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 – 0:032 turns
♪ ¶¶ The. You might have the... Testing.
We okay? Yeah, of course you're okay. So you gotta have that song. Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting, June 3rd meeting of the County Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors. Mr. Allen can I get a roll call please?
0:03 – 0:119 turns
Miss Farr. Here. Mr. Adam. Here. Mr. Carbajal. Here Ms. Wolfe.
Here
Mr. Lavagnino.
The tragedy that took place in Isla Vista is something that no community or individual should ever endure. The loss of any life, especially of those young and innocent, is an unspeakable horror. At this difficult time, please know that while words cannot express our sorrow, our thoughts and prayers are with each of the victims' families and loved ones at this time.
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I want to express our appreciation to our dedicated first responders, How grateful this Board of Supervisors is for the professionalism and duty of our entire county family. At this time, I would like to ask my colleagues to make any comments that they may wish. And Supervisor Farr.
Thank you Mr. Chair. Well, sometime during the past week as I was thinking again and again about this terrible tragedy that occurred in Isla Vista. Some phrases from a famous poet written about 400 years ago came to mind. I'm sure they'll be familiar to many of you too, and in modern speech the lines go like this. No person is an island entire of itself. Every person is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
Any person's death diminishes me Because I am involved in humankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for you. On May 23rd 2014 the bell started tolling in Isla Vista. It told for 22-year-old Katie Cooper, who loved to dance. For David Wang and Christopher Michaels Martinez, both of whom were also 20 and loved basketball. It told for Chang Hong, 20, who liked to be called James and who loved nature.
It told for George Chen, who loved computers and video games, and Veronica Wise, who was a star water polo player and math whiz, both of them just 19 years old. Their sudden and tragic deaths forever changed the lives of everyone who knew them, their families, friends, co-workers, teachers and fellow students as well as the casual acquaintances who saw them from time to time in the community of Isla Vista where all of them lived.
Fortunately even more deaths were averted by the bravery and quick thinking exhibited by a number of Ivy residents while the shooting spree was going on. They risked their own lives to shelter bystanders in their homes and businesses, and cared for the wounded until help arrived. I have been so proud of how the community of Isla Vista has responded since that terrible night.
Despite their deep shock and sorrow they came together to honor and mourn the victims with a somber candlelight walk and vigil from UCSB to Isla Vista and a very moving memorial service in Harder Stadium both events attended by thousands of people Through it all, the residents have stayed strong and supportive of each other. Deliberately choosing to not let this violent and hateful event define their community.
And defending it from overzealous media attention with signs that said respect our home, let us grieve in peace, and our tragedy is not your commodity. The work of the Isla Vista foot patrol deputies, both sheriff deputies and UCSB campus police who were on duty that night was phenomenal. Absolutely exemplary and clearly prevented an even worse tragedy. I know the sheriff's going to be giving us some more details about their work in just a few minutes but I think I speak for all of us when I say that those deputies as well as all of the other emergency personnel responded Have our very deepest and most profound thanks for all that they did that evening.
The shockwaves from this horrendous event have been felt all across our state, nation and even in other parts of the world. But it happened here. These were our kids, our students, our constituents, residents of our county. We may not have known any of them personally but as the poet John Donne wrote, the bell also tolled for all of us and our lives are also forever changed.
Here in our county, we have struggled to try and comprehend something so incomprehensible. To make any sense out of something so senseless. To try and understand the unthinkable. But we've also turned our grief into action assisting in all the ways that county government can to help the friends and families of the victims, the campuses of UCSB and City College, and the community of Isla Vista to cope in the aftermath of this tragedy.
In the days and weeks to come there will still be much more to do, and we will continue to be there for them for as long as we are needed. In addition I am planning to bring forward to this board before the end of the year a number of items related to improving Isla Vista that were initiated even before the events of May 23rd. Unfortunately, we can't guarantee that a terrible tragedy like this won't happen again.
But we can do everything in our power to try and prevent it and make Isla Vista and our entire county as safe as possible for everyone. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank you Supervisor Farr. And I think I speak for the entire board of also commending you and your staff for Countless hours and the outreach that you had with that community, and the part that you and your staff have played in the healing process there as well. So any of my other colleagues wish to speak? Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Supervisor Farr, your words were just perfect and I feel like if I even tried to add anything it would diminish the sentiment that I feel I guess the one thing that I will add is that, or emphasize is my gratitude also for the first responders and to the community. The Santa Barbara Response Network therapists who came out to Isla Vista.
I went to school at UCSB and lived in Isla Vista, and periodically my husband and I would go back in Ivy. And I think like a lot of us we'd go down Del Plye and look at the places where we used to live. On Sunday, my husband said well let's go to Ivy tonight. And so after just the most horrible week of the vigil and the memorial I went with my husband and we walked around and it was very quiet and we ended up at the memorial where at the Ivy deli and we just stood there and it was almost as if these Two angels appeared, they were part of the Santa Barbara Response Network.
And on the back of their T-shirt it said Compassion Patrol and I thought later, wow wouldn't that be great if everyone, if we all wore T-shirts like that? That just said Compassion Patrol, that's what we stand for as a community and we shouldn't wait for something like this to happen. It was a horrible mass murder that happened in our community. And to the families and to the friends, I feel devastated and I'm so sorry.
Supervisor Carbajal.
Thank you to my colleagues for their comments, I think in particular Supervisor Farr. I think you've captured at least my sentiments and the sentiments of many of us up here on the board and I think in our community very well said.
0:12 – 0:245 turns
At the end of our meeting today at the request of Supervisor Farr we will be formally adjourning in memory of the innocent victims The Isla Vista tragedy. George Chen, 19 years old. Katie Cooper, 22. James Hong, 20. Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, 20 years old. David Wang, 20 and Veronica Elizabeth Weiss, 19 years old. Supervisor Farr?
And now everyone please join me in a moment of silence as we remember and mourn the victims of this senseless tragedy. Thank you.
Thank you, everybody would like to ask now that our sheriff Bill Brown come forward and provide an overview of the events in our next steps following Sheriff Brown or CEO Mona Miyasato will have several comments. Sheriff Brown. Thank you
Chair Lavinino members of the board and citizens of Santa Barbara County To the extent that I can at this point, I want to brief you on the mass murder case that culminated in a shooting rampage in Isla Vista on Friday May 23rd 2014. I want to begin by saying on behalf of all the men and women of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office, how profoundly sad we are that six fine young men and women were murdered that day.
Taken from us in the prime of their lives under such evil senseless and cold-blooded circumstances. Our hearts go out to the families of all those who died that day including the suspect and we extend our deepest sympathies to them We also send our best wishes for a full and speedy recovery to all those who were injured. As you are well aware by now, a 22-year old suspect named Elliot Roger killed six innocent people and wounded 13 more before committing suicide.
This atrocity was one of the largest mass murder cases in our county's history. This case stunned our community and captured the world's attention. The initial calls of gunfire in Isla Vista came into our Emergency Communications Center at 9.27 p.m.. Less than eight minutes later, Elliott Roger after crashing his BMW coupe into a number of parked cars took his own life with a gunshot to the head.
In between those events he had shot and killed three innocent young people and wounded 13 others by gunfire or by using his car as a weapon. In the aftermath of this shooting rampage, an additional three innocent young victims were found brutally murdered in the suspect's apartment. All had been repeatedly stabbed. Three semi-automatic 9mm handguns were found in the dead suspects possession along with 410 rounds of ammunition loaded into 41 10 round magazines.
We believe that during his brief rampage, Elliot Roger fired more than 50 rounds of ammunition changing magazines five times during the shooting spree. In the aftermath of this diabolical and heinous crime as there always is in the wake of such outrages, there has been much Monday morning quarterbacking. Analysts paid to grandstand and engage in conflict with one another have delivered much opinion, conjecture, supposition about what happened. Why it happened and how it could've been prevented?
They have commented on what policies, procedures or laws must be changed. What training there should be, what gun control measures are needed. What additional resources could've been provided to the mentally ill, to the treatment community, to law enforcement and so forth. Certainly all of these questions are legitimate and they should cause us to reexamine how we have traditionally approached the problem of violence committed by the mentally ill.
I hope that the dialogue and the debate will spur some positive changes in the wake of this tragic situation, but Elliot Rogers journey from innocence to homicidal rage was a long and complicated one with many different elements twists and turns As is usually the case with difficult, complex long-developing problems there is never a quick easy solution to them.
We all want to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill but we need to find ways to do so that don't stigmatize the mentally ill and that might tend to keep people who are mentally ill from seeking treatment for their illnesses We also need to refrain from trying to make sense of a senseless situation. We must remember that in a free society, we constantly have to balance public safety with individual liberties and this is sometimes very difficult to do.
Elliott Roger was very clever and very adept at convincing people that he was functional and not a threat to himself or others. He convinced his family, his friends, his roommates His neighbors, his teachers, his mental health professionals and law enforcement officers alike. That while he might have been socially awkward, perhaps even odd, he was not a danger to himself or others.
It is apparent that this tragic case will join ranks with far too many others each of which has an all too common denominator. All committed by someone with a severe mental illness that is untreated or undertreated and who has access to firearms or other deadly weapons. The FBI's definition of mass murder is the slaying of four or more people in one incident.
One mass murder occurs in our nation roughly every two weeks. In the last seven years, the death toll from these crimes has exceeded 900. As Richard Martinez, the father of Christopher Michaels-Martinez who was slain in Isla Vista that awful night has said we must find ways to stop this madness. So what can we do and where do we go from here? Well first of all we at the Sheriff's Office will be finalizing our investigation which will take at least several more weeks to do We will continue to work with other stakeholders as we were before this awful crime, to seek ways to enhance the safety of the people who live and visit and work in Isla Vista.
We will work with our state and federal legislators to craft and support common sense legislation that will provide more and better community-based health treatment Mental health treatment, more and better crisis response resources for both mental health and law enforcement organizations. And it will provide us with tools such as gun violence restraining orders that can help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
We will work with the alcohol drug and mental health department as they implement their recently obtained $11 million crisis response and triage teams that may include a co-response with law enforcement. Although I'm not at all certain that it would have made a difference in this case, given Elliot Rogers' ability to mask his demons from others. We nevertheless want to provide every resource possible in identifying and helping those who suffer from such burdens.
Lastly, I have asked the Police Foundation, America's oldest non-member, nonpartisan police research organization, to come in when we are finished with our investigation to conduct an objective, critical incident review of this tragedy. One that will allow our agency and the American law enforcement community at large to learn valuable lessons from our experience.
I want to close my comments this morning by thanking two groups of people First, I want to thank and say how immensely proud of I am the men and women of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office. And of our allied public safety agencies who worked together that evening and through to the present time to stop the threat and investigate this complex case. I'm grateful that none of them were killed or injured that night.
I am also gratified to know that we have people in this county Protecting and serving us people like the dispatchers who answered dozens of frantic 911 calls and directed first responders to those who needed help. The Isla Vista foot patrol deputies, the UC PD and CHP officers who responded to the situation by running towards the sound of gunfire rather than away from it.
Who valiantly rendered first aid and performed CPR on victims who were dying And whose actions in at least one case have been credited with saving the life of one of the victims. Who engaged the suspect in two separate gun battles, wounding him and putting him to flight just prior to crashing his car. Their actions were heroic and saved lives. The paramedics and firefighters whose rapid response and triaging skills that night no doubt saved lives as well.
The members of my executive and command staff who responded to Isla Vista in record time, set up a command post and quickly dug through the chaos to determine what had happened. The investigators from the Sheriff's Office, the Santa Barbara Police Department, and the District Attorney's Office who interviewed a host of witnesses and have prepared or are in the process of preparing hundreds of pages of reports.
The forensic investigators and criminalists from the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office and the State Department of Justice Crime Lab, who combed through and processed 12 separate crime scenes containing a huge amount of evidence. The coroner's personnel who investigated the deaths of the innocents and the killer, who handled their remains in a dignified manner, who conducted autopsies and worked so compassionately with so many grieving families.
And to our PIO, Kelly Hoover and Assistant PIO Sergeant Mark Williams who arranged press conferences, prepared press releases and worked tirelessly fielding a massive wave of media inquiries from throughout the world. All of these men and women did outstanding work under very difficult circumstances. They're an extraordinary team and they make me proud to be the Sheriff of Santa Barbara County Lastly, I want to thank the people of Santa Barbara County and beyond. And especially the members of the Isla Vista community for their amazing outpouring of gratitude and support in the wake of this terrible event.
I have lost count of how many people have written, telephoned, texted, emailed or stopped me on the street in restaurants, in church and at other events to shake my hand, to hug me and to let me know how appreciative they are of the manner in which the Sheriff's Office responded to this tragedy. Students in Isla Vista put up a banner on the walls of the Isla Vista Foot Patrol and wrote dozens of comments expressing their appreciation.
They also organized and participated in a variety of fitting and poignant tributes and memorial services to those whose lives were taken. Their response to this catastrophe has been both humbling and gratifying, and just goes to show that most of the problems in Isla Vista are caused by people who do not live there And who are not invested in that unique community.
We are grateful for their support, we share their grief and we pledge to do all we can to learn from this tragedy and to seek ways to prevent others like it from occurring in the future.
Thank you very much Sheriff Brown.
0:25 – 0:272 turns
Thank you. I just want to echo the comments stated by others, but also to say on behalf of all county employees we offer our condolences to the families and friends of George, Katie, James, Christopher, David and Veronica. And also to commend the men and women of our Sheriff's Department in other public safety agencies they showed and continue to show professionalism dedication and commitment to the community and compassion for the victims and their families.
I also want to take this time just to thank our county staff. This tragedy has been very personal to many of our county staff, not only was it because it's in our backyard but because we know Isla Vista well. Many employees or graduates of UCSB have children attending there, reminisce as Supervisor Wolf said of their time there. And mostly many of us were shocked, experienced the horror and grief as did the entire nation.
And continue to have heartfelt sorrow for the families of the victims. I also want to thank our county employees who jumped in quickly without hesitation to offer assistance and support to the public safety efforts. So specifically, I'd like to thank the Office of Emergency Management. County Council, our Public Works Department, the District Attorney's Office, Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health, and my staff in the CEO's office for their immediate response and assistance as well as the continued leadership by the Board and Supervisor Farr and her staff.
In the last week we've continued to keep lines of communication open with our employees. We sent messages, offered grief counseling, and we're continuing to provide that support And in the coming weeks, months and a year ahead we will continue to provide assistance and help the community heal as well as help our employees heal in this recovery effort. And again, as the sheriff said, we are all committed to ensuring the health and safety of Isla Vista. Thank you.
Very good, thank you very much CEO Miyasato Okay, with that we'll begin our regular meeting and I would ask for a motion to approve the minutes of the May 20th 2014 meeting. Moved and seconded? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. We'll now move to our public comment period. Mr. Allen do we have any public speakers?
0:27 – 0:3412 turns
Chairman Lavnina, members of the board. We have three requests to speak. We're going to start with Beatrice Contreras here in Santa Barbara, followed by Lupe Montano here in Santa Barbara.
Very good. You'll each have three minutes to speak
Good morning, Chair Labagnino and members of the board. My name is Beatriz Concheres and I'm the new external vice president of local affairs for Associated Students at UCSB. I just wanted to come introduce myself. Hi as well my name's Allie Guthy. I'm the new Associated Students president at UCSB. So I just wanted to thank all of you for your support of our community in this really tragic time. More specifically, I want to thank the Sheriff's Office and first responders for their swift response And the board for their kind comments and support throughout this period, especially the third district. Supervisor Farr made some really touching comments and I'm very grateful to hear that there are some proposals for Isla Vista that are on its way.
I also want to thank CEO Miyasato for her Dedication to the job as well. I ran into her at the press conference a couple weeks ago And we chatted for a bit and it was nice to see that there were support from the county I also saw a few of the supervisors at the memorial, so it was great to see Everyone who's really invested in our community So I thank you for your support and I hope to see more support from all of you in the future Thank You
Very good. Thank you for being here
Our next speaker is Lupe Montano, be followed by Eduardo Oseta in Santa Maria. And then we have one last speaker from Santa Maria, Christine Farrow. That'll be our final speaker.
Lupe?
Good morning Board of Supervisors, Chairman. My name's Lupe Montaño and I'm a worksite organizer for SEIU 721. I represent Santa Barbara County social workers as well as other workers within the SEIU 721 bargaining unit. For the past 11 years, I was also a social worker at Tri-Counties Regional Center. I worked with many families and children with special needs and many of whom were also receiving services through the Department of Social Services. I had several children on my caseload who were in foster care and work closely with some of the social workers who were dealing with the variety of issues that families and children face in our community such as substance abuse, physical and sexual abuse, mental illness, and developmental delays just to name a few.
These workers are some of the bravest and most admirable individuals I've ever known. They risked their lives many times to prevent our children from continuing to be abused and neglected. They work long hours to find appropriate supports for these families with the number one goal of keeping children safe, but also trying to successfully reunite them with their loved ones.
This job requires specialized skills, and our social workers are getting the job done, but they need your help. Let's work together and make child safety a priority today. Thank you very much, and I also want to thank everyone in the community. The firefighters are first responders in the tragedy in Isla Vista. I'm also a Gaucho alumni and so it was very, I lived in Isla Vista as well. And it was very hard to deal with. So thank you everybody. Appreciate it. We're
going to go to Santa Maria for Eduardo Zeta to be followed by Christine Fara who's our final speaker.
Mr. Chair, honorable members of the board I'm here as the Chapter Board President of SEIU 721. I'm also in support of the social workers. Eligibility workers also support our social workers and I'd like to commend the board, the county all of the first responders and everyone that assisted the students, the family members Just to let them know that as a county employee and many employees that I work alongside of, this was really heartfelt. And I commend the county for stepping up and taking care of the community. Thank you. Thank
you.
Christine Faro is our final speaker.
Good morning. First, I want to say thank you to our sheriff's department, the first responders, anybody that showed their compassion during the tragedy in Isla Vista. Secondly, I'm here to support our social workers and our children in the community who we strive to keep safe. And by safe, I mean we do our very, very best on our investigations. We only remove children from the home if we have to, to keep them safe.
Yet, there are so many children and too few social workers. We manage to do our jobs so well because we don't care about the time it takes. To get the job done, we get it done. We have children who are graduating from high school this year. We've got 24 of our youth, our foster youth, graduating high school this year. It's just huge. But it's taking its toll on the social workers and our retention rate is poor because we ask So much of the few social workers we have.
So I'm here today to urge the board to prioritize child safety when it reviews its budget by allocating sufficient funds to social services, it can help with recruitment and retention of social workers Santa Barbara County kids deserve nothing but the best and dedicated social workers for our county. Right now, our social workers are leaving for other counties that have lower caseloads and higher pay.
And I'm not here about higher pay. I'd probably do this for free. We don't do what we do because of the money. We do it because it's in our hearts and we want to help the community Please don't wait for a tragedy to happen before child safety becomes a priority. Thank you very much.
0:34 – 0:415 turns
That closes our public comment period. Our final speaker, thank you very much Mr. Allen. All right I will take a motion entertain a motion for approved items A1 through A4. Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? They pass unanimously. We'll move on to A1, Supervisor Carpajal and Supervisor Wolfe.
Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to call Ben Pitterly from Santa Barbara Channel Keeper to the podium. Did you want to come up? Okay. Well, this is a resolution that Supervisor Carbajal and I are presenting which proclaims June 7th and 8th as Marine Protected Area Awareness Weekend in Santa Barbara County. And as will be stated in the resolution we're fortunate in this county to have 18 marine protected areas. And I think it was sometime within the last year that Supervisor Carbajal and On the Isla Vista Bluffs, and it was truly amazing and a spectacular sight. And I remember Supervisor Carbajal saying it's a protected site and it was beautiful but we didn't exactly know what was going on under the water with all those amazing species that are being protected.
But anyway, we're here to celebrate this amazing statement in our channel. Supervisor?
I just wanted to add that the strategy of the Marine Protected Areas is to really protect the ecosystem out there, not only for marine life but for fish and support. While it might be a little painful to reduce some of the fishing areas for our fishermen In the long run, it actually provides an abundance of fishing opportunities. But this is one of the most biologically diverse areas in the world and when you understand that, you realize why it's so important that we take this type of action. So I just want to congratulate Channel Keeper for their advocacy All that you do to really make sure these areas are protected. And I know it's not just Channel Keepers, it's a number of other organizations. As a matter of fact the name of the organization that's actually leading this with Greg Helms is escaping me at the moment but I'm having one of those moments so when you say a few words- A senior moment, I am gonna be 50 this year.
But thank you very much, you're right Supervisor Wolfe it was great to be out there and to see it first hand how just great it looks in terms of our ecosystem so.
Chairman Labnino, members of the board, this is a resolution proclaiming June 7-8 2014 as Marine Protected Area Awareness Weekend in Santa Barbara County. Whereas the county of Santa Barbara is located immediately adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and the Santa Barbara Channel, an area considered to be one of the most biologically diverse locations throughout the world.
And whereas, in 1999 the California legislature passed the Marine Life Protection Act. Which required the redesign of the state's network of marine protected areas where take up marine life or fishing is prohibited or restricted with a goal of protecting and restoring habitats and ecosystems. Providing a refuge for all sea life, providing reference areas for research and educational opportunities, and protecting our nation's marine natural heritage for future generations. And whereas, since 2003 a network of 18 marine protected areas has been established within the Santa Barbara Channel along the county's coastline.
And whereas it is recognized that the adoption of MPAs within Santa Barbara County represented a major sacrifice made by many members of the fishing community which is doing its part to comply with the new regulations by sharing and disseminating information in supporting recreational fishing in waters that remain open to fishing. And whereas, the Santa Barbara County 25,283 jobs rely on coastal tourism and recreation. And approximately 60,000 people visit the Channel Islands each year for aquatic recreation such as fishing, sailing, kayaking, wildlife watching, surfing and diving. And whereas, a series of events and activities are being held on June 7th and 8th as part of this year's Santa Barbara Ocean Festival to commemorate a decade of protection at Santa Barbara Channel's MPAs, educate the public about them through remote local ocean-based businesses and best practices, and demonstrate responsible use and enjoyment of our ocean areas.
Now therefore it is hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors proclaims June 7th and 8th 2014 as Marine Protected Area Awareness Weekend in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
Thank you very much, and I'll keep this quick. On behalf of Channel Keeper and many other groups as Salud pointed out that support this resolution including the Environmental Defense Center, Christy Burney is here with me today in the audience, Ocean Conservancy, and Explore Ecology, I'd like to thank the Board of Supervisors for this declaration and for helping us raise awareness about the Santa Barbara Channels Marine Protected Area Network.
Many people don't know, but California is actually a worldwide leader in marine protection. It's home to the second largest scientifically based network of MPAs in the entire world and of course the Santa Barbara Channel in Santa Barbara County is core to that with 13 MPAs off the islands and another five recently adopted off our coastline A lot of people hear the word sanctuary or conservation area and there may be a tendency to think that maybe people aren't allowed to visit these areas, or that humans and people can't be part of that equation. But it's very important to us that people understand that when California did establish these underwater parks they didn't do so to keep people out actually quite to the contrary.
And explicitly marine protected areas were created for the people of California It's a visit and enjoy and recreate in. And so for several months, our groups have been collaborating with the coalition of NGOs, local agencies and businesses including some recreational fishing businesses to plan and promote a series of events that are already taking place To help people explore our coastline and learn about marine protected areas and partake in some of the many recreational opportunities that they have to offer. So this Saturday, the 7th at West Beach at this year's World Oceans Day Festival many of our groups will have booths with information about ways people can get out on the water and explore the coastline including some exciting opportunities there are going to be free coastal cruises offered to the public scheduled and available later this month so Hope that some of you can join us this weekend and thanks once again for helping us raise awareness about our NPA's.
Thank you.
0:41 – 0:466 turns
Very good, thank you very much
Move on to item two it's also Supervisor Carbajal and Supervisor Wolf
Thank you, thank you Mr. Chair. Supervisor Wolfe and myself are co-sponsoring this resolution proclaiming June 2014 as CalFresh Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. If I could have Maria Gardner, look at that. Without, just like clockwork. Thank you for coming up. Obviously our board recently undertook the poverty study which underscored the many individuals in our county that are facing such circumstances and how And the challenges associated with their socioeconomic status.
And CalFresh, also known as SNAP is an invaluable program that the federal government provides states and counties to be able to provide benefits so that they could purchase food in almost any market in our area. And it's tragic to know that there's still much poverty amongst us. And counties, in addition to public safety, one of our charges is to really take care of the needs of the indigent or the poor and I think that this is an invaluable program Aims to equalize and provide a better quality of life for those that are disadvantaged in our county. So I'm very proud that we're able to do this, I know for awhile we were not faring well on really getting this program to flourish in our county and at some point maybe even right now.
I'd love to hear how we have made progress on extending these benefits to those that are in need and that qualify for these services. So, Supervisor Wolf?
Yes, just quickly. Thank you to our department for everything that you're doing with your outreach and working with our community partners. I think people helping people in the food banks have done a lot in outreach too. I think address the situation Supervisor Carbajal mentioned and something that was of concern to the board and that is that we had so many people who qualified for this program but were not able Access that benefit and I think with the help of you know, the excellent work of the departments and And our agencies in the community that and you'll probably tell us about the improvement that we've seen but this is so important and it's great to get the word out also to folks to make sure that they understand the eligibility and the Availability of this program.
So thank you very much for all the work that you do
And before you read the resolution, I see Bonnie Campbell's also here with the food bank. Bonnie come on up. You and your colleague, I know you guys are a major part of our ability to feed our community and to participate with our CalFresh program. And you guys are one of the many partners that we have so thank you for all that you do. If you could read the resolution please?
Chairman Labnina, members of the board this is a resolution proclaiming June 2014 as CalFresh Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. Whereas as an estimated 16% of county residents including 20% of county children are living in poverty in households that sometimes struggle to put food on the table and whereas families that cannot consistently afford enough food face a variety of consequences including hunger higher risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension depression and poor mental health and poor academic outcomes for children And whereas CalFresh, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a federally funded program administered locally by the Santa Barbara County Department of Social Services.
It can help by providing low income families with a monthly benefit to help them purchase food. And whereas CalFresh is a powerful tool against hunger and malnutrition helping nearly 35,600 individuals many of them seniors and children in over 15,080 households in our county to put nutritious food on their family table every day. And whereas these benefits total nearly $5 million per month, providing significant economic benefit to our community for working families, farmers and grocery stores. With $1.70 in economic activity generated for every dollar spent on CalFresh benefits.
And whereas up to 43,460 individuals may be eligible for CalFresh in our county but do not receive it. Leading the Department of Social Services to collaborate with community-based organizations such as the Food Bank of Santa Barbara County, the Children's Health Initiative of Santa Barbara County and the Network of Family Resource Centers to heighten public awareness of and access to CalFresh programs. Now therefore it is hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes June 2014 as CalFresh Awareness Month in the county of Santa Barbara passed and adopted today
0:46 – 0:484 turns
Well thank you. As we've just heard, the CalFresh program is a powerful tool against hunger and poverty. Social Services staff and our community partners are working hard to meet this area of need in our community. We've made tremendous progress. In the past few years, we reached initially fewer than 30% of the potentially eligible individuals for this program. And recently, we have reached the 40% mark. We have more work to do.
Together with our community partners, we will continue our effort to close this gap With summer upon us it's an important time to highlight this program because with school out family food budgets are being stretched very thin. Thank you for this opportunity to highlight the CalFresh program during the month of June.
Amy Lopez, Outreach Manager for the Food Bank of Santa Barbara County and first of all I would like to thank Department of Social Services for our collaboration for the last five years doing CalFresh outreach and secondly the Board of Supervisors Recognizing the CalFresh Awareness Month. Thank you.
I'm Bonnie Campbell, the Director of Community Impact for the Food Bank of Santa Barbara County and we're proud to work with the Department of Social Services and thank you so much for bestowing this honor upon our joint endeavors to reach those residents who have a meal gap in their lives and for Supervisor Carbajal-Wolf for putting this forward in June. I would just like to add speaking to the meal gap coming up this summer We're adding to our programs to do a picnic in the park countywide 18 sites. Last summer we served 33,000 lunches to our children this summer we plan on serving 38,000 lunches to our children, including a backpack component for the families to close that meal gap and continuing our CalFresh outreach to reach as far as possible.
And internally in the food bank we have increased our ability to enroll more families for CalFresh benefits by a train-the-trainer model and working with our over 300 community nonprofit partners. So we thank you for this chance to share that information with everyone. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll go on to item A3. Supervisor Farr?
0:48 – 0:544 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair. Well given all of the well deserved praise that we have been bestowing today on our sheriff's deputies and UCSB campus police it's certainly appropriate although it was coincidental that we also have a resolution to commend Officer Phillip V. Robasco, who is retiring from the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department after 25 years. So I'm hoping that he will come forward and I see other members of UCSB campus police please feel free to come down.
Phil's retiring after 25 years of service. He started in 1989, worked a variety of assignments including criminal investigations, field training officer, armorer and a rage instructor and as part of that implemented various tactics and training for firearms. So we're so appreciative of the work that you've done for our community, for the campus, for Isla Vista over all of these years. And I'm very proud that the board can present you with this commendation.
Mr. Allen would you read it please?
Chairman Labnino and members of the board, this is a resolution of commendation for Officer Philip V Provasco upon his retirement from the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department. Whereas, Phil retired from the University of California Santa Barbara service on Friday June 27th 2014. Having faithfully served the campus community for 25 years during which he served as a police officer. And whereas, Phil faithfully served as a first class boatsman's mate on US Coast Guard from 1972 to 1980. And whereas, Phil began his law enforcement career in 1989 for the University of California Police Department working as a police officer.
And whereas during his career, Phil was assigned to Corporal, Criminal Investigations, Field Training Officer, Range Instructor, Armorer, Fleet Officer and Honorary Honor Guard Bugler. And whereas Phil proposed implementation of various firearms tactics and trainings of such firearms. And whereas Phil is especially known to his peers, supervisors and the community has served so well for his dedication professionalism and his commitment to the job and profession of law enforcement. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors commence Phil V. Probasco for his faithful and distinguished service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County. He congratulates him on his retirement and wishes him continued good health and many years of happiness passed and adopted today.
On behalf of the men and women at UCSB Police Department, I'm Assistant Chief Kathy Farley. And on behalf of Chief Olson we thank you for honoring and recognizing our partner and our brother Phil. The dog, Probosco. And as Doreen's already laid out a number of things that he's done through all his career. One of the other items that he's very recognized in the county and different cities for is being one of our memorial service buglers. And he is one of the most dedicated and loyal people I've ever worked with, that we've all ever worked with.
He's also been a recipient of the H. Thomas Gary Award for superior performance, as well as citations for all the work he's done with our range and our fleet crew. I'd like to thank his wife Karen and his son Kevin and Jamie Karen Kelly and staff as well for getting us up. Him up to us for so many years, 40 years law enforcement experience 15 maritime with the Coast Guard and with the Ventura Port District before spending 25 years dedicated to UCSB and Isla Vista community. And I know I'm gonna be able to find some way to get him back once in a while but I feel like we're probably gonna have to have a change in dress code. Definitely in retirement mode. Thank
you. Retiree and training right now. Yeah, I'd like to say a couple words. More than a couple, I guess. I really like to thank you for this resolution. It's been a long time. I never thought I'd get to this day. Really feel proud having served Santa Barbara County And the University of California Police Department, Isla Vista worked out there two or three times. And in light of the tragedy it was tough for me to sit at home and listen on a scanner as my brothers and sisters-in-arms are out there risking their lives.
So thank you very much.
0:54 – 1:0012 turns
You wear whatever you want. All right, our next resolution I'll be presenting it's a resolution of commendation for Lee Gonzalez for the employee of the month for June 2014. If I could have Lee come forward and also the Director of Department of Social Services Daniel Nielsen. It's one of the great things to do as chair, get a lot of other duties but getting able to recognize the employee of the month. When you think about it we have over 4,000 employees and we get to select one that's chosen by her co-workers.
Lee works in our Department of Social Services. She is part of the fabric of the safety net for those that are in most need in our county and Lee does is I think the best thing that you can do for somebody that's in need and let's try to help them find a job. And so she does it with a smile on her face, and we're going to have you explain later what the disco pig is all about. So with that leave that little mystery hanging in the air Mr Allen if you could read the resolution please
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. This is a resolution of commendation for Lee Gonzalez, the Santa Barbara County Employee of the Month for June 2014. And whereas, Lee Gonzalez is a career employment specialist supervisor in the employment services branch of the Department of Social Services and after a noble 25 years of dedicated service has been chosen by her co-workers as the March 2014 employee of the month for Santa Barbara County. And whereas, Lee supervises eligibility workers and career employment specialists in the ongoing CalWORKs Welfare to Work Unit in the Santa Barbara office whose responsibilities consist of administering benefits to families to meet basic living needs such as food and shelter, employment services defined work, child care, work training or education.
And whereas, Lee is an excellent supervisor who embodies the county's ACE values and maintains high standards for herself and others. Recognizing the importance of providing safety net and employment services to the individuals and families in our community. Lee listens to what's important to staff and demonstrates that in a variety of ways some more routine like sharing relevant articles and others more unique like displaying a disco pig because it will make someone smile.
And whereas, Lee is very people-oriented and has an open door policy and can be observed consistently consulting with staff. She provides effective coaching and mentoring with her staff and they feel supported by her and trust her direction. She's earned the respect of all those she works with and everyone she meets. These actions demonstrate the heartfelt way that Lee approaches her staff in her career And whereas Lee is a most unique as a leader because she seeks no recognition of her own She leads by example and is recognized for always doing her best just because it's the right thing to do Now therefore I've been hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors recognizes Lee Gonzalez as the Santa Barbara County employee of the month for June 2014 passing adopted today
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, not only does Lee have a disco pig but she also has a flying pig which when I first saw it's a solar powered flying pig which when I first saw in her window. I went and spoke to her and started thinking about making that the mascot for our department because. But one of the nominators that nominated Lee for this honor Wrote in their nomination form about Lee.
She is not only a wealth of information, but wise as well and that caused me to stop and reflect it takes a lot of work and effort on a consistent basis. To turn information into wisdom and Lee has been doing that with us and for us for the past 25 years. And we're very appreciative of that contribution. Her leadership demonstrates the highest levels of ethical behavior and inspires those around her to constantly strive for excellence in all they do.
I'm grateful that Lee continues to choose to contribute her wisdom as a member of our team at the Department of Social Services, and I thank you for your recognition of her.
Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to express the gratitude that I have towards my peers. To be standing here, I wouldn't be here without all their help and support. And I want to say that they are the ones that encourage me daily to do the right thing and I appreciate that and I thank them for that. Thank you. And regarding the flying pig.
The flying pig and the solar pig, they're all the same thing. I have a small little, I'm a pig collector not real pigs just small pigs well it's a huge collection and I have a little pig on my windowsill at work in the back door so if you come in the back door depending on the light it dances so I call it the disco pig and Daniel was the one that came to my office one day and I was honored that he came into my office He's like, I just needed to come in here to see who is responsible for a smile on my face every time I walk by here. So that's what I believe in. Let's smile and help someone. And that's why I'm here. So thank you. Thank you everybody.
Thank you very much. All right. Very good. Let's move onto the balance of our administrative agenda. Are there any items that the public has pulled? Mr. Allen.
We have one request to speak on item A2.
Okay, and then are there any items that my colleagues would just pull? Supervisor Adam. A11. A 11. Anybody else? Okay let's start with the public we'll go A2 first
Chairman Labnino, members of the board. We have a request on item A2 from Bonnie Campbell and Amy Lopez.
And they-
They already did their thing if they're okay.
Then we have no requests to speak so I'll
go
1:00 – 1:1517 turns
ahead and
read item A11. Okay let's go with
A11? The A11 is from the county executive office. The request that the board consider recommendations around the Children's Health Initiative Santa Barbara outcome and contract update.
Supervisor Adam? Yeah all I want on that is a roll call so I can abstain.
Okay very good. No other items, anybody wishes to pull? Very good. Okay. Let's pull A-
I'll move item A11.
A11 has been moved and seconded. All those in favor, well let's do roll call vote sorry. Ms.
Farr? Aye. Mr. Adam? Abstain. Mr. Carbajal? Aye. Ms Wolfe? Aye Mr. Lavagnino?
No
The motion passes three ayes one abstention and one no
Okay, very good. Let's take up the balance of the...
Mr. Chair I'll move the balance of the administrative agenda. Second.
Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No? Alright that finishes up our administrative agenda. You know what let's take a quick 10 minute break get ready for our D Agenda. Before we go is there a change in our D Agenda? Mr. Allen, on item D1 are we? I'm sorry.
Item D1 we just have a continuance on that item. Okay. So we can take that now or when do we begin the departmental
agenda? Let's go take the continuance right now so is there a motion to continue item D 1? Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye none opposed okay so we'll begin with item D2 when we return. ♪
♪ ♪♪ Yeah. ♪ ¶.
The. ♪ Hi. I'm ♪ ♪ Hi, everyone. The ♪ ♪ Yeah. You. ♪ Good morning. ♪ Hi. ♪ Hello. Hi. Hi.
1:16 – 1:236 turns
All right, we will begin going back to our departmental agenda item number two. Mr. Allen can you please read it in?
Chairman Lavinino, members of the board, item two is from the sheriff. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a contract for law enforcement services on the Chumash reservation.
Sheriff Brown Thank you Chair Lavinino, members of the board. We're here today to present to you a proposed contract with the Chumash Band of San Dines Indians to provide law enforcement services on the Chumash Reservation and also to have the staff that would be providing those services available for emergency response throughout the San Dines Valley. By way of background I want to What has happened in the past and what we propose to happen in the future.
Previously, the special distribution fund, the state's special distribution fund was a resource that was tapped to provide for a 24-7, 365 day a year patrol post in the Santa Ynez Valley. This special distribution fund was established in 1999 when tribes that participated in gaming activities entered into compacts with the state and those tribes began contributing to the SDF in 2002. The SDF was established with a prioritized rank order of how the money would be spent, Priority would be for covering any shortfalls that might occur in the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund. The second priority was an appropriation to the Office of Problem and Pathological Gambling with the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs for problem gambling prevention programs.
The third priority was to fund the California Gambling Control Commission's regulatory functions that related to Indian gaming. And number four, which is the one that related to us, the fourth priority was an appropriation for the support of local government agencies impacted by tribal gaming. The Sheriff's Office first received special distribution funds in 2005 and 6 to the tune of $596,070.
The following year we received 1.4 million or so and then the amount leveled out for at the time cost of a around-the-clock deputy position. 2008 and 9, and 2009 and 10. Both of those years we received approximately $675,000. In 2011 and 12, the state special distribution fund got into trouble. And there wasn't as much money in the fund because of renegotiated compacts and tribes that left and weren't contributing as much into the fund. And because the support to local governments was forth on the pecking order, there wasn't enough funding to provide the same amount, the same level that had been given in previous years. In 2011 and 12, we received $117,876, a decrease of about $550,000. And that ultimately caused the following year us to lose the full-time equivalent position because of a lack of revenue that was coming in.
Loss of that position followed on the heels of the loss of many other positions as a result of the recession and the economic downturn. We subsequently were approached earlier this year about the loss of funding and the tribe talked to us about a potential mutual interest in renewing a 24-7 deputy position. To be assigned to the reservation, but to be available for emergency response throughout the San Ynez Valley. And the tribe offered to pay any additional amounts that were not forthcoming from the SDF directly to make that patrol position available.
Subsequently, my staff and I met numerous times with Chairman Armenta and members of his staff and hammered out an agreement to accomplish that goal which is before you today. That agreement has had several iterations and as in any negotiating process there was give-and-take and it went back and forth. We recognize that any agreement with the tribe that involves the delivery of law enforcement service to their reservation and to other properties will attract some discourse and some division within the community, as has been unfortunately the case with much of the tribal activities in the valley.
Nevertheless, we are still feeling the effects of the loss not only of the five sheriff's deputy positions previously paid for through the Special Distribution Fund but also 59 other sheriffs full-time equivalent positions which we've lost since the Great Recession. As such I am very desirous of seeing an additional 24-7 patrol unit returned to the Santa Ynez Valley and I appreciate the tribe's generous offer to fund that position This contract and this proposal is therefore submitted for your consideration today, and I only have one slide for you. It's just a very simple numbers slide which shows that the cost full-time fully loaded costs salary benefits.
For the 5 deputy sheriffs would be $840,900 the annual vehicle costs Our estimated about $8,200 for a total amount just short of 850 thousand and a one-time vehicle cost of sixty five thousand dollars to purchase and fully equip a Vehicle and the tribe has offered to provide these Services subject to the terms and conditions of the contract that you have before you That concludes my presentation And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have
We have any questions from the Board of Supervisors? Okay, let's go to the public first then. Do we have any public speakers do we have?
Chairman Lavinino, we have three requests to speak. We're going to start with Jim Marino here in Santa Barbara to be followed by Susan Jordan. Then we're going to go to Santa Maria for Andy Caldwell.
I think you now have four requests to speak. Mr. Bob Fields looks like he's interested. Okay. Oh two more.
1:23 – 1:317 turns
Mr. Chairman, good morning members of the board. The loss of these deputies due to the recession is also due to the fact that the tribe doesn't pay any property tax which is a key source to fund these kinds of services no sales tax, no transient occupancy tax in their hotel on the reservation I think most people know that we do need additional law enforcement, certainly in and around the casino which is the source of many of the calls the Sheriff's Department gets.
But I don't think this contract as proposed is the vehicle to do it. It's something that the staff should have taken a careful look at. I won't go through some of the things that I see wrong with it, I think I submitted them in writing to the board ahead of time. I don't know if you had a chance to look at it or not. I only became aware that this matter was on agenda late on Friday.
So if you'll see, for example one of the key provisions is in the so-called indemnity section C. There's a requirement that the tribe indemnify the county if somebody should sue our deputy on the reservation claiming he was used too much force or whatever false arrest etc. The tribe is going to indemnify the county. The problem is an indemnity agreement it's nothing but a contract And the tribe is immune from suits on contract unless they've waived that immunity. This contract does not contain any waiver of sovereign immunity to the tribe. In addition, that provision of the contract requires someone somehow to figure out ahead of time whose fault it is for this claim or lawsuit have been made.
By a third party, as between the tribe and the county. Somebody's got to determine whose fault it is in order to determine whether they should or shouldn't defend and hold the county, indemnify the county in such a case. That's just one of the major provisions. The other is the sheriff mentioned in his comments a moment ago, the special distribution fund sends a chunk of dough to the community. And it's then divvied up by a committee which is essentially controlled by the tribe itself.
So all the agencies have to basically come sort of hat in hand and ask for what amounts to a grant to help their budget because of impacts caused by the casino and the traffic that comes at the casino. The result of that is that the tribe is in the position, for example under this contract, to simply say well this is money that's eligible for Sheriff's Department and so therefore we're going to use that special distribution fund to reduce the amount of money that we're going to pay the county under this contract. If you look through it, and I'm sure if staff had had a chance to analyze that contract they would have seen that There are other things which I don't I don't want to go into here It's rather technical legal stuff But the point being made is there should have been a staff report before you consider that Recommendation to adopt and enter into this contract And I would recommend that such a staff report be made than a good analysis be made and That you get a recommendation.
That's been based on some factual and legal issues Thank you very much
Thank you. Our next speaker is Susan Jordan to be followed by Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria.
Hi, my name is Susan Jordan and I'm here to speak to this item and to call your attention to a letter that you received from Andy Culbertson. You should have received it on Monday. I agree with the points in Ms. Culbertson's letter that this contract is vague and ambiguous as to what lands are to receive these services And this seems odd to me given how long this has apparently been under negotiation. So, to specifically not identify what are adjacent lands? What are Indian lands and what this is going to cover basically you don't understand the scope of what these services are going to provide. In addition to that I am too concerned about the special distribution fund and as I try and ferret this out It seems to me that this automatically redirects the money from the special distribution fund to go pay back the tribe if more money comes in for this specific service.
So it reduces the money to the other entities that might apply for it. I'm also puzzled by the specific inclusion of the 6.9 parcel, Who's status is not yet resolved and that then leads me to the description of the notice that went out to the public which said this was only about services to the reservation. That doesn't seem to be entirely accurate so those are the few points I wanted to make, I don't think it's ripe for approval thank you.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria then we're going to come back to Senator Barbara for Bob Field.
I'll tell you the poison of some people in the valley is just unbelievable. This is not a new service, this is a new funding source for a previous service in the valley. The one complaint I've heard from people in the valley for a number of years now is their concern about the crime that could be associated with the casino and spill over into the valley. And so, for a number of years, the state distribution fund monies were used to cover that plus paramedic services. Well, the state took that money away and is using it for other things So now the tribe has stepped up to the plate to backfill the money, and it's a no-brainer. The fact is this service isn't limited to the reservation. The tribe at their expense is saying look if there's other emergencies or other need for police services you're free to use this cop that will be on the reservation to go cover the rest of the valley.
So they're not just paying for their own needs, they're helping to supplement the need for additional law enforcement services in the valley. And I'm thinking does Marino or Jordan who don't live in the valley actually want there to be one less full-time cop on patrol in the valley or available for services in the valley? Do they really want to see people pulled off duty to have to go respond An emergency at the casino because they're sitting here coming up with these straw arguments as to why this shouldn't happen.
The bottom line is, it's not very hard to put in the APN numbers or to more fully describe the properties. But I honestly don't know what difference it makes since the tribe and the county and These people can go off reservation to help in other areas of the valley as needed. This is full cost recovery, it's certainly more than UCSB does in terms of the impacts that they have in terms of either fire or police. So I don't understand why this isn't just a no brainer even to the Andy Culbertson, Susan Jordans and James Marino of this world.
They're willing to pay for their impacts They're willing to pay full cost recovery. It's not a new service, it's just a new funding source and I think you need to respect the sheriff here unless you want to come up with this money out of the general fund don't look at gift horse in the mouth thank you.
Bob Field we followed by CJ Jackson
1:31 – 1:373 turns
Supervisors, hello. I would like to start first by saying that personally and completely a hundred percent in support of the goal of this contract which is to have the tribe compensate the county for the county services that are provided great goal glad that they're stepping up to do that you know there's going to be an on the other hand and that is that I think this contract is pretty Insufficient attempt to reach that goal. There certainly are some parts of it that are good, and I'll just touch to save time on former speakers issue about indemnification and remind you that what happens in riot cases like Deltopia is that the rioters accused the police of inciting the riot?
I think if we're going to be on the reservation in a casino, the county should be indemnified for that risk And I think it requires a waiver of sovereign immunity in order to be able to enforce that indemnification. Second issue in Exhibit A titled, ironically, Exclusive Authority to Direct Activities. It says that the sheriff has exclusive authority planning, organizing, scheduling, directing, supervising the law enforcement officers and then parentheses it says other than the service area.
Just neutered the whole paragraph. took away his authority to supervise these people. That can't be signed. I agree the special distribution fund was established by state law and compact to offset impacts to the community, and that this is an attempt to redirect community money back to the casino to offset casino expenses. I think that's a breach. And perhaps most importantly, they're calling out the 6.9 acres A piece of property held fee simple as being distinct from the reservation and distinct from all other fee simple properties is a giant problem.
If you were to sign this agreement, it would be a government-to-government agreement with the tribe covering a piece of property owned fee simple which violates the principle that you have adopted about why you don't speak government to government on Camp 4. So these are a lot of big problems, great goal, a lot of good stuff in here but I think this needs some very serious rework or it could become a huge problem instead of a huge benefit.
Thank you.
CJ Jackson to be followed by Doug Hertel
Chairman Lavinino, Supervisors CJ Jackson, resident of Solvang. Mr. Caldwell's poison notwithstanding and I'm not buying into that for one moment and I would ask that you not otherwise. I support long term agreements for public safety. And back 15 years ago, when I examined these two documents. These are the EA for the Casino Construction Project and Consolidation Project from 2000.
I was hopeful that a program for public safety that reflected and addressed the concerns promoted and possibly posed by a large casino proposition in the valley would be addressed. I encourage it. I think the notion of having a long-term agreement to provide public safety is a necessity. In fact, it was included in the tribal ordinances back in 2000 as an objective to execute long term public service and public safety agreements but we haven't necessarily seen them.
There is a formula, oddly enough in these EAs that were provided that talked about how many officers, how many vehicles and how many assets were called for. And it calls for those to be re-evaluated based on the census at the casino. I would ask you, how often has that been done? Does this agreement actually reflect the impact and the burden that is posed or is it merely an agreement to reroute funding for one officer.
In speaking with the sheriff, the sheriff's comment to me was coverage in the San Ynez Valley is thin. I am seeking to have coverage in the San Ynez Valley either be thick Or be appropriate to the burdens that it faces. I am concerned that the analysis that has taken place on the agreement you presently have before you is devoid of that analysis and solely seeks to refund, as Mr. Caldwell would like to talk, another funding source for the same thing.
These documents have called for a process to evaluate the burden with a direction on the part of the tribe, to address long term agreements on public safety. They gave methodologies for quantification. And the tribe is supposed to, as part of its state agreement, keep a log of all activity that take place in incident log. I would like to know if the sheriff has had an opportunity to review that because if you're going to place additional deputies and address a certain element there are you meeting the need?
I suggest you rework this agreement, take a look carefully at the end. And if it comes out more power to you and I'm grateful that you're going forward. Thank you.
1:37 – 1:437 turns
Supervisors, good morning. Thank you for having this hearing. I think everyone wants to see law enforcement upgraded in the valley and throughout the county. We'd love to see the folks that are generating a huge need to pay for that But in this contract, which actually started one year ago. I guess Jim Peterson was the one that actually negotiated with the tribe on this and no one was ever informed of this. I don't think the supervisors were informed of this until just recently. So I think that's a little scary when something of this magnitude is worked on for that much time and the third district didn't even get the benefit of hearing about it.
That's a problem. I think the other problem is it's totally unenforceable. The county has taken on huge liabilities with no chance of enforcing anything. It's hard enough if you have a waiver of sovereign immunity, and when you don't have it, you have zero chance. So I think it's got to be reworked. I know tribal members that would love to have their reservation safe. It's not safe now, but you can't have the system designed to make the sheriff subservient to the facility that's creating the crime.
So right now it's a bad system. Unfortunately, Sheriff Brown has to go hat in hand for money and if he doesn't perform properly he doesn't get the money so I would like to see this denied come back with a serious attempt at a very fair effective contract and I highly recommend that you have an Indian law expert vet the whole thing thank you
Vincent Armenta, and our final speaker. We're going to go back to Santa Maria for Joe Armendariz.
Mr. Chair, Supervisors, I assumed we would come here and have opposition. I assumed it. Individuals have sat on the Special Benefit Committee, Community Committee for the Special Distribution Fund. They know, you guys know, the statistics of calls going to the tribe, to the casino Versus to the public, you guys are well aware that we're funding far more than what we're using. You see that annually. It's a report not generated by myself but it's a report generated by the sheriff.
The sheriff is an elected law enforcement officer for Santa Barbara County. He's in charge which is why we went to the sheriff to negotiate this agreement We didn't come to the supervisors, we went to the elected law enforcement officer. It's amazing that we have to sit here and ask you guys to take our money, to provide a service that is necessary and important not only on the reservation but in the Santa Ynez Valley as well as Santa Barbara County.
Token no votes. I expect it. I see it on every issue we bring here, token no votes. Those of you who don't think that way please vote what's best for the community. Thank you.
To Santa Maria for Joe Armendariz he is our final speaker.
Joe we can't hear you.
Okay. Chairman Lavinino, members of the board I'm Joe Armendariz representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. I think the chairman makes a very important point with respect to this and that is that Sheriff Brown is an elected official duly elected by the people of this county indeed four of the five county supervisors it's my understanding have strongly endorsed Sheriff Brown because of his competence in his understanding of these of these types of issues. I think it's also instructive to point out that every dynamic entity in the county is going to generate impacts. Indeed, every dynamic entity in the county is also going to generate income and revenue both direct and indirect.
As many of you know, the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association five or six or seven years ago did a white paper on the economic impacts of the casino and the resort, and it showed a nearly $300 million annual economic impact. The tourism that it brings in not just from within the county to the valley but not just within the state to the county but indeed from outside of the state into the state and then into the county is substantial. So the notion that somehow the tribe isn't already paying its fair share or paying its way Simply is a canard that seems to be advanced by the tribal opponents for reasons that I won't Attempt to apply any motivation. It's just that it seems rather Predictable that anything the tribe is trying to accomplish is Systematically opposed we understand that there's controversy with respect to these issues and that's always going to be the case, but I think that as the Stewards of the county taxpayer pot of money, it makes perfect sense and is immensely reasonable for you to take the tribe's money in order to provide an essential service that will make not just the valley safer but the entire county.
Thank you.
Chairman Lavinino we have two additional requests to speak. We're going to start with Kelly Gray here and then Steve Pappas.
1:43 – 1:4911 turns
Good morning, Mr. Chair and fellow supervisors. I'm a resident of Villisalivas. I read Exhibit A to the proposed new contract regarding the services the county sheriffs are proposing to provide to the Chumash Tribe and what the Chumash Tribe is generously offering to pay. As an attorney in Century City my job was to argue persuasively What a contract meant.
And that generally came up because of the fact that the people that wrote that contract years before did not do so with clarity as a parent, I carefully worded my rules with my children and thus the majority of our conversations were dealing with are conflicting opinions as to what was fair I urge you to please look at this agreement. Look at how it is written.
Agree with me that it is not written in a way that allows us to only focus on what is fair as opposed to what it means. And make those corrections. I'm grateful for the funding that's offered, I believe that citizens of the Santa Ynez Valley and indeed the entire county are entitled to know what it means. Thank you.
Thank you.
Final speaker is Steve Pappas.
Good morning. I really only have two points with this whole issue, one is without getting into the content of the contract there's two legal issues that you really need to consider. I was on the school board Los Olivos president for four years and clearly when I read the contract what What really jumped out at me is do we have a Brown Act violation here? It's completely signed.
Every signatory has been negotiated, and it's come back just for I guess the chairman's signature. So you need to consider the process to which this contract evolved and ended up on your table. And again, I'm not an attorney. You have county counsel here. But it seems to me that there's a Brown Act issue that might be Might be being violated here potentially because of the process in which this contract was developed. So take a look at that, really consider that and maybe it needs to come back after that as analysis is done you can determine if the Brown Act was followed properly before you
move on to the next step which is to finalize the contract. The other issue is pretty simple. It's sovereign immunity and the bottom line is I'm a businessman We all play by the same rules. You go into a contract, you're expected to follow it. If you don't there's recourse that's why we have the court system without sovereign immunity being part of this contract I simply ask you what is your recourse if the contract is violated?
Simple question, is there a recourse to it without the sovereign immunity? So I would have you consider that issue too before you proceed to finalize the contract. Thank you.
Thank you and anytime somebody poses a question, a legal question like that as far as us violating something, I always want to make sure that Mr. Gazzone weighs in. So Mr. Gazzone can you please weigh in on the Brown Act violation question?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Pappas comment about the Brown Act is also not a problem because the Brown Act is aimed at the legislative body, not the elected sheriff. So you under the Brown Act are on safe ground to consider that matter today.
Okay very good does that close out our public comment period? Yes okay very good bring this back supervisor Farr I believe it's in your district so we'll lead off
Thank You mr. chair actually I have a couple of questions for For counsel. Just understanding and some of the points have already been raised but the first is the whole idea of being able to enforce the contract particularly the issue of indemnification because we don't have an express waiver of sovereign immunity doesn't that in itself kind of render some of this mood as far as enforceability
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Farr, you are correct the contract does not include a waiver of sovereign immunity and without an express waiver in the contract the county would not be able to enforce the contract in court
Okay, thank you. And then the other question I had was about the use of the terms about the special distribution fund. So if I'm reading this correctly it's not just that this money could be used to pay for what used to be paid for out of the Special Distribution Fund when it was a much greater amount But also appears to be written that whatever the funds are eligible use for by the county to provide additional funding for the county funded sheriff personnel. The funding obligation of the tribe under this contract And I do sit on the special distribution fund.
Projects that come forward do need to be sponsored by the tribe to be considered. And so it sounds like this money not only could just be used for that, but also could be reduced by whatever that amount is whether or not it is used for that.
1:49 – 1:5916 turns
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Farr, you are correct again that the contract provides for a dollar-for-dollar reduction if the county receives special distribution funds even if those funds are not used specifically for the purpose of this contract.
Okay, thank you. Well Mr Chair I guess I fully support the share of having more money to do the job that he needs to do and have been particularly concerned about law enforcement services in the San Ines Valley since this special distribution fund was cut and since this full post position was lost. That was several years ago. But I did, the Sheriff's Department staff did do me the courtesy of letting me see an earlier version of the contract. And I pointed out a number of things to them about it that I was very concerned about and so it's disappointing to me to see that now that the contracts before us that these areas really haven't been addressed.
And specifically, I am concerned about the vagueness of the language of the service area. It's the reservation but it's also the 6.9 which is specifically called out. But then the language is also vague as to fee simple lands that the tribe might own, which from time to time one or more of these parcels of land owned might be conveyed to the United States to hold and trust. Well, the only properties that I know of that are in that status now, one is the 6.9, there's a 5.8, and then there's Camp 4, the 1,400 acres.
So, the language is pretty nebulous here as to exactly what that means. And of course those fee simple properties are already covered by regular law enforcement service as are the other properties in the valley owned by the rest of us. I think, even though this contract says if the properties are taken into trust that there's an opportunity if either side wants to do that to provide notification to change the contract. I think that it's not beneficial or certainly in the county's best interest to somehow allow this contract to be used as a substitute for regular mitigation agreement on Camp 4, any of these other properties including for law enforcement services.
I'm concerned also about the couple of things that I wanted to clarify with council. One was the use of the special distribution fund money, which my understanding is has to be used only to mitigate impacts from the casino, which means that it should be strictly tied to the existing reservation where the casino sits and not be used also for the 6.9 or some of these other properties there where the language is vague.
And then the last thing is the concern about the lack of the waiver of sovereign immunity and what that really means for many of the terms in this contract. So, you know again I was hoping that an agreement would come forward that I could support. This is a contract like any contract that comes to the board that we want to support but we do go through the terms very carefully And sometimes the way it is written is not careful enough, it's not protective enough of the county. And so we need to send it back to be reworked some more and that's the way I feel about this contract now. And as Chairman Armenta said, you know, we do need to vote in what we think is the best interest of the community and so that's where I am right now. Thank you Mr.
Chair.
Supervisor Adam?
Yeah, I got a couple questions for you sheriff. If you could come up to the mic My problem with this is It kind of appears like we're out for for hire You know So we have 40 to 60. I mean we get different answers when we ask how many Funded but unfilled positions we have and is it fair to say we got between 40 and 60?
We have unfunded position, I mean funded
positions that are vacant in the
Sheriff's Office right
now. Right. We
have about 40
total. Okay okay so the question when do you anticipate these all being filled?
Well Supervisor Adam let me clarify something for you The 40 positions that we have unfunded, which represents about 5% of the entire sheriff's office is all different ranks and all different categories of position. This particular contract would represent deputy sheriffs and of the deputy sheriffs, we only have eight current vacancies and we have a list of people that In the process of hiring we're about to send some people to the Academy and so forth so.
As far as our ability to provide the service it you know it would be provided and. You know if this contract is approved then we will add an additional 5 positions and higher additional. 5 deputy sheriffs at the moment. We have 6 candidates one of whom was in in-house candidate for deputy sheriff trainee And to be sent to the Allan Hancock Academy and We are targeting other deputy sheriff trainees who are in the academy class as well, so I don't have Any doubt that we could provide that level of service?
The other issue that I just want to bring up for the entire Board's consideration is the fact that regardless of how These lands are categorized or named the sheriff's office provides law enforcement service to them. Whether it's fee simple whether it's part of the reservation, whether it's free to trust the reality is between public law 280 and the reality that we provide law enforcement service in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County. We're going to provide that service anyway, whether we get this contract or not What this contract would do is allow us to have 5 additional staff members to help us provide that service and be a benefit not only to the tribe and the reservation but also to the Santa Ynez Valley community and to provide for safer environment for the rest of our sheriff's
deputies. I'm glad you brought that up because that was kind of my point is that you owe them the service in the first place right?
Well, I don't know that we necessarily owe a service. The reality is- Do
you owe me service at my house?
Well actually from a legal standpoint the only constitutionally mandated service that we are required to provide is the jail. And it's all obviously our ability to provide service is dependent upon the funding that we have to be able have felt the full brunt of that have been the unincorporated areas because those areas like the contract cities that were contracted to provide service or the courts that were contracted to provide service. We have to provide the level of service that is contracted so it's not different and it's a little different there's a nuance from from an incorporated city that contracts with us but we have this precedent in essence where Four of the eight incorporated cities in our county provide, under contract we provide police service to them.
The tribe is asking for a dedicated employee to provide a service that we're currently providing. We currently police the reservation. We currently police all of these areas that have been questioned and that people are worried about how they're being labeled. The reality is the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's deputies are the ones that provide law enforcement service on each of those those lands. So I fail to see how this language in this contract is really going to impact the bottom line because we're gonna be providing that service whether you approve this contract or not it's just the extent of how much service we can provide that's going to be impacted by whether or not the contracts approved
OK, so if some other homeowners association or group of them or something in another part of the county were to want to give you $850,000 bucks. You would hire five and dedicate one to them as well?
1:59 – 2:1531 turns
Supervisor Adams through the chair. I think it's a very different situation here. You have a situation where previously we had a deputy around the clock that was funded through the special distribution fund that was providing service to the area. The tribe has approached us with an offer to backfill that position, to make the situation whole as it were by providing that funding and there is a difference between The tribe and the neighborhood. And there is precedent for Services that can be provided to a governmental entity and it's a question for the attorneys I suppose in terms of what constitutes that.
And in terms of the actual question, I mean if someone really, if some group or area of the county really wanted additional law enforcement service, I suppose there would be nothing that would stop them from forming like a service district or something where they could actually contract with us for some additional law enforcement service?
When you fill these positions, are you going to take the first five? Is it your intent to take the first five and fill those positions and then backfill the eight?
No, we would shift some people around and provide service. And the likelihood is that we would fill the position in the interim until we had hired and trained deputies. We would backfill the position with overtime positions to fill those shifts.
When we had recently a canine unit donated did you have a contract with the entity that donated the canine unit?
No.
Okay, so would it be possible to just take $850,000 without a contract from the tribe and just bring it in as a budget adjustment? And they can trust you to provide the service?
Well, again I think there would be some differences from the standpoint that you know the canine unit was a one time donation to pay for a dog. Whereas this would be an ongoing contract year after year of service and certainly I suppose it's possible that if the tribe just wanted to donate the money that we could use it I don't know if that's something that would be. Designated as coming to the sheriff's office, but I suppose that that's probably not something that the tribe would want to do.
You have to ask them then.
Okay? All right. Thank you. Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Mr Chair. I just, um No questions for you share. I looked at it as, as I would any other contract that comes before the board. And of course not being an attorney there were obvious questions that I had in looking at this contract and honestly you don't need to be an attorney I don't believe to see some really glaring problems with the contract. First of all, I just from what the sheriff said is that this is an ongoing term.
And I just looked again it actually is a one year contract with the ability to renew annually for a period not to exceed three years so it is a limited contract. Aside from that This someone said it's a no brainer. Well, it's a no brainer for me that this is just not a good contract for the county particularly when we heard the answer to Supervisor Farr's question about whether or not this is enforceable and The answer from County Council is that this is not an enforceable contract how in the world would Would we enter into a contract? That's not enforceable I think that is I think that's the number one problem with this contract.
So, I think it needs to be sent back for continued work and if it comes back to us, I think that the tribe is going to have to waive their immunity, their sovereign immunity. And I also think it's going to have to come back because the issue regarding the clarification of the service area has been raised. And I think if we're going to have a good contract, a contract where everyone knows and understands what it means, we have to define the service contract area.
When the sheriff got up to speak he said this Is for sheriff service to the Chumash reservation. And if that's what it is, then and that's what should be stated in the contract very simple language so I would not support us moving forward with this contract. It's very ambiguous and it certainly doesn't serve. This county well and yes that the sheriff is the elected sheriff but the Board of Supervisors.
Also has the authority to review these contracts on behalf of the county to make sure that we are protected thank you Mister chair.
Great
supervisor Kerr ball
thank you Mister chair. Why see this a little different I think that the sheriff made at the important point that this service is going to be provided no matter what And I think to me that is the most important point. Certainly it's not a typical contract as we would like to see, but then again we're not dealing with a typical entity this is a sovereign Tribal sovereign nation.
And I think it's important we understand that so this is eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars that otherwise is going to come from the general fund. And for me it's pretty straightforward and I'll be supporting staff's recommendation very good.
Okay, I have a question of the sheriff right now. So do we currently have sheriff's deputies on the reservation patrolling or responding to the casino?
We do have sheriff's deputies that respond and handle
calls. So what's our indemnification for those right now? Aren't we in the same position we would be in? Exactly the same. Okay so okay um I guess you'll have a close. I'm going to give a few comments and then We'll bring you back up unless you wanted to answer a question that was
brought. I just have
two
quick things that I wanted to clarify if you'd like me to do it now, I can. One is I'd like to draw your attention to government code section 54981.7 which says and gives the authority to Supervisor Adams' question about whether or not we have the ability to enter into a contract A city or county may enter into a contract with an Indian tribe for the city or county to provide fire protection services and police or sheriff protection services for the Indian tribe, either solely on Indian lands or on the Indian lands and territory adjacent to those Indian lands. So that's number one. Number two, with respect to the indemnification and the risk that's involved, the tribe has indicated and it has offered and will indeed under the terms of this contract prepay 90 days of this contract And the county would have the ability to cancel the contract within 90 days.
So in essence, the potential liability or risk of loss is mitigated by that provision in the negotiations that we did.
Very good. Thank you. So I mean as far as indemnification goes, we're already in this position. We're already responding to the casino. There's not gonna be any additional liability The second thing that's very interesting to me is the service area. The question about the service area, we're talking about six acres that are across the street from the casino.
We're not asking anybody, I mean if it was six acres you had to mow or you had to weed it? That's a big job patrolling six acres that's a field right now. I think that's a smoke screen. I'm trying to figure out what's different between this and A-19, A-20 and A-21 where we accepted monies. And I understand that we're entering into a contract that some say that they have to waive sovereign immunity in order for us to be able to defend ourselves. The same folks that are saying that I've heard say that before, I've also heard say it doesn't matter if they waive sovereign immunity, we wouldn't be able to enforce it anyway.
So I'd be very interested that if they did waive sovereign immunity how many would step forward then and say okay now from the community that now will support it? I understand that there's a lot of controversial things and I understand why the community stands up on certain issues. When the alcohol license was in question, I understood that there were questions involved. Land use? Totally get that.
Increased gaming? I understand that. This one, I don't get. They pay into the special distribution fund. The state is now stealing basically our money and not giving it back to us. They're willing to pay twice the money that goes into the Special Distribution Fund, and now they're ponying up another $850,000 to make the casino that I've heard the community complain about constantly, that there's a problem with law enforcement, not enough law enforcement there. That they would dedicate somebody 24-7 to patrol that area.
And if needed, provide support and backup in the community. This is something, the main thing to me is it's still going to be done. The question we're making as a board today is, is the tribe going to pay it? Or are other constituents going to pay it or other taxpayers going to pay it? Supervisor Adam.
I just don't think that anybody has a problem taking the money. It's the contract, you know words on paper mean things and that's why your attorneys are telling you it's unenforceable and I personally am not in the practice of getting into unenforceable intentionally getting into an unenforceable contract and I think there's other ways to do it. I have no problem with with the tribe given the sheriff $850,000 bucks And I have every confidence in the world that he'll show up with an officer when he's called.
You don't want to put money into the general fund without a distinct, for TOT you didn't want to take money into the general fund because you were afraid we'd spend it on something else. Don't you think the tribe if they gave us $150,000 what's their guarantee that we're going to spend it on the sheriff? It could go into as you say, it could go into environmental protection, it could go into a bunch of different things Would waste it on instead of spending it on their actual patrol.
Okay, Mr. Gazzone is there a way for private entity or sovereign nation to give money to specific purpose and have it arrive there?
Chair Lavanino and Supervisor Adam, there is a vehicle through which someone can make a conditional gift to the county for specific purpose and the board could receive it for that purpose. Thank you.
So I don't think that's the issue. And God bless whoever negotiated the contract maybe they're not just very good at negotiating contracts. It's all right. We're not all gifted in that regard and that's okay but Yeah, the sheriff's office is trying to write a check here and then he's bringing it over here and he wants this board supervisors to cash it. And you know we're just telling him we're probably not going to cash this one
right well I am I'm gonna have a hard time going back to my constituents and explaining to them why now I've got to pay more out of the general fund when the tribe was willing to write that check so when you say it's unenforceable we're doing it now anyway we're doing it now anyway so what's enforceable right now if somebody goes out to the casino And we have a problem. What what's our coverage right now?
We just established the fact that there is another vehicle to do the same thing. It's easy to write other
people's
checks. Oh, well go
ahead. I think the sheriff brought us a vehicle by which we could receive funding for a service that he already provides and our taxpayers provide And we could get hung up on what's the best way to receive it or not. But the fact of the matter is, if we don't receive it, we're paying out of the general fund $850,000. The indemnity issue hasn't gone away. It's still there, whether we accept this or not.
For me this is just extremely simple and it's really hard to go back to our constituents and say look, we kicked a gift horse in the mouth. We didn't really accept something that could have made it easier for us to invest more money in infrastructure. Infrastructure is so important to us, there's all these other important issues. So for me it's pretty straightforward.
Supervisor Farr and then I'll call for the question.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that if the contract were more closely tied to the terms of the way it was when it was paid through the Special Distribution Fund, it would be better. But when you bring in the 6.9 and a lot of other nebulous language that's not tied to the Special Distribution Fund That's a real issue for me. I think when you have language in there that says we can reduce the amount of what we give you for this contract, dollar-for-dollar by what we get from the special distribution fund which at this point in time is even less than the amount of this contract That means that if this is paid for with that money, then we have impacts in other areas. Including to the cities of Bulton and Solvang that get support right now out of the SDF.
So I mean, it could have been made a lot simpler and more straightforward. It wasn't. I don't know why. And I do think that whether the sheriff feels that he's providing the service or now not, once we sign a contract, we are bound by the terms of that contract and I think that's where the indemnification and all of these other terms that we've talked about become critically important. And so Mr. Chair, I guess you're going to call for the questions?
2:15 – 2:179 turns
Let's call for the question. Mr. Allen, can you read a roll please? I'm sorry. I think you want to make a motion.
Mr Chair, could I just jump in on a forlorn hope here that this might sway somebody at the 11th hour. The reality is the tribe's only obligation With this contract is financial and that financial obligation is in essence covered by a 90 day prepayment. That even if they were to default the county would already have So it really is a specious argument to be able to say that the contract, because there's immunity issues and so forth, is not going to protect the county. The county would be completely protected in terms of the finances of this contract by that prepayment of the quarter in advance.
Mr. Chair, it's more than the 90 days. I mean indemnification goes to if there is litigation which could be a lot more money than the 90 days worth of payment.
But we don't have that now with all due respect-
Okay, we're not going to argue anymore. The 11th hour has passed. Supervisor Farr?
Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we send this contract back to the negotiating parties to rewrite it to address the concerns that this board has raised today and then bring it back to us.
Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I don't think we'll see this contract back in a different manner so... Been moved and seconded. Mr. Allen can you call the roll?
Ms. Farr? Aye. Mr. Adam? Aye. Mr. Carbajal? No. Ms. Wolfe? Aye, Mr. Lavinino? No passes 3-2.
Okay let's go ahead and tackle the next item which is oh the shortfall in the Sheriff's Department amazing how that happens Mr. Allen can you read in number three please
2:17 – 2:2711 turns
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Item three is from the sheriff. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the transfer of funds to the Sheriff's Office budget for fiscal year 2013-14.
Thank you supervisors. I'm here-
I'm going to serve as vice chair right now so let's just, if everyone who's leaving please take your conversations outside. All right, thank you. Thank you,
Vice Chair Wolf and members of the board. I'm here today to advise the board that the Sheriff's Office anticipates that we will have a $1.3 million deficit for fiscal year 2013 and 14. This deficit represents about 1% of our adopted budget of $121,536,000. This is an unusual occurrence for our agency. In each of the past five fiscal years we have come in under budget, however this year due to a number of circumstances that I will articulate for you in a moment we have not done so.
I would point out ahead of time that we in those previous five years have actually returned about 1.5 million dollars to the general fund and our last request for additional funding was in the year 2007-2008 Our shortfall is due to three reasons primarily. The first is overtime costs. Approximately $900,000 of the 1.3 million is due to additional unanticipated overtime costs that were incurred due to vacancies in post positions that required overtime to cover those positions.
Now usually overtime is covered by salary savings from vacant positions But in the case of new staff that are hired, they require six to nine months to fully train. Salary savings is often negated by the need to fill positions via overtime while new hires are in training. So in essence there are two people that have to be paid when only one position is in essence really being filled.
In addition to the overtime situation, we also had unanticipated overtime due to a number of significant events that occurred this year. The first of those was Halloween. We upstaffed our Halloween contingent and ended up about $85,000 over what we had initially thought we would have to provide for that event. At Deltopia, you're all well aware of the events that occurred in Deltopia that required an additional $90,000 in overtime. That was unanticipated and the most recent shooting in Isla Vista.
The mass murder situation are early overtime estimate is that we were going to probably hit about $100,000. We've already spent about $69,000 to date and we're not finished yet obviously with the investigation. Our problem this year was exacerbated by 25 new hires that were anticipated, where in essence we actually hired 36 new people. 12 sheriff's deputies and 34 custody deputies during fiscal year 13-14.
Overtime worked by existing staff as I mentioned is required to cover those positions while that training is ongoing. I will also point out to you that the overtime costs that were incurred during Halloween operations were a contributing factor, as mentioned. But the result of that upstaffing was that we had an injury-free, major injury free, sexual assault free and fairly safe event that occurred And indeed, it's very ironic that Elliott Roger in his manifesto stated that he was actually going to commit the murders on Halloween or Deltopia under his original plan. But because there were too many cops in attendance, he elected to choose a different date for his actions.
We've also had two other areas that have impacted our additional requirement for funding and Increase in psychiatric health facility costs, the PUF costs. For 2013-14 the department budgeted $150,836 anticipating that we would have 120 bed days at $1,257 a day. We had the concurrence of ADMHS on that. In June of 2013, just before the budget hearings, the rate was raised by ADMHS for the Puff facility to $2,496.00, in essence a 100% increase.
No adjustment to the sheriff's budget was made as a result of that but that rate increase. And as of May in 2014, the sheriff has used 130 bed days through February of 2014. We anticipate an additional 60 bed days will be used through the end of the fiscal year and this is something that is completely outside the control of the Sheriff's Office in terms of the number of bed days I have to use for fiscal year 2013 1213 rather just to give you a comparison the sheriff used 104 bed days at a rate that fluctuated between 1214 and $1582 per day.
For fiscal year 2011-12, the Sheriff's Office used 236 bed days at a rate between $1,130 and $1214. So as you can see there have been substantial increases in this area of the budget. Another problem for us has been the cost of prescription drugs. The budget for this current fiscal year is $450,000. It was based on a Corizon contract when we shifted to their vendor in an effort to reduce the amount of funding that we were paying. The shift from the old vendor and more needy inmates drove costs up this year.
We are still doing much better than we have done historically in terms of what those pharmaceuticals have cost. We spent over $700,000 for pharmaceuticals on each of the last 2 fiscal years. 712,000 in fiscal year 12-13 and 702,000 in fiscal year 11 and 12. As far as solutions to The deficit that we have, currently we have about a million dollars in combined state and federal asset forfeiture funding.
This funding is restricted in terms of its use. It has to be used on frontline law enforcement needs. We are proposing two budget revisions that will one release a combined $327,167 in funds That will cover eligible costs such as uniforms, equipment and so forth. Costs are specifically identified for reporting purposes to state and federal oversight agencies.
This leaves about $650,000 in our asset forfeiture accounts. And we are requesting the release of contingency funds to cover the remaining cost deficit primarily in overtime for salaries and benefits. So that concludes my presentation be happy to answer any questions you might have. Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you Mr. Chair. Sheriff I have a question about the forfeiture account so there's 650,000 remaining and is that being transferred to next year's budget?
Well it wouldn't be transferred to next year's budget it's available to augment as needed for items We carry it over and keep it. It has to be spent for specific items Do
you have to spend at this fiscal year?
No,
so it can be carried over to the next fiscal year, correct Okay, and so is that is this amount Larger than it usually is Mr. Martin because if it seems like it's much bigger I
Supervisor Wolfe through the chair, this is an unusual event for us. What we've done in an attempt to help balance the budget bring our share forward is we've identified eligible expenses within our budget, money we've already spent that can be covered by asset forfeiture so it is an unusual amount. It's not something that would normally do and then we really had to go in and find those specific items that we could cover and that's how we developed those revisions.
Okay. Knowing you, Mr. Martin, I'm sure you looked at that pretty carefully to make sure that we are only eligible for 327 and no more.
2:27 – 2:3216 turns
Supervisor Wolf through the chair, that's exact. And we really have to follow the letter of the law from the federal asset forfeiture folks. We're having to document all these expenditures because we file an annual report with the feds and everything has to be within the law or they come back and talk to us about it so- So
you're basically back filling your budget? Like let's say you had a uniform allocation, you're back filling it with these funds that then releases that money to pay for this?
That's exactly right supervisor.
Supervisor M. I just want to ask if you have any fund balance besides the 2 on your solutions here.
Supervisor Adam through the chair there is as a sheriff noted there's another 650 thousand dollars of combined state and asset forfeiture funds that sits in a restricted fund balance. And that money is sitting there for use by the sheriff
unrestricted
We're going to go ahead
and make a motion. Restricted Sir. Restricted to the point we could use it for this.
Restricted to the point that we couldn't use it for anything other than what we propose the 327 one 67 to be used for. In others, we went through and saw what I have a question. Supervisor.
If there's this balance of funds that is available next year, is it possible can the board as another option loan the sheriff money and then in next fiscal year he pays us back by using those funds? We have one request to speak
from Santa Maria Joe Armendariz
Supervisor- You're on. Okay, Supervisor Lavinino, members of the board, Joe Armendariz representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. So you have to fully fund public safety and we have to be in favor of public safety and not just in some sort of a political context. Seems to me that in the context of Measure M, for example, we have some of the Board of Supervisors wringing their hands about how it might rob public safety. And then this morning, we turned down nearly a million dollars for public safety. So the point is you have to be for public safety. The county taxpayers of this county are entitled to a fully funded public safety infrastructure.
And so my recommendation, my suggestion, I plead to you today is you do whatever it takes to give the sheriff the financial resources that he needs to do the job that he was elected to do. And if that means releasing contingency funds, that means getting some of those other asset forfeiture funds, then that's what you need to do because the fundamentals, the ABCs of local government is providing public safety. Thank you.
Supervisor Adam?
Yeah and I just want to comment to Mr. Armendariz's point that I think all of us want to fund public safety fully, and you know I think it's our job as essentially managers up here to make sure that we're getting I don't think anybody's. You know, although we didn't take $850,000 today. Lost it. I think it's still out there. Hey, look, it's still out there Maybe they don't want to give it up under those different circumstances But as far as I'm concerned is still out there and so You know, I don't know that anybody's not for public safety Supervisor Carbajal
I'd like to move this item in support of the recommendations in the staff report by the sheriff
Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed, passes unanimously. Okay for agenda management purposes what we're going to do is we'll do items four and five which should be very quick and then we'll break for a closed session and we'll come back in the afternoon for item number six So item number four, Mr. Allen can you please read that in? Thank
2:32 – 2:3619 turns
you, Sheriff. Members of the board, Item 4 is on public works. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding these solid waste tipping fees, collection rates and parcel fees for fiscal year 2014-15.
Mr. McAuliffe? Yes, good morning Mr. Chair and board members as the clerk mentioned this is our annual item for solid waste tipping fees collection rates and partial parcel fees in Quiama we're proposing no changes to our tipping fees this coming fiscal year likewise no changes to our proposed parcel fees in Quiama pursuant to our franchise agreements with our haulers we have a modest CPI adjustment to these particular agreements and that's proposed to be 0.55 percent That concludes our presentation and we are available for any questions you may have this morning. Thank you What happened the rest year?
That's it that's it man 30 say go I like that four tenths of 1% That's what happens when you do that supervisor
Adam, I just want to ask mr. Schleich Lompoc has control over Lompoc rates right
Through the chair, that's absolutely correct
Okay, thank you. Okay, great. Supervisor Carbajal?
Move to approve the item if there's no public comment Mr. Chair. No
request to speak. Moved and seconded all those in favor aye none opposed Peter seconded I think okay passes unanimously
move on to item
number five
Oh yeah. In the meantime, Corey Los Arroyos please. Because we're going to lunch quick so if you're listening and if you're not somebody tell him
Chair Lavagnino, members of the Board. Item 5 is from Planning and Development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations of the County and Montecito Planning Commissions to approve case number 12 ordinance 14 which would amend the article 2 coastal zoning ordinance to implement new regulations and make other clarifications corrections and revisions
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
As far as affecting the coastal zone, except because the land use development codes weren't certified by the Coastal Commission. We're now going back and making the same amendments to the article 2 coastal zoning ordinance as well. It also involves restructuring certain sections for greater clarity in correcting minor errors and omissions.
Okay very good Mr Allen any requests to speak?
No requests to speak.
And seconded all those in favor. I none opposed passes unanimously. Mister gazoni would you like to make just want to note that strong
supervisor for was absent on the vote.
Oh my goodness coastal update. On a coastal zoning ordinance, oh minor adjustment. Okay we can't vote for so we will move on. Mr. Gazzone can you give us? Nobody's here for six. So I would like to but we will go to closed session report, Mr. Gazzone.
2:36 – 2:427 turns
Chair Levine, for closed session today we have five items agendized. One significant exposure to litigation, three existing litigation, Farrell versus County of Santa Barbara, Funkhauser versus County of Santa Barbara, McCaig versus County of Santa Barbara and one labor negotiation item with all bargaining units.
And how much time do you want to take? Do you recommend? Deny
it. We'd recommend 90 minutes.
Okay let's come back at one o'clock. Supervisor Farr?
Mr. Chair, I did hear the other item and I support it.
Great so we're going to put her down as supportive. All right very good. We'll be back at 1 o'clock.
¶. ¶. ¶. ♪ ¶. ♪ ¶. ¶. you ♪
2:49 – 4:331 turns
Yeah. ♪ You. ♪ You. ♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪ Hi. ♪ you Hi. Hi. ♪ ♪ ♪ . . ♪ Yeah. you Hi. ♪♪ You. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. Yeah. ♪ ♪♪ Music. Music. ♪♪ ♪ You. ♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ You. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Hi. ¶¶ ♪ ♪ ♪ You. Yeah. Yeah. ♪ ¶. Thank you. ♪ ♪ . . ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶. you you ¶¶ ♪ Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. ¶. ¶¶ Hi, everyone. ¶. ¶. ¶. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. ¶¶ ¶. ¶¶ You. Yeah. You. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪♪ ♪ ¶.
♪ Yeah. ♪ ♪ ♪ ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. Music playing ♪ ¶. Hi. ♪ ¶ This is a test. ¶ ♪ ¶. ♪ ¶. ¶. ♪ ¶. ♪ ♪
4:33 – 4:356 turns
The.
Like the one at me running and the little girl beating me.
When are we ready? Right
To be done by 2. Yeah, I'm ready to roll OK. Okay, watch this. Mr. Gazzone, do you happen to have a report from closed session?
Chair Levinino there are no reportable actions from closed session.
Figures. First time I ever remembered it. We will reconvene this meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Going to go on to item six. Mr Allen can you please read it in for us please?
4:35 – 4:4115 turns
Chair Levin you know members of the board item 6 from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider affirming reversing or modifying the decision of the Planning Commission regarding case number 14 APL 13 filed on May 8 2014 By the appellant Everett woody agent for the property owners Robert and Karina Wooley of the County Planning Commission's may 7th 2014 de novo denial of the wooly SFD addition this is case number 13 LUP 376 is located on Ortega Ridge Road in Summerlin in the first district
All right, thank you very much. And we're going to, oh do we need ex parte? Rachel is shaking her head yes. Let's start with you Supervisor Carbonell.
Thank You Mr. Chair. I actually met with representatives from the Woolies, Mr. Gil Garcia and Everett Woody and I did a site visit. I understand my staff have had discussions with I'm going to be meeting with Tom Evans and Reeve Walport. It's my understanding so. Okay, very good supervisor Adam.
I've met with Gil Garcia and Everett Woody and Richard Monk.
Supervisor Wolfe?
I've met with Mr. Garcia and Everett Woody.
Okay, and I have met with let's see. And Supervisor Farr is not here, so we'll get hers when she comes in. So we'll go to Dr. Russell? Mr. Ritterbeck.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is Jay Ritterbeck and I'm the planner for the Rowley Project. The project site is located off of Ortega Ridge Road, which runs along the northwestern boundary of the Summerlin Community Plan area. The project site is bordered to the west by Burnham Wood Golf Course in the Montecito Community Plan area, to the north and south by Urban Single Family Residential Development, and to the east by Rural Residential Development within the Summerlin Community Plan area.
The subject parcel is 1.0 acres gross in size and zoned 1 E1 urban residential. It is located within the inland area of Summerland. In the next series of slides, I will walk through the proposed project plans for the development.
Jay can I interrupt you for just a second? I forgot to go through the appeal hearing timeline what we're going to do. So the staff presentation which we're currently set in is scheduled for 12 minutes. The appellant, then we'll have a 10 minute window. We'll then have public comment and then time for rebuttal and staff comments before we go to the supervisor's deliberations.
Sorry about that. And Doreen do you want to give your ex parte please?
Yes thank you Mr. Chair I apologize to be late. I did have a meeting with the appellate in my office Everett and Gil Garcia.
Okay, very good. Mr. Ritterbeck? Continue, sorry about that.
The subject lot is currently developed with an existing 4,435 square foot two-story single family dwelling. A 778 square foot cabana and a pool. Proposed development would include conversion of the existing attached three car garage to habitable space. The construction of a new 552 square foot attached two car garage in 93 square foot addition to the first floor at a 1405 square foot addition to the second floor.
The proposed additions total approximately 2,200 square feet and would result in a residence approximately 6,674 square feet in total floor area. Views of the proposed resulting structure are shown here from the north, south, east and from the West.
Sorry, Mr. Could you go over those again a little slower and maybe point to where the new additions are even though today's more about formula than the actual Balkan scale that could be
but... Mr. Chair, Supervisor Carbajal from these elevations it's difficult for me to point out the specific areas essentially the entire second floor is being finished to almost mirror the bottom floor It's very small on the top a very small section currently I believe it's in this corner. That is currently there and this is finishing I could let Mister Garcia or Mister witty.
This is that correct. You want would you like to see from each
other just go through them again.
4:41 – 4:561 turns
This would be existing. I believe this would be the new addition on the second floor. No? Okay, not quite all of the second floor here. From the east, existing and then this wing. I think this is existing in the front but the rear wing behind, correct? Correct and the addition of the new garage And from the west, this would be the wing on the second floor that is new construction.
This slide shows the existing first level floor plan and here are the proposed first floor additions. This slide shows the existing upper-level floor plan And with the proposed additions. The appellants have submitted a number of exhibits along with their appeal application, all are included as attachment F to the Planning Commission staff report dated April 18th 2014 and as attachment 3 to the board letter.
The appellants identified five specific disputes within their original appeal. Those disputes have been summarized in four general issue areas and are discussed in detail within the Planning Commission staff report. As discussed in the board letter, the overarching argument of this appeal pertains to how the maximum allowable floor area for the lot is calculated.
This is a screenshot from page 16 of the BAR guidelines for Summerland and it lays out how to calculate maximum allowable square footage for a lot. As you can see the guidelines layout specific F.A.R.' 's for lots measuring up to twelve thousand square feet. For example at the top of the list you'll see that a lot measuring up to twenty five hundred square feet has an F. A. R. of zero point five and a maximum allowable floor area for dwelling of nine hundred fifty square feet as you can see here highlighted in blue there is no F.P.R. applied to lots of twelve thousand square feet or more Rather, pursuant to the language of the footnote, the guidelines provide a calculation for the larger lots in order to derive their maximum allowable square footage.
The footnote states that the maximum allowable square footage for lots over 12,000 square feet shall be established as a base of 2,500 square feet plus 5% of the net lot area with a maximum allowable size of 8,000 square feet. The 5% referenced in this calculation is not an FAR. It is part of a calculation and it's intended to be multiplied by the net lot area and added to the base 2,500 square feet in order to derive the maximum allowable square footage for the lot.
Additionally, the applicants have also attempted to interpret the BAR guidelines provision that applies to understories as justification for their assertion that the project is subject to a basement credit. They derive an area of 2,178 square feet by adding an additional 5% to the base equation on the previous slide by contending that the base elevation's 5% is in FAR. This is not correct.
As previously stated, lots over 12,000 square feet do not have an FAR. In context, the statement that provides for a 5% credit for proposed residential structure can be illustrated by depicting it within the understory chart that immediately precedes the statement. Instead of a negative adjustment for an excessive understory, the project would receive a positive adjustment for having a small understory.
And although not stated, a project with an understory of over 18 inches but less than 4 feet in height would not be subject to any adjustments at all. Other such adjustments occur within the guidelines as they relate to excessive plate heights and also have their appropriate methodology depicted in the FAR worksheet, specifically on line 6A of that worksheet.
To illustrate the applicant's error further, we can use the example of an 8100 square foot lot. The appellant's contention is that the 5% credit be added directly to an FAR. In this case, 0.30 FAR would become 0.35. However by this logic if the understory for this home were eight feet or over, the negative adjustment of minus 33% would create a situation where there was a negative 3% FAR for the lot.
It is for this reason that all adjustments are made using the calculated square footage as the multiplier and not using a raw FAR number for adjustments. This will become even more apparent when we walk through the calculations within the FAR worksheet. The B.A.R. guidelines for Summerlin provide an FAR worksheet to be used when calculating maximum allowable square footage for residents in Summerlin the next series of slides I'll walk through the correct a correctly filled out worksheet and show where the appellant's calculations on their worksheet different differ from staffs calculation and from the language of the Summerlin guidelines I'll walk through the two worksheets in this slide to highlight the differences. Correct numbers are shown in blue, incorrect in red.
In general there is agreement between staff and the appellants in line 1-4B. And that the maximum allowable size for any home in Summerlin would be capped out at 8,000 square feet which would occur on approximately a two and half acre lot. On line five we see that the appellants include indicate that their project is not subject to the understory adjustment whereas P&D has determined that the project is and results in a bonus of 234 square feet to yield a 4,912 maximum square footage for this lot As such, the result that the appellants get for line 6 does not include any adjustments and carries down the base square footage from line 4B instead of the adjusted 4912 result that includes the understory credit.
On line 7, the maximum allowable garage for the lot is capped at 750 square feet. Any square footage above this would be included on this line. The appellants have listed 130 square feet although it is not immediately apparent where this number was derived because the proposed garage is 552 square feet And it's approximately 200 square feet below that 750-square foot cap.
What is apparent is that the applicants attempt to use this line as an additional credit, although it is meant to be a penalty that is subtracted from Line 6, as is noted on the bottom of the page. Furthermore, there is no provision within the guidelines for a credit applied to projects with garages that are below the maximum size threshold. Lastly on line eight, the appellant's error by miscalculating and misapplying a 5% understory credit. And then misrepresenting it as a basement credit that would result in an additional 2,178 square feet of free square footage.
Therefore, the resulting 6,986 square feet that the appellants claim is their maximum allowable floor area is derived from an attempt to use a basement credit that it does not qualify for. A garage credit that does not exist and not utilizing the understory adjustment that the project actually qualifies for which would result in only a 234 square foot bonus which is added to the base square footage and resulting in a maximum allowable residence of 4,912 square feet.
The issue of understories versus basements summarizes the appellant's claim in disputes three and four of their appeal application that staff erred in its review by considering the two terms synonymous. The appellate also believes that the proposed project is subject to a basement credit and not an understory adjustment. As defined in the Summerlin Guidelines and as discussed in the Planning Commission Staff Report, an understory and a basement are not the same.
Section 4D.3 of the Summerlin Guidelines defines a basement as any usable or unused floor space where the finished floor directly above is not more than four feet above grade. And section 4D2 clearly defines that an understory is the portion of the structure between the exposed finished floor and the finished grade. This project proposes additions to both the first and second floor of an existing two story single family dwelling. The existing home is built on grade and the ground floor is completely above grade. Therefore, the existing two-story home does not have a basement. The only way for a project to be subject to a basement credit would be if its lower level was either partially or entirely below ground.
The proposed project does not have any elements below ground, therefore is not subject to the basement credit for free square footage as the appellant has misrepresented on line 8 of their FAR worksheet. As previously stated, the project is designed with an understory of less than 18 inches and would be subject to an understory credit. To summarize the appellant's contention and dispute number one of their appeal application.
They contend provisions within the county land use and development code should be used when determining FAR, and not the Summerlin BAR guidelines. As discussed in the staff report, the BAR guidelines were adopted by the board in 1992 and are referenced in the Summerlin community plan. Additionally, the South Coast, the South County Board of Architectural Review utilizes the Summerlin BAR guidelines during the design review process.
The methodology within the Summerlin BAR guidelines used for determining maximum allowable floor area was also incorporated into the board-adopted LUDC within Section 3528.210. The methodology within the LUDC and the BAR guidelines do not yield different results and are effectively the same. Given all this, using and citing the Summerlin Guidelines to calculate the project's maximum allowable floor area is the correct process due to its supremacy in authority.
This authority is even cited in the LUDC in Section 3528.210B, which specifically states that if a requirement of a community or area plan standard conflicts with other provisions of this development code, the community or area plan standard shall control unless otherwise indicated. The worksheet provided in the guidelines correctly interpret it, interprets the language of the guidelines and walks an applicant through the calculation process in order to derive the maximum allowable square footage for a proposed residence.
This has been done consistently since 1992. And again, the methodology within both LUDC and the BAR guidelines yield the same result when done correctly. On May 12, 2014, P&D staff met with the applicants to discuss the project and the current appeal to the board. At this meeting, the appellants indicated an interest to amend their appeal application to include two new issue areas that relate to a technical and a procedural disagreement concerning the proceedings of the May 7th Planning Commission hearing.
The first of these new issues was a contention that staff incorrectly stated that the FAR worksheet was included in both the Summerlin BAR guidelines and within the LUDC. However, at no point during the hearing had staff indicated this. The FAR worksheet is found within the Summerlin BAR Guidelines as Appendix B. The second new issue that the appellants brought up at the meeting was an objection to the fact that they were not afforded an additional allotment of time to give rebuttal before the Commission took action to deny the project and the appeal.
The applicant's presentation occurred after staff's presentation, thus the appellant had the opportunity to respond to staff's presentation. After staff and the appellant had made their respective presentations to the members of the planning commission, and after the chair noted that there was no request for public comment. The members of the commission commenced deliberation of the project. The Planning Commission Procedures Manual allow an applicant to rebut, answer questions or clarify any contradictions raised by the public testimony. Since no member of the public testified at the hearing, rebuttal is not necessary. The chair indicated that if he had any questions for the appellants, he would call on them.
The questions of the commission were directed solely to staff. None of the commissioners had follow-up questions for the appellant. Since the appellant's presentation followed staff's presentation and since there was no public comment to rebut this process followed by for the hearing was appropriate. The proposed project would be inconsistent with the applicable Summerlin policies relating to maximum allowable floor area for this subject lot.
Should also be noted that the methodology for calculating the maximum allowable floor area for projects in Summerlin did not change in the new Summerlin Community Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 2014 and effective on June 6, 2014 within the inland area of the county. The only substantive change that occurred which applies to this project relates to the definition of net floor area and how it is calculated.
Previously, the area was calculated by measuring to the exterior surface of the surrounding exterior walls. Whereas now it is measured to the interior surface of the exterior walls. Utilizing the new Summerlin plan methodology to calculate the net floor area may yield a slightly smaller square footage for this project but the applicant's project currently proposed at 6,674 square feet would still significantly exceed the maximum allowable floor area even utilizing the new methodology.
Additionally, Section 3582.110E1 of the County LUDC requires that proposed projects comply with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan including any applicable community or area plan. Again this project would not conform to all applicable Summerlin Community Plan policies. The denial of the project is exempt from environmental review based upon section 15270 of the California Environmental Qualities Act guidelines.
P&D recommends that the board make the required findings for denial, including CEQA findings. Determine the project is exempt from CEQA. Deny the appeal and grant de novo denial of land use permit 13 LUP 376. This concludes staff's presentation.
4:56 – 5:0911 turns
All right very good Jay and I did misspeak during my I have to add one more ex parte. I did have a phone call short form call with Mr. Everett Woody so I want to make sure that that's on the record as well. Okay, with that we will now go to our appellant. Mr. Everett Woody and Gil Garcia you'll be given ten minutes for your presentation.
Good afternoon. I'm Gil Garcia. Our presentation is going to be a video presentation, and it will demonstrate I think quite clearly the simplicity of this appeal. It really just focuses on adding 5% to the FAR as written in the law. In reviewing staff's presentation we find that there are several inconsistencies in what we say they say for example they say that we are trying to add a basement credit Because we put it on the basement line. When in fact, the amount that we're adding is the 5% we're allowed. In lieu of the basement credit, we're allowed the 5%. So it's very... And your presentation will demonstrate that.
I did want to mention though that you saw on the site, on the beginning of the site, the aerial, the location and some pictures. What was not really clear is that this house is not seen from anywhere, not the neighbors, no one. We had reviewed the code before we told our client that he could add the 5%. Here it is written. You can add 5% to the calculation if you don't Have a basement credit which you don't and he then we took it to the Summerlin review board. They agreed with our calculation.
We took it B.A.R., asked for story polls, we did story polls. Neighbors did not show up to complain they couldn't see it matter of fact you can't see the addition From anywhere even entering the site because it's behind the second story portion of existing site. I just wanted to make that clear So it's not I don't think it's a mass welcome scale issue visual issue. So that's just one wanted to make I'd make that clear The staff's comments whether intentionally or unintentionally like for example, we're adding to the work to take a placement credit It does give a different conclusion. You can derive a different conclusion, I think the planning commission did that they ended up deriving a different conclusion from staff comments. Staff said they never mentioned it.
However, the conclusion was clear that they felt that it was attached to the bound to the land use committee at that swung one commissioner's vote. The other thing that was mentioned and was implied that our calculation was doubling the square footage It is not doubling the square footage, yet it was mentioned by staff that it was. Another commissioner when I talked to him after the vote indicated that swung his vote.
So I'm just saying that sometimes staff's comments whether intentional or unintentional I think they believe in what they are presenting, but we'll demonstrate that we are following and constructing our calculation right from the words of the code. That's what we go by. There is a worksheet in there that in itself is very confusing. I don't know if you noticed in the worksheet it said draft up there, draft worksheets, appendix.
So you go by a worksheet that tries to guide you along a very clear wording of the code, but then doesn't really have all the applications to it. So it confuses you further when you don't need a worksheet when it is that clear in the code. So with that I'm going to let Mr. Everett Woody come up and present the PowerPoint.
Thank you. Could you start the video? Thank you. We will demonstrate how to accurately calculate and interpret the FAR language in the Summerlin Guidelines and the Land Use Code. We respectfully disagree with staff's calculations and methodology with regards to FAR. This elevation demonstrates the residence is on a flat lot And the entire perimeter of the residence is less than 6 inches above grade.
Therefore, the language in the statute applies to our project. Our argument is quite simple. The land use code says that we are allowed to add 5% to the maximum allowed floor area ratio. Not floor area The statute says maximum allowed floor area ratio. The core of staff's argument is intended to confuse us because they switched the terms maximum allowed floor area ratio or FAR with maximum allowed floor area So now when staff refers to floor area, they want us to believe that means FAR. Let's look at this section of the staff report.
The first highlight indicates that staff is showing us they are going to add 5% to the FAR. Now further along in this paragraph, they change FAR to floor area and now want us to believe that the 5% addition to the floor area is consistent with the land use code. Floor area ratio and floor area have completely different meanings. Staff's argument uses the Summerlin Guidelines understory adjustment section to set up their calculation.
The land use code section below says the criteria for an understory must meet the following. The distance between the exposed finished floor and finished grade must exceed four feet in height. Our entire building footprint is less than 18 inches above grade. The Summerlin FAR worksheet directly contradicts this language in the Summerlin guidelines and the land use codes.
So how can staff assert that our project is an understory when we clearly do not meet the criteria for an understory? Furthermore, how can staff add 5% to the floor area when the code says that they can only reduce the FAR by a percentage of the FAR. Here we have the Land Use Code section and Line 5 of the Summerlin Guidelines Worksheet together on screen. We can see that line 5 of the worksheet is in direct conflict with the language in the land use code.
Staff's worksheet indicates a five percent addition to the floor area and the land use code says that under stories can only reduce the FAR therefore we must conclude that staff has no authority to use this section of the worksheet with regards to our project At the Planning Commission hearing, staff asserted that large lots do not have an FAR because the FAR is described in word form in the land use code chart above.
Therefore, the FAR adjustment of 5% cannot be added to a non-existent FAR. We are not sure how staff could assert this claim without explanation. However, we do know that FAR is a percentage of the lot area regardless if it is in word form or decimal form period. So let's recap thus far. Number one, the code says to add 5% to the maximum allowed FAR. Our project does not have an understory. Number three, lot percentages are the same in word form and decimal form.
We will now set up our explanation. Floor area ratio or FAR establishes a relationship between a property and the amount of development permitted for that property and is expressed as a percentage or a ratio Three basic elements are required to establish development limits. Lot area, Maximum Allowed Floor Area Ratio or FAR, maximum allowed floor area. The graph to the right outlines the development limits for lot sizes varying from 2,500 square feet up to 12,000 square feet This is how the calculation sets up.
Lot area multiplied by the FAR equals the amount of floor area or development limits. Lot sizes above 12,000 square feet use the same formula described in word form in the second paragraph below. All large lots use an FAR of 5% with a maximum allowed floor area of 8,000 square feet. These lots also add 2,500 square feet to the calculated floor area. Now let's set up the calculation as the code clearly describes The code tells us to multiply the lot area by the maximum allowed FAR of 5%. Can
you pause it? The code also
allows large lots a.
I just wanted for the record show that the time is up for your presentation, but since the staff presentation went considerably longer than we anticipated, we're going to let you go ahead and finish this presentation, OK? Thank you Mr. Chair. Let's go ahead.
Base of 2500 square feet that we now add to the floor area calculation. That gives us a total of 4,678 square feet of floor area. The code section below allows a 5% increase to our maximum allowed FAR. We have already established that our project meets the minimum requirements of this code section and we now add the 5% increase to our maximum allowed FAR. As you can see, the code section entitles our residents to a maximum allowed floor area of 6,856 square feet. The 6,856 square feet is less than the 8,000-square foot maximum allowed floor area as set forth in the code.
We clearly demonstrate that our argument uses the expressed language as defined by the Summerlin Guidelines and the Land Use Code. This gives us the right to add 5% to our maximum allowed FAR. This is the calculation, as the code unambiguously says. Five percent is the FAR And that gives us a total of 2,178 square feet addition. Below is line five of the worksheet as staff uses.
Notice the differences in the calculations. The code says to add 5% to the FAR and staff says to add five percent to the calculated floor area. That is a huge leap from the addition of 5% to the FAR, to 5% of the floor area. The language in the code section at the top of the screen is unambiguous and it tells us to add 5% to our maximum allowed FAR. Over the last nine months staff has not been able to answer two simple questions Where is the language in the land use code that gives staff the authority to designate that our project has an understory?
Number two, where is the language in the land use code that gives staff the authority to deny us from adding 5% to our maximum allowed FAR. We are hoping that staff will finally show us where the language and the code to support the calculation of the draft worksheet is located Thank you for watching our presentation, and we will now make a few brief comments and take your questions.
I'll
give
you
two minutes to close your presentation, please.
Then I'm going to yield the floor to our attorney Richard Monk.
5:10 – 5:1927 turns
Good afternoon members of the board. How much time do we have for rebuttal?
No after public comment.
I
think we have 5 minutes for rebuttal
to the extent they don't finish your resume there as ever it does demonstrated fairly clearly the structure has no basement and it has no understory staff disagrees on that under story they agree that there's no basement Staff says that the home would be subject to an understory bonus credit of 5% of a floor area. That's in their 418 staff report at page five. There is no reference in the guidelines nor the LUDC to an understory bonus credit of 5 percent of the floor area, you just won't find those words in the governing regulations. You'd have to add words to the guidelines and to the LUDC to support P&D's characterization in violation of the standard rules of statutory construction.
Further, there is no understory in the structure. Moreover, the guidelines reduce FARs where there is an excessive understory not increase them but there isn't an understory here. But even if there was, there's no excessive understory that would require a reduction. Still P&D admittedly made an understory adjustment. Both the guidelines and the LUDC do however provide, and I've passed out to you two pages and it would be page 19 of the handout, the second page That a proposed residential structure that does not qualify for a basement credit may add 5% to the FAR provided that no part of the lowest finished floor over the entire building footprint is more than 18 inches above grade.
And that is the case here. So there's no question but that the project qualifies for this additional square footage. And neither the guidelines nor the LUDC say that a structure must have a basement in order to qualify for this 5% addition to the FAR. Thus, the project is entitled to add 5% of the FAR just as Everett stated and showed you not the floor area as staff has characterized it but to the FAR because it does not qualify for a basement credit. We're not saying it's entitled to a basement credit The ordinance language says where you don't qualify for a basement credit, you get this additional 5% added to the FAR.
Staff says you can't add 5% of the FAR because there's no FAR for lots greater than 12,000 square feet. I'd refer you to page 16 of the guidelines which is the first page that I gave you and the authors of the guideline stopped going through this tedious exercise of specifying The lot-specific FARs and the maximum allowable square footage for lots above 12,000 square feet in the matrix on page 16 of the guidelines. And for those lots that are above 12,00 square foot threshold, the guidelines provide, and you can read the language, that the maximum allowable square footage shall be established as a base of 2,500 square feet plus 5% of the lot area net with a maximum allowable size of 8,000. That's in footnote two on that page.
Mr. Monk, your time's, you're a minute over so we'll hear more from you at rebuttal. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We'll now open it up for public comment. Mr. Allen how many speakers do we have?
We have two requests to speak.
Two requests to speak at three minutes each. Supervisor Adam. Yeah, can I just get
clarification from Mr. Rearback? Today's recommendation to deny this LUP is based solely on floor area calculation.
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Adam, that's correct. Consistency with Summerlin policy so it's completely an FAR issue. Okay. And there's nothing aesthetic about this whole deal? The BAR and the Summerland Architectural Review both indicated that it was a well-designed project.
Okay, good deal thanks.
Very good first speaker
Tom Evans and then Jeffrey O'Neill
Good afternoon, my name is Tom Evans. I'm here speaking for myself. I was a member of the advisory committee both recently and also when these original guidelines were done back in the late 90s and finished in 92. And these guidelines came out We had a building boom in Summerland due to a poorly implemented water moratorium. And we reviewed, the Summerland NBR reviewed probably 400 houses over a period of four years and so there was a lot of activity and a lot of interest in mass bulk and scale. And we drew these guidelines from other communities And so I think they're pretty well tested as far as what the idea was, you know just Get measuring mass bulk and scale and then putting values to it the 5% in credit is Which is under the under stories.
It's a it's a Listed slightly separate because it's a credit if you have an extra low under story, and it's still under story I mean that the floor is above grade Was intended as a slight incentive to keep houses low and It's worked well a good percentage of the applicants have utilized it and It's just it hasn't been questioned. I think maybe people will question the interpretation, but nobody has ever taken it farther than that once they've gotten an answer from staff.
This house, in 2005 when it was built, the owner and the architect really took pains to maximize the FAR. It was a very contentious process because of the house's visibility especially from certain neighbors up and down the ridge It was a long process since it's a high visibility site. The architect aggressively pushed to max out every aspect of the FAR, and so I think that the house was built at least to the FAR at the time that it was built.
The whole neighborhood up there is within the FARs. There's no older structures that predate the FARs that are larger. Most of the houses were built up there in the 60s and 70s, and they were fairly modest ranch-style homes, you know, and they've been variously added on to. And then we've had this one tear down, and I don't think any others yet. Maybe...oh, there's been another teardown or there will be soon.
The Summerland FAR yields approximately 4,700 square feet for an acre. And the Montecito, just as a comparison for kind of looking at the general area, Montecito suggested FAR Is 4300 square feet for an acre in some areas and if the high visibility areas such as this. They recommend 3500 square feet so just to give you a little bit of a context of the area and what an applicant might reasonably expect if he were to look into the issues prior to designing the House.
Sir here almost a half minute over
Okay, this question should have been asked before developing the plans to the extent they were. I'd like to also say that no houses have been built using this interpretation and please deny the appeal. Thank you.
Thank you.
Jeffrey O'Neill? Can
I get a clarification from...I'm sorry, I forget your name. Mr. Evans. Are you contending that this house has an understory?
I guess it would depend on how you define an understory.
As defined by... I
would have to look at the definition more carefully, but to me... Because that's
critical here.
I have not examined the definition. I just know how this has been interpreted in all the cases that have come through since 1992, it's been interpreted as staff is stating. Okay
so you don't know whether this
house... I haven't examined the language in the LUDC specifically. I usually leave that to staff but In my
own mind an understory. Well, they just said that it doesn't have an understory didn't you?
5:19 – 5:2611 turns
Mister chair supervisor Adam staff has not indicated that it does not we've indicated that it does have another story.
It does have another story OK well let's go back and flush that out them
guys finish my answer
sure
I was going to say In my mind, an understory is the distance between the finished floor and the grade at any particular point would be what the understory is at that particular place. Thank you.
All right. Very good. Next speaker please.
Mr. O'Neill?
Good afternoon board. My name is Jeffrey O'Neill. I'm currently chairman of the Summerlin Board of Architectural Review. I believe the SCA sent a letter in, I didn't get to see a final copy of that but I did write the text of it dealing with the specifics of the issue. Bottom line it seems to us like it's a lot of arguing over what is Admittedly, a poorly written line. You can interpret it almost either way when you add 5% to 0.30, you can come up with 0.35 or you can multiply it by 5% and come up with 0.315 which is the county's interpretation so like the county we've been going back and forth looking at this talking amongst ourselves And what seemed to override to us was the language wherein it talks about for projects that don't qualify for a basement credit, which this property doesn't or this project doesn't.
You can apply this 5%. Now the maximum allowable square footage that you can get from a basement credit is 450 square feet. I don't care if you're on 20 acres or 20 times this size, that's the most you're going to get. And to get that you have to bury 800 square feet below ground. Basically or within the guidelines of how to determine, but at least 450 of that or 350 has to be completely buried below ground. And then there are guidelines about stepping back the upper stories 10% from the walls.
So to interpret it in the final analysis as allowing 2000 plus square feet In lieu of a maximum credit that you would get if you qualified for a basement of 450. Just doesn't seem to. So in our opinion, that's kind of what ruled the day in the final analysis. Barely a minute
great right on time thank you very much Mister O'Neill. Okay we will is that finish our public speakers okay we'll have Mister Monk 5 minutes. And we'll come back to staff.
Mr chair members of the board. Back to the handout that I gave you page 16 and I highlighted some language on there. I could just refer you to that. And so the 5% of the net lot area that is specified in footnote 2 on page 16 is basically tantamount to the numerical FAR's that are listed in column two above there, of the matrix. And the 8000 square feet specified in footnote 2 is tantamount to the maximum allowable square footage listed in column three of the matrix on page 16.
This avoided the necessity of spelling out the specific FARs for each incremental increase in square footage of lots above 12,000 square feet. Moreover, the Summerland Community Policy VS5 says that FAR shall be established for commercial and residential developments. That's at page 140 of the Summerland Community Plan. If you accept P&D's thesis that you're going to deny owners of lots greater than 12,000 square feet and above the benefit of the 5% adjustment to the FAR for lots that do not qualify for a basement credit. And neither the guidelines nor the LUDC say that. And this interpretation would require adding words to the unambiguous guidelines in the L U D C again in violation of standard principles of statute court statutory construction.
For example on page 16 at the first highlighted language where there's an inverted V after the word category Staff's interpretation, you'd have to add words in which lots shall have no FAR or similar language at the end of that sentence. Similarly in the Language that is set forth, it says the maximum allowable square footage for lots over 12,000 shall be established as a base of 2,500 square feet plus 5% of the lot area net with a maximum allowable size of 8,000 square feet. That's found in the footnote two on that page. You'd have to add words that lots over 12,00 square feet shall have no FAR or similar language And at page 19 of the guidelines, which is the second page regarding the adding of the 5% to the FAR where a project does not qualify for abasement credit as this one does not.
If you see the highlighted language there and at the inverted V, you would have to add language that would say, notwithstanding the foregoing lots over 12,000 square feet shall have no FAR and therefore will not be entitled to the 5 percent addition Now there is no such language in the ordinance or in the guidelines or the LUDC or similar language that would support P&D's thesis. Moreover, if there was such language it would be violative of the Summerland Community Plan which requires that FARs be calculated for all residential properties that are under development.
So there's no language in the guidelines nor the LUDC that supports this conclusion and there is no language that supports the Planning Commission's and P&D's mathematical formula set forth on line 5 of the FAR. Words would have to be added to the guidelines to support that conclusion And the notion that the plain wording of the guidelines may be rejected because the planning and development has always interpreted the guidelines this way, as one gentleman just said. That's as old as it is thoroughly discredited by California case law. I refer you to Terminal Plaza Corporation versus City of San Francisco Where the court said, the ultimate interpretation of the resolution is a question of law. We are not bound by the construction given the resolution by the city.
So I would now like to defer to Everett who will give the rest of the rebuttal. Thank you.
I'm going to stick on the clock here so you have one minute just so we keep this hearing moving.
5:26 – 5:309 turns
When Gil and I first sat down with this project and reviewed the Summerlin Guidelines in the Land Use Code, we also went through the worksheet. And I just want to preface what I'm about to say is that I don't believe that this worksheet was ever coordinated with the land use code or the Summerlin Guidelines. And just by the fact that up in their right hand corner it says draft, that would be indicative to that. And the fact that we can't find a specific area In the worksheet.
Or we can't find a specific area within the code that addresses line 5, we can't find a place or a Matt an example of a mathematical equation that actually says that you can multiply anything by floor area it simply doesn't exist so when we went through the worksheet and we're trying to thank you
thanks for all right. Thank you Mister Woody supervisor Adam,
I know who you are. You didn't call me Waller. With Supervisor Carbajal's permission, I'll go first.
Well we're going to go back to staff first and then we'll bring it back to the board. Oh, we're going to go to staff? Okay. Just in case they've got anything else. Let's get staff. Rachel?
Mr. Chair, members of the board, we'd like to recommend a short break if we could take just 10 minutes then we could coordinate before we respond.
Perfect.
Thank you very much.
We'll take a 10-minute break and then we'll come back in just a minute. ♪ Hi.
Yeah. A. ♪
5:37 – 5:434 turns
Yeah.
♪ ¶. Stu hasn't done his math homework today. Wait till your minds clear. OK. One train. So good time to bring it in. Okay. So we were going to staff first and then we're going to come back. So you have a question here,
okay. Supervisor Adam. Of County Council which document rules if you get into a situation where you have an ambiguity or a conflict? We have a document here from the Board of Architectural Review Guidelines for Summerlin and then we've got quotes out of other things which seem to conflict.
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Adam, what I submitted is the page 18 to the Board of Architecture Review Guidelines and you had page 19 from the appellant and I wanted to make sure you had the full context and I think when you look at that it gives a better explanation of the dispute between the understory and the basement credit So under on page 18, you'll see at the bottom it says under stories and then on page 19 which appellant provided. It has the language A proposed residential structure does not qualify for a basement credit may add 5% to the FAR Provided no part of the lowest finish floor over the entire building footprint is more than 18 inches above grade.
That exact same language is also in the Land Use and Development Code, but in the Land Use and Development Code it's under residential basements So there's a dispute about is it is does it apply for basement credit to supply for understory. It's the same language, it's the same credit and it applies when a structure does not plot apply for basement credit so hopefully that clarifies Interpretation of the land use and development code your board has gets deference from a court.
And for provisions of the general plan, your board would receive broad discretion from a reviewing court.
5:43 – 5:5412 turns
Okay let's go back to staff. That was elucidating. Dr Russell?
Mr Chair I just have a couple of comments and then J is certainly available to answer any technical questions that you might have. But the comments that I do want to make were, that I was not at the planning commission hearing and I learned that there was some concern that staff had in some manner of speaking misinformed the planning commission. And so I went back and very, very carefully watched the planning commission hearing paying close attention to Everything that was said and there was really no misinformation I mean not at all everything that staff said was very very clear.
And there was no intentional or unintentional attempt to mislead of the planning commission so I want to make sure you get out on record because when I hear things like that I take them very seriously and so I studied it myself secondly just a small comment and that is the reference to the word draft on the On the worksheet and that that somehow diminishes its power or value- yeah it says draft as in draft of that date. That they were considering at that time but that's the one that's in the guidelines that was adopted by the board so the fact that it has the word draft on it does not diminish its importance in any manner of speaking also- when you look at the clearly there's a disagreement here So I have heard a well that it confuses things and it doesn't comport with the language of the code.
As a matter of fact, we think that it comports quite well with the language of the code and in fact, it is because of the worksheet that it clarifies and makes clear what it is that you're supposed to do so we feel that the worksheet is entirely appropriate and that the way that we filled it out is entirely appropriate. And then also another thing I'd like to say before I stop is that again The house is a nice house. It's well designed, there's no dispute over that. This is simply a dispute over how much the floor area can be and I wouldn't want it to be perceived as anything more than that but it's an important issue and Jay is available for questions.
Okay
question of Supervisor
Adam? Okay, well not so much a question. I was just gonna say that first of all these confusing and complex guidelines may seem like a really good thing to do at the time but I think that they're either intended or unintended consequences can get a little bit out of control and I would like to see things I'm going to go ahead and read this out loud. I don't want to come out of our shop that are a little easier figure out than this. I mean, this is it's pretty arcane.
But that said the way I'm viewing this thing in maybe County Council can go through this with me. They're entitled Plus 5% for no basement. Based on what's, what's on page 19 and and a slab on grade doesn't have a basement. That was the question I think. Uh, I mean it's so it's got to get the basement or the no basement credit From page 19. Right.
Mister chair and supervisor Adam. Yes, without the basement that's what the credit is for when the structure does not have a basement than it's an additional 5%. Okay so see add to 5%
which is 2100 78 square feet. To the 5% which is also 2178 square feet. For On the on the bottom of I don't know what page this is. On the bottom of the matrix. That defines.
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Adam I don't have the sheet that you're referring to but like this one dispute is where when you add the 5%. So that is the dispute between the staff and the appellant as when you're doing the mathematical calculation. When do you add the 5%
Okay, well the plane read of the text. I mean it says what it says. The plane rate of the tax to me says you add 5%. Because it's over 12,000 square feet and you had 5% because there's no basement. And you come up with 6,856. And it's under 8,000 which is a maximum. So don't understand what that problem is
Supervisor Carbone. Thank you You know, this has been a complex Issue that I've racked my brain and my head trying to really Try to understand it and Trying to be as fair as possible To the process the applicants the community And I gotta tell you, I met with staff several times in advance. And I came to the conclusion that it's so ambiguous as Supervisor Adams said that no doubt you could have multiple interpretations.
And where I, but in trying to be fair. I was racking my head and really trying to come up with well what is fair? Because yeah you could have different interpretations doesn't mean Mr. Garcia and Mr. Woody are wrong so So I thought well why don't we look at how staff consistently Have been applying. This methodology of the guidelines consistently because that I know Mister Monk argued against it but the bottom line is there's been there's been folks who have come forward over the years and have attempted to build their homes based on the guidelines and interpretation This is how we interpret this calculation and this methodology.
And there's been folks I'm sure in the last few decades that have not achieved what they would have liked to achieve by having a different interpretation So that was where I was headed, and more so it was reaffirmed in this staff report. The appellate's interpretation of the Summerland BAR guidelines deviates from over two decades of consistent implementation and use of the guidelines including the Summerland FAR worksheet therein to determine the maximum allowable floor area for projects in the Summerland plan area.
Up until we called a break, that's where I was headed. But staff have said something that now gives me pause and has contaminated at least the way I was headed. And what I heard is the word understory. And I understand that that in the LUDC Very ambiguous and lends itself to the interpretation of the appellants. At least their methodology and their interpretation.
To date, I had never heard the understory issue, dash basement issue as it relates to how we were interpreting the application of this policy. So I was ready to really just hang my findings on traditionally what staff had done over the past few decades. But, I want to make sure that I understood that this home does have an understory.
Chair, Supervisor Carbajal, I believe that Jay can make it very clear with the Illustration on the screen.
Thank you Mr. Chair, Supervisors. As you can see this line dashed line is the finished floor. Any exposed finished floor that's above the grade next to it, that is less than 18 inches is subject to an understory adjustment. It's approximately three maybe six inches but it's less than 18 inches therefore the understory credit would apply. The previous project that built the original home didn't even utilize an understory credit When I looked at this project and I noticed that it would qualify for that, it would give them an extra 234 square feet. That was a gift of sorts that was different from the previously approved project.
This is an understory by definition more than zero inches but less than 18 inches.
5:54 – 6:0511 turns
And. Help me understand how that would with the implications of that I think you mentioned there's it would add an additional 200 square feet something
Mister chair supervisor Kerr ball that's correct it would add additional 234 square feet to the base calculation that is that 2500 square feet plus 5% of the net lot area so that understory credit is an
Can I ask isn't this have been information that would have been helpful about an hour and a half ago. I mean it seems like very late in the process of coming up with this but go ahead. I mean, I feel like now we don't feel like starting hearing over again it's just not go ahead
Russell Mister chair. We did not I don't think that there was really any dispute that there was an understory or an understory credit. The only difference here is where the 5% is added, that's the difference. And we say that it's added to the total square footage. They say that it is added to the formula which includes a 5%, so then you add another 5%. You get 10%. That's the dispute and I mean, that's the kernel of the disagreement. And we have presented it as clearly as we can now that there's a question of whether or not there is... There's clearly no basement and is there an understory? Yeah. And if there isn't then they don't get anything because they only get the credit if there's an understory so we gave it to them.
Then the dispute is where do you add the 5%? If you want to say that's not an understory They don't get any credit.
Supervisor Adam.
Well, that's certainly not the way I'm understanding it and it's not their argument. Um, I don't guess I know, you know, I've done a little construction and I guessed, I don't know what a understory is. I mean, you know, common parlance, this is a slab on grade construction, right? So the entire square footage is then captured under the term understory, the way you guys are defining it.
It's one elevation, it's slab on grade.
Go ahead. Mr. Chair, in answering that question for Mr. Adam either right now or after could I get a five minute break please?
Yes as we get the answer to what supervisor Adams asked will take a five minute break.
Mr. Chair Supervisor Adam according to the elevations that are provided by the applicants this line the dashed line which depicts the finished floor does not continue on so I wouldn't assume that the finished floor continues on it may be an X a plate height from the dark black line up to this dashed line And in this case, from this dashed line as the finish floor to the bottom of the joist immediately above.
In either case it doesn't really matter if it continues or not there is the existence of an area that is more than zero inches but less than 18 which is the definition of an understory.
I think that is a tortured interpretation of the term understory. I just do.
All right, we'll take a five minute break and come back at 3 o'clock. ♪ Thank you. Mr. Gazzone, where are we at right now? Are we able to go to the board for board deliberation?
6:05 – 6:1115 turns
I would recommend one clarification before the board
deliberates. But we'll take one.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, there's been discussion of the understory credit and the basement credit and I submitted the documentation from the guidelines earlier in order to clarify that Whether you call it an understory credit or a basement credit under the LUDC, the language is the same. So it's a credit for when the proposed residential structure does not qualify for the basement credit.
So it's to add 5% to the maximum allowed FAR. And that's the same whether or not you call it an industry credit in the guidelines, or you call it a basement credit in the LUDC. So the dispute really is about when you add that 5% in the calculation and that's the issue before your board.
Mr. Chair,
it's your district supervisor
Carvalho
will have you kick it
off. I'm sure everybody watching and you all here are seeing us with the challenge and struggling to at least for myself since it's my district come up with a rendered decision on this and I want to be fair and I want to Make sure this process reflects the utmost fairness for everyone involved. And that's why earlier when the understory issue came up, I wanted to make sure that I understood how The implication of that was on the 5% issue calculation methodology issue.
And I think council has said, well obviously there is a minor modification to that it doesn't Material to the 5% issue because the issue there is really how and where you apply it. Did I get that correct, Council?
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Carpaul, yes.
Thank you. So keeping within that, I have no choice but to go back to my original and that is well despite the ambiguity and despite the interpretation that could be had, I think we have to go back and respect the consistent application of this policy. Because there have been many individuals who over the years, over the past two decades I'm sure would have liked to interpret, have interpreted this methodology different. But the fact of the matter is staff Have consistently implemented this policy.
The way they have continued to recommend the way the Planning Commission recommended and as much as I would want to do otherwise, I would find that deviating from that would really not Make this project an interpretation consistent with the existing design guidelines in the summer and community plan. So my motion as difficult as it is, is to uphold staff's recommendation as outlined in the staff report one through four.
Okay motion motion there second. We'll have discussion on the motion if there's a second.
I'll second it.
And
and Mister chair just so I explain my my second you know, I'm very sensitive to what communities have worked out through a long community plan process and also the whole point of all of this if we're just kind of step back from The minutiae of the calculations is to try to come up with a formula that fits the needs of a particular community, particularly one that has unique types of lots like Summerlin does and even some of the bigger lots like this one that may be on a hillside.
So I think the fact that This has been the interpretation it has been used and tested over time That we are trying to come up with something. That is that is uniform for the area And that's what it is, I think is what you know has decided me in the favor of supporting supervisor car balls motion
Very good supervisor Adam I'm just gonna say You know in learning how to farm with my dad. Sometimes we have to put it mildly disagreements about how do things and his answer lots and lots of the time God bless him because I know my mom's watching is what was that we've been doing it that way for 30 years And I'm going to clean this up, because this isn't what I said to him. But you've been fouled up for 30 years then.
So just because we've been doing something a certain way it doesn't mean that the words on the paper in this case don't say something else and I'm reading the words on the paper and I'm seeing that Mr. Monk is correct and his architects And consultants are correct. And I think that if you do it that way because we've been doing it that way for 30 years, it's still a mistake.
6:11 – 6:159 turns
Well, I'll chime in my 2 cents. You know, I think Mr. O'Neill kind of hit it on the head. First off, I want to say this is about what's the saying clear as mud? I haven't been through this much math homework in a long time. And no matter how many ways you look at it, you know, I think this is one of those ones you could argue with the teacher if they mark it wrong, you're going to go back and say, well, this is the way I looked at it.
Um, I think the language is obviously dated and ambiguous. Uh, and this has showed us that we actually need to go back and clean this up obviously. Um and I guess that's in the process. But when it comes down to something like this We all agree that there's no more environmental impact. There's no more viewshed impact. I would err on the side of the individual, we're not even approaching close to what the maximum allowable square footage is over 8000 or 1500 square feet short of that.
It might not be what we meant when you read this and it's not what's been used But it's obviously written poorly and that interpretation could be there. So I also have to say that disappointed in the process, I don't think this served the appellant well and probably not the public well. And I think it all goes down to a document that was probably poorly written back in the early 90s, and I'm not blaming anybody here. It's just we're looking at something that obviously is causing us a lot of problems and heartaches and probably more so in the future.
I want to be able to support the motion supervisor Adam
and just a final word. And in addition to all that you know these people spent tremendous amount of money acting in reliance on on a legitimate way to figure it out so. You know we're we're we're just making all the work that these guys did
Okay, motions on the floor. Supervisor
Carbano? I just want to say that I think those are all valid things to say but there's equal valid things to say on the other side and this is not easy for me but I want to respect the consistency that staff and the community have had to abide by No doubt the language is murky, and no doubt that it has lent itself in this case to the circumstance that we're dealing with right now.
But I am trying to be fair Everybody who's come up and said, hey I see this differently. And staff has said no. And so that has become the policy as murky as the language is and that's why I made my decision.
Very good we have a motion on the floor there is a second let's take a roll call vote Mr. Allen?
Ms. Farr? Aye. Mr. Adam? No. Mr Carbajal? Aye. Ms. Wolfe? Aye Mr. Lavagnino?
No
Passes 3-2
Okay, before we adjourn I'd like to go back to Supervisor Farr for a moment.
6:15 – 6:172 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well I'd like to end our meeting the same way we started it and close it in memory of the six victims of the terrible shooting that occurred in Isla Vista who tragically lost their lives on May 23rd. Veronica Wise, George Chen, James Hong, Christopher Michaels-Martinez, David Wang and Katie Cooper.
Very good with that we will adjourn to June 9th. We'll have our first budget meeting here back in Santa Barbara at nine o'clock. Hi.