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 – 0:031 turns
Yeah. you ♪ ♪ ♪ Morning, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to call to order the May 6 meeting of the Board of Supervisors for Santa Barbara County. Mr. Allen, can I get a roll call please?
0:03 – 0:088 turns
Mr. Carbajal? Here. Ms. Wolfe? Here. Ms Farrer? Here! Mr. Adams? Here Mr. Lavagnino?
Can I get a motion to approve the minutes of the April 22nd meeting, please? Moved and seconded. All those in favor, aye. None opposed. Passes unanimously. It's time for public comment. Mr. Allen do we have any speakers?
We have no request to speak for public comment.
No requests to speak from the public. Okay, very good. Are there any changes to the administrative agenda you need to make us aware of?
Chairman Lavinino, members of the board, just a couple of quick announcements. We had a request from the Public Works Department to withdraw item A-17 from the agenda today that is regarding an acceptance of easements for public utility purposes. It's the Sierraville 4 in the second district and that item is going to be withdrawn from the agenda today. I also wanted to note that we did post an addendum on Friday which added item A31 to the agenda. It was from Supervisor Adam, and it was the appointment of Kenneth Bell to the Advisory Board on Alcohol and Drug Problems. Those are my two announcements.
Okay, very good. Can I get a motion to approve items A1 through A5? Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed. They pass unanimously. We'll go to A1, Supervisor Carbajal.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could have Paige Batson come forward, Sandra Copley, Linda Penny, Yvette Calhoun. I am honored to sponsor the resolution proclaiming May 6th as National Nurses Day. And the week of May 6, 2014 through May 12, 2014 is National Nurses Week in Santa Barbara County. I think most, if not all know the important work that our nurses provide to our healthcare system.
As I read this resolution, And I can't say enough about the important role that nurses play. I have a personal story, I immigrated to this country when I was five years old and about a year later, I don't even recall why but I ended up being hospitalized. For about a week and one of the most pleasant experiences, especially as somebody new to this country was just my interaction with the care I was getting from the nurses. So for me it left a very important memory in my life in terms of the role that nurses play and I just want to thank you for the important role that nurses play day in and day out in our healthcare system to helping Achieve the medical outcomes that we need to achieve and to help mend everybody who comes into your care. So thank you for your service, Mr.
Allen if you could read the resolution?
Chairman Labnino, members of the board. This is a resolution proclaiming the day of May 6th 2014 as National Nurses Day and the week of May 6-12 2014 as National Nurses Week. Whereas nurses are recognized for their contributions to the healthcare system both in their role as expert clinicians in diverse care settings and as leaders who can dramatically influence the quality of care and overall performance of the healthcare system. And whereas, nursing is the largest of the healthcare professions and continues to grow with more job growth projected in nursing than any other occupation between 2008 and 2018. And whereas, the nursing profession plays an essential role in improving patient outcomes, increasing access, and reducing healthcare costs.
And whereas every day nurses step forward embracing new technologies, resolving emerging issues and accepting ever-changing roles in their profession. They lead the way for their patients, colleagues, organizations and the healthcare industry as a whole. And whereas the theme for National Nurses Week 2014, Nurses Leading The Way highlights the dedication, commitment and tireless efforts of nearly 3.1 million registered nurses nationwide to promote and maintain the health of communities in the United States.
Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors does observe the sixth day of May 2014 as National Nurses Day and the week of May 6th through May 12th as National Nurses Week in recognition of the contributions of all nurses working in our health care and educational settings and in the County of Santa Barbara. Passed and adopted today.
0:08 – 0:115 turns
I just wanted to start off really quickly here and express my gratitude for your support, recognition of Nurses Day and Nurses Week. System change efforts, as well as just the day-to-day work that the nurses do within our system and our operations. Investigating outbreaks, doing home visits, operating in our quality program, emergency medical services, children's services. In our clinics obviously in both public health and alcohol drug and mental health. Inpatient settings like our PUF, working with the homeless, working in the jails. You can see that throughout the county, and all of our stakeholder partners in healthcare rely incredibly on nurses and their leadership and their talents. So I'm going to quickly turn it over now to some of our wonderful nurse leaders within the county first with Yvette.
Good morning, Chair, Supervisor Carbajal and members of the board. I'm Yvette Calhoun. I am Nursing Director of the Santa Barbara County Healthcare Centers. I am joined today by two of my colleagues that come closer, Paige Batson, Director of Public Health Nursing and Sandra Copley, Director Of Maternal Child Adolescent Health. I first would like to say thank you for your kind words, and they mean a lot. And those kinds of things are what's important for nurses to hear.
I'd like to start off first, we'd like to start off first by thanking you for acknowledging Nurses Week and the valuable contribution that nurses make it to the health care system. We also would like to take this opportunity to thank all the nurses that work at the Public Health Department as well as our communities for their efforts in health promotion disease prevention access to care as well as helping residents establish medical homes Nurses are recognized for their role as expert clinicians in diverse care settings and as leaders who can dramatically influence the quality of care and overall performance of the healthcare system.
In concert with this year's National Nurses Week theme, Nurses Leading The Way, nurses will lead the way and continue to play a critical role as healthcare reform continues to evolve. Thank you.
Supervisor
Carbajal.
Mr Chair, I know every time you provide this resolution or the immunization one, you usually come up with this very unique way of highlighting the day. You got an immunization last time- You're not trying to give me another shot at it. I was thinking of some way to best you but I couldn't so I just want you to know that I tried very hard.
0:11 – 0:167 turns
Okay, very good. We'll go to A2 Supervisor Wolfe. Very special resolution.
Indeed. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of May 2014 as National Foster Care Month in Santa Barbara County and I'd like to call our Department of Social Services Director Daniel Nielsen, Deputy Director Delphine O'Neira, social services practitioner Don Manola, Kenneth and Yolanda DeWitt are Very special honorees and their two young sons who I have something to read, but I just want to say sitting up here and watching your beautiful family. I think it's just incredible and you boys are pretty amazing. You really are so I just want to thank you for being here. And as we read the resolution, I wanted to make sure that the kids look up here because they're going to see themselves on TV That's really going to be the TV. So
you
can wave to the TV. Yeah, there you go! May is National Foster Care Month and we celebrate the contributions of very special families who provide a safe place for our children in need. Every year we'd like to highlight one of our families as an example of the care and dedication Shown to our children every day by foster parents in Santa Barbara County. The DeWitts became licensed foster parents through Santa Barbara County after hearing about RJ. RJ, do you want to raise your hand? There's RJ. And his big brother, is it Devin? Okay.
The Dewitts began the licensing process hoping that he would be available when they were finished with the process. Unfortunately by the time they finished, he had already been placed with another foster family. They kept their license in the hope that something would work out for their family. Several months later, the Dewitts learned that RJ's form replacement didn't work out And they immediately agreed to bring RJ into their home.
When the social service practitioner arrived at their home with RJ, Mrs. DeWitt welcomed him with open arms, took his face in her hands and told him we've been waiting for you. The Dewitts reassured RJ that he was never leaving their home and that he would always be their child. They have followed through with their words and have worked diligently to make RJ feel loved and accepted Thank you for joining us today.
Kind, loving, accepting foster parents she has ever met. They adopted their son RJ a year ago on April 14th 2013. So thank you very much for allowing us to honor you and all the other foster parents in our county. Thank you. Who's going to speak first? I forgot, I have to go down there. What am I supposed
to
do? Mr. Allen. I thought she read that. Okay, go ahead. You threw me off, all right.
Chairman Labnino, members of the board. This is a resolution recognizing May 2014 to be National Foster Care Month. Whereas in Santa Barbara County, there are approximately 500 children in foster care who need and deserve a stable home where they're supported and nurtured in a safe environment. And whereas young people in foster care need the guidance, stability, and love that are essential for becoming successful adults from the significant people in their lives while they are in care.
The enduring and valuable contributions of relatives in foster and adoptive parents who open their hearts, families and homes to vulnerable children. And youth play a vital role in helping children and families heal and reconnect. And whereas there are many individuals public and private organizations who work to increase awareness of the contribution of foster parents as well as the need of children in foster care.
And whereas, thanks to these heroes, many formerly abused or neglected children and teens will safely reunify with their parents or form lifelong permanent connections and be supported into independent adulthood with relatives, foster, and adoptive parents. Now therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara recognizes May 2014 as National Foster Care Month in recognition of our county's foster children and foster parents and all county employees involved in the juvenile independency system Who care for children and families that watch over them. Passed and adopted today by the board.
0:17 – 0:259 turns
Chairman Lavinino, members of the board it's I guess next year I won't write such a dramatic speech right? We want to thank you on behalf of the department and the foster parents For this recognition, it is probably one of the most if not the most important component of our child safety system. But I wanted to highlight today to everybody that every year we need about 100 new families for children that cannot safely reside with their natural families. This board and our department fully support families and children with their parents when at all possible but unfortunately we all know that's just not a realistic possibility for everybody so today we want to take the opportunity Not just the accomplishments of our foster families, but our continued need for foster families.
And if anybody there in the public that's interested they can contact our department at 866-892-4649 because every year we need 100 families like the DeWitts to help with this.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you
for being here today. I hear the DeWitts are speechless right now so. Thank you.
Okay, Supervisor Farr, you get to try to top that, A3.
Well, I'm going to go back to our health theme that we started the resolutions with by honoring nurses. And ask, I see Vice Chancellor Michael Young in the audience, Debbie Fleming, Jim Caesar, also Dr. Mary Ferris and also Pam Lombardo's name listed here. They'd all come up and also Dr. Wada. The title of the resolution I'm going to present is accommodation honoring the University of California Santa Barbara for promotion of health in Santa Barbara County. But I think that doesn't really explain how important the actions of the university were beginning last fall.
As some of you might remember, read in the news there were four UCSB students that were diagnosed with meningitis and this was not the first time it had happened on a college campus, it had happened back east But it meant that not only the university, but our department of our county public health department with Dr. Wada at the head, the California State Department of Public Health, Centers for Disease Control all had to work together to contain the outbreak and to the point where the university was successful in obtaining a vaccine that was not generally available to the public And doing mass inoculations, not once but twice this spring because that was what was required of it to keep everybody safe. So an enormous effort fortunately very successful probably really good to know that the systems that we have in place do work and we all come together when something like this happens.
So the commendation is to thank you all for the wonderful work that you did. And Mr. Allen, would you go ahead and read it?
Chairman Labnino, members of the board, A3 is a resolution recognizing the University of California Santa Barbara for promotion of health in Santa Barbara County. Whereas in November of 2013 four students at the University of California Santa Barbara became ill with meningococcal disease, a serious and incommunicable disease. And whereas the university collaborated with the Santa Barbara County Health Department, the California Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control to respond in a protective and proactive manner to prevent the spread of disease and protect the health of the community.
And whereas the university secured a vaccine that has only been used in one other setting nationally, coordinated massive vaccine campaign for thousands of students and monitored every single student who received the vaccine. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County does hereby recognize the outstanding leadership by the University of California, Santa Barbara to protect the health of the university community and promote wellness in our county. This pass is adopted by the Board of Supervisors today.
Good morning chair, members of the board. Again thank you for this recognition I'd like to first start by offering well wishes to the students and families that were affected. Of course this was a tragic event but in terms of the response and the leadership and coordination from UC Santa Barbara working with the county and our lead Dr. Toman from the public health department they really do need to be recognized and commended We always have some cases of meningitis in the county, but to have a concentrated number and one close proximity was certainly something that needed to be acted on quickly and very effectively. And we had at one point almost daily conference calls with the university as well as the Centers for Disease Control. I remember conference calls on Christmas Day and the evenings and weekends.
And when CNN and Al Jazeera are in town you know it's a big deal But throughout the entire effort, UC Santa Barbara and their leadership was amazing in coordinating these efforts again to secure an unlicensed vaccine. There was an incredible number of approvals and of course administrative issues that had to be worked through. And coordinating their mass vaccination efforts was amazing and should be a model that can be used elsewhere. So I certainly want to thank them as excellent partners in keeping our community safe And I'll turn it over to UC Santa Barbara for a comment. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Dr. Wada and Supervisor Farr. I'm Dr. Mary Ferris, the Director of Student Health at UCSB and the campus physician. And we just want to also thank the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department for the extraordinary collaboration that this has required in the fast response to protect our students and our community. And now we've given over 17,000 shots of the special vaccine that we brought to campus, and it's required an extraordinary Volunteer spirit from both public health as well as from our campus employees and the students themselves.
In this case, our students really rose to the challenge spread the message of prevention as well as coming in for a painful shot series of two shots and they rose to that challenge and we are grateful to them all thank you very much.
Thank you. Thanks. All right, we'll go to our next resolution that I'll be handing out and that is if I could get Dr. Wada please to come forward this is adopting a resolution claiming the month of May 2014 as a mental health month. Oh sorry yeah. Chairman please come forward and you know I just wanted to say that when I came on this board four years ago this isn't an issue I really knew too much about my eyes have really been open to the extent that mental illness plays in the lives of so many people in our community.
It was very sobering for me to get a phone call from a mother who had a teenage son at home that was starting to hear voices and he was saying you know, he's getting violent thoughts. And as a you know being called and asked if you could Find out what services are available for a situation like that is very scary and it you start realizing what some people have to go through on a daily basis. And what I've come to realize is we are lacking in services and we are lacking capital.
The buildings that that we need in the beds that we need and it's just amazing how this issue really Kind of bleeds over into a lot of other areas in our homelessness and our social services. The effects in our jail, and I'm very excited that I think this is an issue that's really elevated in the last year here. I think we're all, this board is very committed to working with all of our stakeholders in this area to really do whatever we can to try to make this better place for those who are suffering Not only the folks that are suffering, but their families as well. So with that Mr. Allen if you could please read the resolution.
0:25 – 0:304 turns
Chairman Labnino and members of the board, item A4 it's a resolution proclaiming the month of May 2014 is Mental Health Month. Whereas the US Surgeon General has found that one in every five Americans experiences a mental disorder in any given year and half of all Americans have such disorders at some time in their lives. Mental health is essential to everyone's overall health and well-being. And whereas mental illnesses are far more common than cancer, diabetes, heart disease or arthritis and are real treatable diseases that can affect anyone regardless of age, ethnicity or gender. Prevention is an effective way to reduce the burden of mental health conditions.
And whereas, there's a strong body of research that supports scientific tools that all Americans can use to better handle challenges and protect their health and well-being. The Santa Barbara County Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Services Department recognizes the importance of promoting mental wellness for all members of the community. And whereas, Santa Barbara County Mental Health Commission supports proactive community collaborations to maximize the mental health of all people. And with effective treatment those individuals with mental health conditions can recover and lead full productive lives.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim the month of May 2014 as Mental Health Month, and calls upon all Santa Barbara County citizens to fight stigma associated with mental illness. And reaffirm a commitment supporting the mental health of all people in Santa Barbara County. Passed and adopted today.
Thank you Chair and members of the Board. As stated in the resolution, one in five Americans are affected by mental illness in any given year and half of the population here in the United States have mental illness at some point in their lives so it certainly is An issue that touches many of us in our communities, in our own personal families. And our efforts to increase awareness are so important to help reduce stigma and lead towards new treatments and effective partnerships to make our system better for all the people affected and their families. And so with me is Mr. James Road, he's chair of the Mental Health Commission as well The Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board, and also a member of our Behavioral Health Steering Committee. So I will now turn it over to him for some comment.
Thank you.
Good morning Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Again, as always I'm speaking for clients, consumers, family members, people affected in our community by mental health issues. And Chair Lavagnino what you shared is exactly the crux of the issue for me is the awareness. I want to raise the awareness of the mental health issues that we have throughout this country and in this county of course so that was really rewarding for me to hear you say that It's, we see it all the time in the news in different ways. What I'd like to see is the day come when we can be more on the preventive side and stop crises and stop tragedy in our society before it reaches that point. And if we all work together, we can accomplish that here at home and throughout the nation.
So thank you again for this, awesome.
Great, thank you. All right, our next resolution is A5. And I'm going to go out on a limb and I'm going to say I think it's one of our supervisors' favorite resolutions of the year because we get a goody. So if we could have Bob Engel from Engle & Gray come forward. This resolution is proclaiming May 5th through the 11th as Compost Awareness Week. And we're always looking for creative ways to reduce what's going into our landfills And to improve our soils and promote sustainable communities. And what better way to do that than to get an education on how to compost?
And I think you're going to make me go home and try to grow that. Do you want to see what happened to the plants you gave us last year? Mr. Allen, can you read the resolution please?
0:30 – 0:3615 turns
Chairman Labnino, members of the board, this item A5 is a resolution proclaiming the week of May 5 through 11 2014 as Compost Awareness Week. Whereas the composting councils of Canada, Ireland, Australia, United Kingdom and the United States have declared the first week of May to be the annual International Composting Awareness Week And whereas, organic materials suitable for composting represent up to 70% of materials that can be landfilled each year. And composting is an effective form of waste reduction, reuse and recycling.
And whereas, compost improves the soil structure, reduces erosion and runoff, supplies soil with a variety of macro- and micronutrients, enables compost cemented soils to use less water. And whereas, using sustainable soil enriching composts help prevent erosion and valuable topsoil without depleting valuable wildlife habitats. And whereas community sustainability is enhanced by composting green waste biosolids and other organic materials and promoting the use of renewable resources in landscaping, horticulture, and agriculture. And whereas, returning composted organic resources to the soil is a method of decreasing the dependence on chemical fertilizers, decreasing erosion, reducing water consumption and non-point pollution. And whereas, the county of Santa Barbara has initiated green waste collection programs with its franchise haulers to aid in the efforts of environmental sustainability.
And whereas England great regional composting facility in Santa Maria has been successfully composting organic material for sustainable agricultural practices. Now therefore it be hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors, in recognition of the efforts of the Composting Councils Extension agents, households, landscapers, farmers, recyclers, public workers, composters, gardeners and plant growers everywhere along with Engle and Gray Week and Harvest Blend Compost hereby proclaim the week of May 5 through 11 as Compost Awareness Week. Pass it adopted today.
Supervisor Adam? Did you want to say yours first and then I'll just ask you. I got a couple of comments
Well, I just wanted to say Chair, fellow supervisors. I'd like to thank you again on behalf of the International Composting Council to recognize International Compost Awareness Week and it's kind of lightened in light of all the heavier stuff that you have going on during the day but I'd just like to bring awareness to that it all starts with the soil and compost is building healthy soil. And in light of the drought that we have going on right now, the water savings capability of putting compost into soil and how much more water that soil can absorb with the compost is great so we really appreciate you taking your time out of your day to recognize us.
So my first comment is there's a lot of great pumice in here. Is there not?
Yes, there is.
Well you might consider throwing in a bottle of wine to make this a really stunning gift The other thing is I want to talk about a little bit agricultural uses of compost Have you been working on, is there anybody working on getting the food safety issue dealt with with the word compost?
That is a good question and a big issue because compost has Been kind of thrown in with manures and other things. And that's what our facility specializes in is killing all the pathogens, all the bad things that are in all of our feedstocks that come in. We go through a very rigid production protocol to make sure we get temperatures up and we kill all the pathogens and stuff. But no there is a big misconception in the food industry especially customers yours like the bag salad industry where they'll just come out and say they don't want any compost applied to a farm field. And it's an education issue that we're trying to address at a national level, but it's a slow process.
Right. Well, keep going because I really like compost. I've got some compost that I've used in the past and I'm barred from using it now because the food safety issue won't allow it just to tell everybody there's a you know we'd like to use more compost but at this time in the veg industry at least it's a taboo right?
Well, by some growers because their customers are telling them not to use it. We do sell a lot into the ag industry. It's just that in some of the growers' customers are saying hey if you've applied compost to your field we're not going to buy your produce and it's a problem like Red Lobster, Olive Garden, that chain of food restaurants they have one of their protocols their buyers goes out and says did you apply compost? And how that got in there, I have no idea. Well
it's not really their buyer, it's their third party food safety auditors and just so everybody knows we get audited all the time by third party food safety providers who tell Darden who owns those restaurants that they shouldn't buy our produce if compost is used in our fields. So just so everybody knows.
All right. So thanks for doing this on the first week, so we don't want to make sure anybody gives these as Mother's Day gifts if your wife sees this she's going to be a big you're in big trouble
Miriam if you're watching this this is this should not be your mother's
day gift from Mr. Lagunito maybe mother-in-law we can go there thank you very much just kidding Hopefully she's watching Family Feud instead of the Board of Supervisors. All right, so we're going deeper all right So we're gonna move on to the rest of the administrative agenda Do we have any speakers from the public on any of the agenda?
We have requests to speak on items a 6 and 8 10
a 6 and 10 And do any of my colleagues wish to push them pull any items Yeah, I would like to have a 10 and a 22 10 and 22. Okay, let's start with the public. Mr. Allen?
0:36 – 0:435 turns
Chairman Lavignino, members of the board, we'll start with item A6. We have five requests to speak. Item A6 is from Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services. The request that the board consider recommendations regarding agreement with traditions behavioral health. Start with Dr. Mark Koffler to be followed by Peter Tilton.
Board of Supervisors, Chair, CEO and the public. My name is Dr. Mark Koffler. I've worked for ADMHS for over 20 years as a board-certified civil service psychiatrist. I'm here also today representing UAPD which is also known as the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. The union opposes the contract which seeks to fill Up to five civil service union positions with independent contractors supplied and employed by a third party, TBH, Traditions Behavioral Health.
They will also remain in the employ and beholden to TBH and not directly employed by the county. The TBH contract, which is for almost $5.8 million for four years, is unnecessary and not financially prudent on the part of the department in the county. Dr. Peter Tilton who will follow will speak in more detail about alternatives and less costly approaches the county can take in finding and hiring psychiatrists.
Lack of recruitment is at the heart of the predicament that we're in and why we have these vacancies. As to the recruitment efforts made by the department or claimed by the department, they are spelled out on the bottom half of the second page of the board letter which I'm going to reference. If you look at the third paragraph from the bottom on page two, the last line it states These recruitment efforts resulted in the hiring of 19 psychiatrists over an eight-year period.
Well, let's talk about what's relevant to these six vacancies. Not one permanent psychiatrist has been hired over the last two and a half years from approximately October of 2011. When you go on to the next paragraph, the claims made by the department were not done by administration Or the county, they were done by staff psychiatrists volunteering their time.
And coming up with the ways and the approaches that we've been advocating and pushing for two years while these vacancies have existed. And they were not given the proper attention they need. That's why we're in this predicament. The union is asking that the contract not be approved and at a minimum table to give alternative approaches as spelled out by Dr. Tilden, a chance to succeed with less upfront costs. So what's the rush? And he'll explain to you why I think we should be more prudent and take a little additional time. Thank you.
Peter Tilden to be followed by Steve Cook
Good morning, I'm Dr. Peter Tilton. I'm another one of the civil service full-time psychiatrists in Santa Barbara County and no one knows better than I the impact of not having enough psychiatrists because there's a shortage. I drive from Santa Barbara to Santa Maria three days a week. I also work at Care South and experience firsthand the delays in treating patients. But also let me address the misleading information in the agenda letter regarding recruitment.
Of the 19 psychiatrists cited, most that were hired were locum tenens or temporary psychiatrists. In fact none of the full time psychiatrists were recruited through any efforts by our administration. In fact, only last month were we told that one company our department uses is only used to hire locums not full-time doctors. In short, our administration has failed miserably in its attempt to recruit psychiatrists but that does not mean the TBH is the answer. Had the department come to us sooner to seek our collective knowledge what we as a group started Could have been implemented much sooner, obviating the need for this proposed contract.
We have formed our own recruiting committee in the last several months. One of our psychiatrists, Dr. Luniansky has been to a job fair in LA and visited UCLA and other programs in LA County to recruit residents graduating from programs. Another psychiatrist, Dr Peter Garcia is going to Reno, Fresno, and Sacramento to do the same. I myself have been in contact with several national recruiting companies including Alliance, D&Y, Psychiatry's Only, St. John's and Comp Health. Not one of these companies was aware of our need for a psychiatrist but were all willing to assist us in finding permanent civil service psychiatrists and provide us with locums in the interim.
All without the need for a long-term contract. And last week, Dr. Berenstain, our medical director informed me that the county was now negotiating with two other national recruitment companies. FCS to hire civil service psychiatrists and Jackson & Cook for locums. These companies all use the same pool of doctors seeking employment as does TBH. The only unique thing about TBH is the proposed almost four year $5.8 million contract.
These other companies can do the same work without the need for this kind of a contract and at a lesser cost to the county. There is no guarantee that TBH can fill our vacant positions or do a better job than any of the other companies mentioned. Therefore, I strongly urge you to reject this contract or at a minimum postpone it for six months. Allow our efforts that we have as concerned members of our department put in place a chance to succeed and save the county money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Thank you.
Steve Cook and then Jan Winter.
0:43 – 0:5112 turns
Good morning honorable board, my name is Steve Cook I'm a business representative with UAPD the union that represents the doctors As stated in the board letter, this is a long-term solution. And this is why the, as you heard, psychiatrists are against this. Long term means the replacing of civil service psychiatrists with contractors degrading the UAPD bargaining unit which at this time has been challenged with an unfair labor practice.
The cost of the TBH contract would be better used in recruiting the psychiatric workforce for the County of Santa Barbara. Research done, as was talked by the prior doctor, by the UAPD psychiatrist has shown that the last eight years, the recruitment efforts have been half-hearted at best. This is an example of a contract where Santa Barbara County could have enlisted many recruiting firms throughout the state in the nation. They only did basically local recruitment through ads, etcetera.
And we're unsuccessful obviously. At the cost of that recruitment is like three times what it would be normal recruitment costs for a psychiatrist coming in. $40,000 versus about 10 to 15 or 10 to 12 thousand something like that. The difference in cost between the civil service psychiatrists and the TBH contractors is enough to hire these recruiters, to get these people. It's going to cost the county much more money to go forward with this contract.
UAPD believes this could be an attempt to start a continual degradation of the UAPD bargaining units, and again that's why the unfair labor practice was followed. For these reasons, UAPD opposes the contract and would request the board to reconsider the way the County of Santa Barbara hires a psychiatrist and to not approve this contract. Thank
you. Jan Winter to be followed by James Road who is our final speaker.
Chair Lavanino and supervisors, I am Jan Winter. And I'm here representing NAMI which has a membership of over 300 families. And I like to think I represent families with mentally ill loved ones throughout the community even those who are not currently clients of the county system. We thank you for agendizing the traditions contract. ADMHS has been short between five and seven psychiatrists for many years.
Research shows that timely treatment can prevent further damage, and early intervention is a very important concept throughout medical care. We want and we hope to have additional psychiatrists so that we can treat all of our family members in a timely way and a consistent way. Excuse me. With the consistency that can build trust and build compliance with mental health treatment, which is always an issue or oftentimes an issue. Thank you for your attention. And we hope to see the approval of the contract and the quick hiring of fine new psychiatrists. Thank you.
James Road? Mr. Road is our final speaker.
Chair Lavinino, members of the board again it's great to be here. I always want to make sure that you know that I represent, again, clients, consumers, family members, anyone affected by mental health issues in this county. I think it's important that we fill these positions as soon as possible because the need is there and it would help to relieve the delay that we're well aware of in clients having these psychiatric needs met At the moment, that delay is unacceptable and we're all working together to try to bring that time delay down.
The idea of a six month time period to look at this is not acceptable in the sense that we have this crisis now. We have this need now. These positions need to be filled. So again, I urge you to do what's best for the clients that we serve here in the county. And to consider their needs and to try to lower the time wait to be met properly and with respect concerning their situation.
Thank you for this time. Thank
you. Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you Mr. Chair, I just have a few comments. First of all when this item first came to us it was apparent after the information we had been studying about mental health that we needed to move and hire more psychiatrists. The contract was for this particular, for TBH was given to us. And I had raised some concerns about the contract. The contract was subsequently revised and Then, as of yesterday there were a few just minor changes.
I think that the contract now is a good contract for the county and I do believe that we should move forward and get these psychiatrists on board. But I also want to mention the issue of future recruitment and I think that the county can do a better job in working with our psychiatrists in developing a plan for recruitment. We've got psychiatrists that are apparently going out on their own time trying to do this, and we're talking about hiring a recruiter to do this.
It seems that at some point, a meeting of the minds needs to occur. And so that we can all be on the same page as we go forward because it is my understanding that we're going to be needing to hire additional psychiatrists. But I think for the time being, I will support this.
Okay, very good. Do we have any other additional speakers?
We have no further requests to speak. I just wanted to note for the record that yesterday we did receive two documents that were distributed as late distribution. There was a memorandum from Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health as well as a revised copy of the contract. Those were distributed to the board and placed online for the public and also are available in the back of the room. I just wanted to note that.
Okay. Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I raised a number of questions in advance with Dr. Wada and the staff report pretty much covered and addressed all the issues that I've raised. One of them dealt with civil service recruitment, cultural competence issues, and all of those issues have been addressed in the staff report. Really appreciate Dr. Wada addressing those issues.
Very good. Supervisor Adam, I think we go to A10 next Mr. Allen can you read 810 please?
0:51 – 1:0417 turns
Chairman Lavagnino, members of the board item 810 is from the County Executive Office. The request that the board consider recommendation regarding the transient occupancy tax increase ballot measure for the November 2014 general election ballot and this is the second reading of the ordinance we have three requests to speak we're going to start with George Thompson followed by Seamus McManus
Mr. Chairman members of the board I'm George Thompson, I'm an owner of a vacation rental in the county and I spoke to you the last time this issue came up And argued to maintain the tax at 10% rather raising it to 12 and The argument at that time was it gave me a competitive advantage as an owner in competing with other vacation rentals in municipalities that charge more tax.
The board listened to that and you did not increase the tax at the time. However, I understand the budget crisis is still a problem. And so this time I feel an increase is inevitable and So I've given up my former position However, I'd like to point out that I feel that twelve and a half percent is excessive It's going to harm the county rentals and my reasoning goes like like this It puts me now at a competitive disadvantage versus municipalities that are at 12% Our revenues may well go down And if our revenues go down the tax revenue to the county will also go down. I My feeling is at worst the county may not get the revenues that they presently do if we if our business is impacted severely.
At best I don't feel you're going to realize the added revenue of the extra half percent So my argument would be that we increase the tax to 12% and that puts us on a level playing field with the municipalities in the county and makes our business future look reasonably bright, and will not cause us to lose business. Thank you.
Thank you.
Seamus McManus? Followed by Larry Thomas, who's our final speaker.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I represent San Ysidro Ranch. The previous speaker talked about the increase in proposed tax in the unincorporated areas. It's basically what is being presented as a 24% tax increase. I find that difficult to agree to. Twenty-four percent in today's world for a tax increase on the traveling public is just too much. I understand it's been several years since the TOT has been raised.
And it's been a 10, 10.1 for quite a few years and we agree that some increase is necessary but a 24% increase in tax is just too much. We also have another tax which is going up 100% of the t-bit tax, which is a tourism business investment district. That's going up 100% on January 1 2015. So taxes as a negative connotation to the traveling public And I would suggest that 8 to 10% is something much more successful and agreeable to the Tribune public. So, that's our belief on this issue. Thank you.
Larry, I'm going to mangle the word but I think it's
Thomas. Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the board and we take the same stance as Seamus has is we oppose the increase to twelve and a half percent. We think that is excessive and you know the other municipalities already being at 12% that would be if we have to accept some type of a tax increase there That's where they stand right now. So the 12 and a half percent is an excessive increase we feel for, for the four seasons. So we basically take the same stance as the San Ysidro ranch. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Who was our final speaker?
Supervisor Wolf
Thank you Mr. Chair, I want to thank the speakers for being here today when we first heard this item we were in Santa Maria and We pretty much heard the same sentiment To raise it to 12% I really believed at that time that was the appropriate rate, it was 12%. But in order to get this on the ballot we need four-fifths vote. And it seemed at the time that that was the motion, was 12 and a half percent.
I don't know if any of my colleagues have had a change of heart in this, but I do think it's important that we listen to the folks who are in the industry. 12 and a half percent may mean that we get some extra money, but if we're listening to the folks in the industry, the fact of the matter is they may not see as many people coming to their hotels. I could live with the 12.5% and I will vote for that, but I just think, I really do believe that we should be in line with the rest of the cities in the county and not extend it to 12. 5%. Just my thoughts. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Supervisor Adam? Well, I think it's important for people to understand we're not passing this right now. We're just setting it on the ballot and so You know whatever the percentage I don't care what the percentages if we don't say where it's going. You know if if if we're just gonna take more money and throw it in the general fund so we can use that as a grab bag then.
I think that that's not something I'm going to support if we said we were going to put it then I would be able to support it but so our roll call vote on this one Okay, very
good. My two cents on this is you know I understand about the advantage disadvantage but we really didn't hear much from those in the unincorporated area over the last 2 years when there was a 2% advantage when every other city passed to 12%. And I brought a 12% 2 years ago and I did not get the votes on this board to move forward with that So in reality, you've actually had a two-year grace period of 2% advantage over those within the cities.
That's actually cost the county close to $3 million over this last two years when we were the only ones around with a 10% TOT. That one factor. The other factor is a lot of this money and I know Supervisor Adam Understinks without that guarantee that it's going into economic development. I can understand his concern. I look at this as two things one We just lost I believe close to a million and half dollars a year in the glider revenue neutrality agreement TOT Situation there, so this is basically backfilling Those dollars so without that extra half percent The things that I believe our hoteliers, that I've seen in the emails are asking for which is full funding of the film commission.
We look at visitors and conventions bureaus and chambers of commerce. Those dollars are not going to, there's no additional revenue to do those items without going to 12 and a half in my perspective if we just happen to go to 12. If we don't do that. We're basically in the same boat we are right now plus the fact that we've lost 3 million dollars over the last 2 years but not increasing it 2 years ago.
So my sentiment is I understand your concern. But I think this is the rational prudent course of action to take and make a motion A 10.
Mr chair supervisor for I will second that motion. I fully support your comments and you know, I guess when we're thinking about an extra $2.50 per hundred dollars it's really not talking about that much money even on some of the you know very expensive hotel night that we have here in our county So I just don't see this as such a great burden, either on the hotel operators or the owners of vacation rentals. And yet this very small increase that visitors to our county would have to pay can make a tremendous difference in the work of Santa Barbara County and that is our responsibility to try to make happen. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Moved and seconded, Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I reached out to a number of establishments in my district and they did express concern of the tax going beyond what the cities have. I took a wait and see to see what kind A public comment we would have today. I appreciate the hoteliers, representatives that are here expressing that concern. I also reached out to other business groups.
I don't see the Conference of Visitors Bureau here. I don't see the Chambers of Commerce and again, I was just trying to get a feel of the sentiment on the community. I think the point is valid. I agree with Supervisor Wolf, but I think at the same time we need four votes and I was hearing that for the most part people are now happy and would be willing to entertain 12% And this is just going an extra Going to a 12 percent and just an extra half of a percent so While I'm sympathetic to the concerns that have been raised I feel that Despite the concern, I am swayed by the comments by Supervisor Lavinino and Supervisor Farr.
And we'll be voting for this matter to continue forward.
Supervisor Adam? Yeah, I just wanted to make the observation here that I think we gave $300,000 in last year's budget or thereabouts to the economic development, right? It's about right. And so what you're talking about is 1.5 a year, so what are we going to do with the rest?
We're talking about the extra half percent is what I was talking about for economic development that extra three or four hundred thousand that comes in. I believe and that's what in my mind I'm looking for economic development out of that extra half percent
1:04 – 1:069 turns
Okay, so the rest is just going wherever it goes.
Mr Chair? Let me tell you what we have been spending it on. Last year we spent $2 million that we were not spending on roads and infrastructure. We will continue to look at all the other Public safety general fund issues and needs that come before us. That's what we've done in the past, and that's what we'll continue to do with this extra money. Public safety, roads infrastructure, veteran services, general fund programs, all of those programs that come from the General Fund.
I would assume you're for infrastructure and public safety and veteran services but if not, I'd love to hear that too.
I certainly am. Certainly am and the thing is, is I want to have people vote on...I would like to give people a chance to vote on where that money goes instead of vote to throw it in the kitty because it's going to pass. I mean, I would assume that it would pass but I think people should be told what we're going to spend the money on if we're gonna go out and collect more taxes And if you want to spend the whole thing on economic development, that may not be a bad thing. But I think we ought to tell people what we're going to do with the money and that's all.
Okay so we have a motion on the floor it's been seconded to move item A10. Let's take a roll call vote.
Mr. Carbajal? Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Ms. Farr? Aye. Mr Adam? No. Mr Lavinino? Aye Passes 4-1.
Okay do we have any other, oh 822.
Chairman Lavinino, members of the board. Item 822 is from Public Works. The request that the board consider recommendations regarding the public art elements on the US 101 Union Valley Parkway interchange
Supervisor Adam. Yeah, I just wanted to pull this item so that I could publicly recognize and thank Hannah Rubel Cava and the Orchid Children's Art Foundation and Will Robertson from Public Works as well as a student artist from the orchid area high schools that That contributed these pieces of art that we're gonna put on the Union Valley Parkway interchange They are cool-looking
All right, very good. So with that we will take a motion to approve the balance of the A agenda.
1:06 – 1:213 turns
So moved.
Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously. We'll take a ten minute break and come back and begin our departmental items.
¶. ♪♪ ¶. Yeah. ♪ Yeah. ♪ ♪ Yeah. ♪ Yeah. Yeah.
1:22 – 1:2412 turns
¶¶ Okay, I don't know where everybody else is but We're gonna go ahead and get started with departmental agenda item number one Mr. Allen can you please read that into the record?
Chairman Labonino members of the board item onus in the county executive office It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding terms and conditions of employment for the Civil Attorneys Association SEIU local 620 public defenders and unrepresented attorneys
Morning Jerry.
Good morning. Before you today is the first memorandum of understanding for the new labor organization, the Civil Attorneys Association which represents certain attorneys in the county council and the child support departments. This contract mirrors other contracts approved by the board last year and earlier this year for general members With the exception that over time.
Public excuse me County Council attorneys force and seniors on did not receive merit based increases performance-based increases over many years and they this contract will bring them closer to parity with the deputy district attorneys over the term of the contract in incremental amounts in addition the board is being asked to Approve the same. Changes for the public defenders bargaining unit which is represented by local 6.20 so that all attorneys at the 4 and senior levels will achieve a parity over the term of their contracts.
And I think Mister L there any speakers from the public no
request
to speak any questions from the board chair moved moved to
approve this item
Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye.
And Chair, one more thing I meant to mention. I wanted to thank the representatives of the Civil Attorneys Association for working with our negotiating team and bringing in this contract.
Yes. Thank you very much. All right. Passes unanimously.
Move on to item two. Mr. Allen.
1:24 – 1:4119 turns
Chairman let me know members of the board item number 2 from the county executive office. It's a hearing to approve a 1% wage increase effective June 23 2014 for employees and job classifications represented by the Engineers and Technicians Association And the Service Employees International Union 721 per the side agreement side letter agreements and fried the same one percent increase to confidential unrepresented employees
Chair members of the board this item is A result of an agreement that we had with Engineers and Technicians Association in SEIU Local 721, whose contracts were approved by the board in 2013. That if we reached different wage and benefits agreements with local 620, they would have a favored nations clause. So this action implements an additional 1% that goes into effect July of 2014 of this year. And we're also recommending that the board approve that same 1% increase for the unrepresented confidential employees.
Okay very good any speakers Mr Allen? No request to speak. No requests to speak. Any questions from the board?
I'll move this item, Mr. Chair.
Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Doreen Farr · Seconded by Salud Carbajal
Show transcript
Move on to Item 3.
Chairman Lavignino, members of the Board, Item 3 is from General Services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Veterans Memorial Buildings in Santa Barbara and the Santa Barbara County Courthouse Proposed Consolidation Management Plan.
Alright, very good. Ms. Chanas.
Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Lavagnino and members of the board. General Services here today with an item related to the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building. On December 3rd 2013 your board heard a presentation from general services staff and received public comment regarding the management of the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial building located at 112 Cabrillo Boulevard here in the city of Santa Barbara Based on the staff presentation and public comments received, your board voted unanimously in directing General Services to develop and present a plan to consolidate management of the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building with the county's current management of the Lompoc Veterans Memorial Building in the interior rental venues at the Santa Barbara County Courthouse.
General Services is returning to your board today with a recommendation to receive and file the proposed consolidated management plan and to either adopt the plan through an additional annual appropriation of the requested funding beginning in fiscal year 2014-15, or direct staff to return to your board for consideration of a revised management agreement between the county and the Veterans Coordinating Council for management of the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building.
I'd like to take the next few minutes to provide background information on the issue, summarize the proposed consolidated management plan, then answer any questions your board may have. In 1935, pursuant to the Military and Veterans Code Section 1262, the County established the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building at its present location. In 1998, the County entered into a management agreement with the Veterans Coordinating Council for management of the building. The agreement was extended for a five-year period in 2004 and again in 2009.
The current agreement is set to expire on June 30th, 2014 but includes a provision whereby the Veterans Coordinating Council may request renewal of the agreement for an additional five-year period. On March 26, 2014, the county received a written request from the Veterans Coordinating Council asking the board to extend their current agreement for one year. In January 2012, the Internal Audit Division of Santa Barbara County's Auditor Control Department released a Management Agreement audit report on the management of the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building This report identified numerous deficiencies in controls over policies and procedures that impact the accurate recording and reporting of financial transactions. In 2013 and 2014, the Veterans Coordinating Council experienced several changes in leadership resulting in numerous personnel changes at the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building.
The lack of stable management has necessitated the frequent engagement of general services staff and second district office staff to respond to and assist in resolving conflicts. Under the terms of the current agreement, the VCC or excuse me, the Veterans Coordinating Council is responsible for the overall management of the building including responsibility for paying expenses related to utilities, janitorial services and routine maintenance.
In addition, for the first five years of the agreement, the council was required to make a monthly payment for capital improvements in the amount of $500. Since these costs have historically exceeded available revenue, the county has continued to pay for utilities and the required contribution for capital improvements were never made. Over the past 15 years, the revenue generated at the building has been used to cover only a portion of the day-to-day cost of operation leaving little or no funding available to perform significant repairs or to set aside for future improvements to the facility.
As a result, the facilities overall condition is poor which will require significant investment in upcoming years to address deferred maintenance issues. Also, General Services has experience managing buildings similar to that of the Santa Barbara building. General Services currently manages the rental of interior rooms at the historic county courthouse and in 2013 assumed full management responsibility for the Lompoc Veterans Memorial Building.
Other factors for the board to consider are the historic significance of both the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building and the site on which it is built In January 2013, the Historic Landmark Commission recommended that the Santa Barbara City Council designate the building as a city landmark. The council followed this recommendation and adopted a resolution designating the building as a city landmark in April of 2013. The building also has a pending nomination for placement on the National Register of Historic Places.
In addition to the historic nature of the structure, the building is situated on a recorded archaeological deposit A site, which is also eligible for placement on the national register. As a result of both the building and the site being eligible for the important designation, a higher degree of stewardship and a more careful approach to the management of the building may be warranted.
The fundamental goal of the plan is to consolidate the management of the three facilities in an effort to increase efficiencies generate additional revenue through increased rentals and provide a higher level of stewardship for these historic resources. The plan calls for two new full-time positions and additional hours of part time help. A full time event manager will have overall fiscal and administrative responsibility for the consolidated operations, including supervising other staff.
All staff will work primarily out of the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building which has a current use pattern that requires staff presence seven days a week. The proposed staffing levels would ensure adequate staff coverage of the building through a management transition, minimizing disruption to the current user groups while giving staff an important opportunity to familiarize themselves with the facility and gather the information necessary to make future operational decisions.
Staff will work with veterans organizations associated with the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building in developing a fair and balanced space allocation plan along with a set of operational rules for the building. In May 2013 The county assumed management of the Lompoc Veterans Memorial Building, and as part of that process developed a space allocation plan and a set of board-approved operational rules for that facility. We will utilize the same process for the development of similar board approved documents specific to the Santa Barbara Veterans Building.
In addition, county staff will work actively with the Veterans Coordinating Council and its members, the County Veterans Services Office as well as other interested organizations and individuals in identifying, developing, and implementing ideas which will utilize both the Santa Barbara and Lompoc Veterans Memorial Buildings to enhance services for our local veterans.
General Services currently estimates the combined income from the Santa Barbara County Courthouse rentals and the Lompoc Veterans Memorial Building at $40,000 With combined expenses of $75,455 leaving an estimated operating deficit of approximately $35,500. If the plan were implemented as proposed, estimated combined first year income would rise to $182,500 and estimated combined first year expenses would rise to $332,650 approximately leaving an estimated operating deficit of approximately $150,150 an increase of $114,694.
Staff would actively pursue new revenue sources as well as seek opportunities for streamlining operations with a goal of eliminating the operating deficit in future budget years. This presentation today provided a brief summary of the plan general services staff has developed for consolidated management of the three facilities and identified numerous factors your board may consider as you weigh your decision Adoption of the plan will require additional financial resources, but these resources will be used to implement a strategy focused on taking advantage of the efficiencies gained through consolidated management while providing a higher level of stewardship for these important historic county resources.
Again, General Services is asking your board to receive and file the proposed Consolidated Management Plan and to either adopt the plan through an additional annual appropriation of the requested funding beginning in fiscal year 2014-15 Or direct staff to return to your board for consideration of a revised management agreement between the county and the Veterans Coordinating Council for Management of the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building.
At this time, we'd be happy to take any questions your board may have.
Supervisor Farr?
Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you for that presentation Mr. Janus. In going back to your management plan financials page I'm looking at the $50,000 into the proposed for the Santa Barbara County Courthouse. I know that at least in the past the Parks Department has been responsible for activities on on the site and I guess rental income So is the $50,000 now inclusive of that or in addition to? And if Parks is still involved how do you divvy up the property as far as who's responsible for what.
Mr. Chairman, Supervisor Farr, the $50,000 does not include rental income from the parks operation. The way it is split up is the general services are responsible for rentals of the interior rooms of the courthouse while the parks department is responsible for the rentals of the exterior or the lawn of the court house. So the income, the 50 thousand dollar figure you referenced does not include any income from the exterior rentals at this time.
Okay, so if somebody wants to get married in the mural room and have their reception on the lawn. How does that work?
They end up working with both county departments. They make the reservation for the lawn and if they indicate they're interested in utilizing the interior rooms parks will steer them in our direction or vice versa. If they come to us first wanting the mural room and then indicating that they want a reserved space on the lawn we will steer them in the direction of parks
Okay, thank you. Well I mean I know today we're mainly going to be talking about the Santa Barbara Veterans building but I think since we're also looking at the overall management plan it's important and this is an issue that I raised before is how do we streamline the process for the public? And have a comprehensive marketing plan if you will for all county facilities no matter which department manages them And certainly my hope would be that over time the rental income on all these facilities would increase to the point where we're at least running neutral on the cost. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank Mr. Pontus and Mr. Channis for your presentation and your work on this. There was in the plan And this is under Veterans Services, there's a statement that says preliminary discussions with County Veteran Services Office have resulted in some potential opportunities for providing additional outreach to veterans at these facilities.
So can you just clarify because I know we had talked to Mr. Harry Hagan about this and if you could maybe be more specific about what might be happening?
Mr. Chairman and Supervisor Wolf, in addition to the conversations that we had with Mr. Hagan, you know with you present, we also have had additional conversations with Mr. Hagan and at this point I think it's difficult to be very specific but there is an indication that we believe there's an opportunity to staff or have veteran service officers at the building not on a full-time basis but on a periodic basis as we develop a management strategy for the building. We have not Specified exactly how many days per week or month that may be, but we certainly have had the indication that there's a willingness to expand the role or at least provide services at that building.
Okay, well I think that would be a real positive step. I'd like to just know from Mr. Pontes or CEO Miyasato's we have two options before us and I guess I'll direct it to Mr. Pontes because you've been very much involved in this knowing what you know and having developed the plan which Which I actually think is very timely that the lease is coming up. This gives us an opportunity to consolidate these three properties, but I think one of the main and most important points is maintaining the veteran services in Santa Barbara.
So given that, do you believe that your department is sufficiently prepared to move forward with this management plan? And if so what is your recommendation between the two options and that will be given to us. And I ask you that with the assumption that the funding will be provided.
Mr. Chairman, Supervisor Wolf. Yes, we have spent a little bit of time on this over the last year that I have been here. And we had similar concerns with our veterans building when I first arrived last April on the instability and what would it look like if the county took over the management of that particular facility as well? And although Although it was a different and it was changed. I believe that we've succeeded in providing an open place where the veterans can go in Lompoc and It has been a success so as far as the Santa Barbara Veterans Building, you know, it's my opinion that the The county management of the facility is the best course of action in as Greg Presented there are a lot of factors to consider in this decision.
The holistic approach to managing the facility with the Lompoc Veterans Memorial building and the courthouse would provide the stability needed, it would also provide the financial Stability, as well as ensuring that the public and the other agencies have access to reserve the facilities when we can get folks in there and use the facility. We can also more closely monitor and care for the historic nature of it. So when you put everything together, and if the funding comes along with it I think that general services can do a really good job at managing the facility And continue the partnerships that we have with the folks that lease it out day to day, as well as the veterans groups that meet there daily and have their own dedicated spaces in the facility.
So it would be my opinion too that our management of it would provide the most stable environment for the facility
1:41 – 1:4611 turns
Supervisor Adam. Yeah, I just want to comment on general services management of the Lompoc building. I stick my head frequently into The offices of some of the organizations that we have the agreement with operating agreement and I've never heard a negative word from any of those organizations About your management of that building and and I think it's really Quelled some of the Uncertainty or you've taken away the uncertainty which quelled some of the The angst in the building there was a lot of vying for spots and that kind of thing and now everybody knows what their rights and Responsibilities are and it really everybody seems to be a lot happier with the way. It's being run now so I would encourage you to do it that way because it's everybody seems
to be happy and Okay, Mr. Allen, how many public speakers do we have?
Chairman Lavagnino, members of the board, we have seven requests to speak. We're going to start with John Blankenship to be followed by Michael Cook.
My name is John Blankenship and I'm Vice Commander today of the VVA 218, which are the Vietnam veterans here in Santa Barbara. We're 108 strong. I want to say that we've moved Just due to the what has happened down there. We no longer meet there I want to commend both Greg Pontus and mean Greg Janice and Matt Pontus for what they've done we fully endorsed the plan that will Hopefully bring stability to this beautiful building and for all of us veterans. So I hope you vote in favor of the county managing this, and I think it will settle a lot of things for us. Thank you.
Michael Cook is our next speaker to be followed by Ron Dexter.
Ladies and gentlemen, my name's Michael Cook. I head up organization Military Order of the Purple Heart made up exclusively of Purple Heart recipients killed or wounded in combat. I have two comments. Phil Conran, who is one of the highest decorated veterans in Santa Barbara County, is a member of the Purple Heart. He also is a national officer with an organization called Legion of Valor made up of Medal of Honor recipients and service cross-recipients second only to the Medal of Honor.
Retired as an Air Force Colonel, very prescient individual. Legion of Valor was voted in to the Veterans Coordinating Council. Phil has resigned. He will not participate in the Veterans Coordinating Council. Military Order of the Purple Heart resigns from the Veterans Coordinating Council. The trajectory we are on is not something MOPH desires to participate in, and I have a great relationship with Greg Janus. He's a good man.
I respect him. Thank you for your time.
To be followed by Ellery Price.
Good morning, esteemed supervisors. I'm Ron Dexter. I am commander of the Korean War Veterans of Santa Barbara. I've been involved with this issue for some time. I've had mixed feelings about the county taking over management of the building. You don't have a category for anybody in between on your slips. I think I know what your decision will be today, and I respect that.
In any case, I know that you supervisors have a lot else on your plates. But I hope that you will put in place taking care of veterans as a first priority for the Veterans Memorial Building, especially for our younger vets and future vets who will need it long after us old veterans have faded away. We want to work with you. And I notice you've got a three minute limit now which I appreciate. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hillary Price?
To be followed by Bob Handy.
1:46 – 1:546 turns
Board, I've been at the Veterans Memorial Building since the inception of the contract. I basically sat on the original board with Jennifer Briggs and John Terrell to decide on this contract. We ran the building approximately for 15 years before there was an eruption, when new management took over and we had a negative cash flow situation of six months. The negative management has since left, the cash flow is positive. The building is making money. As far as no service officer building, I'm a certified service officer with Disabled American Veterans and have been stationed at the Veteran's Memorial Building for the past 16 years. I am there Monday through Friday in the afternoons assisting veterans with their claims to the federal government, the VA.
So we do have a service officer on duty. As far as taking care of veterans, meeting and greeting them, we have a Wednesday coffee every Wednesday where veterans come in the morning, sit down if they need claim service, they talk to me. The bottom line is we are offering that service. We have an operational good feeling in the office with the people and management there for 15 years or back.
I really feel that when we're looking at this overall, Lompoc has had a considerable amount of money input either through grants or whatever. We haven't had that money to take care of the infrastructure. The problem is the grants have allowed them to do this. This is going to cost you considerable funds as we've seen earlier today on the boards and quite frankly, I wish you would continue the management contract With the veterans coordinating Council it is for the simple reason that I think we're going forward and it's going to be positive.
But again like I said if you do take it over let's just keep in mind that we need to take care of veterans needs here whether or not its It's essential that these people get seen on a regular basis, that they're taken care of. And basically we are not incurring extra costs for the County of Santa Barbara in their management ability and most likely could be run efficiently with the money input from other sources other than the building. Yes, we operate in a shoestring I guarantee you that but Lompoc has had considerable funds from grants from what I understand So to say a county building hasn't been maintained by the county would be, we have maintained most of it. The plumbing, the floors have been resurfaced. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been put in there over the last 15 years.
I think you need to reconsider your position on this. I think we're looking at something that's going to cost you money and you're going to have to reassign service officers when they're already there Veterans are being served. It's positive That's my opinion and you know as far as what we're going to do with this whole thing, that's your decision obviously but in the end The veterans there have to be served and hopefully you'll keep that in mind. Thank you for your time
Bob Handy default by James Magnum
Good morning. I'm Bob Handy and I am the Vice Chair of the County Veterans Advisory Committee, and just a recent chair of the Veterans Coordinating Council. I want to thank the staff for their input on this, and I would like to also thank Janet Wolfe's Chief of Staff Mariel Gorman for all of the hours that she has put in listening to both sides of this. I think all three of them have done a great job.
The Veterans Coordinating Council and the Veterans County Advisory Committee are asking you for a one-year extension that we could prove that we could run the building as it should be run. What we're asking for is that you give us the one year extension, Proved that we are worthy of it that after six months you can automatically cancel the contract So again, I'd like to thank the staff for their input and I'd like to take The opportunity to stamp. Thank you guys for All of the time that you've put into this as well
James Magnum To be followed by Paul weakland
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is James Christopher Magnum and I know that today is my destiny to be here in front of you to speak on the matter of the interior management of the Veterans Memorial Building. I came here to Santa Barbara barely six months ago from Los Angeles but I'm originally from Detroit Michigan so I can say that I've had experience to be on both sides of the street when it comes to opportunities. I'm also a nine-and-a-half year naval veteran from the Vietnam era and mostly served over in Asia I would like to start off by acknowledging some people who are a great deal of admiration and respect for.
Marge Beavers, Beverly Ochoa, Ellery Price, Robert Handy, Ron Dexter, each of the people Above have helped me in understanding what my grandmother taught me many years ago. It's not always about me, as they have given selflessly to others and are an inspiration for me in my daily quest to see that the property there at 112 West Cabrillo is a model for all to follow.
I was literally thrust into mechanics of the Veterans Coordinating Council, as I'm sure Mr. Channis of the GSA can vouch for when I began to serve as the committee secretary a few months ago. This led me to a staffing position at the Veterans Memorial Building for just under a month now. And I get a daily bird's eye view of what's going on and what's needed.
I have a unique position to serve in a multitude of ways, one that being that because of the location of the building and the ongoing problem with homelessness in the area there have been reports of trespassing in the past on that property. And since I've come onboard I can tell you that the property has been secure. You'll find that I have a rather unique set of skill sets. My first objective was to ensure that no one would violate the property in any way, and to this point everything is secured.
And mostly I'm excited when I get the chance to work on various repairs and beautification projects around the building as I'm aware of the assessment review that the county conducted and can assure you that whatever amount that was reported to be needed can at least be tripled or quadruple In actual cost as the building has a lot of upgrades that need to be completed.
My proposal was simple, I would like to have enough time to partner if you will three elements. The Veterans Coordinating Council, the Veterans Memorial Building and its present management, Who could help provide the necessary coding requirements to ensure that the building is up to code and safe. And the county of Santa Barbara, GSA with Mr. Pontes and Ms. Chanas to help in advisory means to improving the building in such a way for total replacement of various areas that need to be done.
By having this partnership and allowing the VCC and Vice Veterans Memorial Building to do upgrades with the funding we get on our own, in exchange for longer leasing rights. My belief is that this will be a more suitable resolution for everyone. I'd like to thank you for your time and have a great one. Thank you.
Paul Weaklin? Mr. Weaklin's our final speaker.
1:54 – 2:078 turns
Supervisors, Paul Weaklin. I came into town on an urchin diving boat, lived on that boat for about two years. Walking to town, I found the veteran's office. I went in. I was totally satisfied. I was helped with my claim. I was helped with housing. I helped with different other avenues and counseling here in Santa Barbara. I found no deficiencies at all in the services that were provided.
And there was a happy camaraderie atmosphere in the building And then they had this group come and want to take over the building for a museum. And all of a sudden, the strife starts. The interlopers, the agitators, all of these downplaying things about the building that was operating in good order. They had fine fashion. Things were going along just fine. Was there any criticism before these interlopers showed up at this building? And said, you know this is a wonderful location. This is golden. If we were able to put our nonprofit organization, our charity headquarters here, oh it would legitimize our standing in the community. We could have fundraisers here and look good! And there's the problem that happened here. The veterans were holding their own.
Yes, they're not making a great deal of money so what? But they're not costing the county anything either and they were doing good. And now we have a new guy here James and did you hear the promises that he just made? He's going to do more with less. He is going to do a fine job and not require an employee of the county to be using up valuable tax dollars. If you allow them, I believe this Veteran Coordinating Council once again can do what they promised to do. They did it for 15 years. It's only in the last few months that they've had any problems.
If you want to show support for veterans, renew the contract. If you want to show that you are politicos that are looking for more authority and real estate, remember the Veterans Hall is supposed to be non-political, no campaigning allowed. I see that's not being forthwith here in Santa Barbara. This is supposed to be an area where we come together in a sanctuary. It's a haven for veterans. Unfortunately here in Santa Barbara, I feel a little put out because I go to the Veterans Hall and you got homeless people there. And you have drug classes, drunk driving classes, these AA meetings. That is the only Veterans Hall that I have found in the state of California that allows that. It kind of hurts me to have to associate there. It's not a veteran's haven.
They've had people using the facilities that aren't veterans but pretend to be, and the posers and the sham charities, that's the problem. I'm out of time. Thank you very much. Blessings and good leadership.
Thank you. All right. That's our final speaker. I'll bring it back to the board for deliberation Supervisor Wolf.
First of all, I want to thank all the vets who are here today and Marge thank you for being here as well. You know through the years that I've served a supervisor I have had an opportunity to visit the Vets Memorial Building on numerous occasions It is a special place in our community. And what I believe that we have before us is an opportunity to make it better, and to allow just the one portion of the management of that building to go to general services. This is an opportune time, as I said in my earlier statement where the lease is coming to an end.
And we can be efficient and effective in management of three of our facilities. One that is already happening in Lompoc and one that we have heard from Supervisor Adams working successfully. I think it is important and I look through the management plan to see that there is the focus on veteran services. And throughout the plan, that is noted. And I do believe with all my heart that that is obvious, that is the intention and we have to do that. That's what that building is there for.
With the county taking over the management, it will then allow the VCC or any other organization to focus on what you folks do best. And that's coming together and providing services for veterans. And I think that'll open up a lot of opportunities for vets. And I know myself and my office would like to help in that regard. Supervisor Lavagnino has done the stand down in Santa Maria, and I think that's something that we could try and emulate here in Santa Barbara.
There's other services that we can provide to the vets in Santa Barbara but I really do believe that this is the opportunity for us to get the management plan Developed for the county to take over and to definitely invite and encourage all the folks and thank you for what you're doing To come together and continue to help us Operating that vet center as it as it should be operated. This is not a this is not a political decision It's not taking sides on all the issues that have been percolating over the years It is from my perspective doing what's right for the vets and doing what's right for the management of this building so I I'll wait to hear other comments, but I would recommend that we move forward with recommendation 1A.
Which is that the county would take over management of this building. That's a motion.
Mr. Chair, I will second that motion. I think it's important to remember that the county didn't go looking for a situation where we could step in and take over the management of it. I'm looking at the second page of the management agreement that talks a little bit about And how we got to this point, and it goes back to the January 2012 Auditor Controller's audit report where it talked about identifying numerous deficiencies in controls over policies and procedures including financial transactions.
And various issues of non-compliance with the agreement and various laws. And goes on to talk about the conflicts that arose, that general services in the second district office had to keep getting involved in. So I appreciate the work that has gone into trying to craft an extension of the agreement. But I do think for all the reasons that have been mentioned, including what Supervisor Wolf just said. That it's time to go ahead and try something different. I firmly believe that it's going to continue to be the best resource possible for all of the veterans groups on all of the veterans that need the services and they will be enhanced. And we do have really good models throughout the county, not just here but in Lompoc and in Santa Maria, Guadalupe and in Solvang.
So I look forward to that and to hearing about all the successes of the additional veterans programs that will be offered there. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you, I am going to support the motion. I think that what I was going to say has pretty much been said by Supervisor Wolff and Farr. I would like though that in the near future general services working with our veterans groups develop some kind of little brochure or something once we've identified all the services that we're going to be providing So that folks have a sense of what they can expect and when, and what days, and what have you in terms of services at this facility.
I think it would give it a profile in terms of what kind of services we've put in place. And it doesn't have to be immediately, because I think we need to work on identifying on that inventory of services. Whether we're going to have some of our veterans officers go there once a week, twice a week. Certainly, we have our mental health system where we have our cares facilities and we're in the process of restructuring but You know, our veterans don't always quite make it out to our little institution centers. And it might be a good pilot also to explore one day a week to have mental health services there. To see if folks actually attend and take advantage of that. Actually bringing the services downtown where a lot of our homeless veterans are at knowing that they can go there.
That may be moot because we also have I think mental health practitioners That go to Casa Esperanza, which where many of our homeless veterans might go to and I don't know the answer But I think we need to look at what additional things we can provide out there To do what? I think some of the veterans have said and I know supervisor wolf is committed to and that is identifying how we could increase our services for veterans at this facility
Yeah, I think it would be a good At the time, I was going to save this for the budget. But I recently received a letter from Secretary Peter Gravette who is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the State of California and he's addressed our board. He wanted us to know that we made a commitment for hiring four veteran service officers over this last budget cycle in tune of $326,000 we committed.
They just sent us a letter that said that $326,000 turned into new benefits for our veterans of $289,000 a month. Which is $3.4 million new benefits going out to our veterans plus $5 million in one time benefits that were our veteran service officers found back pay and those types of things have backed benefits to the tune of $5 million. So I was going to bring that up when we talk about our veteran service officers again, to make sure that we're all committed to that. But on this, I think the important thing is that all veterans are being served not this little segment or that segment or this group or And sometimes it's difficult. And one of the things I've been learning when I'm with Stand Down is that, you know, sometimes veterans groups get fragmented a little bit and a personality might come in and take over and those types of things.
I just think it's good for our veterans that... And the last thing I want to do is look like we're trying to take something over. And I think Supervisor Farris pointed out exactly what happened. We weren't out searching for anything. This dropped in our lap. Good that we would have an outside third party person that's in charge of this so that the veterans know what the expectations are what the rules are.
And everybody is living under the same rules and conditions. And that they can maximize their enjoyment and their participation in that building. So I'll be supportive of this as well, and I very much look forward to this being a place where veterans can go relax, enjoy their camaraderie together, and maybe swap a few stories. And have a good time. So we have a motion on the floor, it's been seconded. Mr. Gazzone looks like he's inching forward which is not usually a good sign.
Chair Levin, you don't know all as well. I just wanted to check with Supervisor Wolf and confirm that the motion actually is in three parts receiving and filing the proposed consolidated management plan A1 deciding not to renew the current management agreement and B the CEQA determination.
2:07 – 2:1718 turns
It would be, so one A. Yes, yes. Two? Yes. So one A and two.
And the second also. Yes. Okay that's been. Mona has a question. And Mona is CEO Miyasato.
Members of the board and Cheryl Avenue just to clarify before you make your motion if you do move To prove this that you are directing me to include in the proposed budget funding for this on an ongoing basis Which would reduce the discretionary unallocated general fund revenue we've been discussing Okay, correct.
Yes The reality check. All right, perfect okay with that knowledge we will move forward all those in favor aye none opposed passes unanimously very good.
We'll move on to item number four now for a minute agenda management purposes. Let's do four and five before dinner, I mean hopefully before dinner. Four and five before lunch, we'll break for closed session and then we'll come back and take up item number six. So if you're around for item six or listening, item six will take place after our lunch break. Yeah?
Mr. Allen, item four please.
Chairman Lanino, members of the board. Item four is from the county executive office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a response to the grand jury report titled what is 211? Will it survive in Santa Barbara County?
All right so if somebody asked me on the radio give me the 411 on the 211. Now we'll know.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board. This item is on your agenda today to provide responses to the grand jury report entitled What Is 211? Will It Survive in Santa Barbara County? The grand jury report noted several items in summary and I'll move through these very quickly because as you may recall we had an extensive discussion regarding the status of 211 and your board took very certain actions on April 1.
Therefore all of the contents of this report reflect your actions of that day. In summary, the grand jury report found that the 2-in-1 helpline program. They found they were concerned about the viability of the program due to the overall funding and management obstacles which they had encountered over the last several years. They also found that the 2-In-1 Helpline Program had proven itself to be a vital community resource for Santa Barbara County and to continue operating, the program required a lead organization to assume the responsibilities of administration management in the development of additional funding.
They also found the 211 database at the time of their review had not been updated, and that only several nonprofits and two of the eight cities in Santa Barbara County contributed money to the program as a whole. Finally, as part of their report, the grand jury recommended that the Board of Supervisors consider a proposal to provide one-time funding to complete the database update. Again, all of the responses suggested for your board today include your actions of April 1.
In terms of the actual findings and suggested responses, the first finding was that Santa Barbara County 2-1-1 Helpline is a program that provides a valuable service to the residents of Santa Barbara County The response suggested is that the board agreed with the finding and recognizes the benefits of the information referral service, and that the Board of Supervisors has taken action at their meeting of April 1 to support and garner community-wide funding for the program through the allocation of $30,000 for the database cleanup.
Finding two, the grand jury noted that the 2-in-1 program database for community resources is out of date and in critical need of updating. The response? The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. Again on April 1, the Board of Supervisors allocated $30,000 from contingency to fund an update to the database resource and it is anticipated that this update will take four to six months to complete.
That contract has been initiated and that project is underway. In terms of finding three, there is insufficient funding to continue operating the Santa Barbara County 2-in-1 Helpline Program. On this it is suggested that the Board of Supervisors partially agree with this finding as there are multiple 2-In-1 program models available in place throughout the state and many successful programs involve a partnership of local government agencies The community investment partnership model presented to the board on April 1 provides for proportional investments so that all community investment, so that the entire community investment and support of the program is shared and the program enhanced. While the Board of Supervisors partially agrees with this finding as ongoing current funding does not exist, the funding strategy presented up to you on April 1 represents a way forward.
In terms of finding five, the County of Santa Barbara is only temporarily administering the 2-1-1 program. It's recommended that the Board of Supervisors agree with this finding. However on March 5th 2014, the Community Action Commission CAC board of directors voted to serve as a local operator of the program should sustained funding be provided. It is anticipated that transition to the CAC will occur as of July 1, 2014.
In terms of the recommendations by the grand jury, recommendation one was that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors allocate the requested funds to update the database. The response is that the recommendation has been implemented via the action of the board again on April 1 to allocate the $30,000 for the database cleanup. And recommendation two, that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors identify a local agency or organization qualified to assume the administrative and management responsibilities of Santa Barbara County 2-1-1 Helpline Program.
The response suggested is that the recommendation has been implemented via the selection of the Community Action Commission as the 211 community operator. The next response, I believe there was a glitch in the PowerPoint and I will read that to you. It is in your board agenda report but again not on the PowerPoint. Recommendation three from the grand jury indicated that the county, the cities and other entities benefiting from the services provided by the Santa Barbara County 2-in-1 Helpline contribute funding in proportionate amounts As proposed by county staff in its December 13 recommendations as well as April 1 recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The response is that this recommendation has not yet been implemented, however a plan has been developed to outreach to the various cities.
Staff and elected officials will be attending the council meetings over the course of the next several months actually in May to request city funding as part of the community investment partnership. And finally, the fourth recommendation that the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors annually review the performance of 2-1-1 help lane to justify continued funding and again the recommendation for that is that the board of supervisors agree with this recommendation and will conduct annual reviews The recommended action before you today is to consider and adopt the responses in attachment A of your board report. And authorize the chair to sign the formal letter to the grand jury, and forward the responses to the presiding judge. That concludes my presentation.
Thank you very much Ms. Moss-Message. Mr. Allen any speakers? No requests to speak. No requests to speak. Supervisor Carbajal.
Move to approve staff's recommendation.
Moved and seconded. Any comments? I have one. Terry, I would volunteer to go to the city of Santa Maria and I guess I was kind of told there's no sense really going to Guadalupe from what I was told by their elected officials there so but do we have anything scheduled or do we have who... Was there gonna be a presentation to them or how does this work?
Yes, Mr. Chair members of the board we did send letters out requesting to be placed formally on the agendas We are currently working with both City of Santa Barbara and city of Santa Maria on those dates to be placed on their agendas We're working with their city Their city managers on that I should also mention however as part of the grand jury report the cities were also asked to respond and the cities of The cities of Solvang and Buellton agreed to the funding strategy, and represented that. So therefore I don't believe there's a need to attend those cities.
Others represented that they are not interested in funding. So right now frankly, I'm very much focused on the larger cities at this point from a budgetary standpoint.
Very good. Well, when those come up was there a plan? Was the plan that staff was going to do the presentations or that we were supposed to do the presentation?
The plan would be that I would attend and make a presentation and that a member of the board would attend with me for representing that district and
also provide
comments as
well. Perfect. Okay. Supervisor Farr.
Thank you, Mr. Chair just to have on the record so the cities that have expressed disinterest specifically are Carpinteria Lompoc and Goleta
2:17 – 2:2124 turns
As well as Guadalupe correct
okay, I know I chair loving you know had already mentioned Guadalupe Okay so yeah, so. So that means there is no there's no plan to do any more outreach to them try to get on their agendas.
Mister chair and supervisor far I have sent letters and I have had telephone conversations with the city managers and there is not an interest at this point in time.
OK well it just seems like we should try to pursue it in some fashion
So there wasn't an interest to even put it on the agenda. Is that what?
That's correct. Based on the prior conversations, um, the cities of Bulton and, uh, and solving are interested in contributing in the funding amounts as we had previously specified. Um, Carpinteria. Uh, I do still need to contract contact carpentry. I made an error in indicating that, um Goleta is not interested. Guadalupe is not interested. And we need to continue to work with Santa Barbara and Santa Maria
What about Lompoc? Did you have a response from
Lompoc? Lompoc referred us to their Human Services Commission for funding, so I will be pursuing that track. They do have Human Services Commission funding that does readily apply to the service actually and City of Santa Barbara, their funding right now does come through... Their partial funding does come through their Human Services Commission, so we will be following up with that grant application through Lompok.
I know that wasn't part of our packet, but do you happen to have there or remember how much we were hoping to get from the city of Goleta?
I do. I have it here actually. Mr. Chair and Supervisor Farr, City of Goleta their requested amount is $1,900. And they don't
even want to put that on the agenda. All right, well you know I'm I may go speak in public comment. Thank you Mr.
Chair. Oh
that's
true. I guess you could always go to public comment. Supervisor Carbajal?
Just for the record that Carpinteria was erroneously mentioned as the city that did not reflect an interest correct?
I think that's a great strategy for us to attend with you. The various cities that are in our jurisdictions, you know
The city of Goleta was greatly impacted in the south coast when we had those disasters, those fires. And I'm hoping that they understand the value if not on a day to day basis, the value during disasters like fires because I know that Supervisor Wolfe was actively engaged from the Goleta standpoint When all those fires occurred and it would really be great to get the city to their leadership to understand the collaboration that we that would be worthwhile for all of us so.
Supervisor, thank you for that comment I am retooling the presentation to focus both on the disaster preparedness component an information component of 211 as well as the health and human services. So those are both equally represented.
Okay, and I'm sure in each presentation it's going to show what the usage is from that city. I believe Santa Maria is almost 25% of the total calls coming in. So- That
is correct 24%. Very
good. I certainly Mr Chair understand Guadalupe's position since It looks like they're financially challenged and they might go under in the near future anyways so I understand why even if they want to contribute They're in the red upside down and likely going to dissolve in the future. So maybe that's why they don't want to contribute.
OK, so with that, is this a receiving file? We have to make recommendations. I'm sorry. Yeah,
we have a motion and a second.
Oh, you already have a motion. Second all those in favor. Aye. Any opposed? None passes unanimously Thank you very much, and we'll be looking forward to attending more meetings. And maybe making public comment. All right, we're going to go to our next item which is Item 5. Mr. Allen?
2:21 – 2:2711 turns
Chairman Lavinino, members of the board, Item 5 is from the Public Works Department. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding establishing benefit assessments for county service areas 331 and the North County Lighting District for fiscal year 2014-15 in the second, third, and fourth districts.
Mr. McAuliffe? Yes, good morning Mr. Chair and board members thank you this is Public Works annual item to establish benefit assessments for street lighting in those CSAs and our presentation today will be given by Marty Wilder our Utilities Manager
Street lighting, thank you Mark. For the County Service Area 331 and North County Lighting District. Goleta Valley CSA 31 provides street lighting to the unincorporated portions of Goleta and Santa Barbara. It provides open space and park maintenance services in addition and a certain amount of median and tree trimming. The benefit assessment funds street lighting operation and maintenance. Property tax revenue goes to fund those other services, median landscaping improvements, additional street tree trimming around the street lights and park related equipment purchases and activities.
The proposed benefit assessment is unchanged from last year with a base rate of $24 per year. The projected year-end fund balance for next fiscal year is $416,752. CSA 31 was created in 63, provides street lighting and also a certain amount of streetscape and landscape installation maintenance. The Street Lighting Benefit Assessment funds the street lighting operation and maintenance. In addition property tax revenues fund hardscape and landscape improvements.
Currently CDBG grant funding has been used to retrofit the existing street lighting. The funding status for CSA 31 is such that the proposed rate as same as last year would be $12.93 per year and the projected year-end fund balance for next fiscal years 2007, $235.
Thank you, if you could go back to CSA 31. You mentioned in the report the changes to the existing street lights that are going on now to improve the lighting but we're also working on a plan to add new poles with new lights and a lot of the community that has none So I just want to make sure again that without any change in the assessment, that the money that we have if we're able to go forward over the course of the next year or so and putting in even more poles and lighting whether there's going to be enough money for that. Not to pay for the capital but to pay for the ongoing operations and maintenance.
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Farr, yeah the projections and of course Edison rates change and we don't have actual cost estimates for the installation so at this point based on our review we believe there will be enough money to maintain the lights including the additional lights with the existing source of revenue as you can see we have a rather healthy balance of $207,000 so we have a buffer if it does go a little above what we anticipate So I think we're in good stead as far as the fund balance goes with the addition and the changes that we've been making in Isla Vista.
Okay, thank you. And this is a related question. You might not be able to answer it, but the current uses for this money in this assessment district, those go back I'm sure a long time. But is there a mechanism whereby staying as a county service area other duties could be added to it? Is that a LAFCO process or is that a county process?
Chair Lavinino, Supervisor Farr. Adding additional services to CSA 31 is possible but it is through a LAFCO process, yes.
Okay so even though it's a county service area and not a separate community services district, it's still a LAFCO process?
That is correct.
Okay thank you Mr. Chair.
The North County Lighting District was created in 1994. It provides street lighting only to the communities of Orchard, Los Alamos, Chasmalia and unincorporated areas of Lompoc and Santa Maria. In the unincorporated area of Santa Maria which is known as County Service Area 5 there is a benefit assessment rate of $14.73 that can be considered however currently there are sufficient revenues from property taxes alone to pay for the street lighting services.
Therefore the proposed benefit assessment rate is suggested to be at 0, to remain at zero. And the projected fund balance for next year will be $469,136. So therefore today's recommendation is to adopt a resolution establishing the benefit assessment charges for County Service Area 3 and 31 and do not establish the benefit assessments for North County Lighting District.
2:27 – 2:337 turns
Okay, very good. Any request to speak Mr. Allen?
No request to speak.
No request to speak. Supervisor
Farr? I'll move this item, Mr. Chair.
Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed? Okay so, Mr Gazzone what do we have on the plate for closed session? Thank you very much
Chair Labadino, for closed session today we have two existing litigation matters. Lawrence v. County of Santa Barbara Workers' Comp case. County of Santa Barbara v. Civil Service Commission, Grady Williams, Real Party and Interest. I'm sorry. Three employee labor negotiations, Engineers and Technicians Association, Santa Barbara County Probation Peace Officers Association, and Service Employees International Union Local 620 as well as three employee performance evaluations, Agricultural Commissioner, General Services Director, and Planning and Development Director.
Essentially about one hour- One hour? 115.
Okay, why don't we come back at 1245? How's that work? Okay. 1245 because it will stumble in around one. Sure okay good Yeah. ♪ ¶ The. ♪ A. Hi. ♪
2:42 – 4:121 turns
You. ♪ ♪ Yeah. A. The. Yeah. ♪ You. The. You. ♪ ♪ The. ♪ Yeah. Hi. ♪ you You. ♪ You. A. Yeah. A. . . . . ♪ ♪ A. Hi. ♪ . . . . ♪♪ ♪ Yeah. Hi. ♪ Music Yeah. Yeah. ¶. ¶. Music. ¶. ♪ Hi. you Hello. ♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. Yeah. You. you. ♪ Hi. ♪ Hi. Yeah. ¶¶ Yeah. ♪ ♪ Yeah. ¶¶ ♪ Hi. ♪ You. ♪ ♪ ♪ You. ♪ ♪ Hi. The. Music. Yeah. The. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ A. ♪ The. The. ♪ ♪ The. ♪ ♪ The ¶.
Yeah. Hi. ¶. ¶¶ ¶. The. The. The. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ The. Okay. ¶. ♪ ♪ ¶. ♪ Thank you. Music. ♪ ♪ The. A. A. ¶. A. ♪ ♪ Yeah. ♪ This is a test. ♪ . . Hi. ♪ ♪ ♪ The. ♪
4:12 – 4:229 turns
Oh boy, now I get two? Okay. All right. I lost my list of who's presenting. So Dr. Russell, I'm going to kick it to you because I don't have my list. We're going to begin reconvene our Board of Supervisors meeting. Sorry we're a little bit late. Right, Mr. Allen can you read item 5 in please?
Chairman Lavigna and members of the board. Item number 6 from planning and development is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Sermon Community Plan update. All
right, I didn't forget you weren't there.
Thank you for covering for me and I will report that there are no reportable items from closed session.
Okay, for the record, I did forget but you weren't there anyways. So do we need to do ex parte? Do we do ex parte on this probably not till next.
Sure let me know they're not required. Okay
all right item six Dr. Russell
Good afternoon, Chair Lavanino, Supervisors. Pleased to bring forward the Summerland Community Plan update. With me is Interim Deputy Director of Long Range Planning David Lackey, Supervising Planner Alan Bell and Assistant Director Diane Black and the presentation will be made by Mr. Lackey
Thank you Dr. Russell and good afternoon members of the board. So as Dr. Russell mentioned we're very pleased to present and bring forward to you the proposed amendments to the Summerland Community Plan update, and staff will give a brief presentation and then be available to answer any questions you might have. The summer community plan area is 907 acres in size and located between the Montecito community plan area to the west into the north.
And then the Toro Canyon community plan area is located to the east as you see from The graphic, approximately 97% of the plan area is located within the coastal zone. And the inland portion area is limited to approximately 22 parcels located just west of Ortega Ridge Road adjacent to the Montecito Community Plan. The community of Summerlin includes several parks and open space areas located throughout the community, including Lookout Park, Greenwell Preserve and three public coastal access points.
And I guess some notoriety, the Summerlin Community Plan was the very first community plan that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1992. So with the nearly 20 years since the someone community plan update there was a need to revisit some of the policies and actions within the plan. Many of the action items had actually been implemented so there were some cleanup items and also addressing some new items and issues.
The Summerland Community Plan update includes focused text and policy amendments to the current community plan, which primarily focused on visual and aesthetic policies as well as revised transportation and circulation policies. The project also includes new residential and commercial design guidelines as well as zoning ordinance amendments to the Land Use and Development Code and Coastal Zoning Ordinance in order to implement the proposed policy changes.
So staff's presentation today will focus primarily on two of the areas, the transportation and circulation amendments that address right-of-way abandonment and encroachments. And then aesthetic and visual resource amendments including new approaches to height methodology and height limits, floor area limit, floor below grade, and design guidelines. So the community of Sumlin throughout contains numerous unimproved road right of ways and particularly within the urban grid or the core of the community where there's varied widths and surface conditions reflecting decades of fragmented development patterns. So currently one of the challenges is that the policies addressing right away abandonment encroachments are very restrictive They're actually prohibited in terms of approving any abandonments and encroachments.
And so this is one of the issues that SunPAC addressed, as well as working with Public Works and Planning Development. So based on this input, the Planning Commission had recommended new policies that would allow right-of-way abandonment encroachment permits that are consistent with the practice that occurs in the rest of the unincorporated county. And these encroachment permits and applications would be subject to public works standards and criteria as well as the proposed community plan update proposed policies and actions. And so this was viewed I think throughout as a needed improvement.
Turning to the aesthetic and visual resource policies, the Planning Commission is recommending adopting a height methodology that measures the height from existing grade. And this is the same height calculation methodology that has been used throughout the rest of the county since 2006. And this measures height from existing grade and provides standardized approach for measuring height consistent with other areas of the county Encourages buildings to follow slope contours, and it also discouraged discourages manipulating grade to gain more building height a Second related item was a change to existing height limits within the community of Summerlin and so the table on the overhead as well as in your board letter is Shows the existing height limits for Summerlin, for the different areas urban, urban grid, commercial core, rural and rural neighborhoods.
And then the Planning Commission recommendation changes are shown in the left-hand column. So one of the differences that at least going into the planning commission. Meetings was the staff's recommendation was to try to standardize the height methodology that's used as I mentioned throughout the rest of the county and that One of the key changes is that it allows a roof pitch adjustment of three feet.
And as you know, the planning commission recommendation highlighting kind of within the urban area and also at the very bottom in the rural neighborhood below, the planning commission recommendation was for 25 feet but with no roof pitch adjustment so that was a key difference in terms Planning Commission recommendation as compared to staff's original recommendation.
Floor area limits are another item that currently apply to Summerlin and have been used to manage the amount of development on parcels as a ratio to address mass, bulk and scale. So with the SunPAC and Planning Commission, there were some minor changes to look at slightly increasing the maximum allowable floor area limit. So there were no changes for lots that are less than 10 acres in size. The maximum floor area ratio would remain at 8000 square feet but for lots that are between ten acres and less than 20 acres The maximum floor area limit would increase from 8,000 to 10,000 square feet.
And for lots 20 acres to less than 40 acres it would increase to 12,000 square feet and then for the larger parcels that are 40 acres or greater it would allow a maximum floor area of 15,000 square feet. Another technical change recommended by the Planning Commission was to change how the floor area is measured. And a recommendation was to propose measuring from the interior surface of exterior walls rather than the current methodology of measuring from the interior surface and so looking at this change in build out It could theoretically result in a modest 5 to 10 percent increase in total floor area limit throughout the community.
So, in order to compensate for this potential increase, the Planning Commission had recommended that the commercial floor area limit be reduced slightly by .02. So for commercial development, it would change from .29 to 2.27. And then for mixed-use development from .35 to .33 floor area ratio. Supervisor Carbone?
4:22 – 4:3213 turns
Thank you. Mr like yeah I- ahead of your presentation there is a map about Summerlin right- that we represent the entire community yes okay because I'll wait till you get their center asking to jump forward. To help- to ask if he could help me understand staffs recommended height limit with Or recommend it should I say so that we understand what it what it is and where it's designated But I'll wait till you get there Okay, if you had the map right after the slide where you touch on that It would have been perfect but we can wait.
I can go to her right now
no, go ahead and go just when we get there if you could just reference the The areas that you read that staff had recommended that we do the 25 foot plus the three-foot adjustment for pitch
supervisor
Adam Do I understand that you're going to reduce the footprint on these buildings. Greater than 20 is a 25% or is that that's 0.2 9. What are you going to be.
Mister chair supervisor Adam the floor area ratio is a ratio of development to the size of your lot so currently. The first one for commercial development it has a floor area ratio of 0.29 so essentially 29% of the lot And so it's just changing by 2 tenths of a percent. OK, I would go to 27. So it's a slight reduction for each of those categories.
OK. I thought you were proposing some modifier or some multiplier for the. Thank you. Sure.
The next concept, floor below grade is a new ordinance provision recommended by the Planning Commission to address how basement and below-grade development should be counted towards the maximum allowed floor area limits. So this approach that's recommended by the Planning Commission encourages below-grade development as a means to minimize the apparent mass, bulk and scale of structures.
This new approach is more straightforward and can be replicated without significant time or cost to the applicants as compared to the often complex basement calculations that are currently used throughout Summerlin. The Planning Commission also is recommending that the existing Summerlin Board of Architecture Review Guidelines be repealed and be replaced with new separate residential and commercial design guidelines for Summerlin.
The design guidelines are intended to guide property development in Summerlin In part, to ensure that the area's seaside character and charm are preserved and enhanced. The guidelines also provide an important tool for planning staff as well as Board of Architectural Review members, decision makers, and the public to try to properly evaluate future development applications and proposals. That concludes staff's presentation and we'd recommend that the board Consider the recommended actions on page 1 and 2 of your board letter dated May 6, 2014. And now I'll go back to Supervisor Carbajal's Inquiry regarding staff's recommendations on the height limit.
Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Carbajal? Mr. Lackey as you go to this map if you could perhaps go over what is recommended by SunPAC and what staff is recommending on the height graph that we have in here it'd be really important to understand One that shows the EDRN perhaps a little bit more clear.
I may have to switch between a couple of different slides to get the best perspective. I'll start with the rural area and then work backwards. So this maroon line that you see is the separating line, it's an urban-rural boundary line so everything north and east is within the rural area. And the EDRNs and Rural Neighborhood Designations are inclusive of that rural neighborhood So the parcels within the Summerlin community plan along Padaro Lane are in there technically in the rural area but they're classified as a rural neighborhood and those are shown here sort of along Padero Lane. There's a second EDRN And that's located right here.
That the planning commission had for those rural neighborhood areas was a 25 foot height limit with no roof pitch adjustment. Staff's recommendation originally to the Planning Commission was again, 25 feet maximum height limit but to allow a three-foot roof pitch adjustment which would be consistent with how other areas of the county allow for the roof pitch adjustment
Did that include the urban area on the bottom?
I was going to go stepwise. So at least that category, the main difference between the plant commission's recommendation and staff was a staff was recommending the roof pitch adjustment for the rural neighborhood in EDRNs. And those two are located kind of on both opposite sides of the community for the urban area It has a couple of different components. It has a new category that's defined as the urban grid, and I'll quickly go back to the other map because it kind of gives you a more focused perspective.
So in the light green, again just showing that boundary. In this case it's in purple. That's the urban-rural boundary. We just talked about where the rural area is. Here's that EDRN. So the light green area is this new, with the update a new geographic area defined as the urban grid and it's comprised of small residential lots along kind of the steeper areas above the commercial area on Lilly Avenue.
But it also drops down closer down to 101 on the west side. So the recommendation For the urban grid at least was consistent. I think between planning commission and staff was 25 feet and no roof pitch adjustment and that was kind of to take into account some of the narrow lots that are often found in this area and so that those. Planning Commission staff for agreement in that area.
The rest of the urban area, and I'll switch quickly back to the other one. But you can see up along Ortega Ridge Road into the west that is all urban and it loops around to the south and along Ortega Hill Road is urban. And then south of Lilly Avenue in the highway is all urban. You'll get a better perspective with this original map. So as I was showing along Ortega Ridge Road, it goes south and then south of the highway is all urban up until you reach the edge of the Padero Lane EDRN.
So for the urban areas exclusive of the urban grid, the Planning Commissioner's recommendation was for 25 feet and no roof pitch adjustment And staff's recommendation was for 25 feet, but to allow the three-foot roof pitch adjustment. And that was consistent with our approach to try and standardize how other areas of the county allow for the roof pitch adjustment.
And so I hope that answers your question Supervisor Carbajal? Thank
you it did.
4:32 – 4:3816 turns
So just quickly I'd like to turn it over for a few comments from the chair of the SunPAC, Robin Donaldson who would like to provide a few words on the process to your board.
Before Mr. Donaldson goes, Mr. Chair if I could?
Yes, Supervisor
Carville. How long have we been in this process? If you could just reacquaint me with that timeline Mr. Lackey to show Mr. Donaldson's commitment along with the rest of his fellow SunPAC members.
Mr. Donaldson and his SunPAC members were very dedicated. The SunPAC meetings began in November 2007 and they concluded in May 2011.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair Levin. You know supervisors as Supervisor Carbajal points out this has been a long process but a careful process and we've had I think approximately 35 public meetings with the committee to get to this point. We're excited to finally be here. I do want to acknowledge the staff it's been great working with the staff and when you have 35 plus meetings and so on And over a long period of time like that, it's not easy for members and for staff. But we got through it and got to the PC hearing and so on. I also wanted to point out this is a unique opportunity in that this is the first community plan that you've seen, that the board has ever seen, that's a revision of a community plan since the Summerland Community Plan was one of the first community plans.
So to go back through, there'd already been some legacy issues that the community felt very strong about. And some of which we had a challenge of making changes to be more standardized with the rest of the county, which by the way was the direction of this board in revising the plan. So a lot of what you see in terms of staff recommendations and Get some of that standardization terms of height calculations and so on consistent with the rest of the county in summer line. I think we struck a good balance that way. So, I'm here if there's any questions and look forward to the president.
Thank you thank you for being here. Supervisor Wolf.
Mr. Lackey, in one of your earlier slides there was the distinction of everything... This was the floor area ratio, the FAR and everything under 10,000 remained the same. Can you find that slide for me? So I'm just wondering how many or maybe I don't know if you know this but how many lots are parcels with this impact. For instance the 40 acres or greater
There's very few 40 acres or greater just talking amongst herself and maybe two or three Less than five parcels remaining that are of that size Within the whole plan area.
Okay, and would that be the same for the other the 10 acre in 20 acre? I
I think there's probably progressively more we can look to see if we have some breakdown statistics. And I'll go to a map real quickly, but most of the 10-acre and 20-acre lots are in the rural area kind of directly north of the downtown area. And
while you're doing that does the FAR include garages and accessory structures?
Madam chair supervisor. Well, there are provisions in the existing ordinance and then also some slight changes to How you address garages and other accessory structures? most of the There are for example allowances that where you wouldn't count 500 square feet of I'm sorry. So now you have this map I just wanted to, it doesn't give you the numbers but you can kind of see that this is again excuse me.
This is the urban rural boundary line and geographically right to the north and behind it you'll see transition of a mix of 5 and 10 acre lots that are rural residential and there's You know, probably 25 to 30 of those parcels that are 5 to 10 acres. And then this AG 120 parcels is one of those larger parcels that would be greater than 40 acres. So there's a handful of larger parcels but it's probably the majority in the rural area are kind of in that transition between the 10 to 20 acres in
size. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Does that complete our presentation? Yes, Mr. Chair. Okay, very good. Mr. Allen? Do we have public speakers?
We have three requests to speak. Start with Chip Wolbrandt and be followed by Reeve Wolpert and then Tom Evans
4:39 – 4:459 turns
Mr chair members of the board and I would tell you again this has been a six year process. I think we have been at every hearing, I think we may be the only ones other than members of the SunPAC who have actually been at every hearing on this item. We've worked very closely with staff. We actually had originally requested that our property be removed from the Summerland Planning Area.
I think that we really have anything to do with the Summerland area. And if I could bring up the map real quick, David, I'll explain our reason for that.
I'll grant you another 20 seconds or so based on...
Thank
you
very much and I will try to be very, very quick and aware of the time. This map, if you, and I think David this might be your map but We're actually in the area. It's not that's not my map but you all have it in front of you if you look to the very right hand bottom side of the map there is an area that is in red on my map that area in red is the extension of the Padero Lane EDRN Which also happens to be part of the Summerland community plan. The reason that area is in the Summerland community plan area is the back in 1992, that was part of the Summerland sanitary district. We actually have gone through a pretty detailed process recently to become detached from the Summerland sanitary district and Attached an annex to the Carpinteria Sanitary District because Summerland refused to provide a service.
We think we have no other real connection to Summerland, we are the only three acre zone parcels in Summerland, we are parcels that are all larger than three acres in size and we are essentially the same as the other properties in the Padero Lane EDRN. If you go to the next page David thank you This is the Padero Lane EDRN and there are over 200 properties in the Padero Lane EDRN. They have a particular set of height limits, they have no FARs at all and they have developed in a particular way and we think that's the appropriate set of rules for our properties.
As David explained staff's original recommendation had been for standardization and uniformity and to apply The same height limits to our properties as apply to the other over 200 parcels in that EDRN and by the way, to all other coastal properties in the County of Santa Barbara. We think that to do anything else would be a version of spot zoning and so we ask you to go back to that staff recommendation. If we can go to the next page this is I think where there's too much detail in this really for the Planning Commission to have understood what it was doing And we met with the First District Planning Commissioner. He told us that he wished he had had this information before making the motion that he did.
What this shows you, and I'm not gonna go into the detail but the way that height used to be measured or actually is measured until you take this action in Summerland is really complicated and you go around the building every 30 feet and you measure the finished grade and then measure to the mean of the roof height And so a current 16 foot height limitation in Summerland is not 16 if you were measuring it using the methodology in the rest of the county.
The second drawing I have there on the right shows that if you do a bit of grade manipulation, and just a little bit of grade manipulation to the peak of the roof which is where you measure everywhere else in the county. You can actually have a 40 foot tall house we have a house out there on one of our parcels that is significantly higher than 16 feet and yet under the old methodology it measures less than 16 feet. If you go to the next page Your board is going to be seeing this house very soon. And I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I'm about to run out of time. I do have more to present if I could and I'll try to do it quickly.
This is a house recently approved. What this shows is this house was approved at 16 feet with the 25 foot height limitation recommended by the Planning Commission that house if built would be legal non-conforming. With the 28 foot height limit that house is legal The next page is another house recently approved in Badero Lane at 28 feet 10 inches and so other parcels similarly situated have a height limit actually higher than 28 feet.
Jump the next one this is the house. Immediately adjacent to the summer land plan area same zoning similarly situated property approved in November of last year again 28 feet and it required 28 feet to get a normal house on that size parcel When the show at the last sheet and I think this shows why the rules for summer land don't fit. For 3 acre in larger parcels.
This is an exhibit that are architected showing the largest house we could have on On a parcel, two stories with the 25 foot height limitation. Because of the function of the roof unless we did a flat roof we would be limited to 20 foot wide house obviously that would be crazy on a three to ten acre parcel if we have the same height limit that applies to the rest of the county we can actually have a nearly 40-foot wide house and so a normal house so we'd ask you to I'm not going to impose that limit if I may just correct something because I'm afraid the staff got something very wrong and I don't want to leave They absolutely do not apply to accessory structures unless it's one of the specifically limited ones.
Mr Wilbright, I'm going to have to cut you off there. You're quite a bit over. I do have a question for you though. Sure. On the height requirement with the recommendation that was just made by staff to go back with 25 plus three does that get you where you need to be?
That gets us where we need to be and I'm sorry on this last item but it is a huge thing for us To not have the belief that detached accessory structures on 10 acre parcels reduce the size of your house. They simply, that's not what's in the rules.
Okay we'll have staff comment on that as well so let's go to our next speaker. Thank you very much. Thank You.
Reeve Wilbert and then Tom Evans will be our final speaker
4:46 – 4:511 turns
Thank you, Chair. I'm a member of SOMPAC. I've been to all 30-some meetings as well as a lot of meetings with staff and with my fellow members of the community. I am on the Board of Directors of the Summerland Citizens Association. I don't know how I can address this board after that late presentation. We haven't seen any of the materials that Mr. Wolbramp just presented.
I'm really feeling frustrated right now and at a loss for words, so I think I'm just going to go ahead and read what I wrote and hope that I get some sympathy and that at least a few of you will be hearing me. I'm going to be addressing three issues here. One of them is that Padaro Lane is part of Summerlin. The second one is, I want to offer you another perspective on maximum allowable height and roof pitch adjustment. And the last one, and I'll probably run out of time, as I wanted to take you a walk along Summerlin Beach which I doubt that you have done for a long time and certainly have not done Like I have and other members of the community who treat that beach as a very special place. But let's start with this is Summerland, the western end of Paderal Lane is within the Summerland planned area essential to the completeness of the community and more just more of Paderal Lane.
For decades the viewpoint has made sense to countless planners and citizens. It made sense during the scoping for the Summerland Community Plan, the plan's subsequent creation and later during the scoping for the Toro Canyon Plan. Factors affecting that decision? The presence of Summerland Beach on the south that girdles both Summerland and the Loon Point area binding them together.
Historic Summerland beach access trails and parking at Loon Point and Toro Creek. that connect with a network of trails inland from the beach towards, inland towards Summerland. At the time of establishing planned boundaries, the area was rural very similar to adjoining Summerland lands north and west unlike the thoroughly subdivided properties to the east.
The location here of the southern 101 entrance to Summerland, the presence of view quarters that greatly add to the recreation within Summerland and our sense of place The end of tall bluffs that define Summerland and the coast geologically. Although the area is increasingly appearing like Eastern Padera Lane decades ago, the intention of hundreds of people, planners, expert consultants who laid down the plan boundaries was that loon point development respect the history needs and character of Summerland. Although some growth since the adoption of the Summerland Community Plan has confused the distinctions and corrupted parts of the original plan's vision, that vision is still meaningful as well as the fact that Loon Point is in Summerland.
A fitting perspective. The public benefit of enjoying better architecture through steeper roof pitches doesn't trump the benefit, the public benefit of protecting the Loon Point area's rare recreation. The sense of openness and may I have an extra two minutes like- Absolutely. Thank you sir. The sense of openness evolving nature unity of place lack of development distinguished Eastern Summerlin Beach That's that little lobe down the bottom right hand corner of slide 18.
The sense of openness, evolving nature, unity of place, lack of development, distinguished Eastern Summerlin Beach from long stretches of shoreline up and down coast, if not all of the shoreline up and down coast. Preserving this exceptional rural experience on a highly urbanized seashore has been a long-term goal of the community. And was central to SunPAC's decision that the most sensitive loon point properties be limited to 16 feet. The planning commission then bumped that up nine feet. Now, the owners of those property want an additional three feet.
That goal has been restated by the County BAR as structures that should be one with their surroundings, hidden from view or as unobtrusive as possible. On the eastern end of Summerlin Beach barely seen architecture is absolutely the best architecture. Perhaps the most sensitive coastal sites within the community county staff and Planning Commission added nine feet to the 16 feet that Sunpac sought. Now if you were to, I want to walk you down the beach real quickly for those who haven't been there. If you were to start at Loon Point, I mean at Padero, I'm sorry, at Lookout Park it's a busy park It's overflowing with traffic and with activity. It's a wonderful place for families and volleyball and beach activities It's a problem going into the ocean there because that area has lots of oil, still we're dealing with oil seepage.
But if you continue and you walk east from there, you gradually move through a continued urbanization of the shoreline where there are lots of homes. As you get to the middle of Summerlin Beach, then you start feeling some openness. Give me just one half a minute. But the point I'm trying to make here is continue the walk further south and you enter this very rural area where you actually can feel your breath changing.
And you can feel your heart rate slowing down. And I think essential to that is a sense of open space. The beach flows right up to the bluffs, there's nothing in the way there. The view from the bottom of the bluffs up to the top, there is nothing in the way up there. There are no homes, it's all open space. Any building down there needs to be limited or needs to address that particular sensitivity and that value to the public. Thank you for the extra time.
4:52 – 5:0720 turns
Tom Evans. How many more speakers? Tom's our final speaker.
Chairman Lavagnino, board members my name is Tom Evans I am also an advisory committee member and was one last during the 92 plan as well And I also made all the meetings. I would like to say that I agree with Reeves' comments that he just made, and I think it was kind of interesting looking at the map that Mr. Wolbert put up of the Padero Lane area and talking about this... He was talking about the similarity of the northern area on this side of Toro Creek and the southern area but if you looked at the lot sizes, all those lots on Easterly side of the creek towards Carpinteria were much smaller lots than the three acre lots that are to the north side. So I think that was kind of an interesting graphic there.
I'd also like to point out that the Planning Commission recommendations for heights matched the SunPAC recommendations for heights With one exception and that was on lot four of the properties that Mr. Wolbrant represents and that was because of an issue to do with we wanted have a special height for that parcel because it's very visible from the beach and County Council said we couldn't have that but in all other respects the Planning Commission studied and took the Sun Pax recommendation on the heights We submitted a letter that you should have in your packet that is just some minor cleanup.
During the hearings at the Planning Commission, staff made a good effort to highlight the differences between or where the places were SunPAC and Planning Commission, I'm sorry, SunPAC and staff recommendations differed But this one issue of the garages did not get into that discussion. And so we're hoping that you can allow, that the SunPAC recommendation would take place and basically current Summerland guidelines contain stipulations regarding Florida racial requirements and allowances for two- and three-car garages And SunPAC recommended additional language for one-car garages as we have lot widths as narrow as 25 feet.
And basically the problem is, as I see it or as we see it, is that the staff language says you can have a 500 square foot garage or on a larger lot of 750 square foot garage but it doesn't specify The smaller lots being able to have a 250 square foot garage if they have constraints on the site. And also it doesn't stipulate what this number of cars that the garage is for, and this is in regard to a floor area ratio exemption where you get the 500 square feet Free and we're just suggesting that as it has been in the past and as a son like recommended that that language. Include 2 cars for 500 square foot rock garage, 3 cars for 750 square foot garage and one car of course for 250 square foot garage.
And I just spoke to staff earlier and they only had one issue with it. And as far as I know, and that was language that said up to 250 square feet per dwelling unit May be allowed for one car garage unless it is determined by county planning and development department that a two-car garage can feasibly built be built on site. And that was the part that they had an issue where they didn't want to have the planners to be put into that position, I talked to Robin and Reeve and we're all comfortable just removing that portion of the language so I think that would hopefully make everybody happy There is also a clarification to the wording on the commercial parking area.
This show that or say that it's not the entire the 67% which is a amount of the perimeter needs to qualify as a certain type of basement That doesn't apply to the whole commercial structure, it just applies to the commercial parking portion of the structure because if you had to apply it to the whole structure, you would not be able to make that. It would not pencil out. You couldn't do it. So basically those are things we're asking for and I think they're just We hate to bring these things up at the last minute, but there's been a lot going on here. A lot of staff change and so on. And our current staff has been really good in trying to catch up on all these things. These are just a couple of important cleanup items that I hope you can accommodate.
All right,
thank you very much for being here. Thank you. Supervisor Carball?
Thank you Mr. Chair, not bad for only having three or four folks here from the community after many years of some really thoughtful planning I think it speaks volumes as to the long but important process that led to much consensus on almost everything There's two issues obviously that we're gonna explore right now and that is one is the height for certain areas And the other one is this garage issue, but as I get into it In trying to define these areas a little bit more clearly for us.
I just want to thank Robin Reeve and Tom which are three of the Sun pack folks and chairman Robin Donaldson For sticking with it and really doing an extraordinary job for the community. Clearly you didn't get paid one cent, but your pay is the fact that you're deciding on a future in the character of your community for years to come. And I really want to thank you, there were many others that are not here.
Betty Franklin, Paul Franz, David Hill, Nancy Kimsey, Suzanne Perkins who was the Vice Chair and of course I already went over Robin Donaldson who was the chair, Tom Evans and Reeve Walport. Reeve and Tom are having a Groundhog Day again with this effort, because they were involved with the first community plan back in the day. And I remember when I came on board working for Supervisor Schwartz how impressed and in awe I was with this wisdom and history that Tom and Reeve had of the community.
I just want to thank staff as well. I think we went through quite a bit of planners on this plan, not always our best desire. The Mission Canyon Plan for instance has had a number of people come and go but one consistent planner on that entire project. This plan has had what four or five? Or six planners? So it's been a little challenge, but nonetheless I think the community was patient with the amount of time it took.
Patient in working with our staff and again we've come to A very good outcome overall. I want to also recognize the Summerland Community Plan, Summerland Citizens Association for their great advocacy in working with the SunPAC and the rest of the community. And of course, I remember going to a number of the workshops. Some which were held at QAD and they were really well attended.
And Robin your skill as chairman was awesome to be able to coalesce everyone and work through most of these issues like I said short of these two issues that I think we're gonna work our way through right now with some discussion You guys knocked it out the park. And again, my hat's off to you and I think you like many other communities when you're able to come together and just demonstrate this cohesiveness and consensus everybody wins. So it's never perfect 100% like I said but it's pretty darn near. So again, thank you for your service.
Why don't we start with the garage issue? I know staff, I asked you to look at what was submitted in advance. We have some slides and if we could go through some of these. This was somewhat, Tom with all due respect a little bit of last minute issue but it was grounded in a lot of previous discussion on SunPack But somehow it didn't make its way through the plan in a way that maybe would have allowed us to work through this in advance a little bit better. So we're going to try to work through this right now, my staff member Jeremy has been working with a number of you making phone calls trying to get a sense of where we had consensus or not.
And I'm going to go through what I think the consensus is. So forgive me if we don't agree fully on everything, but I'm going to share with you and then glad to hear from you after I go over some of these thoughts that I have. I understand that this is perfectly fine. That is something that Staff is not comfortable with and I love to hear a little bit more from staff I'm gonna go through all these issues on the garage issue and then come back and ask you to address these issues But that's fine. This is not fine by staff This is fine Go to the next page That's fine This is not fine.
The larger property owners are my understanding have not been part of reaching consensus on this section next that's fine all this is fine next And all this is fine as well. So the areas of discrepancy that, again we seem to have not complete consensus on and I'm a little worried about implementing them without learning more of are the two areas. Again, the 2C area and then the other area.
The second part of this one right here Staff if you could tell us why maybe there's some concern on that one. I know that the other one, as my staff informs me, there wasn't consensus from the larger property owners but I'd like to hear also from Mr. Donaldson. Mr. Chair after staff speaks maybe any thoughts he might have?
Chairman Supervisor Carbajal I'm Alan Bell with the long range planning division. One of the issues we are concerned with with this specific provision dealing with the 250 square feet is that if you have an application that comes in for a development that has a single car garage. It requires staff to assess the feasibility of developing a two-car garage, and if staff determines it's feasible to develop a two-car garage then you do not get an exemption. So really, what this forces staff into doing is looking at a proposed project and then looking at alterations to that project fairly early in the process in order to change the FAR requirements or determine what is exempt from the FAR. And we think that is unnecessary and certainly not a practice that we have now.
The design of the structures in Summerlin are all subject to BAR review so that the design actually is reviewed through the BAR process. And secondly, there are no requirements for covered parking within Summerlin. So this really becomes almost moot in terms of the parking issues itself. So we don't support this provision as proposed. Okay. And I'm looking at... Can I
just ask a quick question? Sure. Just so I'm on the same page. So is this LUDC Article 2 revisions or is this language, because I can't find it in the Summerlin Community Plan.
The Summerlin community plan area is primarily in the coastal zone. However, there are 22 parcels that are in the inland area. This specific provision applies in both the inland and coastal areas so it would be within Article 2 of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Code.
So this if we made any changes to this, this affects every... The entire
planning area.
The entire. Planning area
for Somerland
and how about for the rest of the county that's under the L U T C an article to
know this provision will only apply within the Somerlin plan area.
Thank
you supervisor no supervisor
thank you Mister I'm going next that's why he's turned off on turn off
his
back
well my my primary concern at that point was If I have the mic, I'll ask you to define net. In the top line it says net in parentheses. What's that mean? If you have a lot that's 12,000 square feet what's the difference between gross and net?
Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Adam there are some provisions where we talk about gross lot area and net lot area the primary difference here is that if you have a Say a public road easement or something of that nature Then that gets subtracted from the total amount of the lot and that equates to the net lot area so it's a Process where you account for those public easements or similar entitlements that may cross the property.
5:07 – 5:1319 turns
Is that standard practice throughout the county?
That, I believe is yes. So it's not unique for Summerlin. All right thank you.
Supervisor Carball
Thank you, and if we could move on. So again my preference is that I'd love to hear from Chairman Donaldson but my preference is if we can do without. I want to adopt as much of what we have consensus on and then disregard those areas that were not quite there yet to avoid any contention.
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Carbajal I think there's consensus on the staffs position regarding this issue about Determining whether or not it should be a two-car garage and so on we don't you know have a concern about that We agree with staff
okay? Thank you, so we go to the next page please I This is one that the entire. Area something that again my staff after doing some follow-up didn't feel that there was enough consensus on this a number of property owners were didn't seem to be. OK with this including one of our speakers today it's my understanding so That's an area that unless there's some compelling reason to keep it, I'd rather not include this as well.
2 but not 2C. Well, it's the same thing. It's basically... So we could go on to the next page? This is perfectly fine. Next page. And this is perfectly fine so...
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Carpall kind of building upon Supervisor Wolf's comment this last item on the commercial parking area would only apply to the coastal zoning ordinance article two because we don't have for Summerlin because we don't have in the LUDC portion inland portion commercial zoning so this change only applies to Article 2
understand Mr. Donaldson, any further comment? Thank you Mr. Chair for letting me. Okay so
we'll move on to the next issue. So you understood what I was hoping we could adopt and not adopt. Was that very clear staff?
Very clear supervisor.
There's only one chair. I mean,
you know and supervisor carpal maybe it would be helpful if the board is anticipating adopting some of these Changes to just hear from planning as to how planning would present that so that we'd have a clear record Once once you vote on these to know what what text is in and what text is out? In addition to what the Planning Commission recommendations are and whether that would be done By simply commenting on the just print it perhaps printing what's presently only a presentation or however, the planning director wants to address that just so we would know as work is we're moving forward what you're going to be looking at when you're voting I'm just trying to keep track of the potential language changes and
Mr. Chair, so you mean right before we vote just to make sure we're clear?
Right, just so down the road we know clearly what was in and what was out and that could be done thinking aloud. That might be done by taking the presentation and just crossing out the language that you're not going to include in or otherwise just having clarity as to what is in.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could we now go to the height issue please? The map, the yellow map. This, I know this was one of the more challenging areas that I think the SunPAC worked on extensively. And I think the Planning Commission was trying to reconcile what staff was saying, what SunPACT advocated for. But I will tell you, I'm swayed for a number of reasons for And I believe staff was advocating that their staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was at this area.
And this area and this area, the rural EDRN be uniform with the rest of the county and the rest of the area on Padara Lane. For me it makes sense. I certainly understand the advocacy of some of the members of SunPAC in the community, but I think that I'm trying to look at what would be uniform. I've considered staff's advocacy and recommendation as well as the property owners along this area and I'm perfectly comfortable leaving all those The zoning height.
Recommended for this area except for the EDR in which is here here and here staff recommends is that what I understand staff recommendation was
Mister chair supervisor Carbajal just to be clear the two places where there was a difference between what staff recommended to the planning commission and with the planning commission has recommended to you or the ETRN which you just hear rated but also the Urban that is outside the urban core grid. South of the freeway,
right?
Yes. That's most of it right there. Although there are some that loops up around... Over here. Not quite there but yeah in there. So it's the EDRN and the urban that's outside of the urban core grid.
I understand. So that's my perspective on how I see this, and again it's one of the last in discerning issues here but that's how I view it. And I don't know, I'd be open to hearing from my colleagues on that issue as well. I think given the with limitations that
5:14 – 5:199 turns
That's a reasonable size unless you have a height that can accommodate the roof pitches. Because if you make them too steep, then you're- You're a barn. You're a barn? You could have this shotgun house or something but You know you got to allow some flexibility in that roof height because if you don't, you can't build a house that's wide enough to really live in.
So I'm happy about that.
Great so again I just want to make it clear that I'm ready for a motion my colleagues are I want to thank everybody that was involved with
this process having been involved It's astounding to me that we would get to this point and have so little left that was of any question. So, that is an amazing amount of work and I really thank and appreciate all of it. And Supervisor Carbajal, that was wonderful that you had a process that resulted in this. I think that I'm supportive of your suggestions, your comments, Supervisor Carbajall. I think on the height issue which is something that I've always been very sensitive on myself.
There is a lot of benefit to having more conformity, uniformity, of the requirements throughout the different areas. And I have to say, when you're looking up at something between 25 feet and 28 feet is really not that discernible. If we were going from 16 feet to 35 feet or something, that's a much bigger difference. But for three feet, I think to have the uniformity is important. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Okay. Great. Thank you, Mr Chair. So council if you could guide me here I'd like to make a motion to adopt staff's recommendations in the staff report one through seven Including the modification to the height that includes the EDRN area, as well as this southern urban area south of the freeway. And I believe slightly to the left of the western EDRN as well.
And in terms of the garage issue, if we could go over what we're going to put on the screen and what we're not adopting. I think we have a cross out of the language that we are not adopting from these slides.
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Carbajal, yes and in terms of the height just to reiterate that what you were saying is allowing the three foot roof pitch for the EDRN And the urban zone outside of the core urban grid. That's
correct
in terms of the garages I believe that the changes are the following let's see if we get this right this shows the section that was a for which consensus was agreed that should be struck out otherwise it would remain as you see it on the screen. For the 12,000 square foot or greater I believe what I heard In its entirety, so it is shown as struck out. For this one for the 500 square.
Mixed use development. This was OK, so there's nothing struck out and for this one this was also OK and I would like to comment that this was a good catch by Mr Evans because this as he stated not work the way it had been previously written. So that was what I heard.
Thank you. That is my motion, Mr. Council.
Chair Lavagnino and Supervisor Carpenter-Hall it may be helpful just for clarity I understand your motion to be staff's recommendations and then what we've been all addressing but not quite labeling is that we're talking about One set of changes that show on staff presentation pages, 13 through 16 as marked up and displayed right now. And the other set would be as Dr. Russell described would be adding the roof pitch adjustment for the rural neighborhood and urban designations.
And I'll just ask Dr. Russell if I've captured what he had said.
5:19 – 5:336 turns
That is what my understanding is that's accurate.
Thank you, that is my motion.
Seconded all those in favor? Aye. None opposed passes unanimously
Mr. Chairman, if I could just, again, I just want to thank staff and especially Mr. Donaldson, Mr. Reeve Walport and Tom Evans. You guys are awesome role models for any community to be able to step up and come up with the work product that you have. My hat's off to you and very grateful that you're my constituents.
All right. We are going to take a ten minute break so that we can get set up for item number seven.
♪ You. ♪ You. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Music. Music. ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ The. Yeah. ♪ ♪ The. Hi.
5:33 – 5:3914 turns
All right, we're going to reconvene our meeting of the Board of Supervisors. We're going to item number seven. Mr. Allen can you please read it in?
Chairman Lavinino, members of the board. Item seven is from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider the appeal of the decision of the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission to approve changes to county landmark number 34, the Juarez-Hosmer Adobe resulting in a change from the rehabilitation project of all historic structures on the site approved by 09LUP 545 in 2010 to a reconstruction project including demolition of all historic structures on the site. This is in the first district.
Okay, who wants to speak? Supervisor Carbajal.
Thank you Mr. Chair I am informed that as a result of some discussion that's occurred the applicant was going to perhaps share with us a request for continuance but the applicant needs to come up and say that so
Good afternoon, Chair Lavagnino and Supervisors. My name's Clay Arell with AB Design Studio and I'm representing the applicant. We are requesting a continuance to the June 3rd hearing. We have some new information from our structural engineer and expert in Adobe. Construction and he has given us new information new report and new treatment plan that we want to vet out with planning staff And come back to you with some clear direction that you can make a decision on very good.
Mr. Chair Thank for that request. I know that the appellants and the applicant have been having some very serious discussions on exploring if there is any consensus on an outcome that Is a win-win for the lack of a better word. And I really appreciate everyone working together on what's before us, so I appreciate your request and I want to thank you all for, I think working in good faith again the appellants as well as you and the rest of your team that comprise the applicants.
It's always great when those issues can be worked out from the community standpoint, and I just want to express my appreciation. So with that request Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to
council- Let's go to Rachel first.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, I'd recommend that you hear from the appellant regarding the continuance as well as take public comment on that before taking any action.
Very good. I was remiss, I apologize Mr. Chairman. We can have the appellant come forward and
just state whether or not June 3rd works for you or if you're okay with that?
Mr. Chair, Mark Ciotillo on behalf of the Pearl Chase Society. I'd like to take a couple minutes and just discuss what we want to make sure is accomplished during this continuance. We're willing to support the continuance so long as we are making progress towards The proper treatment for the structure and it's a complicated one, and I very much appreciate the applicant Coming forward and recognizing that there are some issues that do need to get resolved This is a structure that because of its deterioration Is going to require a very specific kind of revision to the project as had been previously proposed Mr. Roseland's report Is a step in the right direction but it's not the end of the story. And there are process steps that need to follow in terms of as we see it, a revision to the project description and a new historical preservation treatment plan.
Those then become the nucleus of the project as it moves then for further review. We think then that this project should go back to the Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee and then undergo CEQA review A revised land use permit be considered at that point. By continuing it till June 3rd, we'll push that process decision off and it will come back to your board and you'll have the opportunity to look at those issues at that time. We're not opposed to that.
But we do want to be clear that we think that while we are partway there in terms of finding the right treatment for this building and this site, we very much expect that there will be a further process to ensure that the substantive issues are actually given technical consideration. So with that Mr. Chair thank you for the time and we will support the continuance. Okay.
Mr. Chair I'll tell the appellant same thing I told the applicant Really appreciate the fact that you're all working together to see if this could be resolved. I really appreciate your willingness to do that and the key words are good faith by everyone, so thank you Mr. Chair.
Okay, very good. Now this public comment will be only to speak to the issue of the continuance, not whether or not you agree with what's happening or what changes should be made just on the movement of the hearing from now until June 3rd. So if there is anybody that would like to speak to that issue and that issue only, you can come forward and state your name.
Okay. Not seeing anybody. Oh, no going backwards. Oh here we
go.
5:39 – 5:425 turns
We want to make sure that this is just about not the substance but just about the change in the date.
I hope that's fine with all the protest members. And I, but I do want to though it isn't that the preservation of an historic designated county landmark is the entire county's business. Not just Montecito. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay, that closes out our public comment. Can we get a motion to move this to June 3rd please?
Move to continue this item as requested by the applicant and accepted by the appellant to June 3rd.
Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. None opposed passes unanimously and that closes out our meeting of the Board of Supervisors. We will next meet May 20th here in Santa Barbara. Thank you. ¶. ♪ You.