a lesson from. So I just wanted to present Lee Bethel. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank You Supervisor Wolfe Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. On May 27th at 2.50 p.m., word came to Lori Holbrook, director of the Los Prados Boys Camp and Academy that there was a fire in Paradise Canyon at the White Rock campground. In preparation, Los Prados began immediately staging for a possible evacuation. Within 10 minutes, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Trent Johnson called to advise Director Holbrook that camp was to be evacuated.
Direction was given to relocate operations to the Santa Maria Juvenile Hall. Senior Juvenile Institutions Officer Adolf Garza, who happened to be a resident of Paradise Canyon and was off duty that day responded to assist in the evacuation as the official camp bus driver. Nurse Shannon Gillian who has just left the facility and was off duty returned when she smelled smoke and knew there was a fire in the vicinity Believing she could be of assistance, she returned to ensure that the minor's medications were prepared for evacuation.
By 335, 64 youth, the camp nurse, 13 staff were completely out of the canyon and out of harm's way. As the campers were being moved to safety, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Jim Clark was driving into Los Priedos to ensure the physical structures were secured and prepared for the emergency. He also assisted firefighters in allowing them to utilize the water of the camp's reservoir.
Mr. Clark stayed at the facility overnight and ensured the safety and security of the site. Also, as camp was evacuating staff at the Santa Maria Juvenile Hall and the Santa Barbara Receiving and Transportation Center including probation manager Brian Swanson, Supervisor Steeles, Bull were busy preparing for camps arrival. Mattresses were brought in from Santa Barbara to ensure all youth had a place to sleep.
Camp Food Service Supervisor Sammy Moreno and Cook Tammy Fournier, who were off duty, arrived at Santa Maria Juvenile Hall to feed the very hungry group of youth and staff. Supervising Probation Officer Nancy Taylor, the Chief Evacuation Strategist Met Los Prados Caravan at the Paradise Store along with Director Holbrook and immediately took action to ensure everyone arrived at the Santa Maria Juvenile Hall.
Ms. Taylor took the lead in a seamless transition to the juvenile hall as well as a very smooth transition back to camp. In addition to the staff who were on duty that day, all camp and academy staff and youth are to be commended for their outstanding contribution and preparation On average, staff runs 16 emergency drills per month ranging from allergic reaction to bee stings to sheltering in place in case of a fire.
This preparation instilled a readiness in staff who were on duty on May 27th to meet this challenge and was the direct result of this professionalism and dedication that ensured the safety of the youth under their care.
0:11 – 0:1723 turns
Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you for all the good work your institution demonstrated in protecting our children.
Thank you
I think following that we're also very blessed that we have extraordinary professional firefighters Did a great job in our county and putting out two fires, the white fire and the what was the other fire? The olive fire in Santa Ynez. And it was quite a scare for our community and again our firefighters stepped up as they usually do or always do should I say.
And just did an extraordinary job and we're very thankful for their good work. Anyone else?
Mr Chair, I just wanted to add on to that and thank everybody all the firefighters and law enforcement but also you know unfortunately this county has experienced fire so many times But it has instilled in us this whole team effort and this readiness which we've heard about specifically with the camp, that kind of preparation. But of course countywide that's the case whether it's not just law enforcement and fire but the CEO's office The emergency staff, the auditor's office, everybody is all ready to go. So even though in this case we were very fortunate we didn't have to open the Emergency Operations Center our whole county staff and team were right there and ready to do that if it became necessary and I'm very proud of that so thank you.
Thank You Supervisor Farr. Supervisor Wolk?
Just real quickly I failed to mention our chief Bev Taylor who's out in the audience and thank you for your leadership Chief
See, sometimes we forget it's just a given. You guys do such a great job. Now we will proceed on to our administrative agenda. Are there any items that any of my colleagues would like to pull?
I would like to pull 22, 33, 36, 37 and 40.
22, 33, 36, 37 and 40. Anyone else? 22
is
good. I don't have any additional items. Item number 20, 22. OK. Mr. Chair,
I'd like to pull a 42. 42.
Anyone else?
Well, Mr. Chair, this is a resolution so it can wait during the reading of the resolution. I just wanted to make a comment on A7. OK.
We usually take the resolutions and vote on them so that we could proceed with the rest of the calendar at some point. So just keep that in mind if you want to. How many speaker slips do we have, Mr Clark?
We have requests to speak on A3, A7, A20 also A22 and A24.
Okay.
And I believe A31 from Mr. Caldwell but the slip is a little cut off but I think it's A31.
We'll proceed with public comment then at this point? That's true. Excuse me, I'm not on my A game today. Why don't we approve the resolutions A1 through A7? Is there a motion to do so? And the rest of the administrative calendar. Why am I having such a hard time today? I don't know. Motion has been made. Second.
Mr
Chair. Supervisor Wolk.
Again on A7. It sounds like we have a public speaker who wants to speak on that. That was one that I pulled, I will likely support it but I do have some comments so if we could just hold off on A7 please?
Okay, so we'll do that one at the end. Since its 8-7 its perfect because... So we'll vote on it at the end. Okay, so we'll vote that as part of not part of this motion and it will just be voted on later even though we'll present in a few. Motion's been made and seconded all those in favor? I, passage unanimously. We will now proceed to doing our resolutions. So Mr.
Clerk, but before you go, excuse me, I don't know if... I'm sweating up a storm today. I don't know what's the matter with me. Maybe it's those two. At least there's a lot of doctors in here as well. If we could If we could have Diane Carter come up and Joe Holland. Is Joe Holland here? There he is, great. And again as chair on behalf of the board I get the honor of sponsoring the resolution for the employee of the month for June 2013.
And this month, it's Diane Carter. And this is always one of those great moments for us as a board and for me as being chair to be able to present a resolution honoring one of our employees for the extraordinary work that you do day in and day out to represent the county and to serve our county residents. So congratulations on being selected and it's just a real honor to present this to you.
0:17 – 0:214 turns
Mr. Clerk? Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. This is a resolution of accommodation for Diane Carter in the Assessor's Office. She's the employee of the month for Santa Barbara County for June 2013. Whereas Diane Carter is a highly valued administrative office professional in the Office of the Clerk, Recorder, Assessors and Registrar of Voters and was originally hired by the Santa Barbara County Treasurer Tax Collector in 2002. In 2006, Diane accepted a key position working in the Marine Aircraft Division at the Assessor's Office and has become the department's very own super sleuth Charges with discovering the most elusive taxable personal properties such as assets that sail away, aircraft that fly away and racehorses that gallop away.
Whereas Diane leaves no stone unturned in the discovery process reviewing government resources, flight tracking data, magazine and news articles, internet sites and photographs. Diane even keeps a notepad and pen in her car in case she spots a mysterious plane at the airport or an unfamiliar boat being towed down the road. Whereas Diane provides vital support to several managers who trust her organizational skills, attention to detail, accuracy, timeliness and concern for compliance.
And whereas Diane is continually working to enhance processes that improve service levels for all of her customers So that, in addition to being super sleuth, Diane Carter is an all-around super team member who takes tremendous pride in her work and completes it all with good humor and a very positive attitude. Now therefore, it's hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors recognizes Diane Carter as the Santa Barbara County Employee of the Month for June 2013. Passing it back to you.
I want to thank all my co-workers because without them, I wouldn't be here. So thank you for your support. Thank you very much
And all I'm going to add is that she is just a joy to work with and she's a terrific representative of our department And we're thrilled to have her in our department.
Thank you Congratulations And now, we're going to go to A2. If we could have Dennis Marshall come forward and Teresa Eggmeyer. And today it's a sad day for county government. We're gonna do this resolution and the next resolution. We are losing two of our very best and very best lawyers. After many years of service, they have decided to move on to other wonderful endeavors.
And we are just so grateful for the extraordinary work you have done, Teresa. We'll talk about your calling in a few. This is about you. Just to guide the board in making Good decisions and keeping us out of trouble, and lessening the liabilities for us as an attorney. And I think I speak for the board when I say that you have been an extraordinary lawyer for county government and for serving the residents of Santa Barbara County. Mr. Clerk?
0:21 – 0:263 turns
Chairman Carpall, members of the board. This is a resolution honoring Teresa Eggmeyer upon her retirement from the office of Santa Barbara County Council. We're asked Teresa C. Eggmeyer will retire on June 7th 2013 after more than 23 years of faithful and distinguished service to the county of Santa Barbara. And whereas, Teresa began her career with the county in 1990 as a deputy in the Office of the Public Defender where she served the criminal justice system by resolutely representing the impoverished and unrepresented. And whereas, Teresa came to the Office of County Counsel in 1998 as a contract attorney then rose steadily to become senior deputy and lead attorney in the County Council's Workers' Compensation Unit.
And whereas during the 15 years Teresa has worked on the Workers' Compensation Unit The workers' compensation system has undergone some of its greatest changes over the past 50 years, including the far-reaching legislative reforms of 2004 and 2012 and the difficult transition to a statewide electronic adjudication management system. And whereas, through each shift in the legal landscape, Teresa has resolutely remastered it, saving county taxpayers incalculable sums through her vigorous and effective handling of the many hundreds of workers' compensation cases while earning respect throughout the county organization and the workers' compensation community for her experience, professionalism, and dedication.
And whereas, over the years, Teresa has devoted many hours to patiently mentoring and assisting less experienced attorneys and stepping in without complaint to cover absences and calendar conflicts for her colleagues. And whereas having seen it all as an attorney, Teresa is looking forward to opening a new chapter in her life. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors honors Teresa C. Eggmeyer for her more than 23 years of dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County congratulates her on her retirement and wishes her many years of happiness. Passed and adopted today.
These are always difficult times to say goodbye to an employee who has been in the office and in the county for over 23 years. I was looking at the resolution this morning, and thinking it really didn't adequately describe everything that Teresa had been to the office. But I heard Supervisor Carbajal say that she has kept the county out of trouble through her great lawyering.
But at least from my standpoint, equally important she's kept me out of trouble with her lawyering. And one of the issues that just an example of what she's meant to the office during these last few years of workers' comp changes, she's led us to where we are now. She's led us through changes and turmoil recently the county changed direction in is moving to contracting workers comp and she is now the sole lawyer working on the tail claims.
And when I started five years ago, she was one of three. She was leading a team of two other attorneys so as we have shifted our work, she's led us through not only the changes in law but the changes in practice. The good news is she has left workers comp in a very solid And on a personal note, everyone in the office is going to miss Teresa. I taunted her as recently as this morning that she was going to be expected to make a five-minute speech and She rejected that, which is interesting because she has such an aggressive litigator in front of the Workers' Comp Appeals Board. But she is shy in front of the board but that should not take away from the great career she's had and how much she's going to be missed by all of us in the office. Teresa thank you very much.
Thank you. Want to say something?
So shy for such an aggressive litigator, Teresa. Thank you for your service. Now our other attorney who has decided to retire, Mr. Michael Ledbetter if he could come up? Just as recent as yesterday, Michael Ledbetter was in my office with a few other lawyers and staff working through a very sticky legal issue Michael again provided us great wisdom and advice and Michael for those of you that don't know in his other life besides county government was a council member for the city of Carpinteria.
And here at the county, equally as Teresa has done an extraordinary job of keeping us out of trouble. Guiding us through legal issues and just providing great legal wisdom and advice. And Michael thank you so much for your service. Our county is much better because of your service and Teresa's well. And we're really gonna miss you and I'm gonna miss your very even handed Advice that you give us, you're always so mellow. I'm like can this guy get any animation going?
But it's that calm and collected wisdom that really gives us the assurance that we're on the right track. Congratulations on your retirement Mr. Allen.
0:26 – 0:327 turns
Chairman Carbaugh, members of the board. This is a resolution honoring Michael R. Ledbetter upon his retirement from the County of Santa Barbara's Office of County Counsel. Whereas Senior Deputy County Counsel Michael Ledbetter has provided exceptional legal services to the residents of Santa Barbara County for more than 30 years. First during six years at the County Public Defender's office and then for more than 24 years at the Office of County Counsel. And whereas, Mike has been the county's primary attorney for virtually every County Public Works and County Flood Control project for the past 20 years. And it's provided exemplary legal support for each of these community enhancing projects including Santa Maria Levee, the Lower Mission Creek, Union Valley Parkway, the Tepeskaya Road Bridge and a Better AV interchange.
And whereas Mr. Ledbetter has consistently provided caring and effective representation of the county's public guardian in conservatorship litigation for the safety of the gravely disabled. And whereas, Mike provided very organized legal support during the county's negotiation of four agreements with the University of California at Santa Barbara through which UCSB will pay more than 6.6 million of traffic and circulation improvements as mitigation for growth impacts expected through UCSB's 2010 Long-Range Development Plan. And whereas Mr. Ledbetter also provided fast and effective legal support to the county's many disaster recoveries including after winter storms in 1995, 98, and 2005.
Now therefore, it is hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors honors Michael R. Ledbetter for his more than 30 years of dedicated public service to the residents of Santa Barbara County and commends him for a zealous and effective legal representation that he provided to his clients throughout all that time. Passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors today.
Well, this is a sad day. A happy day for Teresa and for Mike. But I would like to add a little personal note to the resume that you just heard from Mike Ledbetter. Once again, the county all knows we've been going through difficult times. We've had staff reductions throughout the county. When I arrived here, Mike's portfolio was public works flood control and those are Two very complex, detail-oriented assignments.
It really was a pleasure to have him here handling those. But as more and more projects came up outside of his assigned area, his assigned portfolio, Mike stepped up countless times to take on new complex assignments, many times working personally with me on assignments for which I have the deepest respect and gratitude for the way he's handled some very sensitive items while I've been here and his willingness to do whatever it took to get the job done.
He's become a shining example for the new attorneys in the office. He's mentored a number of them as he's prepared for his departure. I think the office, I know the office is going to suffer serious loss on that day when Mike Ledbetter leaves and those lawyering skills. I initially rejected his petition for retirement and he did about three minutes of research and told me I couldn't But I really felt a sense of obligation to try to dissuade him from retirement. But after 30 years, he has certainly earned his retirement. The county is certainly benefited by his presence and he will certainly be missed in his departure. Mike, thank you.
I'd like to thank your board for this recognition today, I appreciate it very much. Thank your board and all previous boards for the privilege of representing the county. I'd like to thank my colleagues at the County Council's office and my colleagues and friends at the Public Defender's office and my colleagues and friends in every county department for their help and their friendliness and collegiality in doing my job.
Give a particular thanks to Dennis Marshall for the challenges and help that he's given me in my last years here at the county, and especially to Mike Gazzone who has made me a better person and a happier person by his leadership. Thank you again.
Mr. Chairman, can we have the county council staff stand that's here to support Teresa? Yes please by all means. To support. County council staff. Stand up. Teresa, Mike these are your people. Thank you
and the rest of you county council staff you can't retire I just want to make it clear. We already lost two. Congratulations Next,
we will move on to item Resolution A4. Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you Mr. Chair. It's my honor to offer resolution of commendation to Technology Manager Randall Kempf. He is retiring from the Sheriff's Department after serving 25 years of distinguished service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County and You know, I think you're one of those people who may work in the background doing the IT. But in order for the folks on the front line to do what they do and to do it well, it's so important to have someone doing what you do and do it well so that the whole system operates effectively and efficiently. So we thank you for your service and appreciate you being here today.
0:32 – 0:374 turns
Chairman Carpall, members of the board. This is a resolution in commendation for Information Technology Manager Randall Kemp upon his retirement from the County of Santa Barbara. Whereas Randall Kemp retired from county service on May 5th 2013 having faithfully served the Santa Barbara County for over 25 years and whereas Randall began his career With the County of Santa Barbara in May 1988 as an office automation coordinator, senior and deputy in county data services. He was promoted to systems program analyst in 1993 and joined the sheriff's office at that time. In 2004 he was promoted to the Office Automation Specialist.
And whereas, Randall received his final promotion to Program Business Leader General IT Manager in 2007 and was in charge of the Sheriff's Systems and Technologies Unit. And whereas, Randall throughout his career provided the citizens of Santa Barbara County extraordinary professionalism and technical leadership in a rapidly changing computer services industry. And whereas, Randall delicately balanced the explosive growth of technology in law enforcement with the budgetary constraints placed on him resulting in the best IT service that the sheriff could afford plus a little bit more.
And whereas, Randall earned the admiration and respect of those who worked for and with him by maintaining a positive customer service ethic in all transactions. And whereas Randall Kemp's knowledge skills and experience contributed greatly to the overall professionalism and goals of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office and the county overall. Now, therefore it is hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors commands Randall Kempf for his faithful and distinguished service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County congratulates him upon his retirement and wishes him continued good health and many years of happiness. Passed and adopted today.
Chairman Carbajal and members of the board on behalf of Sheriff Brown, Under Sheriff Peterson here. And it really is my honor to present you Randall Kempf. You know as today has been a sad day for the county with Mike and Teresa leaving we also feel the same loss with Randall leaving. He's like you said he is the valuable oil of the machine without his work Being just a really valuable manager. Our systems not only wouldn't be maintained or upgraded, they would fall into disrepair and we really appreciate everything he's done for the deputies and the custody deputies for without his efforts they couldn't do their job. And so we're really proud of him and he has just been such a great friend And we certainly wish him all the best of health and happiness.
And I already see the smile on his face through his retirement, so Randall? Congratulations.
I'll make this brief. Mr. Chair, members of board, Ms. Wolfe, thank you for the recognition. 25 years doesn't seem like a long time but it has been, I suppose. I remember one of the pioneers of the systems that we have today With just 10 computers and we just networked them, tested them and so forth. Now we have 5,000 or so. But in any case I appreciate the recognition again.
And I want to say thank you to the undersheriff, sheriff, and all those who gave me opportunities to reach the goals that I wanted to reach. And my wife of 37 years Margaret over here She's been on my side all this time. And she herself has 32 years with the Sheriff's Office. I do plan on continuing community service, a volunteer for Red Cross and now I move onto what I really enjoy, entrepreneurship and to move into the real estate profession. Thank you again.
There is always the first district office I want you to know. We will now move on to a 5, Supervisor Wolf.
0:37 – 0:437 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair. You know I can't help but thinking that today almost feels like graduation of sorts with the retirements that we've had and you know with graduation comes summer time, summer fun and look who's coming forward Our wonderful lifeguards who, come on up you guys. Patty Langlands, John Menzies and the lifeguards of our county who oversee our beaches, our pools, our lakes.
Oh and Herman Parker Director as well. Thank you all for what you do And let's hope for a safe and sane and wonderful summer. And I just want to express my sincere appreciation for everything that you do in keeping our families safe during these summer months, and all the other times that you're servicing and watching over our families. Thank you so much. And now we have a resolution to commend all of the lifeguards in the county. And I just want to mention one more thing And that is that we're starting, well we had a pilot program last year and we're starting this year a junior lifeguard program over at Henry's Beach. And hopefully those kids will be able to follow in your footsteps. Thank you so much.
Chairman Carbaugh, members of the board. This is a resolution recognizing the Santa Barbara County lifeguards. Whereas the beautiful beaches, lakes and swimming pools of Santa Barbara County represent a world-renowned recreational resource that provides residents and visitors with excellent opportunities to enjoy a positive and healthy outdoor lifestyle including swimming, kayaking, boardsporting, boating and fishing And whereas, the county lifeguards pass on their knowledge to future generations by offering the county's first Junior Lifeguard Program at Arroyo Burro Beach County Park with a mission to give the youth the knowledge and tools to safely enjoy aquatic activities at our beaches by teaching ocean awareness, lifesaving swimming skills and rescue techniques.
And whereas, the County Lifeguards working as extra help employees train for 40 hours each year to be certified lifeguards and during the summers demonstrate exceptional community service and emergency response in and around the aquatic environment with unwavering dedication to protect visitors enjoying our aquatic facilities at county parks and beaches. Whereas, since 2008 services provided by the lifeguards include 98 aquatic rescues, 481 medical interventions and over 6,000 safety contacts and provided hundreds of swim lessons sessions.
And whereas the county and its visitors rely heavily on the services provided for their safety, and are reminded to learn and know how to swim, never swim alone, and respect the water. And whereas the reasons for public safety are a reminder of the joys and hazards associated with the aquatic environment are appropriated to the commencement of the busy summer season. And now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County recognize the necessary and relied upon services provided by the lifeguards of Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
Patty? Good morning Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. It's a pleasure to take this opportunity to say just a few words. The lifeguard program has been running for many years and these professionals protect us they represent us they have a lot of experience and when you're not on the beaches you'll find them working in hospitals as EMTs we have one that is just finished medical school You know they train as they do CPR and I'll introduce shortly to the lifeguard supervisor.
This is a great grooming ground for a number of safety agencies, the current lifeguards and some of the former ones work in the life coast guard fire departments and for the county. A point in fact, as I was speaking to a friend of mine yesterday who was an extra help lifeguard in 1968. Joined the county in 77, worked through the ranks and retired after 30 years as a Deputy Director at the Parks Department. So this is really a great program. And with us today we have six members of the Lifeguards and between them they average almost six years of service each so kudos to them. I'd like to introduce you to John Menzies I rely on John a lot. They're working on the weekends we normally aren't, and we trust that they are all out there. He manages about 35 lifeguards at all these different facilities.
John Menzies.
Thank you. Good morning Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. There are currently 35 seasonal extra help lifeguards who are dedicated to serving the public and being outstanding representatives of the County of Santa Barbara. It is a pleasure to accept this resolution on behalf of the lifeguard staff who appreciates this recognition and the support of the Board of Supervisors. Thank you.
Can we have the names of all these wonderful lifeguards
here? Yes, we do. Matt Rogers, James Heidelbaugh, Mike Topping, Al Finlade, Meredith Milligan
Great, it's a pleasure to meet the rest of you. I know Meredith because she does the Kuyama pool and we're trying to get the Kuyama pool up and running again so Meredith if you could go back to that wonderful facility. So congratulations on all your good work. Thank you very much. We will now move on to Resolution 86, Supervisor Farr.
0:43 – 0:474 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair. Well you know giving resolutions to honor the special achievements of our staff and people in our community is certainly one The best parts of our day on Tuesday. And sometimes the resolutions are given directly and sometimes we give a resolution to recognize the recognition that was given to staff by another organization, and that's the case today with Dr. Charity Thoman who is here. Dr.
Thoman has been honored by the Ford Scholar Alumni Association As the 2013 Gerald E. Bruce Community Service Award recipient for her contributions to the medical field in her community and she has been, she has been in our public health department as director of the communicable disease program and we have seen her here at the board in relation to that position And as well as Deputy Health Officer. But she was recognized not only for her wonderful service to Santa Barbara County, but to our nation and to the world including a number of trips to Africa which we're going to hear about. So we want to recognize and honor you Dr. Thoman for being a wonderful part of our staff and for all the work that you do Bring your passion and your dedication to provide medical care to those that otherwise wouldn't receive it.
Mr. Allen, would you read the resolution please?
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board, this is a resolution of commendation for Dr. Charity Thoman for receiving the Gerald E. Bruce Community Service Award whereas Dr. Charity Thoman has been honored by the Ford Scholar Alumni Association as the 2013 Gerald E. Bruce Community Service Award recipient for her contributions to the medical field and our community And whereas Dr. Thoman joined the Public Health Department in 2011 as Director of the Communicable Disease Program and Deputy Health Officer, she has willingly contributed her passion to serve the underserved and marginalized populations in our community and exemplifies the tradition of true public service.
And whereas Dr. Thoman has contributed to both local and international communities in numerous ways through civic and professional volunteerism in Niger, Gabun and Zimbabwe, Africa, New Orleans, Louisiana and Santa Barbara California. And whereas Dr. Charity Toman has chosen the Pacific Pride Foundation as the beneficiary organization to receive the monetary grant award associated with the Gerald E. Bruce Community Service Award because of their work to feed the hungry, treat the sick and embrace those who have often been marginalized by society. Now therefore it is hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors commends and congratulates Dr. Toman for distinguished service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County And wishes her many years of happiness.
Passed and adopted today by the board.
Chair Carbajal, members of the board I'm gonna just give some very brief introductory comments because I know Dr. Tolman will be very modest and humble in her approach but it's wonderful to have this opportunity to recognize a relatively new member of the county family And really make you all aware of her achievements, certainly a rising star within the Public Health Department. I can think of no one more deserving for this award than Dr. Thoman. She's really led our communicable disease team and activities since 2011 as Deputy Health Officer. This is investigating outbreaks core functions of the public health department is communicable disease. And so in looking at all kinds of influenza outbreaks, new and emerging infectious diseases around the world.
Currently we're working on the hepatitis A issue with the berries at Costco and she's playing a lead role in that. But also in addition she's a lead on all of our TB tuberculosis cases and you've heard her speak about TB day in the county. She's also filling in our HIV clinic. She's also taken on a big role on all the media requests, she actually writes an article in Santa Barbara Independent that comes out to improve awareness of public health issues in the county and she's really been a lead representative for the county across the state and the federal government as well on a number of different policy issues and represents the county very well so again I want to thank her for her work And certainly stepping up as my attention has been focused elsewhere a bit lately.
So again, thank you to Dr. Thoman and certainly deserving of the award.
Thank you very much members of the board. I'm honored and humbled by this recognition. Community service and public service is incredibly important to me and it will continue to be.
0:48 – 0:5512 turns
Thank you. We are now going to
move on to item A7 and this is Supervisor Adam, but I believe Supervisor Wolf wanted to say something about that or... Is there a public comment on?
Yes Chairman Carville we have two requests to speak.
Do you want to go to them first or what do you suggest Supervisor Adam? Let's go to the public, two speakers Well actually if they're getting, if they're receiving the award that's not necessarily a speaker right? Is there an... Okay Mr. Armendariz we could okay. It's a nifty sweater Mr. Armendariz.
Hopefully Andy Caldwell can see that it's not a sweatshirt. I'm Joe Armendarz representing the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association and I want to thank Supervisor Adam for putting this resolution on the agenda Our President, Jan Evans will be receiving it on behalf of John Capal who's president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. I think all of you know that the Jarvis organization up in Sacramento is what made Proposition 13 happen. Howard Jarvis, the famous Howard Jarvis, his indefatigable spirit to get that proposition passed.
And then the organization that was formed in the aftermath of that success. But what I wanted to just take a couple minutes today to say is that I think it's really important that, in California, Proposition 13 be recognized for its value in terms of keeping property taxes relatively low. As you've heard me say many, many times, California is one of the highest tax states in the country. We have the highest corporate tax, the highest personal income tax. We now have the highest sales taxes Our property taxes are relatively, relatively low because of Proposition 13. And you know yesterday I came across a new statistic that said in California today among black teens, all male black teens the unemployment rate is 44%.
All teens between the ages of 16 and 19 it's 24.1%. As you know from hearing me talk about these issues ad nauseum I'm sure from some of your point I do believe that it's because of our tax climate that California continues to be uncompetitive in terms of our economy. And that the best way to create new jobs and the best way to create economic opportunity, particularly for minority families is to have a growing thriving economy and essential to that is a low-tax structure. And so I'll conclude just by saying that. It won't be the last time you hear me say But I also want to mention that I did put a speaker slip in for A3, but he's gone.
You mentioned that Mike Ledbetter was on the city council. I served with Mike for a couple of years and I wanted to get up and say a couple of nice things about my friend Mike.
I apologize
Mr. Armendariz. It's okay, it's okay. I'll send him an email. Thank you.
Sorry about that. We will bring it back now to Supervisor Adam and Supervisor Wolfe. However you wanna do it if you wanna
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Supervisor Farr mentioned some of the resolutions that come before the board and why they are before the board. And this one from Supervisor Adam commemorating the 35th anniversary of Proposition 13, I respect his desire to put this On the board for consideration and you know while there. While there are, you know certain words that are a little I would say maybe a little inflammatory and maybe words I wouldn't choose.
The issue that gave me the most pause was a statement in here about Proposition 167, which says that the split role alternative to the current system failed back in 1992. And honestly I didn't know I have to admit, I didn't know what that proposition was all about. So I went back and researched a bit and there was some... It did seem to be controversial back in 1992. There were a lot of issues that dealt with taxes, sales tax, property tax, and others.
And it was rejected. The reason That I have concern is that the issue of the split role is back and it's back in the state legislature. In fact, a resolution very similar if not identical to the one that is being presented today has actually been proposed at the state legislature both in the assembly and the house so it appears that there is some movement to kind of highlight this issue of the split role And I just looked at some information from Californians and the Future. It was a statewide survey, and it talks about people's feelings about the benefit of Prop 13.
That is certain. But there is also a lot of support right now for the split role where Homeowners, property owners feel that there might be an opportunity to modify Prop 13 so that commercial property owners don't get the same benefit or I should say play by the same rules as homeowners. So that's being discussed in the legislature. So I want to say to Mr. Adam I have those concerns by, by voting in favor of your resolution. I just want to make the statement that I am in no way endorsing the notion and some of the issues that are expressed here but rather To say Out of respect for your desire to bring this to the board, I will vote for it but certainly with reservation and that is why I wanted to pull this item to make my public statement particularly about my concern with a split rule.
Mr. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Adam, I, you know, you brought your secret weapon, Jen Evans. She's my wonderful constituent. So I will be voting for your resolution but I just, just for the record it's not an implied endorsement of the split role issue identified in the resolution but do want to support you in your resolution so. Since we're going on the
record everybody's got to take a shot at this. Supervisor Abeneno, since we're going on the record I will 100% wholeheartedly endorse this resolution, Supervisor Adams. Oh thank you.
I wasn't going to but you know, I appreciate all of the comments
0:55 – 1:0111 turns
I do think that Proposition 13 has served a wonderful purpose all of these years, and I have to say that my 86-year-old mother is one of the many beneficiaries of it. Otherwise she would not have been able to stay in her home in her old age. At the same time, I think that over the years we have found that it has been applied inequitably And I do think that it does need to be looked at again so that we can continue the protections for those. That are most vulnerable and really need it, and close those loopholes in those areas where We didn't anticipate that people were not going to be paying their fair share So those are my comments on and I will be supporting them the resolution
back to you supervisor Adam
Well, thank you. I think in an environment in this state where we can't seem to find much certainty, Proposition 13 has provided an anchor for business and for homeowners so that we can understand exactly what our costs are going to be going into the future. And we can adequately plan for that and things don't jump up and bite us, which is what Howard Jarvis He was responding to when he created Prop 13 and so really I wasn't intending that this end up this big of a deal, frankly.
I'm surprised and if somebody's ripping off my staff's work up at the state, I hope that they're giving us credit because I didn't rip off their work. If somebody is doing something up at the state...
You're in the avant-garde?
Yeah well as usual. So in any case I, I guess we haven't voted on this yet so we can actually.
They're gonna read it and go up there.
Oh okay.
Mr. Clerk if you could read it please? And I see we have Ms. Jan Evans up here. See I'm glad I called
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. This is a resolution commemorating the 35th anniversary of Proposition 13 whereas on June 6 1978 Proposition 13 officially titled The People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation and popularly known as the Jarvis Gann Initiative was overwhelmingly approved by California voters reducing property tax rates on homes businesses and farms And capping the rate of increase in the future. And whereas, prior to the adoption of Proposition 13, California's raging inflation had sent property tax bills in California soaring so high that many families had to sell their homes because they could not afford to pay their taxes. And whereas with the approval of Prop 13 and a previous subjective standard for assessment that engendered the property tax assessment abuses that occurred in the 60s and 70s.
And whereas with the passage of Prop 13, taxpayers for the first time were provided a measure of certainty with respect to their property taxes. Whereas in 35 years following the passage of Prop 13, the average homeowner has saved tens of thousands of dollars in property tax payments, money that was able to be spent in the economy to create jobs and foster economic development. And whereas the volatility of income and sales tax revenue to the state and local government is a major flaw in California's tax system, while Proposition 13 has rendered California's property taxes as a stable and predictable source of public revenue even during economic downturns that has provided a major benefit to local governments throughout California. And whereas, since the passage of Prop 13 voters 2 to 1 rejection in 1992 of proposition 167 suggests that the split role alternative to the current system which businesses would pay property taxes at a higher rate than those imposed on residential properties finds little favor with voters.
And whereas, Prop 13 has become a nationwide symbol for taxpayer revolt and for citizens exercising control and power over their governance. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors in recognition of the impact and importance of Prop 13 as held on the state of California formally commemorates June 6th 2013 as the 35th anniversary date of Prop 13 passed and adopted today.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Salud, it's good to see you again. It's been a long time. It's kind of deja vu to be back here after so many years. For those of you who may not agree with the benefits of Prop 13, I think the benefits have been equally spread throughout the society here in the state of California and I think the benefits and insight That Mr Jarvis foresaw when he proposed this as a solution to abuses.
This is an example of how assessments were applied against property owners prior to Prop 13. And as a result, now we have a predictable process that property owners of all kinds of property not distinguishing one versus the other commercial versus residential but the benefits are equally applied this man had foresight And I think quite frankly, and I'm assuming all of you own property.
But I think quite frankly we owe this man an eternal debt of gratitude for the benefit that he has provided the property owners of the state of California. And hopefully will enjoy many more years of this benefit without tampering with it. And I want to thank you very much for supporting this resolution and taking the time to discuss it this morning. Thank you again.
Thank you Jan. I think that concludes our public speakers, right Mr. Allen?
1:01 – 1:056 turns
Chairman Carbajal we have requests to speak from the public on items 820 22 24 and 37
should we have them all go first and then we'll bring them back to the board and take on the issues that my colleagues pulled why don't we do that
Chairman Carball, members of the board. We'll start with item A20. It's from the county executive office. The recommendation that the board consider recommendations regarding an update on revisions to the state of California's fiscal year 2013-14 budget and we have Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria.
Mr. Caldwell?
This item, and the one thing I don't understand from this item in the budget book and even the item later today on your agenda is that clearly what this staff report says is that Governor Brown has proposed that the Medi-Cal expansion be implemented as a state based system. rather than a county-based system, and further that taxpayers don't pay twice for the population receiving healthcare services.
Now the point here is that your public health department takes care of indigents And in previous budgets, which actually had data that could be analyzed and reviewed. They take care of about 30 to 32,000 people a year. Well what the documents state is up to 26,000 people will by definition no longer be declared indigent because they will now have healthcare coverage.
So if you've got 26,000 people that now no longer need the public health department because they are at a state-based system and now are insured. Then I would think that we have to completely revamp and rethink the Public Health Clinic Service Delivery System that we have right now because you're going to be left with 6,000 customers or patients out of 30,000.
And I don't understand why this discussion hasn't taken place before your board, and is it not even discussed in this item? Because by definition as staff admits they take care of very few people with insurance. And what we don't want to see is the county try to fill in the gap on Obamacare by having the taxpayers pay twice Our next item.
The next item is 822 and Mr. Caldwell, why don't you just stay right there because you have a slip-in for 822 then we'll come back for several speakers in Santa Barbara on that item. Item 822 is from the County Executive Office request that the board consider recommendations regarding support for AB 154 Atkins expanded scope of practice. Mr.
1:05 – 1:118 turns
Carbajal, I'm going to speak as an individual not as a representative of COLEB on this but the bottom line with this is we just think you should leave this item alone. This is an incredibly controversial issue as far as abortion services and you know the bottom line here is if individual supervisors feel really strongly about this they're perfectly Able to just send a letter on their own letterhead as versus pretending to speak for all county residents.
A lot of people believe abortion is murder and that the practice is evil. And the point here is if you believe it's good, if you believe that's a form of birth control, well, you have the right to do that. But don't pretend to speak for the rest of the residents some whom have strongly held convictions. And of course the other thing that this whole item represents is the fact that more and more doctors are against abortion.
More and more of them have been convicted that they're taking a life instead of saving a life. And that's one of the reasons you have a shortage, and it's amazing to me that the staff report didn't state this. And of course, the other thing that was problematic with this is the title. If somebody didn't bother to read the staff report, they had no idea what this item was about by reading the title which we think is a little bit disingenuous.
Thank you.
We're going to come back to Santa Barbara for Jane Gray, followed by Vicki Allen.
Good morning Chair. Good morning Supervisors. My name is Jane Gray and I'm here on behalf of the Santa Barbara Women's Political Committee. I would like to take the time to recognize the efforts of the Legislative Program Committee as well as the Board in this important issue which is essentially basic medical rights as well as individual liberties and freedoms and we urge you to support a position on Assembly Bill 154 In California today, 22% of counties lack appropriate healthcare providers to perform services. Oftentimes women have to travel over five hours so that they can avail themselves very basic services.
These geographic isolation barriers timely information and access can force women into situations of delay and advanced stages of pregnancy which could result in risky and complicated procedures which is just unconscionable. Abortion services and access to them is not a medically complicated question, but rather a right of autonomy over one's body and one's destiny. Access to these services is an essential part of any developed nation's health care system, and we greatly applaud the board's leadership on this issue in ensuring that all women in Santa Barbara County and the state of California indeed are afforded the opportunity to make these decisions that are right for them and their families. Thank you very much.
Vicki Allen, to be followed by Richard Solomon.
Good morning Chair Carbajal and Supervisors. My name is Vicki Allen, I'm with the League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara. The League of Women Voters of California supports AB 154. The bill improves women's access to abortion providers by allowing nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants that women already know and use for their health care to provide early pregnancy abortions.
The League has long supported a woman's constitutional right of privacy to make reproductive choices and have access to a basic level of health care that includes all aspects of family planning. The right to make reproductive choices is empty of content if a woman is unable to obtain the services she chooses because of lack of available doctors or service providers in her city or county.
AB 154 is necessary Almost half of the counties in this state lack an accessible abortion provider. This creates barriers to access in both rural and urban areas by forcing women either to incur the cost of travel and overnight stays due to distance or to face long delays in obtaining medical appointments with a few providers that exist in their counties of residence.
This inability to access prompt, effective abortion services can force women to delay abortion until more advanced stages of pregnancy resulting in a more complicated procedure. Authorizing trained mid-level health professionals to provide early abortions is safe and improves care for women. A pilot project conducted by UCSF has shown that trained health professionals can safely provide early abortions.
The project also showed that the procedure is safe whether performed by MDs or by trained, qualified mid-level health professionals. These professionals already provide medication abortions. AB 154 allows women access to an alternative procedure during the first trimester. For these reasons, the League of Women Voters of California urges you to join us in supporting AB 154. Thank you.
Richard Solomon followed by Cheryl Rowlings.
Good morning my name is Richard Solomon I'm the chair of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. The data indicates, tells us quite clearly that voters in each supervisorial district fully support reproductive rights. Now it varies of course by district but clearly the majority in each district supports reproductive rights. We urge you to support AB 154. Thank you.
Cheryl Wallings to be followed by Beth Pittin-August who is our final speaker on this item.
1:11 – 1:143 turns
Good morning, Supervisor Carbajal and members of the board. I'm Cheryl Rawlings, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara-Ventura San Luis Obispo Counties and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Planned Parenthood is asking you to support AB 154. This bill addresses the current shortage of health care professionals able to provide access to early abortion care. Almost half of the counties in our state do not have access to an abortion provider. Unless you think this is a problem that Santa Barbara doesn't experience, let me point out that our medical director Dr. Virginia Siegfried, a board certified OBGYN is the only physician in our county who publicly acknowledges that she provides abortion services.
Dr. Siegfried hoped to be here today to address you, but she is out of the county this morning in a neighboring county providing abortion services to the women in that community as the sole provider in that community. So she asked me to read a statement to you and this is what she said. As a board certified OBGYN I support AB 154. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco's Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health conducted a comprehensive multi-year study to train advanced practice nurse practitioners, physician assistants and nurse midwives in the provision of abortion services. And concluded that these trained health professionals can perform this procedure as safely as physicians.
Patients involved in the study expressed high rates of satisfaction. I have personally trained advanced practice clinicians in this early abortion procedure when I practiced as an OBGYN in New Hampshire, and I had a very positive experience. I urge you support. On behalf of Dr. Siegfried and Planned Parenthood we appreciate you entertaining this issue and ask for your support of AB 154. Thank you.
Beth Pittin-August?
Good morning, Chair Carbajal and members of the board. My name is Beth Pittin-August. I'm here today representing the Santa Barbara Pro-Choice Coalition which represents 24 local partner organizations and hundreds of individuals, women and men. We are asking that you vote in support of AB 154, a bill that addresses the current shortage of healthcare professionals able to provide early abortion care in California.
It expands access by authorizing trained nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants to provide this very safe procedure. Nearly half of California counties do not have an accessible abortion provider, meaning that women have to travel long distances to obtain care. This forces women to delay which results in a more complicated procedure later in their pregnancies. Thank you.
1:14 – 1:2625 turns
That was our final speaker on that and we're going to go back to Santa Maria for Mr. Caldwell he has slips in items a twenty four and a thirty seven so I'll read those into the record and then Mr. Cole will have five minutes to comment on these two items a twenty four some general services. The board is asked to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara Museum of Art's second amendment to lease agreement and request for approval to initiate improvements to museum property at 1130 State Street in Santa Barbara.
Then item A-37 comes to the board from Supervisor Carbajal, requests that the board adopt a resolution of support for increased funding for local coastal planning. Mr. Caldwell?
Chairman Carbajall, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. Item 824 is one of those things where the staff report doesn't clearly state the changes. Somebody has to read the staff report and then they have to go to the Exhibit G to figure out what this is about, and of course part of it is about them wanting to amend their lease Reconfigure parts of the building, which is fine.
But another part of it is not okay and that has to do with back in when this project or this museum opened up It was a free public art museum And then a number of years ago they were allowed to charge for admission but the Lease required them to provide free admissions on Thursdays, the first Sunday of the month and for all school tours. Now you go into Exhibit G and you find out they want to eliminate the first Sunday of every month is free admission and only have three free admission days throughout the course of the rest of the year.
And the point here is, this is a county-owned building. And this asset of the county is worth tens of millions of dollars I would imagine being on state and A. The point here is we recognize these nonprofits are doing the best they can, but the public should get a defined benefit as a result of the donation of the land and the building for a 99-year lease. And we'd be hard pressed to understand what an additional nine days of admission, cuz a lot of people can only bring their family especially if they're coming from outside the immediate metro area. They can only come there on weekends and so they wanna reduce it from the first Sunday of every month to three family days per year.
And the Thursdays, and I don't know if the admission right now on every Thursday is all day. But the appendix G talks about it being every Thursday evening. Now we just think that this is a county wide resource. It's not just a Santa Barbara resource and it's not just a resource for people that can pay. So we think you should pull this and get a fuller explanation of just how much is it going to cost this museum to at least keep the few free days a year they have right now compared to the fact that the museum used to be entirely free.
On the next item, a
local coastal... Mr. Caldwell, if I could just before you continue on, I saved you your time. Okay. I was just a little puzzled by your remarks. Certainly, I could see how when one initially reads it, how you would have the questions you have but after really analyzing what's being provided now and what they're proposing to provide, it's a major enhancement Of gratis access to the museum by a number of groups, families, children. It is a significant, and let me repeat that, a significant enhancement in public free access to the museum from what exists now.
When I first read the report- Well, I'm
all ears Supervisor Carpajal if you could
explain it to me because I read it
twice.
Let me finish. If you really look at the comparison, maybe the report could have done a better job of having a matrix that illustrated now and in the future instead of having this resort back to an amendment or what have you. So if staff's hearing that in the future, that's what they oughta do but I will tell you that it's a major enhancement. If you reread it Mr. Caldwell, I'm confident you'll get that information. Mr. Lavinino?
Thank you chair. Concerns were raised and I read the same report and felt. Had some of the same questions but is there anybody here that can answer that? I mean, I take you at your word. I'd just like to know what those enhancements are.
Mr. Pontes, Mr. Carlantini if actually we could trail this item why don't we trail this item till later on and if you could get a graph going that will illustrate what we have and what we're going to that would be great because it would be great for the public and everybody else to see What's that old adage? It's a no brainer. So we'll bring it back the sooner the better if you guys go work on that, that would be great. I know somebody is here from the museum so I'm sure he will stick around for a little bit.
Please proceed Ms. Caldwell. We're going to try and answer that question.
OK, and I would love to come back up. Like for instance one of the things that I know that they're going to give multifamily passes but it says to those enrolled in museum programs the question is what does that entail? There's all sorts of questions that weren't answered and I appreciate your response Supervisor Carbajal. On the next item this has to do with the Coastal Commission Considering all the trouble that even Santa Barbara County has had with the Coastal Commission, we don't know why you'd want the Coastal Commission to be given even more money. They say they're going to cooperate but we'd certainly like to see an example of their cooperation before they get more money and one of the things that we've talked about in the past Chairman and members of the board There's a lot of people out there that believe that the Coastal Commission should only have appeal authority in jurisdiction, in jurisdictions that don't have an approved local coastal plan.
So in other words, a county like Santa Barbara County that has gone through the hurdles to develop a coastal plan, they should be the final authority and after that the courts. Whereas other counties in the state don't have an approved coastal plan, well sure the Coastal Commission should have oversight then. In other words instead of throwing more money at the Coastal Commission we'd like to see revisions and improvements And controls placed on them because we believe they're answerable to nobody. And of course, it wasn't that long ago when they tried to hijack our coastal plan when Isla Vista and some of these other things were before them and try to rewrite it for us. And again, we would rather you not throw more money at the problem until we see reform.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Caldwell. Is that our final public speaker?
Yes, Chairman Carbonell.
We'll close the public speaker hearing part of our administrative agenda and we'll bring it back to the board. First, we had Mr. Adam who stepped up with... Let me see if I recall correctly 22... This is 822, 33, 36, 37 and 40. Correct. Well you start well, we've already read 22. A22
has been read into the record.
Please proceed
Mr..
Okay 22 I just I didn't want to make a big deal of it. I just want to vote no So if we could have a roll call vote, I'd appreciate
it. Anyone else wanna make a statement or anything? Supervisor Wolk
Well, I do want to make a statement and I want to just acknowledge the Ledge Committee and their work on this. And the vote at the ledge committee was 4-1 as it appears to move this forward and the ledge committee bringing it to the board for our consideration. I also appreciate everyone who came out to speak in favor of the board supporting this resolution. It's one of those or the board's action, the way I look at it is that abortion in the state of California is legal in case anyone forgot about that and one of our premises for our legislative committee is the importance of access to care, access to medical care And what this law, AB 154 will do is will increase access to care for women in our state. And I appreciate the kind of the reality of what is happening in Santa Barbara County from Ms.
Rawlings and the notion that there is one provider again to provide a legal procedure in our county And what this law will do is to enhance the access. So when I looked back at the study that was referenced, the Bixby, I think it's the Bixby Study from UC San Francisco. It was a very intensive study looking at the training for nurse practitioners, physician assistants and certified nurse midwives. And once those folks went through this extensive training, on the successful outcomes was equal to OBGYNs within the first trimester. I think this is an important bill that we must as a county support, it is supporting the citizens of our community who choose to have an abortion and If you don't want to have an abortion, you don't have to do it. But if you're going to I want to make sure as a county supervisor that it's safe and accessible.
Thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank You Supervisor Wolf. Anybody else? Let me let me just state that This also is a major focus on providing access to health care for women, in particular in rural areas throughout the state. And the only rural area in Santa Barbara County is located in the first district and that's Cuyama. But it's not just rural areas, it's throughout the state. It's really providing access to better health care for women and really recognizing the right of reproductive freedom and choice for women.
On behalf of all the women who need better health care and access to health care, and the ability to have access to an abortion. I feel extremely honored and proud to be able to move forward a position in support of this bill. Is there a motion to approve this item? Motion's been made, seconded. Not having further discussion, roll call vote.
Mr. Levin, you know? No. Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Ms. Farr? Aye. Mr. Adams?
No
Mr. Carbajal? Aye Passes 3-2
Okay we will now
move on to item 833 Supervisor
1:26 – 1:2811 turns
Adams Chairman Carbajals members of the board Item 833 is from social services the request that the board consider recommendations regarding an agreement with BIT California LLC DBA document fulfillment services to provide CalWORKs information network system printing and mailing services
Supervisor Adam.
Good morning, Mr. Nielsen. My question is why do we have $18,200 of general fund money going into this? Item.
Good morning, Daniel Nielsen Department of Social Services Chair Carbajal and Supervisor Adam. We have the $18,200 there because it is required match in order to draw down the state and federal funds associated with paying for this so it's there because it has to be.
Well that's interesting you know we do some much of this stuff On a match basis and the matches are frustrating to me because you know if they're going to give us money to do something then just give us the money and we'll do it. Instead of making us come up with money that's in my opinion better spent maintaining our assets like when you hear about later today.
On the deferred maintenance issue. And so that's my issue, is there any place else we can pull the $18,200 from to make that?
Not for this contract, no there's not.
Okay so there's no unattached money? Okay alright well that's fine thank you if that's the answer then that's the answer thank you. I'd like to have a roll call vote on this one too if you don't mind.
Supervisor Lavagnino? Okay, hi. Is there a motion? Is there a motion to approve 833? Motion is made and seconded. Not having further discussion. Roll call.
Mr. Levin, you know?
Aye.
Ms. Wolfe? Aye Ms. Farr? Aye Mr. Adam? No Mr. Carbajal? Aye Passes 4-1 836 Chairman Carbaugh members the board item 836 is from social services The request that the board consider recommendations regarding amendment number two with Community Action Commission for enhanced family reunification support services
1:28 – 1:3724 turns
Okay, mr. Nielsen I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you. I don't okay good. Thank you Again we're gonna put $45,000 a general fund so we can get a hundred and five thousand dollars is that correct?
Roll-call vote 0–0 Motion is made and seconded. Not having further discussion. Roll call. · 2 under review
Show transcript
the answer on this one is slightly different than the prior item when the state realigned some of the programs to the counties including the child welfare monies and foster care moneys. It was done so with the expectation that the counties would continue to maintain their share of cost in those services and programs. So prior to 2011 realignment, this money that is now labeled state realignment would have been State General Fund. It has now been realigned to the counties but the expectation is that the county still maintain the share of costs for these services that it had prior to realignment. So that's why the breakout is described as what it is there. Okay, so this is optional? It's not optional in the sense that it is a state expectation and we would not be able to provide these services if we didn't have this combined funding to pay for this.
It is a state expectation that we maintain our share of cost and would have to have both components here to provide the service that we're trying to provide through this contract.
Well, I understand that. But at some point we're going to have to give up some of this stuff because if we're ever going to pay for our maintenance, if we're going to balance our budgets and going into the future, we're gonna see deeper deficits that we're gonna have to cover. This year is relatively small compared to next year. And so I'm just bringing out the point for the public to understand that we are putting in $45,000 bucks We're going to commit that to this effort and it's a worthwhile effort. I don't argue the effort, but at some point we got to stop or stop something else. I don't know what else we're going to stop, but we're going to stop doing something else because we have to take some of our money and reallocate it so that our maintenance can be done.
So anyway, I don�t want to belabor this point, but thank you very much.
Is there a motion to approve this item?
Mr. Chair, I have a comment. Supervisor
Wolf?
First of all, thank you for bringing this forward and I guess I have a different take than Supervisor Adam. I'm almost at a loss for words, because this is for the health and welfare of children in our community that have been referred by Child Welfare Services. And if I'm going to put $45,000 to recoup 105,000 to ensure the safety of children maybe versus... You know, I know we all love to fix our roads We've been dealing with that, but we cannot let the narrative of capital maintenance and roads things that we know we have to do supersede the narrative.
In our community who need it most and so I'm pleased that you brought this forward. I know we have another item in our agenda to enhance our social service workers. We have state mandates. I do not ever want to see the types of headlines that I just, that I see in L.A. County about issues that happen. Because the board of supervisors there may not have supported child welfare services and to the degree that they Maybe should have.
This is one of those items that is just tops on my list and I'm really, I'm pleased that it's here and I fully support it. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Adam, is there a motion to move this item?
Well, I just want to comment, you know, Supervisor Wolf just said we've been doing that. And actually we haven't. So, yeah, we need to. And that being maintaining our assets, being roads not just limited to roads but buildings and parks as well. So at some point you've got to do with what you can with what you've got. I don't know when that is. I'm certainly not going to get three votes for that right now.
But I want to talk about it a little bit and keep it on the public's mind to some extent or another. Thank you.
Supervisor Wolf.
Yes, I just have to respond yes we have been doing it and in fact it's an. It's repeated again in our upcoming budget, capital improvement and maintenance. Every department gets funding for capital improvement and maintenance. Since I've been on the board we have allocated money for that. Maybe it's not enough to do everything. It's kind of like if you own a home and there is a lot of maintenance issues that need to be done but you weigh that against perhaps getting insurance for your children, taking them to the doctor.
There's things that you also view as being important, putting money away for college. So I think to say that this board has not looked at maintenance and capital maintenance again it's that narrative that I hope we can change because it is not an accurate statement that we have not been doing that. The debt advisory committee, I see Mr. Geis out there reminds me of the debt advisory committee looking at ways Fund projects that need allocations for maintenance.
So Mr. Chair, if we're going to take this item separately I'll move to approve.
Motion's been made to approve and then Mr. Lavinino is going to get the floor next. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made to approve. There's a second. Mr. Lavinino?
Well, I just thought this was going to be a pretty easy item but now a lot's been raised and probably deal with it in deferred maintenance but... We have done something But we are woefully inadequate in an item that Supervisor Adams highlighted, and maybe it's offensive to those of us that have been here a little bit longer and have not addressed it. But even in our budget, I mean we're talking about. We put a million and a half towards deferred maintenance on roads or $2 million when we know we need to put in $9 million just to maintain what we've got right now. We can't really say we've been addressing it. We've been paying at lip service.
You know, throw every other program away and just focus 100% on maintenance. There's a time and a place for it. And we've got to find where that's going to be. But I have to agree with Supervisor Wolf that on this item when you've got, we're putting in $45,000. I believe this was state money to begin with. It was realigned to us. And the expectation was we were going to turn around spend it on this program.
Then I will support this but I also don't want Let this go by the wayside of this little battle that we've got going is that we have to address. This issue and it's it's not going to go away.
Motion has been made in seconded. Roll call.
Mr. Levin you know
I
miss Wolf. Miss Farr. Mr Adam. Mr Carbajal.
I.
Passes 4 to 1.
Thank you. Mr 37. Mr. Adam, read 37 Mr.
Allen? 37 has previously been read into the
record. What's the byline on it which one is it?
That is a resolution from Supervisor Carbajal. Okay. It says to do with increased
funding for local coastal commission. Mr. Adam.
1:37 – 1:4223 turns
When can we get a building and maintenance road building park and maintenance resolution to ask for state
When you draft one
and
bring it up, we could get one Mr. Adam. It just means a little bit of work.
I just feel like we need more maintenance and less planning. And I don't...I feel the intrusion from the Coastal Commission especially as Mr. Caldwell pointed out earlier. We have the local plan. They've blessed it. As far as I'm concerned they can back off a little bit.
Is there a motion to approve this? Motion has been made. I second it. Further discussion? Not having any, roll call? Mr. Lavinino? No.
Ms. Wolfe? Ms. Farrer? Mr. Adam? Mr Carbajal? Aye. Passes 3-2. Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. Item 840 is from Alcohol Drug and Mental Health Services. The request that the board set a hearing for meeting on the 18th of June to consider recommendations regarding ADMHS published charges.
Mr. Adam? Can anybody tell me if these are fully loaded positions that are fully funded by what is it state money?
This is the rates. These are just the rates.
These are
the rates.
The rates? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm on the wrong one. Dr. Wada does the state reimburse us for 100% of whatever we choose to adopt as a rate or are you adopting the rates that they tell you to adopt?
Roll-call vote 0–0 Motion has been made. I second it. Further discussion? Not having any, roll call? · 2 under review
Show transcript
This item will be presented more formally at the hearing on June 18th but I can try to answer your question now. The cost per day methodology which was reviewed by the auditor it takes a fully burdened costs which include both direct and indirect costs. Direct costs being staff operating costs services supplies etc., And that's how we develop a per bed day cost. Right, but if you decided that you were going to pay somebody $400-$500 an hour for service or $1,000 just make it crazy, $1000 an hour would the state
reimburse you for that?
Chair, Supervisors. The reimbursement for Medi-Cal services is separate from the establishment of published charges. Published charges is actually to set an upper limit of what we can get reimbursed by Medi-Cal. Medi Cal will actually reimburse what our actual costs are subject to the published charges. So if our published charges aren't high Our high enough to cover where actual costs are then we won't get fully reimbursed for those services from Medi-Cal.
Well I'm just trying to get at, are you making these things up out of your costs or are these something that the state Medi-Cal says put a set of charges together that's within a range?
Chair, Supervisors, the published charges are actually based on what we expect our costs to be. So it's based on the recommended budget for next fiscal year basically divided by the units of service that we project to actually provide so the state does not limit what we can include in the calculation of the published charges.
All right, thank
you. Was that the last one?
I believe there was a request on 842. No,
that was someone else. So why don't we... Is there a motion to approve this item?
So moved.
Motion's been made. Seconded. Not having further discussion? Do we have to do a roll call? We don't have to do a roll call. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, abstentions passage unanimously. We will now move on to actually I have the order Mr. Lavinino 822 that's moot now so now move on to Supervisor Farr 842.
1:42 – 1:4420 turns
Thank you. Go ahead.
Item 842 is in public works the request of the board set a hearing for your meeting on June 18th to consider recommendations writing speed limits on various roads those in the first third and fifth districts.
Thank you Mr. Chair, because I was gone last week I didn't get a chance to talk about this item with Public Works until late yesterday afternoon and out of all the streets that are mentioned here they're all to be maintaining the existing speed limit except for Four locations all in my district and all in the San Inez Valley. And that's points C, E, I and K. So I would ask that we take these out of this item and move the rest of it forward and give me an opportunity to work with Public Works on it again and bring those four back later.
So you're saying continue this item and bring it back?
No, I want to move forward with all of it except for these four areas where they want to raise the speed limit.
And bring those
back separately.
Council can we do that?
This is a set hearing and so that's why I didn't want to set the hearing with these four included in it at this
point in time. You want to set the hearing with that omission?
With those four out.
So we will need a motion to do that.
It's all the ones where you're going to raise it. So it's bullet points C, E, I and K
that's a motion is there a second. Second discussion. Public comment. On that
request to speak
all those in favor. Opposed abstention passes unanimously thank you. That concludes with the exception of two items a seven And a twenty four and a twenty four. I see Larry. We
need
well
we we need a motion to approve item a seven and a twenty and then a twenty four is trailed.
Motion has been made and seconded. Not having further discussion, all those in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously. We are trailing 824 to after lunch and they don't have that matrix ready so we likely will break for lunch it could be between... It won't be before 1 so anytime after 1, 1-130 is when we'll consider that item.
1:44 – 1:462 turns
Mr. Allen. Chairman Carball, one other cleanup item. We had a request on Item A18. This was approved as part of your earlier motion on the administrative agenda. This is from County Council. The board is asked to consider recommendations regarding a contract with outside council for state water project issues and there's a request that this item be withdrawn so if the maker and seconder of that motion which would have been Supervisor Lavinino and Supervisor Adam would accept that amendment into that motion then we'll withdraw Item A18 from the agenda.
Is there an exception acceptance of that amendment. By the maker in the second. Yes. Not in front of discussion all those in favor I passage unanimously so we are now the only outstanding issue is item a twenty four That we are trailing to after our lunch closed session meeting Larry sorry we couldn't get to it but they're putting together that matrix just to illustrate the changes. It shouldn't be any major setback other than just having it to answer some of the questions that were raised so right now we're going to take a 10 minute break and when we get back we will go to item one Make it a 15 minute break, we'll come back in exactly 11.
Okay. I'll reconvene our board meeting. And Mr. Allen, if we could go to number one please?
1:46 – 1:5114 turns
Chairman Carbaugh and members of the Board, Item 1 is for Planning and Development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Orca Community Plan Keysight 22 Wetlands Delineation Removal Amendment. This is in the fourth district.
Should I recuse myself now? You
may.
Since I'm an owner of this property, I'm going to recuse myself from this discussion. Thank you.
Thank you Mr.
Adam.
If the record could reflect, Mr. Adam recused himself. We will now proceed. Mr. Hunt?
Good morning Chair and members of the Board. I'm Jeff Hunt, Deputy Director for Long-Range Planning. This agenda item is a follow up to an item that the board heard in December. Brett McNulty who's a project planner will give a very brief presentation.
Good morning, Chair Carbajal, members of the Board of Supervisors. The item before you concerns an amendment to the ORCA Community Plan involving Keysight 22 to comply with a court order. The ORCA Community Plan Keysight 22 Wetlands Delineation Removal Amendment first came before the board on December 4th 2012 as part of the ORCA Community Plan 2012 amendments.
At the December 4th hearing, the property owner raised concerns regarding the Keysight 22 amendments. The package of amendments We're continued to the December 11th hearing. During the December 11th hearing, the board certified the EIR and approved the regional basins removal and Clark Avenue level of service reduction amendments. The board continued the Keysight 22 wetlands delineation removal to allow for additional coordination with the property owner Staff conferred with the Keysight 22 property owner representatives on January 17th, on April 16th and again on May 10 of this year.
All parties subsequently agreed revisions to the York Community Plan final EIR and the 2012 amendments final supplemental EIR as detailed in the addendum in attachment 2 to the board letter And the revisions to the Orca community plan detailed in the resolution and attachment 4 comply with the court order. Therefore, as detailed in the board letter staff is recommending that the Board of Supervisors make the required findings Including CEQA findings in Attachment 1 to the board letter for adoption of the Keysight 22 Wetlands Delineation Removal Amendment to the Orcutt Community Plan.
And after considering the addendum in Attachment 2, find that no subsequent EIR is required for revisions to this project. And adopt the resolution in attachment 4 approving specific amendments to the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan and strike the Vernal Wetlands and Orkut Creek wetland delineation from the Orkut Community Plan Final EIR, and any conclusions based on the delineation in compliance with the court order. That concludes my presentation. Staff is available if you have any questions. Thank you. Chair
Carbajal? Thank you, any public speakers Mr. Allen?
No request to speak.
Not having any, is there a motion or discussion? Motion to approve this item?
Motion to approve.
Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Further discussion? Not having any. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Passes unanimously for zero. If somebody could let Mr. Adam know that we're done and we will move on to number two but let's hold off until Mr. Adam gets in and then we're now moving onto Item number two. Just wait one second, Mr. Allen?
Okay if you could read the item
1:51 – 2:027 turns
Mr. Allen, number two? Chairman Carbaugh and members of the board, Item 2 is from Planning and Development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations of the County and Montecito Planning Commissions to approve case numbers 13 ORD2, 3 and 4 which would amend respectively the County Land Use and Development Code, the Montecito Land Use and Development Code and Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance All of Chapter 35 zoning of the Santa Barbara County Code to revise the existing language of the home occupation sections of the zoning ordinance. To one, implement the requirements of state law AB 1616, this is cottage food operations by revising the home occupation section of the zoning ordinances to establish permitting processes and development standards that would allow cottage food operations within dwelling units.
And two, specifically allow in-home retail sales and include standards for determining when such sales are exempt from planning permits.
Thank you. I see Mr. Noel Langel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors. We are bringing this Ordinance Amendment package to you today in response to Assembly Bill 1660 that was approved by the state legislature in 2012, signed into law by the Governor and became effective on January 1st of this year. This bill requires local jurisdictions to allow the preparation for packaging and sale of certain non-perishable food items in their dwellings, in the kitchens of the dwellings in which they live.
The state law does include certain parameters that the operator must abide by in conducting the cottage food operation, including that they live within the dwelling where the operation is conducted. That no more than one off-site employee is on the premises. That the preparation and packaging of the food items occurs within that kitchen of the dwelling. However it does allow for storage Food items and other items that are necessary for the packaging of those food items to occur within adjacent rooms within the dwelling.
The assembly bill divides the cottage food operations into two operations, class A operations allow for direct consumer sales at certain venues such as the dwelling itself or farmers markets It does require the operator to register with the Public Health Department. This is a very simple process involving an online registration form that the operator would fill out and subject to approval with the Public Health Department, that would be the only touch they would have.
Class B operations are slightly more intensive and they provide that the operator may engage in indirect sales or wholesaling of the package food produced by the cottage food operator to retailers for resale elsewhere. It does, because this is a more intense level of operation, it does require an actual permit from the public health department but this permit is one that's given per state law a streamlined nature.
Under the bill, gross annual sales in this year are capped at $35,000. This cap increases to $45,000 next year and to $50,000 the following year 2015 and is capped at that number unless the legislature amends this later on. It does require the State Department of Public Health to establish a list of allowed foods that may be prepared in the dwelling and sold as a cottage food operation. And it also requires the state to adopt a procedure to add or remove foods from that list.
At last count, based on information from the public health department there are 57 cottage food operations throughout the county 54 of these are the Class A operations and 3 are Class B operations. Of these 57 total, only 8 are in the unincorporated area and the remaining 49 are located within the incorporated cities within Santa Barbara County. I'm sorry, let me back up one. In closing regarding the Assembly Bill 1616 it also allows that local jurisdictions may establish a permit process to allow these operations to operate within the county of Santa Barbara.
It specifically also allows the local jurisdiction to adopt development standards if those development standards are restricted to four basic areas. Spacing and concentration of the cottage food operations, controls on traffic, controls on parking and controls on noise. It also allows the local jurisdiction to recover costs associated with permitting these cottage food operations if those fees are reasonable and provided that the fees do not exceed the cost of permit processing.
This amendment was presented to the County Planning Commissions, both the County Planning Commission and the Montecito Planning Commission. Pursuant to their recommendations to your Board of Supervisors, the ordinance amendment as currently drafted would allow cottage food operations as home occupations in all zones for dwellings are allowed. Cottage food operations would be subject to the same existing three-tier permit process that currently exists for home occupations, and that is they can either be exempt where no zoning permit is required or a coastal development permit or land use permit.
And for those operations that are located within the appeals jurisdiction of the coastal zone it would require a coastal development permit with hearing unless that hearing is waived. The Planning Commission has also recommended the adoption of certain development standards that would apply specifically to cottage food operations. These development standards are in regards to the allowed locations, that there would be one operation per dwelling, one cottage food operation per lot and they recommend a spacing requirement that cottage food operations would not be located within 300 feet of each other measured from lot to lot The allowed location within the dwelling is restricted to the kitchen and adjacent rooms in compliance with Assembly Bill 1616.
In regards to the operators and employees, also in compliance with Assembly Bill 1616, the dwelling must be the property of the primary residence of the operator and one full-time nonresident employee is allowed. In regards to parking, customers and nonresident employees are It may not park in the spaces that are required for the dwelling. In other words, if this is operating out of a single-family dwelling which normally has two parking space requirements that those parking spaces are reserved for the occupants of the dwelling and may not be used by the nonresident employee or customers coming to the site.
Customer parking must also be accommodated either on site or on the street frontage abutting the lot And parking of commercial vehicles is restricted. The Planning Commission also adopted development standards regarding the on-site sales hours of operation, they differ slightly in the county outside of Montecito. The recommendation is that the hours be restricted to 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., and that in Montecito it would be from 9 30 a. m. to 3 30 p. m..
In regards to ensuring that these commercial operations within neighborhoods are compatible with that neighborhood, the development standard is recommended is that the cottage food operation may not change the residential character of the neighborhood due to traffic and other nuisances. It must comply with solid waste regulations. Other rules and regulations are in regards to that the cottage food operation must supply the planning and development department with a proof of registration or permit from the county public health department at the appropriate time. And they must operate in compliance with the state health and safety code.
Changing subjects briefly, during the recent hearings on special events that your board may remember there was some confusion by members of the public in regards to what are known as Tupperware sales and more formally referred to as In-Home Retail Sales. As to how these types of operations are regulated by county zoning ordinances we use this particular ordinance amendment as a vehicle to specify that these types of In-Home Retail Sales regulated as home occupations subject to the same three-tier permit process that applies to home occupations. And also, such Tupperware sales may be exempt from a zoning permit if those sales events do not occur more than four times per year within the same residence and there's no more than 25 people at each event.
So our recommendations are that your board make the findings for approval of the three ordinances and attachments A, D, and G. Determine that these three ordinances are exempt from CEQA and adopt the three ordinances amending the County Land Use Development Code, the Montecito Land Use and Development Code, and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance. That concludes my presentation I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you Mr. Lengo. Supervisor Farr?
Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you for your presentation Mr. Langell I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions the first is in defining dwelling units I'm assuming that includes mobile homes condos and apartments or are those already excluded because of the home occupation permit?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Farr Any dwelling that complies with the definition of dwelling within the County Land Use Development Code is able to have a cottage food operation and those dwellings include those types of structures you just mentioned.
Okay, thank you. Well then my next question has to do with how we're defining lot because that's kind of the next criteria an individual dwelling unit on an individual lot so sometimes mobile homes or condos have their own lots, you know in effect when it comes to assessment. But townhouses and mobile homes and certainly apartments are on one big lot that have numbers so how are we figuring that out?
2:02 – 2:0814 turns
It depends on how the ownership is divided up in those particular instances. In certain Condominiums, there are actual separate lot numbers assigned to the individual units. And it depends on if they're referred to as airspace condominiums where the owner only owns the air within the unit versus it actually has some land area associated with that ownership. But basically there's two things that would come into play. So in a situation where you have a mobile home park or you have an individual trailer lease areas or a condominium situation or an apartment building Because of the separation requirement, you could essentially only have one cottage food operation within that single type of development.
Okay well I have a question about the 300 feet as well but that's why I wanted to ask about this because It sounds like an apartment would qualify even though it's not on its, because it's a dwelling unit. Even if it's not in its own individual lot like perhaps a condo might be. On the other hand, the assumption is with the 300-foot separation that you're not going to have more than one per apartment complex anyway.
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Farr, that's correct.
Okay, thank you. And then on the 300 foot separation, how was that particular number arrived at?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Farr, the 300 foot number is one that's used in the state code elsewhere to define A separation requirement that would prevent the undue concentration of certain types of development within neighborhoods. It's specifically used in regards to special care facilities, but again we felt that since this state law essentially is allowing for commercial operations within Residential neighborhoods, we felt staff felt it was appropriate to include the separation requirement and just use the one that we knew of from the state law regarding special care facilities.
Okay because the parking requirements are pretty stringent as far as you know where they can park and where they can't park so you don't think that the parking restrictions alone are enough to kind of create their own separation?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Farr, that certainly could be one means of approaching the compatibility issue. Impacts that might be associated with the cottage food operation that would not be controlled through parking. Deliveries of goods, things like that but again the separation requirement was one that the planning commissions were fairly adamant about including in the proposed regulations forwarded to your Board of Supervisors
Well, you know it does create other issues because it's kind of like you know first in your block. You're the only one and somebody could have a license and may or may not be really even utilizing it but somebody else wants to come in and they're not able to do it because they're within the 300 feet that pretty much precludes not just the multifamily buildings that we're talking about but also many of the track neighborhoods.
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Farr, that was actually one of the main points of discussion at the County Plant Commission hearing in regards to was the separation requirement fair because it essentially would do what you just described? One person comes in they get their permit for a cottage food operation and then anybody else that wants to do similar thing within 300 feet of that operation is excluded
Okay, that's what I have for now. Thank you Mr.
Chair. Before Mr. Lavinino goes, how many public speakers do we have? No request to speak. Okay, Mr. Lavinino.
Thank You Mr. Chair. That's a major Problem that I have too is the separation, but so before this state law passed what were the requirements? So somebody let's say they would be baking and selling cookies at Farmer's Market. What was our role then in something a business like that?
Madam Chair and Supervisor, Madam Chair, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, Supervisor Lavinino. Prior to the state bill going into effect home preparation of foods that would be commercially sold was highly regulated as a retail food facility or preparing food therefore was subject Several state requirements regarding sanitation standards for the kitchen. It was deemed to be a commercial use and so it was subject to higher building and safety standards.
There were a whole number of regulations that under the Health and Safety Code of the State of California that made it pretty infeasible for somebody To do this unless they wanted to have a full on commercial kitchen within their house subject to regular inspections by the County Public Health Department.
Okay, did we and I'm cool with most of this. The problem I have is just hate creating rules or implement having a list of rules that we aren't going to be able to enforce. So my one of my major focuses is on enforcement I just don't see us, you know. I guess there's only eight of these facilities in the whole county and that's another issue I have is why we're creating rules and spending a bunch of staff time on creating rules for eight people but I just don't see how this gets enforced. What do we do? We go to a farmer's market and we see somebody selling something and we say where'd you make it or how do we get involved in the enforcement of it?
And I understand it would be complaint driven but so some neighbor's gonna tell on another neighbor then we're gonna come in The
2:08 – 2:1415 turns
only time that we would get involved in the enforcement of these regulations would be based on a complaint by a neighbor. The cottage food operation going on next door to them was somehow inconsistent with those development standards. Primarily this would be in regards to perhaps the parking standards, hours of operations, things like that. I don't see us going to farmer's markets and verifying the source of any particular food items that sold at that market.
Okay, so this would be complaint driven by a neighbor. So then the other one that I have that I find really unenforceable is the gross annual sales requirement that we have in there. I mean, that's what, so the state would, is the one that comes in and does that or do we have to verify that?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Levin, you know, that is the state requirement. Okay.
And then one other question then, okay, so now we're aware of these businesses they're making money How are we, or what's our connection into collecting sales tax at that point on these businesses? Or how do we loop in collection?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Levin, they would need to register with the county in order to obtain, to my knowledge, a business license. And through that license application process, they would then be subject to the collection of taxes. OK.
Thank you. So just one last question. It's a public health question I guess. On farmers markets? Do we have, and I know we're not out there actively looking for where was this food created or whatever but how are we, unless you're probably not the right person to talk to about this. But are we, I guess the CEO maybe, public health wise, are we looking at any of the food that comes into farmers markets? Or how is that?
Not that I want to, I'm just asking if we do do it.
Chair, Supervisor, I believe both our ag folks and perhaps our environmental health folks in public health have some monitoring of that. And I will get that information to your entire board.
Supervisor Wolf and Supervisor Adam?
Thank you Mr. Chair. So we had passed this Well, we had to pass it. This cottage food industry and we moved it over to the planning commission and for them to come back to us with some zoning standards. And I actually, you know, the 300 feet, I actually have a different take on that because in my district where it's very densely populated And we do have some garage conversions. We have a lot of cars on the streets. Some of our streets don't have sidewalks, there's no curbs.
I see the 300 foot distinction as being very important. And I further found out, as you stated that it's not necessarily an arbitrary distance. That there is some history behind it. As you mentioned, I think the elder facilities and aren't child care facilities also, don't they also have to abide by that? 300 foot.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf, it's basically for any facility qualifies as a special care facility under the community care law. Elder facilities, adult daycare, things of that nature.
And child daycare? Would that be part of it?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Wolf, it depends on the level of the child daycare activity, the number of children present. There is different categories and then different regulations that they must follow.
Well you know the way I see this is that this is an issue of neighborhood compatibility and making sure that there isn't This overflow of traffic or inconvenience to the residents of the community. And you know, when I went back and looked at the ordinance for the development standards for home occupation other than cottage food operations, I think there's about 14 different restrictions that a home occupation business has to follow. So when I looked I think that the cottage food operations, I know we're limited by state law on those things that we can restrict and it's much less restrictive than our development standards for just a basic home occupation business. So I think the planning commission did a very good job in doing what they could to maintain Our neighborhood integrity and moving us forward.
I think this is a good job, I commend staff and I commend the Planning Commission for bringing this to us. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Supervisor Adam?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lengel, the one question I have is about whether or not this thing is supposed to be a ministerial Ordinance, you know the state sent it as a ministerial act didn't they?
2:14 – 2:2018 turns
Mr. Chair and Supervisor that's essentially correct except for the situation where the cottage food operation would be located within the appeals jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone this is a ministerial process However because of the, there are differences between different state sets of regulations. This particular regulation comes from the State Health and Safety Code however the Public Resources Code requires under the Coastal Act a quasi-discretionary process for any coastal development permit within the appeals jurisdiction so you have two state laws that are more or less at odds with each other And in past situations where one particular set of laws says this is a ministerial permit, and the public resources code in particular says no you have to have a hearing.
The requirement for the hearing has won out so to speak. So except for those situations where a cottage food operation might be subject to a coastal development permit with a hearing, this would be a ministerial process otherwise.
Okay. So if it's not in the coastal zone, it's ministerial period?
Yes and only a certain portion of the coastal zone would not be ministerial.
Okay. All right well that pretty much removes that problem. Okay so are we ready for a motion or?
We can be, I was hoping to say a few words but I could say them afterwards.
Okay well I would just move that we approve as presented but I would like to remove the with the exception that we removed the 300 foot provision.
Motion's been made. Not having second?
Actually I will second it and although I'd like to add an amendment to it if I can. I'm concerned about neighborhood compatibility, we certainly had issues with home occupation permits before. However, I think in this case there are a number of things that may make it self-limiting. One is the business license requirement, the second is the registration with public health and then the last is the land use permit or the coastal development permit and then the parking requirements.
It is, you know, always complaint driven zoning enforcement like all of our zoning. On the other hand I would like to see it without the 300 feet for the first 18-24 months and then have a look back and come back and see how much it's been utilized, and how much of a problem it's been. Because if it is a problem we're going to find out right away because neighbors are going to be complaining. And then I'm going to be all for putting in the distance requirement. But until I think it's proven to be a real nuisance, I would like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
In response to some of the comments about checking up on people that are selling things at the farmers market I don't think we are and I don't know about anybody else's district but there is, I think a lot of this going on in my district that has been totally unregulated. So at least this is bringing in you know some level of control and regulation and inspection going onto something that you know I think a lot of it has been going on already so that would be my amendment that we have a look back in the next year-and-a-half
or two. Go ahead Mr.. I
will accept your
amendment. Okay and before we continue with discussion I'm not a lawyer But I'm looking to our lawyers. It does seem with my elementary non-legal thinking that doesn't it pose a problem? You could always come back to modify, if you take out the 300 foot and people start getting these licenses, does it create an equal protection? And then coming back and saying now we're gonna stop and everybody who's gotten there is your grandfathered in. You can't take those away. You'd have to grandfather them in.
We would have to look at that to see if it rose to that level of protection as you might with an individual who built a building.
Because I'm just thinking in an apartment, we have 10 all of the sudden in one apartment complex.
We would need to analyze that and see really if there would be a significant impact because there isn't infrastructure really. A person's in an apartment, they're lost If we change the distance, it would really be their license fee that I can think of. But we'd have to analyze that even perhaps on a case-by-case basis if we went back and changed those distance requirements. One other point of clarification on the motion, and I'll ask Ms. Van Molen to ask for some clarification.
Mr. Chair, members of the board this actually goes to the last comment you made Mr. Chair which is the current motion is To delete the 300 foot requirement and I'm wondering There's a another requirement that there's only one cottage food operation may be allowed per legal lot So I'm wondering if the intent is to keep that that addresses the apartment situation that you just raised And to keep that or to delete that as well
No, I'm okay with leaving that the way it is
That's that would be per legal law. Okay, the only question I would have is The way this is structured if I'm understanding it correctly Montecito we could treat Montecito separately correct Because of their community
plan
2:20 – 2:2511 turns
Now I know but it's
Mr. Chair, members of the board I would recommend that as far as the allowed locations we usually recommend that ordinances countywide are consistent unless it's for very small. The only difference recommended in this package I believe is the hours of operations that's different otherwise its uniform donor requirements throughout the whole county.
Mr. Chair, what's the difference between one little thing and two little things?
Well there is always a lot. Further discussion?
Yes Mr. Chair I'm going to have to oppose this motion again you know I have areas in my district where The issue of parking and compatibility are going to be huge. There's also within this ordinance the ability for people to park commercial vehicles, and we've been dealing with this issue in my district when it's not for a cottage food business. People are parking their commercial vehicles on the streets.
We deal with parking issues all the time, we're going to be seeing an appeal before us where we're gonna be talking about parking. This issue went before the Planning Commission and I know firsthand from my planning commissioner having taken input from the community and I believe it was a three-to-two vote That the restriction, and again we as a county cannot put on too many restrictions. But the restriction of 300 feet was well thought out.
And I think it, you know, I know that the Montecito Planning Commission had these discussions as well. The County Planning Commission, as I recall has the hours of operation extended more than the Montecito Planning Commission did is that correct? So in some ways I would think that if the County Planning Commission knew that we were going to eliminate this restriction of 300 feet, that they may well have changed the hours of operation.
They may well have changed the issue of parking but what they gave to us was a package That was based upon the notion of the 300 feet. So I think once you unravel that very important piece, it's going to affect all of these other issues which unfortunately the Planning Commission cannot now go and revisit unless we do it in two years but in the meantime It's going to have significant, I fear significant impacts in our communities and very concerned about that. So Mr. Chairman, I have to vote no.
Mr. Ranham? Well, I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. If you've got eight people doing it right now and we doubled the number, I don't think we could fit them in every 300 feet so I'm pretty sure this is not gonna be a huge deal
Well, you know, we'll see. But what I'm saying is that it went through a process at the Planning Commission. I think it was well thought out. We don't know. There may be more...I don't really like to make policy necessarily based on the numbers as much as the facts and the process. And I think that this went through a very deliberative process at the Planning Commission And it's not.
And then it comes to us and we have to consider everything in its totality so that being said
just have a few more questions before we vote on the motion if we're voting on this motion the legal issue that you can look into is going to come back to us before it's final because you're basically telling us are you going to look into the issue I raised earlier was that become moot
We can, but once you adopt it if you come back and want to change those dates then we would look more closely. Our initial analysis as we're sitting here would be that there would not be significant exposure because of the nature of the rights that would be acquired by this ordinance.
And for staff the last question is the sales hours of sales? For these operations, there's a difference between Montecito and the rest of the community. If Rachel would go with your direction, what is the ultimate prevailing hours? One second Mr. Adam.
2:25 – 2:3019 turns
Mr. Chair, members of the board it's whatever your board has discretion to set the hours and you can set the hours
because at this point there is a discrepancy between those two right?
That's correct
So
so whatever it's within discretion of your board to determine the appropriate hours
Before we go Mr. Adam I would hope that If we can't get 300 feet in there that at the very least we look at this real significant traffic issues. In Montecito LOS. F status many of the streets I would hope that. You take that into consideration as we adopt this ordinance, making it maybe getting beyond peak hours just as they're stipulating which I believe from 930 to 330. I'm hopeful that you guys will give it some consideration. My
motion contemplated leaving that as presented so the only change was to the 300 foot and Supervisor Farr's amendment
Can I just make one quick comment?
Sure.
Or just a suggestion. It looks like this may pass, so I'm going to maybe suggest something else. If you are going in that direction, would you consider referring this back to the Planning Commission with that recommendation so they can look at the totality of what they have brought before us? Because like I said, they may want to tweak other things knowing that we have, that this board removed that 300-foot distinct barrier.
I
would decline to send that back because you know we are looking afresh at it. They looked at it and they are not the electeds, we are the electeds and we are I think it's like how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Supervisor Farr?
Thank you, Mr. Chair well You know actually supervisor Adam I'm wondering whether you would consider whether we might because of taking off the 300 feet Consider further restricting the sales hours of operation in the county as well You know, I think that it's not just Montecito that has concerns about About peak hour traffic, but also since this is supposed to be a home occupation and a cottage kind of an industry. I think 8-7 may be too long so I would be open to modifying that to 9-5 or 9-4 or something like that which kind of keeps it Kind of out of the peak hour, still plenty of hours of operation.
But doesn't get into even the early evening hours where people are returning home from work and could create more traffic impacts and parking impacts.
How about 9 to 6? Because here's what I'm thinking is well somebody gets off work at five and they have to go somewhere to pick something up. And so you've got to give them a little bit of time on that end of the day because they're probably if if they're selling two individuals through a home like that, you gotta give him some time during the off normal off hours to get there.
And I would pinch it down sure but... Okay I'll agree with
that.
Not
having for discussion roll call?
Mr. Levin, you know? Ms. Wolfe? No. Ms. Farr? Mr. Adam? Aye. Mr. Carbajal? No Passes 3-2
All right we're gonna move on to one we're gonna try to do one more item and then do four and start with number four after our lunch meeting so we'll move on to number three Mr. Clerk
2:30 – 2:375 turns
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. Item three is on community services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding fiscal year 2012-13 annual action plan substantial amendment for the use of federal funds under the home investment partnerships program.
Thank you Chair Carbajal and members of the board I'd like to introduce to you Simon Kiefer he's our grants and program manager for the Community Services Department. He'll be providing the staff report. Simon?
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors. I bring you today a proposed amendment to the fiscal year 2012-2013 annual action plan. The amendment involves federal home funds which the county receives annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Staff recommends that the board receive and file a staff report on the Santa Barbara County Home Consortium in the 2012-2013 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment, and the home funding recommendations contained therein. And that the board consider written comments received during the 30 day public comment period from April 12th to May 13th, and consider any oral comments received during today's public hearing.
And that the board direct staff to finalize the 2012-2013 annual action plan substantial amendment and return to the board on June 18th for consideration of approval for final submission to HUD. The county receives home funds annually from HUD. This year we expect to receive about $914,000. Home funds must be used to expand the supply of affordable housing for low-income households with primary attention to rental housing.
Home funds must be committed to projects within two years of award from HUD. The county is facing a deadline of July 31st to commit about 2.1 million, as indicated in the letter from HUD attached to the board letter. Failure to meet this deadline may result in the loss of these home funds. In order to commit the home funds, the 2012 action plan needs to be amended allowing home awards that were recommended by the Santa Barbara County Capital Loan Committee for the following projects. Pescadero Lofts, Casas de las Flores and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance or TBRA.
The 2012 action plan identified home funding for the Pescadero Lofts and Casas De Las Flores projects The proposed action plan amendment would increase funding for these two projects plus provide funding for TBRA. In amending the action plan, we are not proposing to reduce home funding previously committed to or reserved for other home projects. Only previously uncommitted home funds will be used.
Upon approval by the board on June 18th staff will finalize the action plan amendment and send it to HUD. Staff drafted the action plan amendment and released it to the public for review and comment. Notices were posted throughout the county, and ads were placed in newspapers. There was a 30-day public comment period which ran from April 12th through May 13th.
Members of the public were invited to attend this board hearing and also two evening public hearings held by the county, one in Santa Barbara and one in Santa Maria. No one from the public attended either of the evening public hearings. Two letters were received during the written comment period, one from the Central Coast Collaborative on Homelessness and one from the City of Lompoc.
And both letters are attached to the board letter. Now I'll briefly describe the three projects that are recommended by the Capital Loan Committee. The first is the Pescadero Lofts project, it's located in Isla Vista and involves new construction of 33 studio and one bedroom apartment units that will be rented targeted to the homeless. The developer is Pescadero Lofts Isla Vista LP a limited partnership that was formed in order to apply for tax credit financing.
The managing general partner of the limited partnership is Surf Development Corporation, a subsidiary of the County Housing Authority. The capital loan committee recommends a total award of $1,712,234 in home funds for the project as itemized here. The Pescadero Lost Project is located on land formerly owned by the Redevelopment Agency and now owned by the county.
The board approved an option agreement with the County Housing Authority last March. The developer applied for tax credit financing also in March. The state will announce tax credit awards on June 12th. Upon award of tax credits, we expect the Housing Authority to execute their option and we expect the developer to come to the board and request an acquisition loan.
The second recommendation is the Casas de las Flores project. It's located in Carpinteria and involves a new construction of 43 rental housing units for low-income families. The developer is a limited partnership that was formed in order to apply for tax credit financing. The Managing General Partner of the Limited Partnership is People's Self-Help Housing Corporation.
The Capital Loan Committee recommends a total award of $1,279,957 for the project as itemized here. The Capital Loan Committee recommended that the new home loan have conditions That all other financing be secured, that home funds not be used for acquisition and that relocation benefits be provided to existing tenants on site pursuant to federal regulations.
Replacing the approximately $370,000 in CDBG funds with home funds is recommended in order to address concerns regarding the timely expenditure of CDBG funds. The proposed CDBG reduction is not part of today's board recommendations for this action plan amendment, but will instead be included in a future action plan that will come to the board later for consideration.
This project is not as far along as Pescadero-Lofts. The developer plans to submit their tax credit application in July and tax credit awards would not be announced until October. The third recommendation is tenant-based rental assistance, or TBRA. This is a rent subsidy program that would be available to low income households throughout Santa Barbara County.
The program would be administered by the county housing authority and it's very similar to the Section 8 program. Once households are determined to be eligible, they locate suitable apartments with assistance if needed from the Housing Authority. Landlords would then receive rent payments from two sources. One being the tenant share which equals about 30% of household income and the other being the home-funded rent subsidy share which equals the difference between the rent and the tenant share.
The Housing Authority could also use home funds to pay for security deposits The housing authority has not requested any funding for administrative expenses since they already have in place existing staff and capacity to administer TBRA. Therefore, the entire recommended amount of $700,000 would be used for rent subsidies and security deposits. In summary, staff recommends that the board receive and file a staff report on the action plan amendment that includes home funding recommendations for Pescadero Lofts, Casa Estela Flores, and tenant-based rental assistance.
Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
Thank you very much. There's one public speaker correct if we could have that public speaker.
Janet Duncan.
2:37 – 2:4524 turns
Good morning, Chair Carbajal and members of the Board of Supervisors. We're very excited to be here this morning and thoroughly support this. And the one thing that staff didn't mention is I believe also included is a possibility that in Supervisor Lavinino's area we have another development which will be coming online next year so this is a very good move that we can have some assurity when We know that funding is a possibility and certainly this one in Carpentry has been very, very long in the making. I think we're pushing now eight years.
And it's a great project. I want to thank all of you and thank the staff for doing this and not to forget that June 18th is the next step of this process. And hopefully we won't get bumped and we can get this by June 18th because we have to be able to put a letter in the tax credit application that will go in right after the first of July. So, hopefully the budget hearings doesn't disrupt that June 18th date. So thank you very much.
Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you Mr. Chair. I think that TBRA is a great approach I want to thank you for bringing that to us. And what I would like to know is, how does the word get out from the Housing Authority? How do people know about this opportunity?
Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf. The Housing Authority is already involved in the rental assistance business right now. They do the Section 8 program countywide so they already have notices out to people that rent subsidies are available and so TBRA and Section 8 could be used interchangeably. So the word is already out there in that sense.
So for people to qualify for this, Are the qualifications the same as Section 8?
Chair Carbajal and Supervisor Wolf, yes. The qualifications are the same.
And then I have a question about both projects. Is there a requirement that the units are ADA accessible?
Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf. Yes there are federal requirements that pertain to I think it's section 504 of Federal Code that require a certain percentage of the units be available for handicap accessibility which is both the physical and the sensory
So, and what is that percent? I'll take... This is just a concern of mine that we're targeting low income folks. And I know that there's many in the disabled community that need housing that's accessible for them. And as we move forward in these projects, I don't know what is the percentage and can we make it higher
Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf. I don't recall the percentage off the top of my head. I would have to get back to you on that. I do know that with the units being home floating units... I'm sorry? What we're talking about is a certain percentage of the units be home eligible in these two projects and so I know that since they're going to be moving around in the project potentially That all of the units would be adaptable to handicap accessibility if the need arose.
But I haven't seen the specific plans exactly to know that, but I could get back to you on that question.
Okay, Jeanette did you want to say something?
For all the financing, the tax credit a minimum of ten percent I think have to be handicapped accessible. And we also have most of our units are what are called adaptable which means the doorways inside the apartments are wide enough for wheelchair So that they can service someone that's handicapped. So we're trying to put as many as we can in our development, so at a minimum 10% but more. Those are fully accessible by that I mean they're fully set up for someone in a wheelchair both in the bathroom you know the roll-in shower or the type of shower and then additionally all of them adaptable that are on the first floor.
That we may want to consider a greater percentage than 10% so that we can, you know. Another population that may be wheelchair-bound or have other physical disabilities that we need to address. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are trying to do that based on our own experience and the one in Carpinteria that we're renting up now at Dahlia Court. I think of the 33 units, we have four fully handicapped accessible so we are trying to do that. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.
Dunn. Perfect. Supervisor Adler?
Just a point of clarification, that would be beyond ADA right?
Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Adam yes. That would be beyond the federal ADA requirements.
Yeah because you can't build a building today without being ADA compliant right?
Chair Carabajal, Supervisor Adam that is correct it has to be compliant with federal ADA requirements. Okay thank
you. We have no more speakers is there a motion to approve this item? Motion's been made, seconded. Not having further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Passes unanimously. We are now going to go into closed session and CEO Waller and Mr. Marshall how much time do you think we'll need? An hour or an hour and a half to be on the safe side? An hour and a half?
An hour and a half.
Why don't we do an hour and a half and if you could read the closed session agenda please?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have three items in your closed session today. Conference with legal counsel existing litigation, Lori Blaha, the County of Santa Barbara Workers' Comp Appeals Board. Litigation, conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation one potential case and public employee appointment county executive officer.
Thank you very much we will now adjourn into closed session and we'll be back at 130. I'd like to reconvene our board meeting. I see Mr. Marshall is making his way down here. Is there a report from closed session, Mr. Marshall?
2:45 – 2:5117 turns
Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. All three of your noticed items were held today. You completed each of the noticed closed session items and one item to report in the matter of Laura Blaha, the County of Santa Barbara Workers' Comp Appeals Board Case Number ADJ1602326. The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a $100,000 settlement for full settlement of all future medical exams and waiver of future workers compensation claims. And that's our only report, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Mr. Marshall. We will now proceed back to the item that we tabled or trailed earlier. It was Item 824. Jacqueline if you could read that item just so the public knows what we're doing?
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. Item A-24 is from General Services. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara Museum of Art Second Amendment to Lease Agreement and request for approval to initiate improvements to museum property at 1130 State Street, Santa Barbara ORES 1066 in the First District.
Great. And the question was more specifically What are the enhancements for public access than was the current configuration? And we were going to try to go over that. So Mr. Pontes, if you could go over that. Chairman Cardwell,
members of the board.
Can we turn off a little bit of the light up there so we can see it better?
As you mentioned, there are several renovation concepts that are going along with this particular amendment. As you can see on the screen, reconfiguration of the building interior...
Mr. Pontes, I think if I remember correctly, I appreciate you doing that but it was really the enhancements? The public access? We've
got that for you as
well. If we could go directly to that, that would be great. Okay we could go back even though that wasn't the subject of our continuance. Would you like to see that Supervisor Wolf? Okay, let's go back.
Okay good I'd be happy to share with you the renovation concepts here we've got an improved circulation element a connection of the gallery space increased the storage space and office space associated with the facility improved structural components the seismic retrofitting new mission tile roof electrical lighting fire protection elevator and stair roof access there were those are the fundamental concepts As part of that renovation. And on the next slide, you can see a comparison of what you were looking for I believe and those are the previous fees and administration admission charges for the Museum of Art. On the left side you'll see the 1989 figures And the right side are proposed changes in 2013.
On the left, as you can see, 1989, the adults were charged a $3 admission and the admission charges before you today are $10 for adults. Children, $1.50 and then you see $6 charge on the right. Seniors also an added Change in the proposal to have a $6 charge for age 65 and older adults. On the left column again you see free admission for all, on the right free admission for all and we've kind of taken it bullet by bullet there for you.
The prior agreement had the first Sunday of every month in their new agreement Does not include that particular item. We'll further define what it does include here. Every Thursday was part of the old agreement, and now it's every Thursday evening. And school and special tours were generally described there. And you can see on the right items three through eight or three through seven have to do more with school events, special events. You can see there's a whole bunch of added tours, museum members, And other benefits for children in Santa Barbara County.
The museum members remain the same. There's also an addition of family days, active military personnel and children under the age of six. And with that we have the director of the Museum of Art here that can speak a little bit more about the total number of people this affects and how that is a benefit if you'd like to hear from him.
We certainly can hear from him, but does this address the concerns or the questions that were raised? I know it was really Mr. Caldwell more than our board members, my colleagues, but I wanted the public and everybody to have an opportunity to see this side by side. Certainly we don't need to hear from Mr. Feinberg, but if the board would like that, we could accommodate that? Sir, can you repeat your question? Oh, see, I hear myself being repeated.
Touche. Touche, Mr. Adam. That's a good one. I
like
it.
Mr. Chair. Mr. Adam. Note to self make Lavinino sit out on an edge while unchairman.
Mr Lavinino your chair will now be in the hallway starting next meeting. Getting aside, I think it's what we wanted. I really appreciate it. Is there a motion to approve this item? Motion has been made and seconded. Can we stop that echo? Great. Thank you very much for coming back. I think it was just a matter of getting that on the record and showing that the enhancements but thank you so much.
Not that we don't want to talk now Having done that, we will now
move on to item number four. And we have an outline of the hearing today but Madam Clerk if you could read the item?
2:51 – 2:5918 turns
Chairman Carbajal members of the board item number four is from planning and development it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the appeal filed by Richard Monk on behalf of TTT winery case number thirteen APL nine. Of the county planning commission's denial at the TTT tier three winery development plan project case number nine DVP thirty five.
Great and we will start out by doing ex parte starting at that in supervisor for
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a meeting with the applicant, his attorney and his land use agent some weeks ago, couple of months ago, and I think I got the same emails and letters that probably the rest of the board did. And I did do a site visit and looked at it from what I could see from the road. Thank you.
Thank you. Supervisor Lavanieux?
I also drove by the area, but also I had less than a five-minute conversation on the phone with Mr. Monk.
Thank you. Supervisor Wolf?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. My staff and I met with Mr. Monk yesterday and also received many emails from the neighbors.
Supervisor Adams?
My staff and I met with Mr. Monk on this site last week
Thank you. I had a conversation over the phone with Mr. Monk yesterday. I'm sorry, did he have more? And
I had some e-mails, just same e-mails.
Okay. I've had a number of e-mails and letters and what have you. Had a conversation over the phone with Mr. Monk yesterday, and also my staff had a conversation, I believe a phone conversation And I would like to thank my colleague Anna Citrin who's an attorney for representing some of the neighbors. That's it on my end so having said that we will now move on to the outline of the hearing and allocation of time staff will present for five minutes.
The appellant will then present Public comment will be 20 minutes, more or less. Rebuttal for the appellant will be 10 minutes. Staff comment another five minutes to conclude then we'll bring it back to the board for deliberation. Having said that staff Mr. Russell?
Yes chair thank you very much. The staff presentation will be presented by a senior planner Florence Trotter.
Chair Carver Hall, members of the board. The proposed project before you is a proposed winery to be located in an existing approved structure on Roblor Avenue. This particular winery is located approximately one and a quarter miles east of 154 and south on Roblor Avenue. The proposed project is zoned Ag 1-5, and as you can tell on the shaded area it is located within the inner rural area of Santa Barbara County.
This site plan here shows a layout of the winery structure, which is the shaded driveway. And then it also shows a secondary access to an existing single-family dwelling that's on the site. In addition they have planted approximately two acres of vineyards to accommodate this 4,000 case production winery. They are proposing to allow for 10 organized gatherings of less than 79 people.
These photos show the actual winery structure, the tower structure leads us up to what we call a detached residential second unit that was legally permitted previously with a different owner. That detached unit is approximately 1200 square foot and would not have access into the winery facilities. Where the posts are located that is proposed to be enclosed to expand the 1,208 square foot tasting room.
As you're looking where the fifth wheel is located that would be a parking area and there would be potential outside organized gatherings in this location. This outline shows approximately 35 parcels within 2,000 feet of the proposed winery. There are approximately 23 single family dwellings within this general area. This is a list of approved wineries within the county.
There has not been any wineries approved on less than 10 acres. We've had three wineries in the past, Sweeney Canyon, Blackjack, One loss, I can't remember the last one but there were three wineries that have been approved on 10 acres. But there have not been any wineries approved on anything less than ten acres The appellant has indicated that we have based denial of the project in our ability to make the finding one which states that the site for the subject property is adequate in terms of location, physical characteristics, shape and size to accommodate the density and intensity of the development.
Yes? The staff believes that the proposed project site is inadequate to accommodate the proposed intensity of the use associated with public wine tasting and 10 organized gatherings per year. And again, these organized gatherings would be 79 people or less. The surrounding parcels are developed with vineyards, row crops and horse operations. Most of them are used for ranchette development where people have their homes on the site and usually personal agricultural uses.
In addition public activities associated with the tasting room and organized gatherings would result in incompatible noise and lighting effects That would be detrimental to the comfort, convenience and general welfare of the surrounding rural neighborhoods. In addition to this numerous comments were received during the environmental hearing with regards to noise lighting traffic special events parcel size and cumulative effects. The draft MD was not finalized because legitimate environmental concerns and policy implications precluded a recommendation for project approval absent of a project revision Again, the appellant...
One second Florence. Supervisor Wolf?
I'm sorry to interrupt could you just repeat again why the draft MMD was not finalized there were a few things that you said
Mr. Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf, the reason the ND was not finalized there were numerous comments at the environmental hearing with regards to noise, lighting, traffic, special events, parcel size and the cumulative effect of surrounding winery development. And because those comments were extensive and environmental concerns were raised as well as policy implications we did not finalize a document absence of a revised project
Okay, and I just wanted to kind of clarify how the process works from the staff level. So then you take those comments and then based on the information you had plus the comments and the zoning and so forth is that how you make the findings?
2:59 – 3:249 turns
Supervisor Wolf, when staff had the environmental hearing we did contact the agent Mr. Martin at that time and discussed a revision to the project just based on the concerns. Basically the agent indicated that Owner would not be interested in revising, we were talking strictly a production facility at this point in time. With no tasting and no organized gathering so We did not finalize the document but move forward to recommend denial of the project. Okay thank you. Thank you Mr Chair On finding five, the proposed project would not be detrimental to the comfort, convenient general welfare health and safety of the neighborhood and will not be incompatible with surrounding areas.
The noise and lighting effects of the proposed tasting room and organized gathering components of the project would be detrimental to the comfort, convenience and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. As staff has stated earlier with regards to finding one we did receive a lot of comments with regards to effects of the organized gatherings night lighting and noise In addition, the surrounding uses are mainly made up of ranchettes or single family dwellings, row crops, some vineyards and some small horse operations.
The uses as far as the uses go with the tasting room they would not be subordinate to the primary use which would have been. The winery production we have a proposed tasting room of approximately twelve hundred square feet and then of course with the organized gatherings that would be more the primary use based on retail. Uses and and wines house. Finding six states that the proposed project will comply with all applicable requirements of this development code and the comprehensive plan due to the tasting room and organized gathering components.
The appellant did rely on the wine sales and employee hour calculations as a basis for suggesting that this proposed tasting room would be subordinate to the production winery and vineyard. The Planning Commission heard this argument by the appellant and concluded that the project would in fact be inconsistent with the land use and development code, and the comprehensive plan due to the tasting room and organized gathering components.
The intensity of the public use of the project site in association with wine tasting and organized gatherings would introduce non-agricultural nuisances to surrounding residents In addition, these uses would not be protected by the right to farm ordinance and would not be subordinate to the primary purpose of making wine. Proposed wine production would in fact be secondary to the proposed public tasting room and organized gatherings on site.
There were a number of policies within the San Inez community plan that discussed other issues and the first one was public shall be protected from noise that would jeopardize health and welfare. And in this instance, as proposed, the tasting room and organized gatherings on site would represent primary uses of the parcel creating conflicts with adjacent properties. These uses would not be subordinate in scale to the primary agriculture use of a 4,000 case per year production winery With a two acre vineyard on site. Furthermore, the project would be inconsistent with the land use and development code at one's own district and winery ordinance requirements. The Ag One Zone District states that the intent is to provide standards that will support agricultural as a viable land use and encourage maximum agricultural productivity.
The Ag One Zone District also states that the intent is to provide standards that will support ag as a viable land use and encourage maximum agricultural production. In addition, LUG SYV7 policy states that public Shall be protected from noise and that could jeopardize the health and welfare, protect and support agricultural land use and encourage appropriate ag expansions. And new development shall be compatible with adjacent uses due to the small size of the parcel in proximity to neighboring residences. The proposed winery would not comply with required setbacks designed to protect the neighboring properties. Existing residences and could jeopardize the welfare of surrounding residents.
While the proposed winery would be located in an existing structure and would not therefore represent new structural development, the proposed tasting room and organized gatherings would represent a new intensive retail sales use which would not be compatible with surrounding agricultural lands and uses. And due to the small size of parcel and proximity of neighboring parcels.
Findings 7 states that within rural areas as designated on the comprehensive plan maps, the use will be compatible with and subordinate to the agricultural rule and scenic character of the rural areas. Due to the small size of this parcel it renders the tasting room and organized gathering components of the project incompatible with the agricultural rule and scenic character of the surrounding area which is characterized by ranchette agriculture uses consisting mainly of single family dwellings Vineyards, row crops, equestrian uses and grazing on adjacent parcels.
Furthermore the proposed tasting room and organized gatherings would not be subordinate to the two acre vineyard and 4,000 case per year winery on the small parcel. The tasting room and organized gatherings would also not be subordinate to agricultural and the rural area and scenic character of the rural areas. Yeah, that's okay. Staff recommends that the board's action should include the following. Make the required findings to deny the project including CEQA findings, determine the project denial to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15270 and deny the appeal 13009 thereby affirming the county planning commission's denial of case number 09 DVP35 as shown in the Planning Commission's Action Letter dated March 12th 2013.
That would conclude staff's presentation.
Thank you, Florence. We will now move to the appellate and we have Mr Richard Monk and Steve Martin for a collective time of 15 minutes. I know Mr. Monk you wanted three hours, but...
Not exactly Mr. Chair, but members of the board good afternoon. Before we start the clock, I did not receive this outline nor do we ever agree to it and I didn't get until five o'clock last evening as contrary to what we requested however I'm not asking for an enormous amount of time if I could enlarge our opening comments to 25 minutes and shorten our rebuttal to 5 minutes that would be Very gracious of
you. Why don't you shorten by five minutes and we'll give you an extra five minutes for your presentation, is that okay?
So 20 minutes on the opening and five minutes on...
Keep your 10 minutes on your closing, that's fine.
All right, thank you.
Okay, 20 and 10.
And I'm going to ask before you start the clock, I'm going to ask Florence if she'd be good enough to put each of the appeal issues in the findings up. I don't need staffs response though, thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the board I'm Richard Monk. I'm appearing on behalf of the applicant and the appellant. The first finding as you can see is stated on the overhead and the Planning Commission and P&D's arguments in support of this are the inability to make finding number one or based on the small size of the subject and surrounding parcels noise and lighting effects on adjacent properties due to the tasting room and organized gatherings Alleged noncompliance with the required setbacks from adjacent properties. Inconsistency with requirements for minimum parcel size, setbacks development standards for tasting rooms and the inadequate location and size of the subject parcel.
As with all of the findings in support of the denial The Planning Commission's and P&D's arguments constitute, in our view, conclusionary statements, arguments, speculation, unsubstantiated opinions, and narrative evidence which is inaccurate or erroneous. None of this constitutes substantial evidence as recognized by accepted case law. Rather, case law says that substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.
By contrast, in the draft mitigated negative declaration which was published last July, which bears the names of the same people who authored the staff report. Staff concluded that the project had no land use impacts or that such impacts were less than significant. Specifically, staff, in finding the project's impacts to be less than significant stated as follows and I quote, The conversion of a 4,945 square foot area of the existing barn to a winery Would not create a substantial loss of open space. The operation of a winery on the proposed project site, including maintenance facilities, administrative offices and tasting room are all consistent with the existing development in this region of the county The project site is located in the inter-rural area bounded by agriculturally zoned parcels which are developed with agricultural uses including vineyards, residential ranchettes and orchards.
Public concerns have been expressed regarding the proliferation of winery facilities and their ancillary uses And then it concludes, the addition of the proposed project within this vicinity provides one additional tasting room which does not substantially increase the overall capacity for wine tasting but merely increases the winery choices for wine tasters.
Now that's found at page 26 of the MND. And under the MND's land use sections, no impact finding it states the project would not create any identified social or economic effect that could result in a significant physical change and in the cumulative impact analysis the MND said the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable adverse land use impact in the St. Nez Valley.
With respect to the alleged setback and noise issues raised by staff in the PC, the MND concluded. Although the proposed project does not meet the development standard setback requirements in the Land Use and Development Code A reduction can be approved if the structure has been legally permitted and the intended use was for a legitimate agricultural operation. A land-use permit was approved for the barn structure for use by the previously existing operation on site." So, planning and development concluded in the context of the MND that the setback issue was in fact a non-issue because One, the LUP had been approved for a barn use for the pre-existing ag operation. And secondly they concluded that the use of the structure in the winery operation will not adversely affect neighboring parcels as demonstrated by incontrovertible evidence in the MND and the evidence introduced at the PC hearing and here today.
On noise, the evidence in the MND and also as introduced by us at the PC hearing and today is that development standard mitigation measures 9, 10, 11, and 12 have been added which would aid in the reduction of noise effects. And condition ten of the MND stated no amplified sound including but not limited to music and public address systems shall be allowed on site and impacts from night lighting Excuse me.
Lighting is the next issue with respect to lighting issues, the evidence in the MND's aesthetic visual and Uh, an evidence introduced at the PC hearing and here today is as follows. The Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan includes an outdoor lighting ordinance which requires that exterior lighting be fully shielded full cutoff. And secondly light trespass and glare shall be reduced to the maximum extent feasible through directional lighting methods adherence to these requirements would ensure that the implementation of a low intensity low-glare lighting plan is finalized hence reducing potential Hence, reducing potential impacts from night lighting to less than significant. And that's found at page 5 of the MND.
The MND also proposed a Mitigation 2 which required that such lighting mitigation actually be employed. Now with respect to finding five, Florence if I could please. This finding requires that the proposed project will not be detrimental to the comfort convenience general welfare health and safety of the neighborhood and will not be incompatible with a surrounding area. Now the PC and P&D say they can't make this finding again because of the alleged small size of the parcel in an allegation that the tasting room and organized gatherings will cause detrimental noise and lighting effects on nearby properties.
There's no substantial evidence in the record to support this finding and the arguments. In fact, the only evidence regarding noise and lighting is the indisputable evidence in the MND which I already discussed under Finding 1. Moreover you should know that there's no contiguous or approximate property to the subject property that is opposed to the project.
Now, the PC and P&D's rationale as to why they can't make finding five goes on to raise a traffic impact issue. And I would like you to contrast that with what was included in the mitigated negative declaration regarding traffic in the transportation circulation section it said that And I quote, Roblar Avenue was initially constructed long ago as a rural road and is among numerous roadways including others in the Santa Ynez Valley which do not meet the geometric specifications of current public works roadway standards. However, the historical i.e., empirical operational data Supports the conclusion that these roadway segments adequately serve similar existing uses and operate at acceptable levels of safety, which would not be significantly degraded as a result of the proposed project or anticipated future development as identified in the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan.
As such, the Public Works Transportation Division can support the proposed winery and result in traffic on public roads. That's found at pages 35 and 36. In preparing the MND, the project was evaluated in three separate traffic studies. One being a cumulative traffic analysis, another being an ATE traffic and circulation study, and an overlapping events ordinance. The MND states that the ATE's traffic analysis was, and I quote, reviewed by Will Robertson Public Works Transportation Division. And that these reports conclude that the proposed project's traffic contribution to area roadways and intersections would be less than significant for both project-specific and cumulative transportation circulation impacts, end quote. That's at page 35.
Now just to be extra sure that they were correct in their analysis, county staff Require that ATE analyze a worst case scenario for traffic, assuming that simultaneous events gatherings were occurring at Bridalwood, at Roblar, at Vincent and at the TTT all starting and stopping at the same time. And that analysis indicated that although the average waiting time at the intersection at 154 and Roblar might increase by approximately four to six seconds during a simultaneous scenario, which is never going to occur in any case, that the intersection would continue to operate at LOSC.
Now there's no evidence to support the Planning Commission's and P&D's thesis that a residence dependent on road bar in surrounding rural roads would be adversely affected by the project. There is no evidence to support the PC's and P&E's alleged inability to make finding five, and remember that the authors of the MND are the same as the authors of the staff report.
I'd now like to address finding number six. Florence, if you could put that up? And this is that the proposed project will comply with all applicable requirements of this development code in the comprehensive plan. In support of its inability to make this finding, the Planning Commission and staff say that the project would be inconsistent with policies LUG SYV 7 and LUA SYV 2, 3, and 4, and Development Standard LUA SYV 3.1.
In support of this argument, they claim that, and I quote, while the proposed winery would be located in an existing structure and does not therefore represent new structural development, the tasting room and organized gatherings represent a new intensive and incompatible retail sales use which is a primary use of the parcel and therefore not subordinate to the primary ag use.
Now this non-subordination issue was not contrived until after the completion of the MND and before, just before the Planning Commission. But the PC and the P&D failed to explain why the tasting room is not subordinate. In fact, the evidence presented at the Planning Commission and also here today demonstrates that the tasting room is only approximately 1,208 square feet The entire winery is 5,200 square feet. Therefore the tasting room represents only 20% of the total square footage and only 4% of the entire project area. Wine production is limited to a maximum of 4,000 cases per year. The tasting room wine sales are estimated not to exceed 1,000 cases per year thus 3,000 cases per year would be sold other than through tasting room sales therefore tasting rooms sales represent Only approximately 25% of the total wine sales and thus the tasting room is also subordinate on a total annual sales basis.
The evidence is that the total number of man hours expended in the tasting room is subordinate to the total number of man hours expended in the entire wine facility and vineyard. So, the incontrovertible evidence in the record demonstrates that the tasting room is subordinate to the overall winery use and there's no evidence to support the argument that's being advanced by staff.
We also disagree that the tasting room is a retail wine sales facility as characterized by staff. Rather, it's an agricultural support facility to promote the sales of agricultural products. Florence if I could have finding number seven? This is the next finding that staff says they can't make within rural areas as designated on the comprehensive plan map The use will be compatible with and subordinate to the agricultural, rural and scenic character of the rural areas. And in support of their alleged inability to make this they focus on the alleged intensification of the public use of the site through wine tasting and organized gatherings An allegation that these uses are incompatible with the agricultural, rural and scenic character of the area.
An argument that the tasting room's not subordinate, that I already covered. And note that there is no evidence in the record to support these other arguments as well. In fact, these arguments are refuted by the evidence in the MND's aesthetic visual resources and land use noise and agricultural resources sections. For example, the land use section says, and I quote, The proposed project site is located within a Santa Ynez Valley community plan designated inter-rural area, which is characterized by agriculturally zoned parcels developed with various agricultural uses including vineyards, row crops, equestrian uses and low intensity residential development. The existing Bridalwood and Roblar wineries in the proposed Vincent Winery are located within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site, end quote.
That's found at page 25. And in reaching its less than significant impact conclusion, the MND further stated that the conversion of the existing barn to a winery would not create a substantial loss of open space. The operation of a winery on the proposed project site including maintenance facilities, administrative offices and tasting room Consistent with the existing development in this region of the county, the project site is located in the inter-rural area bounded by agriculturally zoned parcels which are developed with agricultural uses including vineyards, residential ranch huts and orchards.
And again, the authors of the staff report are the same as the authors of the MND. My client spent more than three years in processing this project. He spent approximately $750,000 in the process, not all of which went to the county but that some did include the preparation of the MND and its numerous traffic studies. The MND concluded that the project had no significant impacts whatsoever in the identical policy consistency and environmental issue areas that now staff argues require denial.
We recognize that the MND was a draft, that's what the D means. And we also recognize it was never approved by the county but that's irrelevant evidence is evidence And the quality of that evidence is not lessened by the fact that it was never approved by the county. As I stated previously, the arguments in support of the denial constitute conclusory statements, arguments, speculation, unsubstantiated opinions, none of which constitutes substantial evidence as recognized by case law.
The only evidence in the record is that contained in the mitigated negative declaration and of the other evidence introduced by the appellant at the PC and also here today. For example, there's no new traffic studies to controvert ATEs or the MNDs and public works traffic conclusions Contrary to what Attorney Citron tells you in her letter, the trip generation study and the collision study are the same as what the county relied on in approving the recent Vincent Winery project which I think was just approved in January.
And Scott Schill from ATE is here and I wish that you would ask him questions regarding that. Similarly, there's no evidence to controvert the MNDs and the appellant's facts and conclusions regarding noise, regarding lighting, regarding the setback issue. There's no evidence to support the county's new thesis that the tasting room is not subordinate to their overall winery use.
In each case P&D produces no evidence and offers you only conclusory statements, arguments, speculation, and unsubstantiated opinions Which are the very things that case law tells you do not constitute substantial evidence to support a land use denial. We urge your board to do the right thing and approve this project if you truly feel that tier 3 wineries with tasting rooms on 5 acre parcels present land use compatibility issues, then you have the opportunity to change that in the context of the winery ordinance update process that's currently underway.
But from a standpoint of fairness, justice, equity, this project should be approved and I'm duty bound to tell you that if my client does not receive the relief to which he is entitled here, he fully intends to pursue his judicial remedies. And based on the state of the record before you, I sincerely believe he will prevail. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have, but I would really ask Scott Schill and Steve Martin to come to the podium and make brief presentations. And hopefully answer questions that you may have particularly on traffic and on the operational aspects of the project. Thank you.
3:24 – 3:317 turns
You have three minutes left?
I'll take half of those. My name is Steve Martin and I've been the agent, the owner's agent through this whole process. It's been what three-and-a-half years now? We've also been the engineering architectural firm doing a project and have worked on over about 200 wineries throughout California. I'd like to expand quickly on Florence's project description And indicate that again, this is a very small winery. This is considered a microwinery at 4,000 cases.
We are asking for public tastings with a few promotional gatherings. We are not asking for special events. Six of the ten gatherings are 75 people. And of those six, three of those are countywide. So those six are not unique to this project. The others are under 60 and they're like winemaker dinner then there will be distributor dinners so that they can present their wines to distributors for sale.
The retail sales is a critical part of small wineries and the primary purpose of tasting the wines is to build their wine list. So what they typically will do is taste wine, get a wine club member that member hopefully becomes a customer and then that is a retail sale outside of the tasting room. Matter fact case goods will be stored and distributed off site so those retail sale customers are not actually coming through the door As Florence has indicated, we're utilizing an existing building.
We're going to be remodeling that building so it's much more aesthetically pleasing but we think it's very low impact in that regard looking at the time. I think Richard has touched on the subordination argument. Again, the tasting room is 20% of the winery maximum but also this tasting room includes areas of a winery whether it has public tastings or does not. It includes areas for the glass washers, for the wine refrigerators, for the entry into the building.
The tasting room is .4% of the property area. And I think Richard touched on it, but in regards to the tasting room there's about 3,000 man hours to man this tasting room. For the wine production there's 14-15,000 so there's five times as many man hours To process the wine than it is to actually serve the tasting room. So we believe it's clearly subordinate and I don't believe that they have an argument to counter that.
In regards to Florence's comment about why the MND, DM draft MND was not finalized today That reasoning. After the environmental hearing at the end of July, which was three years later we were pushing and pushing. We've had meetings with Supervisor Farr to get planning and
development
to finish their staff report. They did not. And the first we learned of their recommendation for a denial was four months later.
Thank you. We will now go to the public. How many speakers do we have? We have five.
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board, we have five requests to speak on this item. Sure. Our first speaker is Andy Caldwell in Santa Maria to be followed by Anna Citrin back here in Santa Barbara.
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing Colab. We believe that the county has to come to a point of truth in zoning. You don't tell somebody three years after they've been in the process, that you're gonna come up with last minute reasons as to why you don't wanna have a winery on a five acre parcel. You should have changed that law years ago if that was how you were going to rule.
Our issue here is that ag zone properties should be reserved for ag uses and somebody's, let's say peace and ambiance of moving on to an ag zone parcel that's gonna be disturbed by actual agricultural operations should be subordinate. In other words, somebody's ability to make a living off the land and to be vertically integrated should be tantamount and paramount in that ag zoned area of the county.
Whether it's olives or grapes, or orchard crops, or strawberries, or vegetables. Whatever it takes to grow that crop, process that crop, become vertically integrated should be an allowed zone use. If somebody wants to move to the country Then they have to be willing to put up with lights, noise, sounds and what have you. The fact of the matter is as the vineyard industry brings in the majority of tourists to this region, tourism and agriculture are two of the most important sectors of our economy. And we consider wineries the love child of agricultural, agriculture and tourism.
And you can't on the one hand say we need more revenue, we need more jobs, we need a bigger tax base. And then and then say no to these projects after people are sucked into the process spent three years in hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's it's a bad message. You need to honor the process and Respect the zoning and the needs of ag on ag zoned properties.
And again, we believe that this project it fits the area and tourism. And you have to understand as they've explained to them, vineyards are different than most other ag commodities in that they are a tourist based business. So here you struggle that they say well, we don't want the wineries here but then you complain about concentrations in communities if they're off site.
And we think that the bottom line is that these guys have gone over and above what should be required, and the project should be approved. Thank you.
3:31 – 3:363 turns
Good afternoon, Chair Carbajal and board members. I'm Anna Citrin, an attorney with the Law Office of Mark Shutillo, and I'm here today speaking on behalf of a large number of Santa Ynez Valley residents including neighbors of this project. First, I want to say that we support staff's recommendation that you deny this project, and we think that staff has done excellent work explaining why each of the findings at issue cannot be made.
A Tier 3 winery with events, organized gatherings and wine tasting is simply not appropriate for an Ag 1-5 parcel in a rural area. Approving this unprecedented project would have a ripple effect on the 725 Ag 1 5 parcels in the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Area that if developed with Tier 3 wineries would substantially and adversely alter The quality of life in the inner rural area.
You heard from staff that a winery on less than 10 acres has never been approved in the county, so I'm a little bit surprised that the applicant is so surprised that staff is recommending denial in this case. On the record before you, there is unquestionably substantial evidence supporting the denial based on the inability to make required findings. Mr. Monk seems to be asserting that the draft MND and the applicant's presentations are the only substantial evidence before you. When in fact, there were substantial public comments submitted on the draft NEGDEC providing substantial evidence that the project would have significant problems regarding land use compatibility related to the size of the parcel and other features.
And moreover that substantial evidence supports a fair argument of significant environmental impacts Mr. Monk discussed the traffic model a little bit, asserting that the two traffic studies at issue here were also used in prior proposals including Vincent. I was an attorney working on Vincent and that case fortunately we were able to find some common ground with the applicant and that case settled so I don't think that's appropriate precedent in terms of the use of those studies which were disputed.
In addition, attached to our draft neg deck comments are some letters prepared by a traffic safety expert. He reviewed the draft neg deck and articulated substantial concerns regarding the adequacy of area roadways including the 154 Roblar intersection was highly critical of the traffic model used which Furthermore, I understand will not be used for subsequent projects including the winery ordinance update and rather this morning as part of your budget revisions request you approved additional funding to fund a study that would replace the studies used today in the processing of the winery ordinance.
To sum up, we fully support staff's recommendation. We would urge you to deny this project and we believe that there is ample substantial evidence in the record both that this project may result in significant environmental impacts requiring an EIR and that supports required findings. Thank you very much.
Our next speaker is Donald Gallagher to be followed by Marilyn Harder.
Chairman Carpahal, members of the board My name is Donald Gallagher. I'm a resident of Santa Ynez and I am an immediate neighbor of the proposed site. I have here 300 petitions signed by people in the immediate neighborhood, not just in Santa Ynez Valley but in the immediate neighborhood representing perhaps as many as 2,000 to 2,500 residents in the area. This project should be rejected because it's simply too close to too many residents who will be adversely impacted because the site is simply incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Neighbors' concerns include safety, traffic, noise and of course lighting. The immediate neighbors of the TTT site, and I believe Mr. Monk alluded to the fact there were no objections, there are vehement objections. Two people who live across the street is Mike Shea immediately across the street from TTT and of course Mr. Harder who has resided in the area for 41 years Remember that neighbors have rights too.
They have the right to the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their property, wine tasting rooms with sales and special events or we now call them organized gatherings are not harmonious with neighbors who are so very close when viewed from a county parcel map standpoint can we show that? Clerk Can we stop the clock?
3:36 – 3:4321 turns
I'm sorry, were our staff supposed to be ready to help you out? Yes. Okay then we will stop the clock. We'll give them half a minute. That's not the
one.
We'll give you 130.
That's not the one.
Let's redo the clock, Jacqueline, for 1.30? I
think.
Just delete it completely and then do it for 1. 30. There you go. John
knew about it and the gentleman that was sitting next to legal counsel knew about it. It's important.
Is that it sir?
Yes.
All right let's start the clock.
Okay, well first off we've got Brander which was the oldest existing one and they got started in the 80s. By the way in this whole area here if you take a look at this This is the most densely populated rural area in the entire San Ynez Valley Take a look at all the lots These are property owners people who pay real estate taxes The very first one was Brander The second one was Bridlewood The third one was Roblar The fourth one recently approved was Vincent, and now we have TTT.
What are the cumulative effects of all these wineries doing their thing on weekends having all kinds of special gatherings on the surrounding neighborhood? Which is AgZone Rural Residential. Mostly rural residential, mostly ranchettes. Oak Trail Estates, Oak Trail Ranch, Woodstock Ranch, Rancho Azucita, Oak Ranch, Calzada, old Calzada Road. These are all private homeowners association. Peppertree Ranch Road and down in that corner down there, El Rancho Estates and Happy Canyon beyond it.
So these folks are all going to be impacted by such a development. So when reviewed from a county parcel map it's clear that this is the most densely populated and rural area of the San Dines Valley. Much of it was parceled out in the 70s as planned developments comprised of numerous private homeowners associations, a small five acre lot with two acres of grapes is inappropriate for a full size winery for this location. There are 700 such five-acre parcels in the San Ynez Valley. I urge you to join the neighbors planning and development and the Planning Commission by denying this appeal. Thank you very
much.
Our next speaker is Marilyn Harder to be followed by Rogers Harder who is our final speaker
Good afternoon Supervisors. Oh, I'm short.
One second. Is that better? We're going to get the clock right for you here. We'll give you an extra 30 seconds.
Well remember, I am a woman so I should have extra time.
I won't comment on that.
I'm not a woman.
Go on, yes you are.
Good afternoon as you've heard my husband and I raised our family and have lived on a five acre parcel across the street directly across the street from the barn. More than 40 years ago. Mr. Monk has me very upset and I will address that in a minute. Yes, this is an ag zoned area but this area in particular is a residential ag neighborhood community not a commercial ag.
As ranchettes you are allowed to grow a product on that property and sell it on You don't sell what you've raised and then you go somewhere else and bring more in to sell. That's not what the idea is as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry. When Mr. Torres was building the barn, we could hear the workmen's radio the majority of the waking hours. This went on for months.
Makes it difficult to enjoy a comfort moment on your own patio. I'm sorry, I'm very nervous and upset. We do hear Bridlewoods Entertainment and they are about the same distance away. You expect to hear ag noises. You expect to hear a sprayer, you expect to hear a trailer, you expect to hear pounding on metal, you expect to hear trucks breaking to either turn into a driveway or turn into another street but not event music and not loud noises.
Traffic safety is another concern for residents and visitors. Obviously two acres of grape cannot, I think anyway, cannot provide the volume of wine they are projecting to pour. Therefore in addition to the normal traffic, trucks, farm equipment, equine, bicycles, people walking along this side etc., there will be more trucks delivering barrels of wine or grapes to be processed. By the way, how much noise does it take to process wines or grapes?
Breathe. Most visitors are not used to minimal or ditch shoulders and the various semi or blind intersections which Roblar has many. I have one question and I do not expect him to answer. Is Mr. Monk going to live on this property so that he knows exactly what it's like I don't know the answer to that, but it's a question. The nights are very dark. See? I'm getting short.
All of the reports in the world are not going to convince me of something I know because I live there 24 hours a day. Surely this applicant could find a more suitable location for his winery, one where his neighbors would not be calling the sheriff because of noise pollution or perceived violations. Thank you.
3:43 – 3:5116 turns
Our next speaker is Rogers Harder to be followed by Steve Fort who is our final speaker.
Thank you.
You did
just fine. Supervisors, I'm sorry?
I'm telling your wife she did just fine. I
thought she did wonderful. That's why we've been married for 50 years. I did send along an email to all you supervisors. I hope you had a chance to look through it. It outlines pretty much all my objections that have previously been stated, and I want to allow the staff on their recommendations. And I agree 100% with what you've come to in your conclusions. There's just a couple of points that I want to make here.
And one point is that this is a five-acre development for winery. And for the record, I take objection. In these reports, I see amplified music. You don't need music to be amplified to be noisy. We have lived next to Bridlewood for quite a while. Every time they have an outdoor event with music, it wafts right across our patio. We have to go inside shut the doors and windows to avoid it. Two weeks ago they had such an event.
It upset me so badly I did call the sheriff and he came out and I said this is too loud you're disturbing the peace my peace and quiet here I deserve to have some peace and quiet here got ahold of the manager at Bridlewood they said we're allowed to do this twice a year I said, well, I would appreciate you notifying me next time you do it because I will leave the house for that period of time. I can't stand the drums, the singing, and the rest of the instrumentals going on.
And then noise, believe me, does carry. As my wife said, they ran the radio when they built down there and we could hear that radio going to shut the house up. It just comes right up the valley to us. And I don't know where the rest of my notes are. Oh here they are. That's it.
Thank
you.
Thank you very much.
Supervisor Lagardino has a question, sir? Sorry I can't remember your last name, sir. Is it Mr. Harger? Yes. Can I ask you a question on the... I just want to ask a question about... He still can hear the music. Well that's good! That's the first thing I was going to say is I hope at your age I'm able to hear from that far away but what time when you call the sheriff like that time of night are we talking about?
It was in the afternoon. And I learned later that they had an event planned from 1 to 4. The music started, I don't know when it started. I know it started and started annoying me. And I called the sheriff probably, I was fed up to hear around 3 o'clock. OK. And by the time they got there, it was 4 o'clock. Thank you. They were through.
Next?
Our final speaker is Steve Forte.
Good afternoon, members of the board. My name is Steve Ford with Suzanne Knowledge Planning and Permitting and I am representing Bridalwood in the processing of a development plan that's going through the process with Mr. Karametzos and the planning staff right now so I wanted to just get that out in the open. I did want to somewhat echo Mr. Caldwell's comments about Processing projects based on what is in the ordinance currently and what is effective at the time that they are submitted, at the time that they are deemed complete.
And especially paying attention to what is in the administrative record kind of going back to what Mr. Monk said as well. I also think it's important to point out that when someone says there's all kinds of gatherings going on these wineries are operating Under the operational parameters that are set forth in their project descriptions that are adopted when they're projects approved, which is how Bridlewood is operating and I would hope how they're all operating.
And there are processes if someone is violating the parameters of their development plan or their project description There is a process to identify violations and have them researched and processed. So I guess I just wanted to reiterate Mr. Caldwell's comments that there is an ordinance in place, there is an administrative record in place, and I would hope that we can follow along with those. Thank you.
Thank you. Is that our last speaker? Okay, we will now go to the appellant. Ten minutes for rebuttal. You don't have to take the entire 10 minutes if you don't want to. I just want to remind you of that.
Good afternoon, I'm Scott Shell with Associated Transportation Engineers and I'm going to start. I'm going to address a couple of the traffic-related comments that were provided in the letter from the law offices of Mark Sotillo. The first comment that we heard had to do with use of the county's traffic model to estimate traffic for the project in the MND. A lot of the issues that came up in that comment were also raised in the Vincent's analysis and that MND, county staff provide a lot of background data and responses to that through that process. But I think more importantly, I'd like to point out that for the TTT traffic study not only looked at average weekday and weekend traffic but also the special gatherings. And so that assumed that all of those 75 people would travel to the site at the same time And leave at the same time on both weekdays and weekends.
So it really provided a worst case traffic analysis that would exceed normal day-to-day operations, and I think that was the concern, that enough traffic be analyzed. For that peak scenario, the traffic study found that both Roblar Avenue as well as the Roblar 154 intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service And that the project would not exceed any of the county's traffic impact criteria.
Mr. Monk had also indicated in his discussions that the traffic study took a step further and said, what happens if we have events at all four wineries on the corridor? And that was analyzed as well. Same findings, that there would be no significant impacts to the roadway segment or the intersection. So I think the MND did a thorough job in looking at the potential traffic impacts of the project and cumulative impacts as well. The second issue that came up had to do with the accident history and analysis for the intersection, and the Shatilla letter provided a Caltrans report that said there was 24 accidents reported at the intersection. Now the County Public Works Department had done a collision study for the San Ynez region that also focused on that intersection and it reported 12 accidents.
And so there's this difference of the accident rate. So I got a copy of the report from the back of the Shatillo letter, and it did in fact report 24 accidents at the intersection. However half of them were half a mile away. So it didn't go through and actually analyze the location of the accidents when you strip out The locations that were not at the intersection, there was actually 11. So the data that they provided actually goes forward to validate the information that was in the county collision report as well as the accident data that was presented in the MND. Both of those documents provided evidence that the intersection is operating in a safe manner.
That concludes my remarks and I think I'm gonna turn it over to Steve and be here for questions. Thank you.
3:51 – 3:573 turns
Thank you, I'll be brief on my rebuttal comments. I'd like to point out that there has been no contiguous property owner to this property that's been opposed to the project both on the east side, the west side and the south side so first I've learned of the Fords across the street And I'd also like to point out that no application for a Tier 3 winery has been made to the county on a 5-acre parcel. That's one of the reasons why there isn't a Tier 3 winery on a 5 acre parcel, and again it's 4,000 cases. The only reason this is a Tier three is because of the size of the tasting room.
Which again is 20% of the building area 4% of the 0.4 percent of property area It's been brought up about this being rural residential, this is zoned egg one It's not zone RR. It's not zone egg Slash RR it's owned egg one. This isn't allowed use of In regards to noise and lighting, I mentioned this in the planning commission. Noise is minimal from wine production.
The mechanical equipment outside would be equivalent to a residential air conditioner. Grapes are being brought in during those 45 days of the year, they will be received at the west side of the building and then processed inside so the noise from the processing is almost non-existent. The amount of grapes coming in offsite can range anywhere from five trucks to 14 trucks during those Those five weeks, it's about equivalent as many times as a garbage truck comes to your house.
In regards to the tasting and the noise generated that will be indoors as well. Of the ten gatherings or maybe will be three gatherings that are outside again there'll be no amplified music. The only proposed interior or exterior with this project. In regards to lighting, there'll be no adverse impacts from lighting. The only lighting that's proposed on the project is low-level path lighting that takes you from the parking area to the building. No upright or lights pointed away from the facility will be on this project so there'll be no effect from lighting. Matter of fact, the lighting will go off an hour after business hours And which is not the case with the residents. So this project truly has impacts to the neighborhood that's equivalent to about one, to one and a half three bedroom residences if you look at all of the issues.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, I would just like to respond to Anna Citron's comments that the letters commenting on the MND constituted evidence. If you take a look at those letters, I'm sure you will come to the conclusion that they consist primarily of argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinions and conclusionary statements. There was no traffic study that was done in the context of the comments on the MND to controvert the excellent traffic studies that were done in the context of the MND. There's been nothing that controverts Mr. Robertson, the Public Works Department's conclusion that everything that was done in connection with the MND traffic studies was sound and he agreed with that.
I think Scott has told you that the trip generation study and collision study that were relied on in the context of the TTT review are the very same studies, the very underpinnings that were used in your approval of the Vinson. Regardless of whether Vinson occurred with some negotiated settlement between the opposition and between the applicant, fact remains that the studies that were done are the very same studies that were relied on here.
I want to make sure that you have Mr. Martin's project narrative that was submitted to the Planning Commission and introduced in the administrative record, it was emailed to each of you last evening because we realized that for some reason it was not included in the staff report and should've been. I also brought about 10 copies if the public would like to have them and I gave them to staff when we started this hearing.
I'd just like to close again in reminding you that regardless of the fact that the MND was not approved by staff or by your board or by the Planning Commission, it still constitutes evidence. And in a large respect, it constitutes the only evidence in the record on a lot of these issues on traffic, on noise, on lighting and on setbacks and that the fact that it was not Approved by the county in no way lessens the quality of that evidence or its reliability as evidence in the record. In fact, what it constitutes are what we call prior inconsistent statements that were made at an earlier time by staff where they are now making statements that are contradictory to that earlier evidence. Oftentimes in the law we gave weight and more weight Consistent statement that was closer to the event of the happening than a later statement where one seeks to recant what he said earlier That's all I have.
I'm here for any questions that you might have If not, we we rest Thank You
Thank you very much. Mr. Monk. We will now go to staff To touch on anything that was said or not said
3:57 – 4:0210 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Clarification on anything?
Thank you, Mr Chair and members of the board. I would like to respond to some of the comments made as well as comment briefly on the overall process for this project. This application was the county's first for a winery proposed on a parcel less than 10 acres in size. Our zoning ordinance doesn't specify a minimum parcel size per se for wineries so the application was accepted for processing However, I want to point out that staff did identify to the applicant concerns related to minimum parcel size in 2010 which is three years ago while the application was still incomplete.
The project was processed. We prepared and circulated a draft mitigated negative declaration after which we received many comments In fact, we have a list of the commenters I think we can put up on the ELMO. We received 24 comment letters and the public did raise legitimate issues regarding both impacts and policy. As we address the issues that have been raised in the public comments on the draft ND Staff determined that the project would not be compatible with a neighborhood and would be inconsistent with the land use development code and the comprehensive plan.
In the fall of 2012, staff informed the applicant that we were going to need to recommend denial due to the inability to make the required findings. And on March 6th, our County Planning Commission voted to deny the project for these reasons. If you have questions I'd be glad to try to answer them and we have other staff here as well.
Thank you. Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you Mr. Chair. Is the APCD letter listed there? I'm looking at the one dated August 10th 2012. I just can't see. Yes apparently that's a second letter. OK thank you.
Supervisor Adam.
It's got a new spring here, the thing is kind of arguing with me. You know I'm bothered by this whole thing because, and I was all ready to go through every one of these points and stuff but I'm less inclined to do that at this point. My problem is you guys worked with this guy for three years right? And it cost him $750,000. You published on July 3 of 2012 a favorable review in the mitigated negative declaration, right?
Heads are going up and down. Maybe we could get something on the audio record that's
Supervisor Carver Hall Supervisor Adam. Yes, we did have an environmental hearing and that was a draft MND And yes, we were moving forward with a favorable recommendation on the MND but based on comments We did not finalize that well
Yeah, I realize that and so what what I want to ask you is What was the? Evidence that you got not the opinion and not the speculation and not the the Fact that people don't like it. I get that I get you guys live next to it, and I get that And I respect that however The zoning is the zoning? You know it's a g1 and You know you have to respect the other guys Right to exist as well in my opinion. I think that you know the We can't ask our neighbors necessarily to be invisible and inaudible.
So what was the evidence? And some of the hyperbole, for God's sakes. Jeopardize the welfare of the surrounding residents and we're really We're gonna jeopardize the welfare is somebody gonna die here if we allow the music
As you move forward to answer that mr. Russell Mr.. Adam There's specific And I just want to. Balance them with. How there are things you don't have to die to be impacted badly so.
4:02 – 4:099 turns
Respect your concerns that you just expressed. From my perspective, I'd like to talk a little bit about our process. First of all, zoning does not give you a right to approval of a discretionary permit and that's what this is. In fact, this is a very discretionary permit and I would say that the Planning Commission and the Board both have a great latitude in terms of whether they would approve or deny a permit like this. Also, we don't issue guarantees in this process. It's very risky at times and it is expensive and time consuming. In fact, it is my policy that we never commit to a recommendation prior to the close of public review of the draft mitigated negative declaration in this case.
Once we have the public review comments of the neighbors and how they feel about the project I think does constitute more than speculation. And I believe that there is ample substantial evidence in the record, but in this case we felt that we could not recommend approval, notwithstanding the time and effort and money that the applicant spent on the project. It's a very risky situation.
And in this case our recommendation and the decision of the Planning Commission was not in his favor. I think that it was appropriate and based on firm ground, and the other point that I would like to make is that when you have a draft mitigated negative declaration, you do not need to revise it to recommend denial. Specifically, that is why we did not revise it. Had we needed a mitigated negative declaration to recommend denial, we would have changed a great deal of the information that it contained. So you really can't rely on a draft mitigated negative declaration as evidence that the project should be approved without considering the comments and considerations that were made during the public review period, so that draft negative declaration represents the way things appeared to staff prior to public review That changed significantly based on the public review comments and for largely policy reasons as articulated by staff, we recommended denial and the Planning Commission agreed with us.
And I believe that there has been substantial evidence placed on the record to that effect far more than we would be led to believe by some of the comments we've heard today.
Okay. So, uh, at the same time as a person doesn't have a right to a permit, uh, we have some expectation of what we can do with property by the zoning, right?
Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Adam. Uh, an expectation is, um, I'm not sure what you mean by the word expectation. It certainly is not a right and in fact, the process that we have here is a discretionary permit and if you expect that a discretionary permit will be approved because of the zoning that you have, that is a false expectation.
Okay, but it's a mitigated false expectation because if you had a quarter acre lot that was residential .25 or whatever the designation is for residential or R8 or whatever that is. You would not come in with any expectation that you would get this project approved on that parcel. Am I right?
Supervisor chair Carvajal supervisor Adam, I would agree with you. Yes.
Okay, so then We're back to the zoning that it is which is a g1 five acres and I think that you have to Think about if somebody purchases a piece of that property or peace properties owned thusly what is their reasonable expectation and You know, you run into the problem here that Mr. Monk says he's going to sue us and we're going to find out I guess whether or not this kind of a fact pattern which includes a favorable MND can go into neutral finder effect And survive the test of reason.
You know, and maybe my question should be for County Council. Do you think that you can defend this fact pattern of the zoning being what it is? And the favorable MND and the fact that the evidence is lacking or appears to be lacking to me in the denial and public works approved there's numerous problems it seems with the fact pattern and maybe this would be better than closed session I don't know
Well, we can say my staff has worked with P&D. We've reviewed the process all along. We believe it is defensible. There's a great deal of discretion that the courts will give to your board in its discretionary conclusions. So yes, we believe at this point that there is substantial evidence in the record to support P& D findings
Okay, and in conclusion I would just say that you know if for no other reason if you didn't find any of that compelling We've been talking a lot lately about revenue stream. And this is how you get it little piece at a time Is your cookie good?
Thank You Mr. Adam. Did I hand it a good time for you?
4:09 – 4:267 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, as this is in my district I do have some comments I want to make. I think first of all we need to talk about ag zone property and expectations which has come up and when you live on ag zone property like I do your expectations are that you are going to have impacts from potentially agricultural activities so you hear a lot of animal sounds sometimes Odors you have noise from farm equipment, maybe processing equipment But I think where the issue starts to come and and the associated traffic that you know that comes with that.
I think where the issue comes in are those uses that may occur on or could occur on AgZone property that are not necessarily strictly agricultural uses as defined in either an Ag-1 or an Ag-2 zone district. There's certainly a lot of things you can do on AgZone land besides ag and some of them are not compatible with ag, and some of them can be made compatible with ag. But clearly, those that can be made compatible with ag always need to be secondary and supportive to the primary use which is agriculture.
And I think that this is, I think, the crux of the issue for me on this is what is the primary use and what is the secondary supportive and incidental use? And I think because of the size of this property being five acres, that we have a situation where what is supposed to be the supportive and incidental use which is the wine tasting, the visitor serving, the retail commercial side of it is the primary use and agricultural use, which is the growing of grapes has become the secondary use because the parcel simply isn't big enough. There's only two acres of grapes.
And what actually makes this where the main agricultural production for this site is happening is someplace else and it's that 15 acres of grapes that is coming in to be supportive of it I think the chart that is in our staff report and that staff put on the wall showing that the vast majority of wineries are on 30 acres or more kind of really tells the tale here. That if you want to have a really viable, potentially viable winery, you need to have 20 to 30 acres anyway and they go up from there.
Very, very few under 20 acres and as we know none under 10 at all. And of those that are under 20 it would be interesting to know if any of them are really even a tier 3. You know, this whole issue of parcel size and the need for how it relates to compatibility with supportive ancillary uses to agriculture is being talked about in the Winery Update Ordinance. It's been talked about with the Special Events Ordinance and all that. And even the agricultural community And the tourist industry, the Vintners Association presented to us the Good Neighbor Ordinance which again is based on this idea of relative size. That the more room you have, the more you should be able to do.
And the less room you have, the less you can really do. Because the less acreage you have, the more difficult it is to find compatibility with the impacts that come from some of these supportive uses. And I think that unfortunately this project here is a classic example of that and I think it's important to note You know, we have neighbors here. We have petitions from neighbors that are very concerned about this for a lot of reasons. But the industries that I just spoke about—the Cattlemen's Association, the Ag Advisory Committee, the Conference and Visitors Bureau, the Vintners' Association—that have been so involved and continue to be so involved, and rightly so in all of these discussions, are not here.
They were not at the Planning Commission, I understand. I have not heard from any of them and I think the silence is deafening and to me that says that even they think that five acres is too small for a Tier 3 winery. That you really need to have more acreage than that if you're going to have a Tier 3. The applicant has known that they were trying to break new ground here with this application.
As Mr Russell said, discretionary permit is just that it's discretionary. I think that staff in my experience with staff they always try to work with an applicant And be able to get to a project description that they can support, which is I think why they discussed with the applicant the possibility of a tier one on the five acres. Which as far as I can tell in and of itself is still precedent setting for the county but the applicant was not interested in that. I think we also need to consider the impact on surrounding agriculture not just the viability of being able to do more grape growing or other kinds of agricultural activities on this small parcel, but on all the surrounding parcels that have various kinds of agriculture. And that could be negatively impacted by a site where the agriculture is really now going to be the secondary use and retail commercial activity is going to become the primary use.
So I think that's the basic reason why we can't, I can't make these findings either. Why I think there is unfortunately so much incompatibility with the requirements that we have in the land use code to protect agriculture and so I would move staffs recommendation. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Motion has been made. Is there a second? Motion is in May, seconded. Discussion? Discussion. Mr. Lavinino then Mr. Adams.
Thank you Mr. Chair. Well I do have reservations when I first saw this about a five acre parcel size for this tier three but it is allowed under our guidelines and I went to what Ag 1 zoning is and the definition Ag One zoning is applied to areas appropriate for agricultural use within urban, inter-rural and existing developed rural neighborhood areas as defined in the comprehensive plan maps. The intent is to provide standards that will support agriculture as a viable land use and encourage maximum agricultural productivity." So I think it says it right there in the definition of what the proposed zoning was asking for Land use matters are very difficult because.
It's very easy for emotions to get involved, especially if you live near the area. That's why we have terms like NIMBY and obviously I don't want to live across the street from this project no offense. I live in a historic neighborhood in Santa Maria and it's very quiet however we also have we're near the fairgrounds and on weekends I can either motorcycle races or I hear monster trucks or we've got That's part of living as a member of society. You are going to have some that and I understand you moved out to the country, and you thought it was gonna be great.
But that's part of living in a community that there are gonna be other events is gonna be other types of things going on and by the very fact That you folks had was that in the middle of the afternoon. I mean, that's just part of life. You know? I mean, I'm outside at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and somebody down the road is playing music. Hey, I got to live with it if it's not outside of what the parameters are.
So and I think staff basically saw this and was making their decision based on the facts and the evidence. And that's what we saw in the temporary MND But then emotions got involved, I think with public comment and things got turned around. To talk about traffic when there are studies that indicate obviously that's not an issue even if you take all five wineries surrounding and have events at the same time. That's never going to happen. The lighting obviously is at ground level. There's nothing even erected.
And the noise issue we just talked about, I just hope And pray that we get our administrative record buttoned down because I understand it's a discretionary permit, but it doesn't look too defensible to me. But I just want to make sure that we get all our ducks in a row. And I think what this also does is puts a spotlight on the fact that we need some type of a shot clock on our permitting path. So you don't have somebody that's gone three years down the road and spent 3 quarters of a million dollars, and at the end of the day we're like sorry, neighbors don't like it even though it fits the zoning.
So there's something somewhere along the line that we have to knowledge and the foresight to be able to look at something and say, look this isn't going to happen. And earlier in the process than what we've done here. So I mean whether it's a thumbs up or thumbs down, I'm sure he would have not liked to gotten a rejection two-and-a-half years ago but if we did a cursory evaluation of it and determined that it wasn't something that was gonna fit, that would have been a great time to let him know so that's where I stand on it.
Supervisor Adam.
Yeah, I just wanted to say that I see this thing going down but you know if the winery was proposed as the first thing in the development it probably would have just flown right through because there wouldn't anybody else there but now he's coming in late and Everybody's already there and kind of got their their expectations built and You know, unfortunately I think we're going to go down a path of denying This I think legitimate use it might not be It might not be something that the neighbors really love the idea of and I get that but Think it's a reasonable use of the property and you know I think that that's that's what you have to look at given the zoning and all the other all the other stuff, the other thing is is that Ag has to be able to evolve and it can't be stuck in Whatever anybody else's expectations are You know as ag Goes through and figures out how to add more value to their property or extract more value from the products that they can produce on that property.
They need to be able to access that value you know if you're going to tell somebody that they are absolutely locked into producing a commodity crop Regardless of whether they can add more value to it on the side or not, you know, I think that constitutionally, I think you've got a problem with that. And I also think that you've got a problem socially because we need More more value added to our property in the county and not less so, you know I hope that at some point we can clean these kind of properties up and and get a rural residential Five designation on properties like this. You know if we really think that there are properties out there that need to be protected for real for Large lot urban development, then I think we've got to take the AG designation off of them so that everybody understands you're not going to apply for a winery here.
It's not AG. And I think that we can avoid some of these problems if we clean up the zoning and we have integrity in our zoning. As you said, I can't remember what the issue was but Supervisor Farr referred to integrity in zoning a couple weeks ago and I think that's right on the money. We have to be able to as people invest in in properties in our county. They need to be able to understand what they can do and what they cannot do with this property that they're investing in while they decide how much they're going to pay for it so I guess we're ready
Supervisor Wolf
Thank you, Mr. Chair just Just wanted to make a few brief comments I Agree that there there is the importance of integrity and zoning but really there's also integrity in the process And I think dr. Russell outlined that process it has gone on a long time I don't know that we're privy sometimes We don't know all all of what may go on in a three-year span of time but But we have a process that I believe works.
I really do appreciate, and you know one of the things I've said before and it shouldn't surprise anyone is my appreciation for our community plans and the residents. And when you talk about property values and so forth, I think there needs to be some assurance for our residents when they buy a property and the assurance that if something is to come into their neighborhood that it goes through the process And honestly, as I think about this, I think well if someone wanted to put in a tasting room really would their expectation be that that will automatically happen and we wouldn't have intense review? Of course not. Not in this county. And I think there's a reason for it You know, we've heard a lot about the traffic and the noise. And I understand what Mr.
Lavagnino said about...and what you were saying sir about the noise at Bridlewood but in the end we may disagree and say well gee you should enjoy the noise. But it's so subjective but I think in the end you did the right thing. I mean you've asked them to please let you know when they're going to have the event. And that's part of the process, so I applaud you for that.
In my district we have a community plan that's going through environmental review. I know the Santa Ynez went through an environmental review process And I hold those standards very high. And I think that we have gone through the process and, you know, I support Supervisor Farr in representing her district. I understand and I agree with her stance on this particular matter. Thank you Mr. Chair.
4:26 – 4:3010 turns
Thank you. I guess before we go to a vote, if I could just chime in as well. Being chair, you usually do it at the end although not always. You know, I think the big issue here is discretionary versus ministerial. Ministerial gives you what I think people like to see which is more of certain path and if you do A, B, C, D, you get X. It's more of a certainty process.
But discretion is exactly what it is, discretion. And I think that in a discretionary process, it's a legal process that dictates the type of environmental you do, the type of thresholds and standards that have to be met. And it would be illegal to tell somebody, hey, you're going to have a tough row to hoe but If I could tell you, you're going to really fail. The law doesn't allow for that. You have to go through the process and let the evidence dictate the outcome, not the other way around.
That would be illegal, to try to tell you something that the outcome will be before you go through the process. It's called prejudicial. So I kind of look at this as Look at CUPs, whether they're in residential or any other area. CUPs are discretionary. They're not guaranteed. You could go through the process, spend all the money you want but it's not guaranteed.
That's why we have discretion and people elect us based on our values and how we approach these issues. A few of our colleagues would love to give you more discretion and going one way or the other. My other colleagues may wanna go in a different direction But that's what elections are also for. It's how we approach the evidence in discretionary legal processes, and I on this case happen to agree with Supervisor Farr.
And contrary to what we've heard about our administrative record being tight, I am glad that it's tight because if we do get into litigation I'm confident based on the record that I have heard and the evidence and the advice of our council that we're good to go. So, I feel this has been a good discretionary process. I wish we could tell people ahead of the process going forward whether they're likely to get something or not but the law doesn't allow us.
It doesn't allow for that or else it would be not discretionary So I know we don't like the outcomes sometimes, but in this case, I think that the parcel size, the neighborhood compatibility, all the issues that Supervisor Farr raised are really important. And in my district, in particular, these issues permeate land use and zoning everywhere. In some areas more than others. And so I am going to be supporting the motion.
Without further discussion if we could have roll call? Supervisor Lavinino? Okay. Roll call please.
Mr. Lavinino? No.
Ms.
Wolfe? Wait
wait wait.
What are we? Give me a
second. I say yes.
Hold on back up. So it's the appeal consider recommendations So make the required findings. So it's to deny, so I am saying no.
Ms. Wolfe? Ms. Farr? Aye Mr. Adam? No Mr. Carbajal?
Aye We're going to take a 10 minute break and then come back and go on with our agenda Hello. I'm going to reconvene our meeting and go to item number five, Madam Clerk if you could read the item please?
4:30 – 4:4614 turns
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. Item number five is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding assessing the deferred maintenance backlog in Santa Barbara County cost and timeline estimates.
Thank you. I see Mr. Brzenich is going to give the presentation. Yes,
thank you very much Chair Carbaugh and members of the board on April 2nd 2013 the Board of Supervisors discussed the deferred maintenance backlog in Public Works General Services and the Community Services Departments The board unanimously directed the County Executive Officer to return in late June with a proposed scope cost and timeline estimate of conducting a comprehensive assessment of the county's deferred maintenance backlog in Roads, Buildings and Park Maintenance.
This presentation will offer the Board several options for a deferred maintenance assessment. No funding appropriations are being requested today. Staff is providing the assessment options for the Board's consideration prior to the budget hearings so that funding decisions could occur at the budget hearings or through a future budget revision. If the board chooses to proceed with conducting a comprehensive assessment and final report of the deferred maintenance backlog, then a report would be available to inform future direction to staff to identify prioritization of maintenance and repair projects, financing options, methods of monitoring our progress toward reducing the backlog As well as some preferred options for reporting back to the board and to the public, for the progress on meeting those maintenance needs.
Many local government entities utilize deferred maintenance reviews as a part of a much larger plan, frequently called an asset management plan. Most asset management plans include a facility conditions assessment which will confirm a complete inventory of all infrastructure assets by name, category and quantity, identify the intended purpose and objective of the asset Assess the current condition and establish a list of maintenance and repair priorities for inclusion in a maintenance and repair work plan.
A maintenance finance plan may follow from that, and that will analyze the budget implications based in part on a facility's life cycle cost analysis as well as analyze the budget implications, reserve fund requirements, and financing options for maintenance and repair work plans. Lastly, a maintenance management plan could be also developed which would incorporate priorities into a short-term and long-term work plan. Identify a plan for meeting current maintenance needs while addressing those longer term maintenance backlog issues as well as execution of an ongoing monitoring of facilities conditions.
All three of these would be considered components of an asset management plan and would be available for you to consider as part of a scope, a series of scope options that we will discuss later. There's also three general options for how that might be procured or sources for developing that deferred maintenance plan or asset management plan. We could solicit an outside consultant. We could use the internal staff or some combination of the two.
As part of the presentation today, we've just for illustration purposes developed three options. But your board would have complete discretion to develop your own hybrid and direct staff accordingly. Consider using an outside consultant. The benefit of the outside consultant is it provides a multi-jurisdictional perspective, often these are engineering firms that have consulted with a variety of other entities about their asset management or deferred maintenance concerns and are able to bring solutions from other entities to the County of Santa Barbara.
One of the downsides of using an outside consultant is that they don't know the assets as well as we do and our own staff does. And so, that often requires a fair amount of lead time to get up and running to understand the complexity of the organization, the variety of assets that are available and being considered, and the reasons for the maintenance backlog that has been created It's estimated that a typical consultant, and this is based on my review of a series Sorry, consulting contracts. It would probably take six to nine months. A total approximate cost would be somewhere between $325,000 and $425, 000 of which in general form we would estimate that about $75,000 to $100, 000 would be needed to continue that work Of a facilities condition assessment for the public works department.
About 100,000 just over 100,000 for general services and about 150 to 200,000 for the community services department deferred maintenance things. The deliverable at the end of that kind of a consult would be that facilities condition report. Option two or option B would utilize internal staff to complete a similar scope of work as outlined in option A. The benefit of that is it would leverage the already existing knowledge base that our staff has of the maintenance and backlog issues, things that have been done and the assets themselves.
The one constraint on option B is that there may be some limited amount of expertise especially in some of our departments and that we've got a limited use of assessment tools in all three of those departments. And so we would have some constraints there. It's estimated that internal staff could do something along the lines of a facility condition assessment within about six months. The price utilizing current salary and benefit levels at a fully loaded cost would be about $250,000 to $350,000 and it would roughly allocate As presented here on the slide, somewhere between 50 and 75 to public works. 75,000 to 100,000 in general services and about 125 to 175 in the community services departments. At the end of that process, the expected deliverable would be the same facility condition report
Dennis, before you go on I just wanted to add to what Dennis had indicated. My concern on that particular option would be as I know your boards where we have severely reduced staff in both CSD and general services over the last many years And so I think it's probably a little bit optimistic to say six months. And I'd also have concern that we'd be pulling those resources off actual maintenance activities and actually some parks rangers activities as well. So, I just wanted to make sure that we brought that to your board's attention.
And as you proceed Mr. Prezenich, I guess I need to ask you a question CEO Waller. Again, we'll get into a robust discussion in a while and we'll deal with public comment. But this is a significant price tag to attack and address a problem that we all understand I think and have come to consensus that needs to be addressed. But all of a sudden we want to address it all, the complete study. Could we phase in such studies so that it's not all done in one budget year? So one year we could do public works, one year we could do general services and one-year community services so it's more manageable financially in light of our financial crunch that we're dealing with and we phase and begin to address a very important issue.
Chair yes I certainly think that you could do that If your board was going to consider moving in that direction, my recommendation would be to start with general services because I think the buildings are actually the most critical to us. And the second reason is that I think Public Works has a fairly robust system currently and so I think you could probably Do them at the very tail end more as just a refresher versus a starting from scratch.
Thank you I wanted to ask that so that we could think outside the box of what you've given us in terms of phasing it in should we not want to do it all at once because that's a hefty price tag please proceed Mr. percentage
Very good, thank you Chair. So option C presents a couple of examples of perhaps combinations of using external consultant resources as well as our internal staff as a supplement to either in the areas of expertise or tools that might be available. So I just outlined a couple of possible suboptions, but obviously there's kind of almost an infinite number of additional options that your board may want to consider including the idea of stretching that out over several budget years. But just to kind of identify a couple of these, one would be utilizing the outside consultant to complete that facilities condition assessment, utilizing and leveraging their outside expertise in objectivity perhaps.
The staff could parallel that with the completion of the finance and management plans that I identified, that would lead to the creation of a complete asset management plan. It's estimated that from time of putting out an RFI for the external consultant through the deliverable of a complete asset management plan to your board be approximately one year in total with a price tag of somewhere around $350 to $50,000.
Another option would be to use a outside consultant to complete the facility condition report for general services and community services as CEO Waller just identified and that then staff or the consultant could be utilized to help develop the finance and management plans Similar timeline with a slightly higher price tag. Primarily there, the additional costs would be needing somebody probably from the CEO's office to provide a project lead on that as we begin to integrate a variety of parts from both various departments as well as with the outside consultant. So we've added those additional costs in there.
So just to summarize recommended actions would be to receive a report on the options, direct staff to conduct the assessment under one of those options or one of the hybrid options you may choose to come up with and to follow the determination that this is not a project at this time under CEQA. If you have any questions, I'm available.
Thank you. We have no public speakers and before we get into the discussion, CEO Waller of all these options you've given us, if we decide to move forward comprehensively or phased in which option do you feel would be most prudent constructive and effective in achieving our goal?
Thank you, Chair. I think that perhaps the most prudent would be to do a phased-in approach because I think it's going to be extremely overwhelming not only from a financial perspective but from an internal resource perspective to try to accomplish all three at once so I would recommend that we utilize the consultant to do our condition assessment report and then perhaps as one of the options within Contract have the financial plans and the management plans, but give an opportunity to come back after the assessment was complete. And determine if we really wanted a contract for that or if we wanted to use our own staff in that manner.
Great supervisor Adam.
Well I think we don't really have to worry about the roads that much. You know I think by law we're doing a lot of research on the roads and that's why we know what the extent of our troubles are there. The buildings in the parks, I really think that we need to look at those together. You know, I feel strongly that we should know the order of magnitude level of our problem before we move too much further ahead. And if you do that over a phased system over say three years, one for each component You're kind of just bleeding it out a little bit and it doesn't give us the chance I think to do a reasonable planning and triage the things that are really bad in both departments. Mr. McAulpin understands the extent of his problems, we don't have to worry about getting an outside consultant.
That's what you already do, right? Scott, you just have outside consultants that come in and help you put that together. So I don't think we have to worry about that. We only have to worry about parks and buildings in my opinion.
Discussion? Supervisor...I'm not sure who came on first. Supervisor Farr and Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know I have to say that the amount of money just kind of set me back on my heels for all of these. When I think about other budget years where we're scrambling to find $500,000 to put into the deferred maintenance account You know, repave things or fix things that we would spend almost that much just in trying to get the list of what needs to be done.
This seems really, really high and you know I agree. I think that public works for the roads and all that we've heard about that they have a an internal system built-in that already seems to be able to track You know, where everything is. I noticed on in our staff report under option B for the internal staff that there was a statement that said the general services maintains an active list of maintenance and repair projects for county buildings so I guess that's my first question we why at least in general Do we not have the expertise to at least be able to do the list of buildings and what's the matter with them when we seem to have some kind of a list already?
4:46 – 5:0212 turns
Chair, Supervisor Farr. I think there is really a dramatic qualitative difference between maintaining a list of repairs and recognizing that you can't complete all the repairs within a given funding year for example and that then creates a backlog And what we're talking about here in terms of, for example, a facility condition assessment report. It's a much deeper analysis that even looks at how do you prioritize those relative to one another? So there's some internal plan for how those get developed but also looks at whether or not there's a cost effectiveness based on the life cycle and the use of a particular facility. So if we're gonna talk about buildings As an example, perhaps there's a better utilization for that. And facilities condition assessment report would be able to identify perhaps a better or higher use for that facility along with that.
That's a much more sophisticated analysis than our staff is currently able to do in general services.
And Chair just and Supervisor just to add to that. I think I would put it almost in the terms of what I might do myself as a homeowner. I might know that my faucet leaks and I put it on the list, I might know that I trip over the carpet and so I put it on the list but that's certainly much different than prior to buying a new home I bring in a home inspector who is absolutely going to look from top to bottom with a very experienced and technical eye And develop that list and help me as a homeowner decide which are the most important. So I think that's sort of on the ground comparison to what we have right now versus what we would envision this assessment report to be able to provide us.
Okay, thank you. Well I guess my concern is that it seems that in general services and in parks that we don't have the expertise in-house to do this kind of assessment as you just said. But I don't know if going forward, even if we decided to go with a consultant that's gonna come in and do this snapshot of where we are now and start us on this list. Whether as a county, we don't need to look towards, do we need to build more internal capacity in these departments? And yes they may not All have to rise to the level of.
The perfect property inspector but still be somewhere more to be able to evaluate where we are because otherwise it seems like you know every few years we're going to have to spend money for an outside consultant to come in instead of building the internal capacity which apparently public works has been able to do with the roads so.
Chair supervisor I think that's an excellent comment and that really is in line with what our thinking is is to be able to get the What I would say one time or perhaps once every five or ten years snapshot by the experts and then build in-house. The ability to maintain that list add two and work off the priorities so yes, I think that's something we definitely want to do in combination.
Supervisor Wolfman, Supervisor Adam?
Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm trying to wrap my arms around this whole concept, and I think your example about the tripping over the carpet versus an inspection is helpful. But somehow can you relate that to our budget book? We have a capital budget summary, and there's different projects That are pretty much prioritized for us to do. So how? How would getting an outside consultant change that is at that? person would do more in depth study than what we have?
Chair, Supervisor Wolf. I think just to separate out the deferred maintenance as well as then the capital parts of the projects. I think there are aspects that carry over. I do think though seeing that total analysis is really critical from a particularly from a resource allocation perspective that I know your board is interested in addressing And so I think there could be pieces of the CIP, the Capital Improvement Plan that would be valuable for the consultant to further consider.
Again just as though you might want to consider adding on to your house you would go and consult with somebody else to keep playing off the analogy once you've bought that home and you want to do in addition what are those kinds of things and how would you finance that? How would you go about getting the design and the plan to make that happen? So I think there are those pieces to it. But I'm wondering if the CEO, if there's another piece to that you're considering too?
Chair Supervisor, I think the other thing that we've done in the past is the CIP has become somewhat an ineffective tool to actually move us forward from a strategic perspective. Many things that come on to the CIP are result of something that's nearly failing, something that's a desire from a community to have as a project. It's really not a very strategic look at how we should move forward on construction. Additionally it's really not intended to be a tool for deferred maintenance, it's really more to look for capital And you may recall, I know that when we had our discussion earlier Mr. Alvarez mentioned that one of the projects that we're going to be working on over the next year is truly to develop a capital improvement program that has criteria, that has base upon need, that really gets away from what I would say right now is a combination of immediate needs and wish list into something that's really more functional for us.
Well,
you know I think that's a great idea because we get that book and it just kind of sits on our shelf. And it's almost like well that's just never going to happen so you know I think having a strategy and a plan is a good thing but along with that comes the financing piece because some of these projects capital projects are Are so expensive that we can't there's you know, there's we can't fund some of them from our general fund.
So I think it will be good for us to, you know, to see the list to come up with a strategy on how we're going to deal with that. And then I have another question because every year we put money into a deferred maintenance account. Into the fin to, you know, look at how we're spending the money. And it just seems like over the past three years that we really haven't spent down You know the money that we've been putting into that account and I could be reading this wrong But it would it would be good to see out of the two million dollars that we put in every year Where is that money being spent or and how does that work as a department call and say? Or talk to general services and say, you know our carpet is horrible. We need new carpet.
You know we know about the heating because when we have emergencies that seems like how we respond but can you touch on that?
Chair Supervisor I think that to some extent you have determined how that list is put together A lot of it really comes from the individual departments identifying something that they believe is necessary in addition to general services, particularly like HVACs and roof repairs and things like that identifying. And then all of those sort of getting divvied out as a part of the budget. In response to what you had noted as far as some of the expenditures were not utilizing the complete amount, that is true. And we had mentioned this before to the board that what we would like to do is be able to somewhat strategically spend those dollars versus just whoever happens to be first in the door with a request. So one of the things that we would suggest if your board decides to move forward with this assessment is to use some of those dollars, in fact, to fund the assessment versus it being in competition for many of the other projects that you have before you next week with the budget.
So we think we have a possible funding source, obviously that takes dollars away from actual brick and mortar things that we could do but we believe that it's a good strategy to spend the money now to get a good assessment versus the scattergun approach that we have been using.
Well, you know I guess when we put the money into these accounts at least it's my...I would hope that there is already a system in place on how to expend the two million dollars. And but it doesn't sound like there is any concrete approach of how departments come and ask for the money to get things done because like I said the money isn't being spent and so now What we're going to do, and I pretty much share Supervisor Farr concern is that we're going to spend it on a consultant.
And that may be the right way to go but it's disturbing to me that we do this every year putting the $2 million in and I guess it's just not being spent to maintain our facilities. So I just have one more thing. I noticed on our staff report about the auditor controller's concurrence, and I just talked to him briefly because there wasn't a yes by that section. So I was just wondering if we could hear from the auditor controller about this issue because Very much involved and aware of the financing piece, which again that's going to be very important as we move through this process.
So I did have a few comments that I wanted to get up and say. And first is to apologize to Chandra and Dennis because I didn't have time to look at this report until today. And when they asked us to review it, we said we don't have time to do it. And so that's why you know we didn't get a chance to get our comments in or comment to Dennis. The other thing that we're doing is kind of working with the county executive office on, you know trying to help them redo the capital plan and give them some tools and stuff. And in doing so I was sitting at my desk while you guys were up here working hard and I had this binder with no label on it. I said what's in that binder? And it was Betsy Schafer on my staff who had given me the capital plan for the city and county of San Francisco.
And I go whoa! This is a really good document. And you go, wow that would be nice to do if we could do that here. But in the overview of that document it kind of makes you think a little different and I don't know if Dennis was covering this or not but they start off and say well the capital plan is an assessment City's capital needs so you first are out looking at there this great big picture of and I think Janet picked up on this right away.
Are we right sized on the jails when we get the new one done? Are we right sized on the whole jail? You know other capital needs you know we're just working with Scott on the enterprise fund. Are we right sized at the Teague's landfill? Are we right sized on flood control? And so I think it's that bigger capital picture that you want to work that deferred maintenance in along with that capital And then you're saying, well to get it up to snuff both the deferred and what we need. Then what's that investment?
What investment do you have to make there to get after both the needs and this deferred backlog? And then you know it's broader. It's really parks libraries roads hospitals. You know I had a great discussion with Suzanne Jacobson the other day about trying to solve the clinic solution in Isla Vista and you go Well, could we if the other clinics go out of business? Could we relocate a clinic and have a smaller operation to provide a satellite office so things like that And that's hard to get to I would not be easy You know is the sheriff right sized and it's all his outlying stations. Do we have the right amount of fire districts? I know fire wants a new station in 10 and so it's not only that deferred maintenance I think we got to pull it back in with the bigger needs and then it's how do we finance this stuff And there's some really unique financing ideas in San Francisco that I said, well that would never work.
You couldn't pass that. To solve Scott's problem they've sold five GO bonds and a GO bond you had Prop 13 on the agenda today and said what did Prop 13 do? Well Prop 13 stopped the issuing of GO bonds which is the way we used to maintain the infrastructure of government But if you see in schools, I have 10 bond refinancings or 10 bond financings for schools because they lowered the voter requirement and the voters are voting for school's infrastructure. So the question is you say well we could never pass a GO Bond with 66%. Somehow San Francisco has put together an attractive plan and the voters are investing in it.
You know those are the kind of broader financing options because I'm going to tell you, I've been around the block and I've heard Scott argument from Chuck Wagner in 1980 sitting in that chair over there telling the Board of Supervisors there's not enough money in here for roads. And Chuck threw the phone at you after it was done but that's a tough problem to solve and I told my wife I'd really have this solution we're just gonna get the flying car Because I got the Jetsons phone in my pocket and then it's all over.
But anyways, I think You know, this is a big issue and we've never done a very good... I can't say that Mike Brown didn't do a good job on his capital plan. I liked his capital plan. We made progress but we really never got to that great big picture and we've never really solved the whole thing and then mixed in all the financing options and you know, we're going to have to go back to the voters and Scott's problem would be one heck of a lot worse If we didn't get 50 years worth of transportation funding with Measure D and Measure A, so we should thank the voters. They got us to not even have a bigger problem. We kind of didn't get as big of a share in the new financing thing but I Peter keeps shaking his head you're not going to get any more taxes.
That's tough in the North County but you know, I remember back when I coached basketball and my kids were playing basketball on the stones that's when the schools really changed than the voters said we're gonna go fix school infrastructure And I think what you're trying to identify is the deferred maintenance, that's what we need to do is tell them how big our deferred maintenance is. To be able to go sell and say we need to rebuild Santa Barbara. If you read this document from San Francisco it's pretty cool. You know they have a statement in here and says it's hard not to walk around the city and notice the revitalized parks libraries roads hospitals fire and police station. And it comes out of their plan so I just think it'd be pretty dream to get to a plan like this.
I went said do they have permanent staffing yep they have a capital I think Supervisor Farr, you bring a point we need to build those resources into the county that can keep this up-to-date because it's ongoing. I always tend to shy away from the consultants because they come in and tell you what time it is on your watch And then you don't have the knowledge that, you don't have that built in knowledge to keep it going. So I don't know if I help or made it a lot more complicated.
5:02 – 5:1726 turns
Well, I think you helped a great deal and complicated it. Thank you. Right.
Mr. Geist thank you. That was very insightful and what I take away from that is it's a complicated issue that isn't just born By a typical municipalities general fund. It's taxes it's grants its general fund it's cobbling the full financial opportunities to keep your infrastructure intact and it took comprehensive responsibility and I really appreciate that message that I heard from you because I think You know, we could have always done a better job and we could always do a job move, a better job moving forward. But it's important to remember that diversity of complexity and solutions.
And you know sometimes we forget that taxes are part of that solution. Some like them more than others but the ones who don't like them are also not understanding the
complexity of the solutions. Yeah, and we can't forget the infrastructure we have in the county. We have some pretty strong special districts. We've got some pretty strong enterprise funds. We have some good funding from federal and state programs we can leverage. And so you gotta kind of all bring that into mix to get at your infrastructure, so...
Thank you. One last thing. What I heard from you is that while consultants can do a good job for To really build the infrastructure you need to continue to monitor, assess and keep building on this issue. You think having staffing infrastructure built would maybe lend itself in the long run to better stability and continuity?
That's how I kind of look at it. It's nice to use consultants when you need that little... And Chandra might have a good point, maybe this is where we need a shot from one of them. To get it
going,
yeah. But I think if you don't have somebody writing this plan all the time and marshalling the plan and the capital plan and the deferred maintenance with a broad overview, you'll just lose your momentum.
Yeah. No, I also appreciate C.O. Waller's Perspective because I think she is trying to get us moving Instead of that long recruitment you bring some people on board and it just takes that much longer So I appreciate both perspectives and then trying to find that balance
And supervisor Adam pointed out Scott's built that in his shop, and he's producing a good plan And you guys are seeing it every year now. It's resonating with you that hey that that is ongoing Thank you.
Supervisor Adam, Supervisor Laviniello and Supervisor Farr.
Okay yeah thank you Mr. Geis that was good it was helpful But I want to make sure that we don't try to finance deferred maintenance, because I think the public expects us to maintain the assets that they've asked us to build and approved us to build over time. And I really don't want to go back to them and say OK well you approved these assets to be built and then you give us some money To build them and then you walked away from the asset, which is how I find a lot of the things. If you look around at our parking lots down there every parking lot that this county has is in just horribly shabby shape.
And it's like we build this stuff and we walk away from it and there's no thought whatsoever to maintaining it. It's just what else can we build? And can we get the financing to build a new thing? And there's no reserve fund like we have to do at our homeowners association. We have to have a reserve fund in our homeowners association for every one of our assets that is designed to collect enough money over time to replace that item at the end of its useful life, and we haven't been doing Well no that's not true.
It's just not true we don't have enough money to I mean you were two hundred fifty million back on the roads and if we go out and do this study we're probably going to find out that we're greater than we think we are And back on the parks and the buildings. In fact, I know we're going to find things in the buildings because you know that we have... You know what? I'm not casting stones at general services. I'm really not but we have a culture of denial.
In maintaining our buildings, Mr. Pontus and I went and looked at a couple of buildings around the Foster Road campus up there in Santa Maria the other day. And there's some horrible stuff over there. We've got to deal with these things and some of them extremely soon because otherwise we're going to end up getting sued. We lose the entire asset in some cases.
You know we're just ignoring some of these problems and you know Supervisor Farr and Mr. Geist referred to this in-house thing that Scott does, and Scott just to be clear you are using consultants can you tell us that please? In the development of your maintenance assessments.
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Adam, we actually use two consultants. One goes out and actually does the inspection work and then one checks that work and uploads it into the Street Saver payment management system so we have checks and balances.
Okay so he's not doing it entirely in-house and you know I went on and on last week about my view of the use of consultants. And that they should be used in a limited way to plug a hole that you have in your program. And I think this is consistent with that. I think if we go out and hire some consultants, and we use some of the people that we have on staff that do know our 386 buildings in our parks and whatnot, it can be a very good combination But I think that we really have to do it and I think we have to make the commitment to fix this stuff out of general fund revenues. And this is why I'm kind of, just seem like I'm always a jerk over here asking every department head that comes before us, is this taking general fund money? Because I feel very strongly that people gave us the money To use for maintenance of these items, because they all think that it's being maintained and it's not.
So I think we need to make the commitment. I'd like to see us make a commitment to using the general fund to fix this stuff.
Supervisor Lavinino?
Thank you Mr. Chair.
My only question when it comes down to a consultant or inside, because I think we do have to build the bench. We got to build a team otherwise I don't want to keep going out there consulting every two or three years and giving us another report that goes on my shelf and less money goes into maintenance but is there gonna be hesitancy on anybody inside from basically self-reporting? I guess what it would be is you're gonna identify the items in your own department that you feel they're We have issues with or is a team from General Services going to go out and inspect all of our buildings? Or if we kept it in-house, I guess what I'm asking is how do you see that playing out if we were doing it in house. Would we take our own inspectors and go from building to building or how would it work?
Chair supervisor. Candidly, I don't feel that we have the staff to do this detailed assessment. I do think that we have some really very good staff and respectfully to Supervisor Adam, I don't think it's so much that the staff that exists I just want to give a shout out to those folks that as they've been reduced over the years. They really, really have stepped up to the plate but that said...
Develop some internal expertise as we move along to continue to maintain what we produce out of the consults. But I honestly just don't think it's something we can do
well and I'm not a huge fan of consultants except I mean the ones we were using for mental health gentleman came in and did an awesome job and passed it off to us. And I think we can run with the ball from there. I see the same thing here. I think we definitely need this report. Without the report, we're running around blind and we're kind of doing what we've been doing which is hey, we have something over here and we have something over here but we don't spend the money on either because we don''t have a priority.
So are we getting close to where we want to move something? We've been on this for awhile.
I was... Mr.
Chair. Supervisor Wolf then Supervisor Farr then
Adam. And I don't mean to put Mr Pontus on the spot, but I would just like to hear from him. As as new to our county, but someone who's had the experience in another county. It would be good to hear from you what your thoughts are. And again, I hate to put you on the spot.
That's OK. Thank you, Supervisor Wolf through the chair. You know, I could echo several of your comments and especially some of the comments that CA Waller also made. Since I've got here in my entire tenure of five weeks, I've seen a whole lot of things in the field and in the offices that we have. I've seen some incredible planning documents that were commissioned by this board or previous boards Where we had internal staff work on space utilization studies, deferred maintenance plans and some real comprehensive stuff. It's better than consultants work that I've seen in the past in my prior lives.
And what I always hate to see is this wonderful planning document where we prioritize, and we put numbers, and really did a in-depth assessment of a facility. And then it sat on the shelf because of whatever reason. It could have been a funding reason. Could have been a staff resources issue or it could've been something else that was a priority at the time.
That being said, and going back to one of Supervisor Wolf's earlier comments about the money that's been going into deferred maintenance. I believe that staff has spent almost every dime that's in there and continues to endeavor every year from what I've seen at least. We have an incredible backlog of projects as this board is aware. I think that if you did a full assessment, then you'd find you could probably double the deferred maintenance cost, that $30 million cost. I think you could probably easily double that and that would be a true cost. I think at a certain point we just stopped. Assessing because, you know we had such a huge hole to fill.
I know that staff has prioritized the items that come before your board in terms of health and safety or if there's offsetting general fund dollars or grants or those kind of things to help mitigate those projects. As far as the proposal that Dennis brought forth to you today, I think there's some real merit in taking some of this stuff and the plans that we have on the shelf, revisiting those with a consultant, marrying them together, getting us a really solid baseline to move forward. I don't want to throw away the plans of the past because there's some incredible work that went into those and they're very comprehensive for the facilities that they assessed. But it did not include a full assessment of all facilities on the 2006, I believe, facility assessment documentation as well as the space utilization plans that dovetails into this process in that if we can optimize our space and get out of older efficient building or inefficient buildings, that's really where we would suggest your board move.
So, I would be in favor of a combined approach with staff. I don't know that I have the current staff and I definitely have some expertise down there to do some of this work but I don' t have the amount of time available because they are like CEO Waller pointed out earlier focused on projects and trying to get those deliverables and move through those various phases of construction. So with that I'd be happy to answer any other questions.
Thank you. Supervisor Farley and Supervisor Adams?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually I wanted to ask Mr. McAulpin if he could come back to the podium. Mr. McGaulpin, you said that as part of your internal working of your department you already have this two consultant system and that's why you have such an up-to-date assessment. So how is that built into your budget? Where does the money for that come from and about how much does that cost?
Mr. Chair and Supervisors, as far as built into our annual operating budget essentially because we do annual inspections of the pavement, we have roads that fall into the yearly list which is our collector roads and our arterials they get looked at every year because they're high volume carrying truck traffic heavy loads if you will and then we do about a third of the system residential rural roads they get looked at on an annual basis And then those inspections, like I said are created and we have our annual report that comes from the consultant. It's checked and then it's put in a street saver and we utilize one of our street superintendents Take some of his time to kind of manage the software throughout the year. So, you know your board sees the roadmap and it comes in and has scrub micros in it or overlays when that works completed that work history gets placed into the payment management system so the payment management system can then adjust the payment condition index for that particular road and when they go back out to do the evaluation or the inspection It's recorded at the same time.
So it costs us on average about $60,000 a year.
And is that like in your services and supplies budget? Correct. In the roads? Okay. And so it's almost kind of a hybrid in a way. So you have somebody that's clearly an outside consultant that does this but then you have somebody internally who as a part of their job takes on this double checking of what the consultant did.
5:17 – 5:2310 turns
Well the double checking is the second consultant, the Nichols consultants that we use. They're pavement management specialists just to make sure the inspection work if there's any numbers that don't look quite right they'll send the inspecting consulting back out to recheck the road and then the internal staff member is responsible for maintaining Street Saver throughout the year. So
that's the maintenance?
Correct, so when maintenance goes out and does a fog sale they'll put all the dates in when that work's done as well. So street saver is currently up to date on the type of work and condition of the road system.
And then my other question is in one of the options that was given to us, the combination One includes having a consultant complete a facility condition assessment for all three and one excludes public works, just includes general services. So based on the fact that you have this system and you keep current how important do you think it would be for you to if the board decided to go in that direction and hire an outside consultant to have this outside consultant look at your department as well as the other two?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Farr, I think it's up to your board and CO Waller if you want to take a look at what we're doing. We're fine with that absolutely. And they can certify to you that our numbers look good but as you know when we presented in April I talked about Public Works has been tracking our payment conditions since 1985. We also operate a bridge management system so we keep track of Of the condition of our bridges, Caltrans does the inspections.
We're currently undergoing an inventory now of our hardscapes curb gutter and sidewalks as well as a street tree inventory I think our new systems tree keepers something along those lines So we're working on a new database there. So it's been an ongoing, evolving process for Public Works because we need to know what's going on with our road system because there's just so much liability out there. But totally up to your board, Supervisor Farr and CO Waller, whatever you'd like to do.
Okay, thank you very much Mr. McAulpin and then CEO Waller I just wanted to ask him it looks like on the first two options whether we did it internally or whether we used a consultant What either one of those are is the deliverable? It's just the facility condition report period where in the combination option for approximately the same amount of money estimate The consultant would complete the facility condition assessment and then staff would do the finance and management plans in that way. So you're kind of getting two under those options as opposed to just the facility condition report under the first two options, is that?
Chair, Supervisor Farr, that's correct. I mean from my reading of what other entities were paying for these, that was true.
Okay and Mr. Chairman my last comment is you know to what Mr. Guy said about different ways of looking at it and financing, we're looking at these three particular departments in their needs but I think how the public, what is of interest to the public and what the public might support It's very interesting. I think it's not a surprise that they supported both Measure D and Measure A because roads are really important to everybody, you can see the roads, you use them every day, you can see where your dollar is going and that is making a difference.
Not the case with county buildings and county parking lots. You know? I think that would be harder for the public say oh yeah, you know, I want to spend money on that. On the other hand, I think parks are kind of more like roads And I think it's interesting where Mr. Nesbitt went to the East Bay Park District in the Bay Area, they put all their parks in one big district voter approved which is very well supported by the public again because the public wants to support the parks, they see the benefit of the parks and they're willing you know they're willing to vote for that support and back when we were looking at the beach parking fees obviously there was great Opposition to that, but there were some people who said I would be more interested in this if I knew that this money was going to stay within the parks Department and be used for these beaches and for other recreational facilities and not just going into the general fund So I think that that's something that we need to be thinking about as we move forward And we look at the different ways that we might be financing Some of this and that you know the finance and management plans May be different for each of these different departments.
Thank You mr. Chair
Mr. Adams and Supervisor Wolf.
Well I think that people expect us to maintain those assets. Well they don't want to pay more, they already gave you money. And you're supposed to use it to maintain those assets and we're not doing it. So I guess I'm going to make a motion to adopt option C, and I guess we leave that in CEO Waller's discretion as to how much or little the consultant does and how much or little in-house staff does with the idea that we want to build an infrastructure inside our parks and general services to be able to monitor how much deferred maintenance that we have.
5:23 – 5:2918 turns
Supervisor Wolf? I don't know if there's a second.
Motion has been made. Well, so option C, what's? I need glasses. That's the two options. All right, so it's a sub, in option C there's two sub-options. So do you know which one were you wanting to go with? Both of them use a consultant and staff. Okay. Oh, so we take public works out? Okay. I'm for taking public works out. So that's your motion with the suboption to take out public works. Public works out.
That cost isn't the same. It's pretty close.
Did you understand what I meant CEO Waller?
Chair, Supervisor, I think what you were giving as part of your motion was really for us to move forward with a combination of consultant and internal staff to develop assessments for CSD and for general services, and then to combine the assessment of public works put those all into an asset management plan. And so what your hope was is at the end of it to have an asset management plan that included all three of them and the financing model?
Correct. That's good. Despite what I said.
And if I may, just a clarification on the dollar amounts. These are really, really rough and certainly we would want to do requests for interest and requests for qualifications to refine those numbers as we brought them back to your board. Just given that the time that we had, we used the best available information we had from other jurisdictions.
So how about we...I'm comfortable seconding that motion as long as you come back to us before we say okay so that we don't come back and it's $750,000? Bring us back to
chair supervisor that. That is completely what my intention would be and as I said we'll probably need several months to get back to you because we really do want to get those requests for interest in request for qualifications that can get you good numbers.
And that's my second
okay.
Do we have any public speakers none further discussion?
Yeah. Supervisor
Wolf?
Initially, I was not going to support this but just because we're a week or two away from budget hearings and I was thinking that it might be a time to discuss it further but with the clarification that we'll have more information and I'm sure it will come up during budget. I think it's a reasonable approach and I like the combination. As Mr. Ponta said, there's a lot of information that we have and with his staff and a consultant or another...
That will have to be worked out internally but I do think that In all due respect, Mr. Allen, you know we have 200, I think it's $200 million in general fund revenue? Is that what the, is that what it looks like?
206.
204, 206? Yes, that's correct. And, and general fund. So and I, I have the budget right here. I can't recall but we have about 60% of We just heard we have $30 million just in deferred maintenance. So, just kind of as a reality check there...we are not going to be able to pay for all of these things that we have and I think we all agree that we have a lot and we've got employees that we have to look at.
And so this is going to be a balancing act and the financing piece I know you don't want to do any kind of taxes, but I have to say that the general fund just cannot support everything that we're going to want to do. Maybe it's going to be a combination of revenue enhancements and I think we had talked about having a workshop on discussing those options, the TOT tax It might be a time to bring, I do think not it might be. I think we should absolutely bring that back as an option and any other suggestions that you know, you and staff can bring back to us along with this plan because if we don't figure out how we're going to take care of these issues it's just gonna be another plan that's gonna sit on the desk.
Thank you Mister.
Thank you, not having further discussion motion has been made and seconded I would clear on the motion Madam Clerk CEO Waller. Okay all those in favor? Aye. Opposed abstentions passes unanimously we will now
move on to item number six
5:29 – 5:3918 turns
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. Item number six is from social services it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Department of Social Services request to add 77 positions.
Thank you very much and as we get started with the presentation by Mr. Nielsen am I correcting that there's no general fund in this? That is correct. I just want to start out that way so we could expedite this discussion Let's just jump there.
I have that repeated about five times during the course of my presentation.
Well now that we've answered it, feel free to truncate your discussion because I think it's going to be straightforward.
Thank you Chair and Honorable Supervisors. Daniel Nielsen, Director of the Department of Social Services with me today are Maria Gardner, Deputy Director of Economic Assistance and Terry Kinsellas, Deputy Director of Administrative Services. I am here today to present information about the department I will be covering only some points of the data presented in your board packets because my presentation is only nine minutes long.
So if I do not address any of the data that you've reviewed, okay, I'll get it down to eight. Please let me know. Five, okay, moving quickly. The Department of Social Services serves over 100,000 individuals in Santa Barbara County. In a vast array of services to include adult protective services, in-home supportive services, child protective services, CalWORKs, MediCal, CalFresh, General Relief, Workforce Investment Act programs and a licensed adoption agency.
This chart describes the caseload growth by program over the past six fiscal years from fiscal year 2006-2007 to fiscal year 2012-2013. While all of our programs have experienced some growth, of significance is CalFresh which has grown 121% and MediCal which has grown 57%. Our overall combined caseload growth for this time frame is 54%. The department is now serving 19,403 additional cases than we were in fiscal year 2006-2007.
Unfortunately, the department has struggled to keep up with these increasing caseloads as well as with changes to program requirements. In fiscal year 2007-2008 we had seven corrective action plans. Since that time new findings and recurring findings have caused us to now have 17 corrective action plans in the areas of MediCal, CalFresh, adoptions assistance, CalWORKs, in home supportive services and the Workforce Investment Act Program.
Some of our ongoing problems are rooted in high caseloads and the inability of staff and supervisors to have an appropriate amount of time for quality control activities. Also, we are not always able to keep up on the volume of information reported to us leaving discrepancies between our case files and our automated case management system.
Could you go back that one bullet? I think it's important for us to make sure we understand that second bullet. Can you say that again?
On our child welfare outcome measures we have, is that the bullet you were referring to?
Yes. No, the CWS.
The CWS, yes. In child welfare we have 17 outcome measures that we strive to meet and we are not meeting 11 of those.
And that's why we're adding these positions. That's in
child welfare, yes
Okay it's important I thought that was very striking.
There are a vast array of unmet mandates. We have a list here of all of the ones that we intended to talk about, but let me just hit on a couple of them. In child welfare services, we are coming very close to responding to all referrals with requiring immediate investigation within the time allotted achieving a 98.7% success rate. However, we are missing our target in regard to seeing children in placement every month. The expectation of the state is that we see 90% of our children in placement each month And we are slightly below that at 88%.
In our in-home supportive services program, we are completing only 70% of our annual reassessments in a timely manner. In the MediCal program, we are meeting the requirement of having at least 90% of our initial applications processed within 45 days. However, we are completing only 28% of our renewals within the timeframe allowed. Resources in this area have been focused on initial applications And annual redeterminations and our existing backlog have suffered as a result of that.
In our CalFresh program, we are meeting our goal of processing 90% of our expedited food stamp applications within three days but are missing our target on eligibility determination for regular applications only completing 85% of our eligibility determinations within the 30 days of application. Should the department continue to operate with existing staffing levels, I believe that we will struggle to eliminate or reduce our audit exceptions. The backlog of our applications and redeterminations will continue to grow and we will continue to struggle to meet our response times in regard to investigations of abuse and neglect.
We could also have fiscal sanctions from the state or federal government for failure to meet our mandates and federal and state funding could be reduced related to the timeliness and quality of our performance. While the department has experienced a caseload growth of 54% since fiscal year 2006-2007, we have only had a 5.7% increase in legal positions in the form of 39 positions which were added in 2012.
Those 39 positions were related to new state mandates to include the transition of children from healthy families to MediCal Our current expansion request is for 77 positions, which would bring our total staffing growth since fiscal year 2006-2007 to 17%. It is important to note that all of these positions are frontline workers, frontline supervisors or support staff and that none of them are management positions.
I do not believe that the challenges the department faces in terms of corrective action plans and difficulty meeting various performance measures can be totally resolved by simply adding more staff. Certainly systems and structures within the organization have to be assessed and adjusted on an ongoing basis to maintain the health of the organization. Already, the department has undergone a business process re-engineering in the Santa Maria office that resulted in clients having their intake appointment within a day or two of initial contact rather than having to wait weeks.
Also we have implemented technology that allows clients to more easily apply for and manage their benefits, which has improved service to clients. However it is my assessment that these 77 additional positions are an essential component of our successful path forward. This graph demonstrates the fact that we started off with, which is that there are no general fund dollars associated with these positions. The fully loaded cost of these additional 77 positions to include retirement costs will be funded with 1991 realignment to 1011 realignment and state and federal funds.
While we believe that this funding is sustainable should any future downturn in the economy occur that impacts these revenue sources, we will be able to adjust those revenues reductions by leaving positions vacant in order to stay within our budget. So I am asking that you approve the addition of 77 legal positions, that you direct staff to include the additional positions in the fiscal year 2013 annual amendment resolution and that you direct staff to include the required budget adjustment during the fiscal year 2013-2014 budget hearings.
Thank you Mr. Nielsen there are no public speakers and this was an excellent report. Discussion? Supervisor Wolk and Supervisor Lavinino.
Thank you Mr Chair. Mr. Nielsen, you know I never thought I would see the day when we would have a presentation like this to expand the folks on the ground as you say these are the ones who are really hitting the ground working with clients getting the eligibility and when you talked about just talking about the Medi-Cal that it could take 45 days I think you said to get to work through that eligibility cycle If we can, by utilizing these folks and getting people enrolled in Medi-Cal or CalFresh or whatever it is, it's going to make a tremendous difference in our community. Not to mention what we had talked about earlier was the child protective services. And yes, we're not putting forth any general fund revenues and sometimes we get stuck on that point but I think that if the time comes and you feel That in order for us to do the job that we are mandated to do and that general fund money is necessary to help you achieve that, that you feel comfortable enough to come to the board and ask for that.
And understanding and knowing that you are looking at all other types of improvements and efficiencies and everything else but I think that this is such an important piece of who we are as a county and I'm just, I'm pleased to see that we have this opportunity. Thank you very much.
You did such of a good job that Mr. Adam was going to make a motion. Mr. Adam?
First I was just gonna tell you be careful if you come back for general fund money. A motion to accept The recommended actions in their entirety.
Second. Not having further discussion? Great job and great for telling us the challenges that you've had. I hope with these positions, you could also come back to us and continue to tell us how you're making progress on meeting those mandates. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you Chair and Supervisors.
We'll move on to number seven Madam clerk
5:39 – 5:4918 turns
Item number seven is from the county executive office alcohol drug and mental health services It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding proposed transitional alcohol drug and mental health services organizational structure and fiscal impacts
Dr. Wada, this is Terry Moss message this is coming back to what we kind of already did right so if you could just go through it remind us and let's move on. We have one public speaker on for this one another than that.
Yes, Mr. Chair and members of the board I'm happy to answer any questions and dispense with the staff report we did provide an extensive board letter which itemized each of the organizational charts in reference as well as fiscal impacts would you like me to go ahead?
Very brief unless any of my colleagues want more information we've already done this you're just telling us exactly what we did and codifying it today Exactly
All right good afternoon members of the board. Originally we read for you on May 21 the following which is reflected up here on that on the overhead provides you with an overview of the recommendations to move ahead with the formal structure that we provided on the twenty first return with a contract at a later date for TriWest and also to prepare their requests for information together additional data on inpatient care And to return to return to the board following your break actually with a presentation from Alcohol Drug Mental Health Services on psychiatric health facility and today we're here regarding additional information that you requested on the organizational structure and some of the financing options.
Quick reminder, here's an overview of the current organizational chart. The board requested that we review that with them. This current structure illustrates a number of functional and structural issues that the new structure that you'll see in a moment seeks to resolve. This includes the lack of the independent compliance function if you could highlight where it is currently located under the admin deputy.
Lack of the formal integration of alcohol drug into the overall department. Lack of a full time medical director currently as part time and the most significant the vacant assistant director of mental health services I'm not going to go through this. What this is, this is a detail of the reporting relationships up through that currently vacant position of assistant deputy. You'll see here that this includes 159 separate reports out of the total 280 within the department or over 60% of the department rep reports up through that particular position, the one that we will seek to fill.
This is the chart that we walk through very specifically with the board on the 21st. I'll kind of consolidate the discussion here what this does within the boxes it indicates a number of the key positions that will be seeking to fill over the course of the next several months The compliance function is one of the first that we'll be seeking to resolve and establishing that as an independent report directly to the Director of Alcohol Drug Mental Health Services.
The next is the administrative deputy in the related functions which, as we discussed with the board, we're proposing to reorganize and redistribute a number of those particular functions throughout other areas of the department. The next is the clinical operations deputy. This is referred to by in several different manners, so I apologize if it's confusing. It's often referred to currently as the deputy director, the admin services director, the admin deputy, the deputy over admin for all future reference we're going to be calling this the clinical operations deputy.
So that'll be the nomenclature for that position? Yes,
yes.
Anybody who says otherwise should get penalized in some way like no chocolate for a week or so. We will
take away their birthday, absolutely. The next item here is the, I'm sorry, Chief Operating Officer. This is a COO position that we're bringing in specifically as a full-time extra help position to help guide and implement all of the recommendations of this report. This person is on board with us. He's currently working and working to process all of the recommendations and beginning to build the design teams and working with our tiger teams. We're very pleased that that person is now on board and working with us.
Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you Mr. Chair and that's the position that was thought to be about six months? Correct,
yes. Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf we've budgeted it at six months to a year but I should say that will be back to you within the six months to report on overall progress and at that time we'll be able to discuss that further seeing how we're doing.
Supervisor Farr?
Actually, I just wanted to follow up on Supervisor Wolf's comment. Because this is what I've been trying to sort out too when we're actually looking at the well let me back up and just say thank you for all of the org charts. I know that I asked for that at the board and it is very helpful to see what we have and where we're going in the level of detail so thank you for doing that but you know in looking at this and at the cost It appears to me that you have to figure all of this on a full year's basis, including this interim extra help person that is in that particular role.
to be for the transition. And then, but the idea is that in by October we're gonna have some kind of a report on where we move forward from there so that can be budgeted planned for the next fiscal year. But I would just assume that even if then we're going forward with recruitment for a new ADMHS director if that's what Not to stay with the joint structure, but that would take some time anyway. So I think the reality is no matter what the recommendations are that come forward in October, that we're really looking at at least a 12 month rather than a 6 month interim transitional period for all of these different staffing positions. Is that fair to say?
Yes, Chair Carpajal and Supervisor Wolff. Yes exactly. We've budgeted everything or what we're presenting to you is to include within the proposed budget to budget conservatively of that full year to keep the options open but as you mentioned we'll be back within six months to get direction along the way. The first piece that will be back with us as Supervisor Farr mentioned and it's noted in the Tri-West report in October we hope to be back specifically with a discussion about the disposition of the director position specifically So that we can jump on that immediately or include it in any of the future preparations for the 15-16 believe, or 14-15 believe it or not budget.
Okay well I just wanted to clarify that because Supervisor Wolf had asked specifically about being six months but it appears that the funding is there for a whole year?
Yes exactly the intention is about six months we've conservatively placed the funding first for the full year. Let me click through this just a bit I think we've discussed the bulk of these previously, so I'll move forward. Trying to go just a bit faster. This chart is basically the clean organizational chart that shows where we're going to be during that transitional phase within that six-month period.
We provide a detail. What we have here again is how it will be functioning over the course of the interim period. You see the CEO Advisory Committee teamed with TriWest and Associates and Zia Partners, this is exactly what we were referring to in actually the last discussion of deferred maintenance that we're having the consultants on board for a limited amount of time working collectively with the CEO Advisory Committee and staff So that together following the transitional period, the staff can really run with all of this and implement all of the changes.
We've shown the chief operating officer here. Directly overseeing human resources and the CFO, directly providing some support to Dr. Wada in the supervision function. Currently, Dr. Wada in its current configuration oversees nine direct members of the Alcohol Drug Mental Health Department as well as six members of the Public Health Department. Fifteen individuals is far too many to effectively supervise. This provides some relief by inserting the COO to oversee the HR and CFO functions or the financial functions. And then as you also see up here, there's a number of dotted relationships in which we're specifically referencing the COOs involvement in pushing the recommendations forward but we still through the solid line which Dr. Wada will point out show that the direct reporting relationships of the medical branches and the public and the PUF to Dr.
Dr. Water not only has this new responsibility but a new little one too at home, right?
5:49 – 5:5410 turns
He's not on the chart. We don't have a chart there. In terms of key staffing and resource needs I've mentioned several throughout this time period. The interim director, Dr. Waters' time we indicated that he'll be with the department for an additional six months at about 50% of his time The chief operating officer, that full-time extra help position which I'll refer to in the next slide. The full-time compliance officer not budgeted but we would like to seek for a full year. The assistant director of clinical operations we're proposing to fill. The medical director we're proposing to go to full time it's currently part time And an additional item that we did not bring to your attention, actually I believe Dr. Water referred to it briefly but as a request for some additional clinical services.
The reason we're presenting this to the board at this time is we do anticipate that as part of this process we're going to be pulling people off of the line, pulling people away from some of their direct services and we want a means to ensure that client services are maintained, we're working directly with the consumers and there's really truly not a lack of productivity. So by engaging those folks, we're looking for a bit of an insurance policy or some bridge funding to be able to bring on contractors so they can basically step up when we pull our employees back to be working on a lot of these system change efforts. We do believe that it will be a significant amount of time and I'll get to the cost that we're anticipating in just one second.
So, how does this roll out in terms of budgeting? What do we have in the budget versus what do we not have in the proposed budget. The Administrative Deputy Director as it currently exists is a budgeted position for 13-14 at a total cost of $226,000. The Alcohol Drug Mental Health Services Director is budgeted and 13- 14 at the cost of 256,000 We also anticipate as a result of multiple savings across the department in multiple positions, a potential salary savings of $88,000. Actually we anticipate about $150,000 overall but we'd like to use about $88k of that to make this balance out.
In terms of what we need that is not budgeted-
Supervisor Wolf?
Yes. Ms. Nisich? Yes That includes benefits? It's an overall estimate of total salary and benefit savings. Yes, thank you. In terms of what do we need that is not contained within the 13-14 budget at this time? The clinical operations deputy, the cost shown here of $169,000 is an estimated nine month fully burdened cost. The compliance officer at $182,000 We anticipate doing an internal recruitment for that position, so we've included the full 12-month of $182,000. That may be 10 or 11 months but we've conservatively budgeted a 12 month cost in there. The chief operating officer as mentioned by Supervisor Farr budgeted a full year at $228,000 In addition I mentioned the interim director time Additional six months at 50% time, $91,000.
That is a total salary cost needed not contained within the 13-14 budget of $670,000 The differential is $100,000 What we then propose to do We need additional $200,000 for those clinical services to bridge that gap And what we are suggesting to the board and would like to bring forward on June 18th in the form of a budget revision is to use $300,000 of one-time TSAC funding to bridge this gap.
And for the new members of our board, could you explain what TSAC is? Not general fund.
TSAC is not general fund money. TSAC is tobacco settlement account funds. It is funds that are specifically directed primarily in the public health department to address health related needs associated with many of the settlements made with the tobacco companies over time. We anticipate and you will see this on June 18 A one time redistribution of TSEC money in the amount of 1.9 million dollars, we would like to take about 300,000 of that to...
Thank you Terri I just wanted...directed us yes. Supervisor Wolk?
On the clinical services did you say that their contracts so are those doctors that are on contract
Yes, Chair Carbajal and Supervisor Wolf. Yes absolutely they would be additional contractors on payroll that would be in the clinician and physician roles very specifically to step up and meet the demands of our
clients Well I just want to thank you for You know that wasn't something that we had contemplated or talked about before And it just makes so much sense, and so I really appreciate that you've included that Thank you
I and that goes to addressing those people that were having to wait all those months to get in to be seen. So Dr. Wada just says piggybacking on what Supervisor Wolf said, thank you for listening and taking action.
5:54 – 5:596 turns
Okay, our recommendations for today is that the Board of Supervisors receive this report and then direct the staff to implement the structure as deemed appropriate. And that is a structure that we've already presented to you but just to reaffirm the direction that you provided to us on the 21st truly what we wanted to do today is give you a good overview of what we're needing for the proposed 13-14 budget in light of this report or in light of the recent report and then indicate to you how we plan on filling those needs.
Thank you, Ms. Mosvich. You've done a great job. We have one public speaker. Jacqueline?
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board, we have one request to speak on this item and that is Joff Bard.
I should have said Madam Clerk. I just said your first name, Jacqueline.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, as you know I have an organization, the Alliance to Teach Everywhere about community health which is local people and people from around the country, up to over 2200 members. And I would like to strenuously object and let you know that I will be building a consensus with my organizations against the diversion of tobacco settlement money for this purpose California has the ignominious status of being one of the worst offenders in the misuse of tobacco settlement money.
We paid for that money with Medicare payments for emphysema, bronchitis and lung cancer and other cancers directly attributable to tobacco. And as a result, pardon me my service dog is a dog. This is her first time at public comment. So it's ongoing training, Lillehammer. Training is an ongoing thing. Look this tobacco settlement 1.8% You know less than two cents on the dollar is actually going to tobacco prevention. We know that if we spend a dollar on tobacco cessation and prevention, we save five dollars over ten years.
We don't know with mental health services it's really nebulous And the efficacy of a lot of these interventions has never really been proven. The field of mental health is in an uproar right now with the new DSM-5, and if you put a bunch of experts together, you know, you're going to get one set of experts saying we should put this kid on Ritalin, and you're going to get another set of experts that say God no! So why should we spend taxpayer money on something like that? We have the perfect opportunity In this county, right now to merge the Department of Mental Health with the Department of Public Health. We have a very competent director and some very competent staff in both departments. Why don't we just merge them all into one department instead of throwing a bunch of money out there?
When you put someone on the puff or you put them on meds, you're responsible. They could sue you for civil rights infringement if they get a granulocytopenia that could sue you so you have to pay more money later to monitor for these side effects. You could even become liable for tardive dyskinesia It's just a hornet's nest, and I do recommend Thomas Soss in his theories. So tobacco settlement money really is $300,000.
If we put it into mental health, we'll end up spending $900,000 by the time we're done. If we put it in tobacco cessation, we'll end up being able to reduce the number of people in our county who are getting emphysema bronchitis. So that's my macro point. Now my micro point would be to commend the infectious disease control provisions on page 59 of the Tri-West report and I hope we generalize the infection control policies they recommend.
Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve this item? Motion has been made and seconded. Further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Passage unanimously. Our meeting is now adjourned. ¶. StSq2 2.60