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.0:02 – 0:078 turns
Thank you. Last
year.
Call this
Can you make a roll call, please? Mr. Lavinino? Here. Ms. Wolfe? Here Ms. Hartman? Here Mr. Adam? Here Mr. Williams?
Here If I do anything out of order today or if I seem a little sleepy it may be because I had a little baby girl born two weeks ago and I haven't slept much since. Yes her name is Kaya Rumi so yeah I'd also like to observe another remembrance in this cycle of life that we observe a moment of silence in honor of Paul Duray who passed away on August 3rd, 7th generation Californian.
He was president of the Santa Barbara Bowl. It was a great venue before but it didn't get all the great acts and took it into a world class venue. So a lot of that credit he deserves. He attended Rigetti High School in Santa Maria, obtained his bachelor's degree from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. His MBA at Stanford Business School and served in the United States Marine Corps.
He was 54 and will be greatly missed. Supervisor Labanino, we also have one of our own who passed.
And Mr. Chair, I'll be asking that we close our meeting today in memory of Mary Ostini who is a 20-year member of the Department of Social Services and a great friend to all those in northern Santa Barbara County especially of those of us who have officiated basketball and football games her husband is Mike Ostini and she was always a great host to all of them so thoughts and prayers out to the Ostini family
Thank you Supervisor Labenino for bringing that to our attention. We have no CEO's report so... Hi,
good morning supervisors. Just a quick announcement to make the public aware that there is a public meeting tomorrow hosted by Southern California Edison at the Earl Warren Showgrounds at Earl's Place Meeting Room and this is from 630 to 830 and the purpose of the meeting is to talk about their Public Safety Power Shutdown Program. There has been much discussion about that in the public and the media And for more information people can go to their website.
In Northern County, PG&E has a similar program and the public can get information about their program from their website as well. And regardless if a power outage is planned or unplanned we recommend every individual in the county still sign up for aware and prepare alerts at www.readysbc.org. Thank you.
0:07 – 0:085 turns
Thank you. Can I get approval for the minutes for July 17th?
Second.
All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. We have some ceremonial items, A49 through A54. Can we get a motion on approving them before we deal with the rest of the agenda?
So moved.
Yeah, we'll do that. Motion on the ceremonial items? We have a motion on the ceremonial items. I just did the numbers wrong. Let' s look at 849, 851-854. We have a motion? Second? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? We have some items to pull.
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
Any items to pull from the public Mr. Allen?
Chair Williams, members of the board I request to speak on Items A21 and 35.
So we will pull Items A21, A35 and A50. And can I get a motion on the balance of the agenda? All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank
you. We'll do the ceremonial. We want to do a separate vote on 50, correct? Yes. Do you want a motion to move 50?
We can do the ceremonial items first. We'll take up A49.
And I just, there's one correction on the admin agenda. We want to trail item A25 so if the maker and seconder of the motion could include that as part of that motion to trail A25 until after we consider D6 today, that would be great. If you could just make that a part of that motion.
Okay, Chair Williams, members of the board, item A49. This is sponsored by our chair, Supervisor Williams. This is a resolution accommodation honoring Shereen Catapuche of the Department of Behavioral Wellness as our August 2018 Employee of the Month for Santa Barbara County and if Shereen could come on up with their department director Alice Leghorn and I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Whereas the Department of Behavioral Wellness employee Shereen Catapuch is recognized for embracing the role of designing, analyzing and presenting complex behavioral health information as the research and program evaluation supervisor in completing a variety of detailed and collaborative tasks while showing initiative and dedication. Whereas Shireen enthusiastically contributed to the development of meaningful and objective program outcome measures to quantify the success of our clients served by our contracted providers. And whereas Shireene was able to turn complex system numbers into understandable data stories that were used in our annual and semi-annual reports, as well as process improvement projects required by the state and reviewed annually by an external quality review organization.
And whereas Shereen has a positive attitude, is repeatedly willing to assist and support the Department of Behavioral Wellness in becoming an organization that strives for and demonstrates continuous quality improvement. And whereas Shereen is recognized for her professional expertise as a valuable resource and for regular contributions and suggestions to improve the workplace serving as a model for the entire department.
Now therefore, I hereby order and resolve that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Shereen Catapuch for exceptional contributions. And she is our August 2018 Santa Barbara County Employee of the Month. Passed and adopted today.
I just wanted to quickly say a couple words about Shireen. She has been such an inspiration to the department and has helped us really get on track with our desire to be a data-driven entity. Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting Real time feedback to staff, to community members, to members of the board. And ultimately, to help us improve the services that we provide to individuals because we're able to quantify the changes and the differences that have been made.
This year was particularly striking for us. Our external quality review organization came in and Everything they do with us during a three day period relates back to data that we collect. And they were so full of praise for the data that we provided to them and the visible impact that they were able to see in our programs and projects, and that was due in large part to the professionalism Presented that information in and in her positive attitude in working with everyone. So we just really feel very honored to have Shereen working for us and with us, and we're very pleased to be able to give her this honor today.
I just want to say that data and compliance are not the most joyful aspect of public service, but are so vital to our effectiveness. And as the board's appointee to the Behavioral Wellness Commission, of patience and joy with these two subjects. And that's something that this organization needs a lot of is more joy, so thank you for that infectious joy, Sheree.
My pleasure. I think on the county website where jobs are advertised it says public service in paradise and that's just how I feel about it and I'm truly honored by this award. Thank you so much.
Item A51.
Chair Williams, members of the board, item A51 is from Supervisor Wolf today sponsored by, this is a resolution recognizing the work and professionalism of the Santa Barbara County Junior Lifeguards and their instructors. And Al Finlay is here, and Al you can come on up and bring your whole crew up. And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Whereas Santa Barbara County, as 110 miles of beautiful coastline provides a variety of recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike. And whereas this ocean environment has inherent dangers that can be effectively minimized and managed through education awareness and experience. And whereas over 200 Santa Barbara County junior lifeguards known as the Henry's Junior Lifeguards hone these life-saving water skills each summer at Arroyo Borough Beach County Park. And whereas, Henry's Junior Lifeguards are trained and certified county lifeguards who demonstrate their commitment to community service leadership and guidance In an effort to prepare these junior lifeguards to be the future stewards of our beautiful beaches. And whereas, Santa Barbara County community benefits directly from this passing of knowledge to our youth by affecting the health and safety of program participants and their friends and family.
And whereas Alpham led Henry's Junior Lifeguard Program creator and lifeguard for over 40 years continues to share his lifelong love and respect for the ocean with the Henry's Junior Lifeguards and their instructors. And whereas this program creates qualified lifeguards and instructors for the future, who will confidently accept the mission to carry on the traditions learned with a goal to prevent drownings. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County recognizes the work and professionalism of the Santa Barbara County Junior Lifeguards and their instructors. Passed and adopted today.
Just a couple words, Supervisor Wolf through the chair. I want to thank you for sponsoring this resolution, supporting the program the whole time along the way. With me are Henry's Junior Lifeguard instructors and in the back we also have our staff photographer Miss Finlay. This is Al Finlay So I'm honored to stand up here with all of you. These are some of the finest instructors in the business.
During the summer, you all teach children ages 8-15 skills that last a lifetime. You provide these JGs with not only respect for the ocean but the confidence to safely enjoy the beaches and parks. You teach them life saving first aid and how to preserve their marine environment. But most importantly your role models and you're an example about how to be a better person.
I need to give special thanks to Al. I worked alongside Al to create and implement the program in 2012, and this is something I'll never forget. Al came to work as a seasonal lifeguard with county parks just after retiring from a career at state parks. He brought a lifetime of experience including being a junior lifeguard himself back in the day.
Roll-call vote Moved by Peter Adam · Seconded by Steve Lavagnino
Show transcript
0:18 – 0:237 turns
For months, Al and I worked to produce the first Santa Barbara County Junior Lifeguard Program. We wondered is there a demand for another summer program in our community? Will our staff be prepared for the challenge? Which beach should we hold the camp at? Do we need a logo? Whenever we found new terrain, we found support and trust from believers within the county.
When we're approved and ready to run it, we scheduled tryouts and wondered if anyone would show up. Well they did, we had 14 that summer and now we have over 200. We enjoy what we do, we love being on the beach every summer and yeah thank you appreciate it thank you
I'd just like to thank the board for this honor. Especially Supervisor Wolf for supporting the program and helping us. I couldn't have done this without all of the great instructors that I've had over the past eight years. It's been a labor of love, I've been apart of four junior guard programs starting as an 8 year old way back when and as an instructor, a supervisor and a coordinator.
Thank you.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item A52 is also sponsored by Supervisor Wolf this morning. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of August 2018 as Breastfeeding Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County and Meg Beard here come on up and whoever else you want to have
Good morning
I'll go ahead and read the resolution, or would you like to say a few things first?
Can I say a few things first? Sure. Good morning. Good morning Chair Williams and members of the board. Thank you Supervisor Wolf for this opportunity to highlight one of our jewels in the Public Health Department. As you know breastfeeding is the foundation of lifelong health for the babies as well as for the moms. Breastfeeding prevents hunger Nutrition in all of its forms and ensures food security for babies even in times of crisis. With no additional burden on the family income, breastfeeding is the low cost way of feeding babies and contributes to reduction of poverty. Thank you all for your support and recognition that breastfeeding plays a critical role in our community's insurance of growth, development and survival of the children in our community and worldwide.
So I'd like to introduce to you Meg. Who has been in our WIC program for 20 years. It is her efforts and the commitment of the team that has ensured that Santa Barbara County's breastfeeding rates consistently exceeds the state average, so with that thank you.
I'll go ahead and read the resolution to the record. Whereas decades of research indicate that mother's milk is the healthiest for children, and breastfeeding benefits both mothers and babies by reducing the risk of depression as well as breast and ovarian cancers, and by providing babies with optimal nutrition that contributes to reduction in the incidence and severity of diseases such as type 2 diabetes, respiratory infections, ear infections, obesity, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome. And whereas breastfeeding prevents malnutrition in all of its forms, ensures food security even in times of crisis including natural disasters and helps break the cycle of poverty. And whereas Santa Barbara County Public Health Department's nutrition services WIC program has some of the highest breastfeeding rates in California and the United States along with a high number of international board certified lactation consultants and educators.
And whereas, the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department Nutrition Services WIC pioneered a two-way breastfeeding texting program that meets the needs of generation Y or millennials and was one of the six national recipients to receive the USDA Loving Support Breastfeeding Award of Excellence in 2017. And whereas the California Department of Public Health's 2018 World Breastfeeding Week campaign aims to raise awareness about lactation, accommodation and a strategy to help working mothers to continue breastfeeding exclusively for the first six months of their child's life. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors proclaim August 2018 as Breastfeeding Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. A breastfed baby is a healthy baby passed and adopted today.
0:23 – 0:2813 turns
So I'm fortunate to
work for Santa Barbara County Public Health. I appreciate your support after all these years. Breastfeeding gives low-income families a level playing field Our breastfeeding services are high level Spanish speaking lactation consultants and our services are free. Just an example, a one way bus trip for a WIC family coming in to see us could be $7 for a family of four or $14 for going back and forth so that could be them missing lunch that day just to come in for breastfeeding help.
It's an effort to get to us and we appreciate all we do for them. We help families succeed with breastfeeding, and we save healthcare dollars. I'd like to introduce, this is Teresa Solis, one of my lactation consultants, and Mary Rodriguez, soon-to-be lactation consultant. And in the audience today, I have my son Sky and my daughter Soul. He's 11, Soul's 13, both breastfed for three years. And my mother-in-law is here today for two weeks, Lorraine Sandoval. So thank you for all your support. Appreciate it.
Item A53. Chair Williams, members of the board, item A53 sponsored by Supervisor Wolf this morning. This is a resolution of commendation honoring Dave Brummond upon his retirement from the Public Health Department after over 32 years of quality service to the County of Santa Barbara. David come on up.
David will be accepting it remotely in Santa Maria.
Oh okay well we'll test the system right now. So can we try to go to Santa Maria? There we go. We had Santa Maria there for a second. Hello, okay, okay. So I've been informed that David was unable to make it this morning, so. Why
don't you just read it in the record? Sure.
So, just so everybody can hear a little bit about David. David was a dedicated 32 year employee providing services to the County of Santa Barbara in the Environmental Health Division of the Public Health Department. He's performed a wide variety of capacities including environmental health specialist. He was an environmental health specialist senior and environmental health supervisor during his years of service. He demonstrated a high level of technical expertise and enabled him to effectively oversee the implementation of his assigned programs. He applied sound environmental public health principles supported by sound understanding of the codes. David had mentored, trained, and coached staff on the fundamentals of food, pool, and housing sanitation, solid waste, onsite sewage treatment, and drinking water leaving in place a foundation for the next generation of Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Staff.
David exhibited professionalism, grace and good humor throughout his career in Santa Barbara County. And the board recognizes David upon his retirement after 32 years passed and adopted today.
Mr. Chair may I have permission just to bring this down too? Absolutely. Thank you.
I apologize for David and Larry not being here there was a miscommunication thank you
thanks
And
A-54.
Chair Williams, members of the board we're moving on to A- 54 this is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman this morning. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of August 2018 as National Immunization Awareness Month and Ben DiRenoso was here, Charity I saw you out there, Charity Dean, Debra Schultz anybody else who would like to have come up? I will read this into the record Whereas National Immunization Awareness Month highlights the importance of vaccination for people of all ages in local, state and national levels.
And whereas vaccination is one of the best ways for infants, childrens, teens and adults to be protected from potentially harmful diseases. And whereas vaccination during pregnancy is critical in protecting the health of pregnant women and the health of their babies in the first several months of life as they're at the greatest risk of severe illness from influenza and whooping cough.
And we're asked together, we need to continue to educate all community residents and healthcare providers about the importance of timely immunizations across a person's lifespan. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County does hereby proclaim the month of August 2018 as National Immunization Awareness Month. Passed and adopted today.
0:29 – 0:345 turns
Hello, it's me again. Last time this morning. Again thank you for this opportunity to recognize a very critical function of our public health department. As you know vaccination protects children families and our community from serious illness and vaccine preventable diseases. And it does take a whole community from policy makers, to providers, to staff, to parents, to families. To ensure that everyone in our community has access to immunizations. With that I'd like to introduce two members from our immunization team at the public health department. Dr. Charity Dean, our Health Officer and Deborah Schultz are Community Health Nurse in the Immunization Program.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, as you might know vaccination is one of the things I'm the most passionate about. I would argue it's the greatest accomplishment of public health ever and I want to report to you some of the statistics from our efforts over the last year Last year, the data from vaccination of kindergartners entering kindergarten was 96.5%. This is for the school year 17-18 and that exceeded the state number of 95.1% and was the same as it was for last year. For 7th graders who receive a TDAP booster, entering seventh grade, the vaccination rate for our county was 98.7%.
And for the state, it was 97.9%. And it's a real accomplishment of our program educating parents, families, schools and it's not an easy job. And if parents or anyone wants to check the individual vaccination numbers of a particular school they can go to shotsforschool.org. It's all public. We still have challenges that remain in our county. There are some schools, particularly private schools that do have pockets of unvaccinated students. So those pockets means that we're so vulnerable to an outbreak of vaccine preventable diseases. The children that are most vulnerable are those who have a medical reason why they cannot be vaccinated, maybe a genetic disorder. Maybe they're on chemotherapy. And so it's really important that all of us who can be vaccinated are to create herd immunity.
I'm proud of our high vaccination rates in Santa Barbara County and that we exceeded the state, and will continue our good work. Thank you
Supervisor Hartman thank you and Board of Supervisors thank you for the honor. Chairman Williams good luck with your baby and get her immunized. And I'd like to thank our community partners, our providers, the schools, our own public health healthcare centers for just their Relentless pursuit on vaccinating our children and adults in the community. I am the public health, community health nurse for the immunization program which I'm also referred to as the enforcer. I kind of don't like that name. I like to think of myself as more the educator and make sure the rules are followed through the schools and through the providers.
And what Dr. Dean was saying about we have some schools that are more on the difficult side, but we formed a great partnership and rapport with all of them. So we're there to help them where we have a great rapport going and we assist them with any kind of problems that they also experience. I love this job it's just a great place to work so thank you very much.
Lastly, the Public Health Department would like to take this opportunity to recognize a key community partner in our immunization efforts. Dr. Charles Fenze for promoting vaccination of infants, children, teens and adults through his leadership role at the neighborhood clinics. Dr. Fensi has served as CEO and CMO of the Neighborhood Clinic since 2012. He and his organization have been really close partners to the Public Health Department, an example of that partnership was during the 1-9 debris flow.
They stepped up, they volunteered to administer tetanus and other vaccines to anyone working in the Montecito mud both at their clinics and out in the field. Whether those vaccinations be to first responders, cleanup volunteers or Montecito residents. We'd like to thank and acknowledge Dr. Fenze for his leadership as our partner in promoting the health of our community. To accept this recognition on Dr. Fenze's behalf is Dr. Andrea Ruth a pediatrician
Thank you and I send Dr. Fenzy's thank you. We have an employee recognition event for National Health Care Centers Week, and he is very grateful for the opportunity to be recognized. We're thankful for the county support of immunizations. In 2017 neighborhood clinics administered 12,500. immunizations. We partner with the county and the state, and we have programs to provide immunizations to all children and all adults regardless of their insurance status or whether their insurance covers immunizations. So we're very grateful to the Board of Supervisors for promoting immunization, and thank you for your support.
0:34 – 0:399 turns
So Chair Williams, members of the board. I've just been informed that Dave Brumman has in fact just arrived in Santa Maria. So it's a pleasure of the board. I don't know if you would like to have- Absolutely. David come up and go to Santa Maria or?
Yes.
So why don't we go to Santa Maria? And there he is, and we'll read the resolution into the record once again David. Whereas David has dedicated 32 years of service to the County of Santa Barbara, Environmental Health Division of the Public Health Department. And whereas David Brumman has performed in a wide variety of capacities including environmental health specialist, environmental health specialist senior and environmental health supervisor during his years of service. And whereas David has demonstrated high level of technical expertise that has enabled him to effectively oversee implementation as assigned programs applying sound environmental public health principles supported by sound understanding of the codes.
Whereas David has mentored, trained and coached staff on the fundamentals of food, pool and housing sanitation, solid waste, onsite sewage treatment and drinking water. Leaving in place a foundation for the next generation of Santa Barbara County environmental health staff. And whereas David has exhibited professionalism, grace and good humor throughout his career with Santa Barbara County.
So now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County does hereby acknowledge David Brumman for his years of quality service to Santa Barbara County. And was passed and adopted today.
Thank you Board of Supervisors for this opportunity to recognize an incredibly valuable member of our team. David, is Larry with you? There he is.
We're working out sound issues in Santa Maria.
It's been a fine career and a lot of years here in Santa Barbara County. I think he's an inspiration for a lot of our younger staff, and he's always always been attentive to their needs as well as the needs of his clients and customers and constituents so I just want to congratulate David for many years of service and recognize Does David want to do this, come up as well?
Where have we lost? Santa Maria, there we go. And you can use that phone it makes, it made Larry look even more important than usual so...
Thank you very much for the honor I wish to thank Dr. Noso and my director Larry Fay Board of Supervisors for the honor. It has been a privilege to spend my public health career working for the Santa Barbara County Public Health Thank you again very much.
We'll now take up A50.
0:39 – 0:4513 turns
Did we get a motion on A50 earlier? I'll make a motion. Can we get a motion and a second on that?
And I'll make a second.
So item 850, this is sponsored by Supervisors Williams and Lavinino this morning. This is a resolution proclaiming opposition to separation of families in solidarity with communities affected by national immigration policy. And Jacqueline Inda, are you here today, Jacqueline? Come on up. And Christina Pizarro, are you here? Well anyway come on up and I'll read the resolution into the record.
Whereas our community is resilient, united and stands together to reject national and local repression, xenophobia and racism as we proclaim solidarity with all people in our community. And throughout the state affected by unjust immigration policies directed at migrant communities. And whereas we believe that we are all welcome in our community and embrace the enrichment this diversity creates in our county.
And whereas in California, migrant members of our region are deeply rooted in our social fabric and are a vital part of our local economy and community. Whereas we affirm that all people are created equal and that all persons deserve the right to due process with dignity no matter what their race, color or creed. And whereas no amount of intimidation against any community of color, religion, legal status or social class will be allowable because we stand in unanimity against policies that promote unjust mistreatment of any individual. Whereas our community stands firmly against the forceful separation of families without due process or a plan for reunification and stands in solidarity with all individuals targeted by harsh national immigration policy.
Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors affirms our county's solidarity with individuals affected by the current immigration policy in our community and elsewhere. Passing adopted today.
Supervisors?
If you want to vote first, we can vote. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye.
You want to roll call? You've got to do a roll call so I can abstain.
Mr. Labadino? Aye. Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Ms Hartman? Aye Mr. Adams?
Abstain
Mr. Williams? Aye Passes with four ayes and one abstention
Please proceed.
Supervisors, I'm here on behalf of the Immigration Advocacy Collaborative which has been meeting weekly at Trinity at 530 every Thursday. We invite the entire community to participate in creating innovative strategies to help our migrant families and our migrant community members thrive in this society. We want you to know that every day, there are hundreds of children in this county that fear for their families. And wonder what's going to happen tomorrow if one of their family members is forcefully separated from what they call home. These children have to thrive and continue to be successful within our schools.
So providing these kinds of resolutions, what you're actually doing is helping support a promise that when you're resilient in this community and when you're thriving in this community we are all one family. So we appreciate that message because that message really stands to value throughout the whole entire county.
Excuse my voice. It's not a good place, but I'm Sally Harriman and I represent Democratic women of Santa Barbara County and we are part of this effort. Thank you.
Supervisor Lavenino. Thank you Mr. Chair well this kind of got its genesis in speaking with Supervisor Williams about ledge committee and we're talking about immigration reform so usually I abstain from getting involved in state and federal issues and I think I've abstained on every resolution that talked about any type of federal issue but for me this is just one that You know, I think has really kind of taken the headlines lately. And and and I understand you know I've heard I'm not an expert on it but I you know I have people saying well this happened in other administrations and so I'm not here to blame anybody and I understand there are good people on both sides trying to figure out how to fix this thing my impetus is that we've been talking about immigration reform for ever And nothing ever seems to get done.
And I'm just personally and as a member of the Board of Supervisors tired and frustrated of trying to deal with issues that come to us because somebody else can't seem to get their house in order. So we have a broken immigration system, I think we all realize that every two years nothing gets done and it's brought out as another election Political football to generate fear and try to motivate people.
And I'm one, I'm done with it and I just want something to change for me this policy can't stand. I think people have already moved to change it. But we've got to stay vigilant with that. I've called personally my member of Congress and encouraged him to try to be part of a bipartisan resolution to this national problem, and I'm gonna hold his feet to the fire as much as I can as a member of the board and also as a voter so I encourage others to do the same.
0:45 – 0:494 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair I just want to thank you and Supervisor Labagnino for bringing this important resolution to our board as our speakers noted I think a statement from the Board of Supervisors I just thought it was relevant to bring up
Broken children. And broken children is our job at the Board of Supervisors. It's also an important American value that sort of transcends the debate over immigration is at stake, which is the idea that we do not punish children for the deeds of their parents. I personally am one of those folks who feel like we're being short-sighted on immigration policy particularly here in California our demographics are such that In 20 years I don't think there's going to be a job for ICE, you know.
We may have to send them to other countries to recruit people to immigrate here because we will need a workforce and a tax base to support all of us when we're old. The demographics of California will demand more immigration but totally aside from that is a more important Thank you Mr. President. To me, it's the equivalent of something that is not wise but people do like speed on the freeway. Well we do not take away children because someone has a traffic violation.
We do not ruin their families because of what is In my view, a relatively less severe and hurtful violation of our laws. And since the founding of this nation we have rejected the idea of punishing children for the deeds of their parents. And I think that standing in making a strong show of support against family separation upholds this fundamental American value even separate from the immigration debate.
Are there any speakers on this item, Mr.
Allen? No request to speak.
Then we will go to A21.
0:49 – 0:5714 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board, item A21 is from planning and development. It's to consider recommendations regarding an agreement for services with Aspen Environmental Group to complete a supplement to the EIR for the Straus Wind Energy Project third and fourth districts. And we have Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria to comment on this item. Mr. Caldwell, I'm going to hook you up to the phone here.
And for those of you that are self-conscious about it, it looks really official and important. I just wish
I had a flag and was behind a desk and would be okay. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. We're not against wind energy, we think that we should have pretty much everything in our portfolio. I do want you to consider something though and even the people in CoLab that are going to probably be working on this project, that's how much they're interested in seeing this Well, it will admit that what I'm telling you is the truth and they had no problem with me bringing this up. And that is what we consider double standards. We have oil fields that have been in continuous operation for a hundred years and yet they've done all sorts of things including steam injection but in this day and age they have to do a full EIR just to continue what they're doing We've had wineries have to do full EIRs.
We've seen single-family homes rejected from getting a permit because of viewshed impacts, and of course we've seen a lot of projects forced to look at alternative locations. The Bacara for instance, Naples I think Naples has been in the process 40 plus years everybody pushing for an alternative location And our question here, and this is specifically directed to you Chair Williams. You want community choice energy for the South County? We would ask for a full-blown EIR to look at an alternative location of putting these wind turbines along the Gaviota Coast.
That would satisfy your desire for an industrial scale energy plant for the South County. Obviously these people are interested in investing and then finally there's the issue of salamanders. Our farmers, the Santa Maria Airport and a lot of other people, the oil industry keep running into this issue of salamanders Well, wind turbines as we know are a giant Kusenart for birds in the sky including endangered species.
And they also, the vibrations kill bats which has a domino effect on a whole lot of other things and we don't understand again the double standard. We know going in that wind turbines are gonna kill dozens if not hundreds of birds on an annual basis And yet the salamanders, I was on the salamander recovery team. I know a thing or two about them. They pretty much stay in the ground until it's time for them to procreate. Yet we deal with them through EIRs and mitigations conservation easements as if they're easy to kill when they're not. They're hard to kill. Birds are easy to kill. We do not understand why you are allowing a different company 10 years later to tear off on a 10-year old EIR with different sized wind turbines plus 30 miles of roads and widening Miguelito Canyon Road in Lompoc.
You wouldn't do that for a winery or an oil project, why are you doing it for a wind project? Thank you.
Chair Williams, Mr. Caldwell has a, if you want to stay on the line we could have him take his testimony in A35 as well if you want to, however you like to proceed.
Well are there other requests to speak on A21 first?
No not from the public.
I
didn't pull 821, but I had a lot of some. I spent a lot of my vacation time reading the ERG EIR and here we have an existing project and I'm sitting in front of a huge study. If Ms. Blackwood just kind of if you want to speak to this that would kind of be helpful
Sure, Mr. Chair and members of the board, first of all I'm not quite sure where to start but I'll say we are talking about doing an addendum to an EIR for this revised wind project. We're talking about a supplemental EIR which is subject to basically the same process as our normal project level EIR requires full public review in circulation response to comments It requires that all applicable issues that have changed be analyzed, including alternatives. So as you can see it's not a cheap venture. It's $357,000. Many of our project EIRs are not that much so this is the process that we use when we look at a site that has had previous environmental review where there's some basis for incorporating that information but it's certainly not meant to short change the process or short change public comment With regard to the ERG project, we've never done environmental review at the ERG site or we would be looking at a similar process where we would be tiering off of an existing EIR and doing that analysis.
And I think just In July, your board approved a contract proposal to analyze the ExxonMobil trucking project through a supplemental EIR as well. And the EIR we're tearing off of is much older than this particular EIR. We're not talking about approving a project today, I know there are lots of impacts associated with wind projects. I know there's lots of new information and strategies about dealing with them and that's really the purpose of moving forward with this analysis.
I think that was a touche, but Exxon is also getting the same treatment. My understanding too of the proposal is perhaps some welcome redesign which is larger turbines Generally, the movement in technology has been towards larger turbines because they move slower. It's harder for you to have bird strikes. It does mean aesthetic issues sometimes are more prominent but in my view, more aesthetic issues and less bird strikes and more alternative energy sounds like an improvement on the project.
Mr. Gazzone, if we voted no on this, we would get sued right? I mean we don't really have a choice here. This is sort of a pro
forma. Chair and Supervisors, so we generally try not to make up a road map for litigation but this is an area where as Ms. Black had described there are three choices, subsequent EIR which generally begins with substantial changes the supplement to an EIR which is before you today which are The conditions that Mr. Black described only changes are necessary to this prior EIR, it still gets the same kind of review and then the smallest of the three is the addendum which actually doesn't get recirculated and in this case the board is on sound ground to approve use of the supplement to the EIR. Yeah and
so I'm not saying that I support the project or don't support the project but we're just pro forma Approving this project kind of going through the mill at this point. We're not well at
this point You're choosing the you're supporting the planning directors choice of the environmental vehicle that'll get Same kind of notice to public the review same kind of findings to move the project forward so all of their required Findings that are occur under sequel will occur, so it's not an approval or denial a project It's choosing the correct environment 835.
0:58 – 1:0515 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item A35 is in the public works and to the board is the Board of Directors of the Laguna County Sanitation District. The recommendations are regarding a conservation easement deed on Laguna County Sanitation District property. This is in the third district and I think we still have Mr. Caldwell so we can go to Santa Maria for his testimony on this.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Andy Caldwell representing COLAB.
Andy can you just speak up a little bit or actually well Michael put up put up the volume I want to make sure people can hear you hold on great
is that better
yes
all right uh chair williams members of the board andy caldwell representing COLAB um i was on the county the county The salamander recovery team process, along with members of the Farm Bureau and Cattlemen's Association when Supervisor Joe Centeno was in office. And to make a long story short we learned a lot about tiger salamanders And one of the things we also realized is, and I don't know how many of you realize this. That when the tiger salamander was originally listed it was listed on the basis of an emergency that didn't go through the normal protocols. And the emergency listing said that there were maybe seven ponds in the entire county that still supported tiger salamanders And that the conversion of rangeland to vineyards presented a mortal threat to these seven ponds.
Well, fast forward to 2018 they now know there's over 50 ponds. And the point of this is the fact that with 50 ponds, we don't think they would have ever had an emergency listing. And then secondly, they claim that the suitable habitat for this covers 180,000 acres in this county most of it which is still rangeland. I said all that to say this as you well know you guys were held responsible for killing a salamander either rightly or wrongly accused And you had to put money into an easement or a bank, I think that ended up being over in Lompoc.
The Santa Maria Airport had to give up a couple hundred acres for a tiger salamander habitat conservation and then we know of at least two or three ranchers that did the same. We would ask you before you approve this thing, that you get a report from your staff and U.S. Fish & Wildlife on just how many acres in this county and at what cost have already been set aside? And this is not to mention the controls placed on the different oil companies who have had to set aside land in order to get through the EIR process for their projects. In other words, how much land is enough land? How much money towards salamander conservation is enough money? Because as you know with the Orchid Community Plan, the Laguna Sanitation Area may need to be expanded and are you limiting your future ability to expand that plant by virtue of this easement.
This should not be an admin calendar item. We need a full report, we just had a farming company that we heard of that was trying to build housing. The US Fish and Wildlife wanted $1 million for impacts the tiger salamanders. And so We think you need to look at the big picture before you start signing off conservation easements and also we need representation. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife is picking people off, oil companies, farmers, ranchers even you one at a time sending you through this mill and exacting all sorts of concessions either cash or land or both and we need some representation thank you
Any other requests to speak?
No further request on this item from the public.
Mr.
Labineau. I spoke with Mr. McGaulpin beforehand and just had a couple of questions. Scott, I don't know if you want to come up. My biggest question was about future growth and what that does to us. You answered my questions but if you could just for the public kind of talk about the project a little bit.
Sure, Mr. Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino and board members this is our mitigation requirements for potential habitat impacts out at Laguna Sanitation and as you know we have to replace the existing plant which produces about 3.7 million gallons of effluent a day So we have to build right next to the plant. We can't just take the plant offline for a year or 18 months to do that, so there's a bigger footprint there that could be a potential impact to the tiger salamander as well as the California red legged frog and then you know the development that's contained in the orchid community plan. The plant will eventually be expanded phase two to allow for treatment of up to about 5 million gallons per day of effluent So these permits will allow us to do that work
over the next 30 years. And I'm sure you're not the person that's going to answer how many I know you know what you've given up here. And these are funds that are coming out of district-controlled funds, so basically the rate payer is picking up the cost for this? Correct and
we've accounted for that through our rate increases over the years and it will go into a restricted fund and it can't be utilized for anything but this.
Okay thank you. So I think the bigger question outside of this is something I'll work with Staff Fund to determine You know, how much is enough and how much is too much. But that's something that Fish & Wildlife I think are the ones who make that determination but I think we'd have to do an inventory at some point find out where we're at so... Mr. McGonigal, he's looking
at me. I just wanted to add that although the department has been pretty modest on this navigating a habitat conservation plan is fairly challenging and I think they've done something that allows the county to move forward on this project in a timely way and really well within the rules but it is a tough process to go through and they've done a nice job with it.
1:05 – 1:086 turns
Well, in my experience particularly in fisheries which is even more litigious than this area. It's better for all parties involved and it's cheaper to just do the mitigation than it is to litigate. I'd rather pay money for Habitat than pay, no offense, money for lawyers. And so to me there's that pragmatic side and then there is the other side, the big picture or the other argument I think is that Biodiversity genes are an investment in the scale of eons and has value that is beyond just the present value of the tiger salamander. Not only would we be diminished as a county if we lose some of our endangered species, but the world in the future is diminished if you're looking at the real big picture. And I hope that we, in this case, Thank you Mr.
Chair and members of the board. I just wanted to look at the big picture and say we're getting to do the project obviously it' s no fun to pay a little bit more for any involved but it's a model were planning infrastructure for the next 30 years and still being
I don't know who will answer this, but it did say in the report that the conservation easement will however limit future development. Is that after the 30 years? Is that what we're talking about or where exactly... What are we talking about there? The development of the Laguna San or...?
Chair Williams, Director Laganino. The limitation on development is on the conservation easement and perpetuity but its remaining land uses for which we would use it for now and into the future would be continued which is the cattle grazing and irrigation of effluent. Does
anybody want to roll call on that?
Can I get motion? I don't need a roll call, but I need to say that I think that I'm hoping that in the event in 30 years that something needs to be done out there. That we get the permission to do that. I think these are the rules in today's world. I disagree with them entirely, It is what it is, and we're gonna go ahead based on the rules today. And if down the road those rules no longer fit, hopefully somebody will do the right thing at that time. So that being said, move staff's recommendations.
All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That's unanimous, and it dispenses with the last remaining item of the administrative calendar. Is there public comment for items not on the agenda?
1:08 – 1:178 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board, we have three requests to speak so we're going to go back to the phone and Mr. Caldwell. So if we can get a call from Santa Maria, we'll go to Mr. Caldwell for his public comment.
I think even when the mic starts working people should just use the phone as a prop.
Go
ahead, Mr. Caldwell. We can hear you.
All right. Thank you. Chair Williams, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. As many of you know, I grew up in Lompoc. I can still consider it my hometown and it was most unfortunate a few years ago when Supervisor Carbajal referred to Lompoc as the armpit at the county. And even though a lot of people thought that was what it was I want to, want you to consider something here.
You have snowy plovers in the South County. What would your reaction be if those beaches got closed each and every year because of the snowy plover? The snowy plover, excuse me. What would you do if Goleta Beach, Carpinteria Beach or the beach in Santa Barbara got closed every single year? I think you'd have a hearing about it. I think you'd push back It happens in Lompoc every year. Nobody cares.
You have a mental health facility being proposed for Mesa Oaks, a block from a school. That's kind of like the Mission Canyon of the Lompoc Valley. There's no services up there. There's nothing up there. No outcry. You have kids practicing soccer in the Lompoc Cemetery For practice, because it's one of the only fields of grass in the valley that's not riddled with gopher holes.
Yet when a farmer tried to donate some land at no cost to the local kids to play soccer, the county brought the hammer down. Again, children and law folks, where can they play safely? Cemetery. Lastly, I've been told by law enforcement and you know that we have law enforcement on our board and they feed us information. We've been wondering about the huge, huge encampments of homeless people in the San Ynez Riverbed.
What we've been told by law enforcement Is some of these people are being bused up to Lompoc by either the City of Santa Barbara and or County Services. You know, the bottom line here is everybody said that, you know, Salute Carbohal really didn't mean it and that, you know, Lompoc's a fine community. And I still think it is a fine community as far as what Lompoc is trying to do. But again, the beach gets closed Mental health facilities next to schools, kids having to practice in a graveyard.
Homeless being bused up there and dumped off? Is it not being treated like the armpit of the county? And again that goes to the other point that we brought up today this wind turbine thing. You've got wind on the Gaviota Coast, you've got wind on the Channel Islands that dwarfs what happens in Miguelito Canyon And nobody's proposing that, why? Because they know it would be dead on arrival.
Why is that? Why are there double standards for what Supervisor Adam rightly called the colonies versus the South County? You guys say you wanna be green, you say you care about the homeless, you say you care about kids, you see you care about beach access. Where is your care for Lompoc? When are you gonna agendize these things and start pushing back? Because you've got snowy plovers too, you've got kids too. You've got beaches and you've got wind.
Thank you.
Okay we're gonna stay or come back to Santa Barbara to hear from Ed Kolaski and then Denise Adams. Mr. Kolaski?
Thank you It's good to be here after the break. For the last four and a half years, we've been trying to remodel our house. We can't do it because the Board of Architectural Review said that our second story is located solely over the garage when clearly it's not located over the garage. They wrote a 64-page report on our second story being located solely over the garage.
All they needed to do was Two pages. This is the Board of Architectural Review. We say that your second story, it's solely over the garage. Clearly it's not. Of course they didn't put this drawing in the 64 page report. Why would they do that? It's pretty obvious that it's not solely over the garage. So I call my talk today, I cannot remodel my house because of a few sleazy government officials.
And I want to say that no one, absolutely no one should have to go through the pain that I've gone through to present my project and have to deal with a corrupt supervisor. One who praises Alex Pujo for kicking us out of the meeting, for not letting us show our drawing. For erasing tapes, just on and on and on violating California and federal laws. And I just listed a few items here, this is a short list.
It's just so appalling. Lavinino, Supervisor Lavinino says here in regard to immigration we need to get our house in order. Well, we can't even remodel our house. We have to live in a dump because some supervisor here decides that we shouldn't not unless we make a contribution or some kind of donation or some kind of extortion fee. Chairman Williams here says that in regard to immigration that we have American values My God, American Values can't even remodel your house?
And this isn't because of some guidelines. We can't remodel our house because some supervisor is directing Alex downstairs to kick us out. You know after five meetings or excuse me four meetings we had a 5-2 vote in our favor for completing our project for getting a final approval and Alex was actually one of them that supported it We go into the fifth meeting, he kicks us out. 15 seconds, he would not let us talk. He had some Dillon Chapel jump up and scream at us so we couldn't even ask a question. What about civil rights?
American values? You got five supervisors here. The four of you can't do something. Someone should do something. This last meeting in February was truly disgusting. I talked to my architect several times about making some few changes would have taken him less than 15 minutes. He comes into the meeting a little late, but he comes into the meeting and we sit down unbeknownst to me.
He didn't make any changes. He made zero yet afterwards He wants to charge me at a double rate and he wants to charge me for 10 hours of work. I mean this is so absurd for him, clearly he was not talking, he's being forced to do this. Thank you Mr. Klatsky. Would you please do something about this? Thank
you. Our final speaker in public comment is Denise Adams
1:17 – 1:214 turns
Good morning, Denise Adams. Thank you for listening to me Chairman Williams and members of the Board of Supervisors I would like before I make my comments of why I'm here I would like to share with you for the last 22 years I have worked on population stabilization demographics And immigration issues for 22 years. So if you have any questions about Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution and our responsibility as Americans I'd be happy to answer any questions along those lines for you anytime because this is an issue that impacts each and every one of us as Americans.
Where we fit in as citizens of our country. With that said, I came here today because as Supervisor Williams knows a lot has happened in our area of Montecito and some of us have approved land use permits for projects that occurred Thank you Madam Chair and members of the public. I want to start by saying that during 2017 I was notified in September of 2017 that what constitutes a vested interest in a project is substantial construction to be vested so if in fact you have an active land use permit and you're in the building permit process and As per one example construction costs went from in my case $200 a square foot to over $1,100 a square foot. That means screeching halt on the project because of our fire and our debris flow disaster insurance companies are at a standstill they will not write policies so those of us in the middle class cannot get access financing if you can't get insurance because They go hand in hand insurance and financing.
So if you aren't affluent enough to cash out a project, you're not going to build it and then even so, you may want to have casualty insurance. The benchmarks that have been given to me are waiting to see if the forecast 70% chance of an El Nino come to fruition, what happens with our debris basins etc., The first benchmark that I have been given is after the California Department of Insurance decides what happens as relates to issuing of insurance. So with that being said, I would like to ask you when you consider perhaps in the Montecito area those people Thank you.
I guess blown away or annihilated because of the disaster. We're in a recovery mode and we certainly ask for your assistance when you consider our fate in life, we would like to ask you for time extension for those of us and perhaps clarification for staff on the word vested in a project it cannot be substantial construction at this point in time thank you.
That concludes public comment.
We'll go to D1? Sure, we'll take a little five minute break and then reconvene for D1
Jason. Test one two, can you hear me?
1:23 – 1:251 turns
Morning and last. Mr. I didn't like that. Now, was this a.
1:31 – 1:383 turns
Departmental item one.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item one is from Child Support Services. It's a hearing to receive and follow up presentation from child support for Child Support Awareness Month.
Good morning Chair Williams and supervisors. Greetings from the Department of Child Support Services, and thank you so much for the opportunity to come and have just a brief chat with you all. I guess I wanted to start by reminding everybody what our mission is, and that's to serve children and families by establishing parentage and enforcing support orders in a fair and equitable manner. And so to kind of further that mission that we have, this is Child Support Awareness Month, it's August.
And the theme this year is they don't need perfect, they just need you. So as part of Child Support Awareness Month we are conducting outreach to the community. We want to let them know what services we have available to them. Our major focus is we're going out to the different public libraries. We're going to Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, Eastside Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Lompoc, Guadalupe and we're just gonna be there to tell people what it is exactly that we do and how we can help them. And so kind of as part of that effort too, we've collected a lot of school supplies that were gonna be given out to the kids that attend the outreach events.
And anything that's left over, we're gonna donate to the different school districts. We're also gonna be airing information on the county TV channel and some local radio stations. And we're starting a new partnership kind of interesting with La Hermandad Center in Santa Maria and that's to do specifically outreach to the Latino community. So that's kind of a new initiative that we have as well.
I want to take this opportunity just for a minute to kind of highlight the accomplishments, things that we've done this year. I think the thing that I'm most proud of and I think the thing that our whole staff is most proud of is that actually we're on track to exceed our collection goal of $29 million this year. That we're going to be distributing to the kids of the county. So, we're super proud of that. The other thing that we're super proud of is that we're doing that increased collections with less staff. So we continue to lose staff but we increase our collection so we're feeling pretty good about that.
We've also successfully completed our move to Casa Nueva which is gonna save us about $200,000 a year and to complete that move we did obtain about half a million dollars in additional state and federal funding to make improvements And I am happy to report that the staff is so happy to be there. We love the building, it's clean, it's fresh, it new, we feel good.
It's just right sized for our staff and everybody is just super, super happy to be there. Let's see. Chair Williams, you're going to like this because I did watch Ms. Topliff's presentation from last year and I noticed that you were interested in this so I wanted to make sure that we highlighted this part. So our current caseload is about 13-14 thousand families that we serve and currently we have about 19% of those that are active on assistance, so they're receiving TANF at this time.
We have about 25% that have never been assisted, never received any kind of assistance from the county. But we have 51% who are formally assisted which means that we and other community partners and they themselves have moved from being supported to self-sufficiency. So 55% of our caseload is a pretty significant number. We're pretty happy about that. Let's see.
So what I meant to say at the very beginning, it's a little nerve wracking up here. I'm sure nobody has ever told you that before but I wanted to first thank you for the opportunity and the CEO for stepping in as interim director for the department. It's been an interesting experience. I've enjoyed the department head meetings, and I really have enjoyed being the interim director. And so I thank you for the opportunity to do that.
And I want to specifically thank our assistant director who is here, Joni Maiden. The child support ship would not sail in the proper direction if it wasn't for Joni. So I am so, so grateful to her help with that and then I also brought Metta Richardson who's our business manager and Maria Aguila who's the branch manager for Santa Barbara and they have been an enormous help in this as well. So, I want to thank them very much for helping me keep things going.
So the other thing that I wanted to say is that my normal job is I'm the supervising attorney for the department. So while I have the floor, I want to brag just for a second about the attorney team. We have three FTE's attorneys and that includes myself. And between us we appear in court every day of the week in either Santa Barbara, Santa Maria or Lompoc. And so far, just in this fiscal year and we go to the end of September. Our fiscal year goes to the end of September. So far we've made 2,900 court appearances and by the end of the fiscal year at the end Between three full-time attorneys, so we work hard and we're very grateful to have the opportunity to do it.
We introduced some legislation before Kerry left. Kerry and I kind of got some legislation that we introduced that became part of an omnibus bill that's going to help all the child support agencies in California access cases online that they were not able to access before. So it's going to help the entire state do their job better. We've gotten the kiosks, the Santa Barbara and Santa Maria Kiosk were completely cashless. So the people that we were using to take the cash, we've now put them elsewhere and they're doing other jobs so that's been a huge help. And I will say that we have the opportunity to allow other county agencies to use our kiosks.
So other county agencies that are going to take cash payments, they may be able to use our kiosks as well. So we're going to explore that with probation and with the courts, and whoever wants to be involved in that. We're going to work with them on that. And just because security is so important, we have successfully completed our security audit done by the state, so that's always a good thing. And then just looking forward really quickly, We're doing our tech refresh, so we're going to get a substantial amount of money from the state in order to get new desktops, new monitors, new laptops, new tablets. So we're kind of working through that right now and our department will have to go through background checks again, so it'll all be fingerprinted again.
That's something that we're working through because of new IRS regulations. So that's child support in a nutshell. Thank you so much for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.
1:38 – 1:5216 turns
I just want to make an editorial comment to encourage your staff, because I was not a client of Santa Barbara County child support but Ventura County. Your colleagues down in Ventura County and it sure makes a difference on the lives of kids that are under the poverty line and made a difference in my life. And so I want to encourage your staff along those lines.
Thank you so much we appreciate it. Thank
you
very much.
Is there a receiving report on this?
Yes, I'd just like to note that there was no public comment slips received on this item and a motion to receive and follow would be great. So moved.
All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous thank you so much.
Thank You Chair.
Departmental Item number two the main event
Supervisor
Wolf, why don't we read it first and then Supervisor Wolf will make an opening comment.
Chair Williams, members of the board, item number two is from the Planning and Development Department. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a resolution amending the land use element of the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan. An ordinance amending section 35-1 of the Santa Barbara County Land Use and Development Code. Of chapter 35, zoning of the county code to adopt amendments to the Eastern Toledo Valley Community Plan. Environmentally sensitive habitat repairing quarter land use and zoning overlays map. This is for the rural areas.
Supervisor Wolk.
Thank you Mr. Chair, just very briefly I want to just acknowledge our planning and development team particularly Julie Harris who's done an exemplary job on this project as many of you know this was part of the Eastern Glade Valley Community Plan it was one of our action items Thank you. I'm going to start by thanking the board for mapping and Julie has been very much involved in the process along with the consultants that were hired by the county as part of the allocation that this board provided. So, I've spent many occasions with Julie going over the map. There is a vegetation What you won't see is the map, the very detailed map that has been put together of all the ash areas in the rural area of the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan.
So I'm really excited that this is coming to us. It's one of our action items. We have a lot in the community plan but this is one that's very important to the community And so with that, we'll just move forward with Julie's presentation. Thank you Mr. Chair.
And I also want to thank Supervisor Wolf. She agreed to move this a couple times to help us dispense with Gaviota with Alacrity before the Coastal Commission. So thank you for being such team player and helping us on that. Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Supervisor Wolf and members of the board. I'll get right to it. Environmentally sensitive habitat or ESH protects a variety of biological resources. In Eastern Goleta Valley, ESH applies within urban areas, existing developed rural neighborhoods and rural areas that are not zoned for agriculture. The riparian corridor or RC protects riparian habitats in the rural area on lands zoned to agriculture.
The urban area is not a part of this project. The Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan, adopted in October 2018, includes many policies and actions that protect biological resources including the ESH and the RC. In addition, the Land Use and Development Code or LUDC includes zoning overlay regulations for protecting ESH and RC such as development setbacks and permit requirements.
The policies of the plan and the LUDC protect ESH and RC wherever they occur, regardless of what is or is not on the map. The SHRC overlay maps adopted by the Board of Supervisors depicts the most likely locations of some of the ESH and RC at a given point in time but it does not depict all of them. The Board of Supervisors directed long range planning to update the overlay map for the rural area, to implement in part action ECOEGV5A.
And based on the 2015 aerial photography limited field work to refine the boundaries of existing mapped habitats and include a depiction of chaparral habitats where they qualify as an ESH. The overlay map is a tool to assist with the implementing of the overlay policies and regulations. It assists with determining the location of ESH and RC. However, the overlay map is only a snapshot in time. It cannot be updated without being adopted again through the public process.
The map is one of several factors used to determine the presence of ESH and RC. Whether these overlays apply must be determined case by case at the time of proposed development and based on actual conditions that are on the ground. Consulting the map is the first step in making a determination, but not the only determining factor. In addition, the planner will make a site visit, consult with other resources available to the county including the California Natural Diversity Database or CNDDB.
Other biological resources mapping layers that are available to the county and previous biological reports if there are any available for a particular site. Finally, a site specific biological survey may then be required. The project consisted of two basic components. First, development of a geographic information systems or GIS vegetation database and map. And second using the vegetation database and map to update the ESHRC overlays.
To create the GIS vegetation database and map, the project relied on recent high resolution aerial imagery. And photo interpretation of this imagery to develop the vegetation database. This process includes field reconnaissance and data gathering to better understand the vegetation of the area and correlate what the photo interpreters see on the ground with what they see on the aerial imagery.
The process follows national standards that were developed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, specifically for the state of California. Depicting vegetation alliances or types that are consistent with these standards. The county contracted with Aerial Information Systems Incorporated, or AIS to prepare the database and map. AIS are experts in the field of photo interpretation and GIS. In addition, due to AIS's close collaboration with the Fish and Wildlife Department, Dr. Todd Keeler-Wolf, author of The Manual of California Vegetation and head of the Department of Fish and Wildlife's vegetation mapping program joined AIS in the field for the field reconnaissance at the beginning of the project at no additional cost to the county.
An example of how this process works, this slide depicts two different Cianothus vegetation alliances as one would see them on the ground in the small photos and how they are viewed in the aerial imagery used by the photo interpreters to determine the vegetation type. Back in the office, the photo interpreter interprets and studies the aerial imagery. And compares it with field reconnaissance photos, other field data, and biogeographic tools such as topography.
Then using the GIS delineation tools, the photo interpreters directly input onto the aerial imagery the boundary lines that define the identified vegetation types. The result is a vegetation map that can be laid over the aerial imagery or color coded as in this vegetation map. 63 separate vegetation types were identified and mapped. The vegetation mapping was completed at a level of detail that the county has not been able to provide under previous mapping efforts.
Next, the vegetation database and map were used to prepare the proposed update of the ESH and RC overlays. The proposed update includes habitat types that are protected by policy ECOEGV 5.4 that could be feasibly mapped. These include habitats that were mapped previously as ESH such as oak woodlands, as well as habitats protected but not mapped before such as coastal sage scrub.
All riparian habitats and stream corridors were mapped as ESH and RC per the county policies, as they also protect the stream. And help maintain contiguous riparian wildlife corridors which are also protected by the policy. Also mapped were any vegetation types that carry global or state rarity rankings of one, two or three. With a ranking of one signifying very rare and threatened and a ranking of three being sensitive.
Rankings in four or five were not identified as ESH because they are considered apparently or demonstrably secure by the state. This is the resulting proposed updated map for the rural area. This is attached to your resolution and ordinance that would amend the overlays. The ESH is depicted in green, and the riparian corridor RC is depicted in blue. When adopted by the Board of Supervisors, this would replace the existing overlays for the rural areas and the EDRNs within the larger overlay area that covers the entire Eastern Goleta Valley planning area.
Most of the boundary adjustments were minor with only a few more significant changes. However, the changes are warranted based on the new and improved vegetation mapping and the updated policy criteria. Changes to the ESH and RC acreage result from better delineation of the vegetation types due to the improvements in mapping technology and the accuracy of the aerial imagery.
The mapped ESH acreage would increase due to the ability to map qualifying rare ranked chaparral, and coastal sage scrub which has long been protected in Eastern Goleta Valley but has never been mapped as it was not easily distinguished in the old aerial imagery. Long range planning held a community meeting on March 27th of 2018 to introduce to the public the completed GIS database and vegetation map, and to present the proposed update to the ESH and RC land use and zoning overlays. Staff received positive comments on the mapping effort in general. However, some expressed concerns that not all of the ESHs protected by policy are mapped on the overlay and they asked for better education, disclaimers and information regarding the use of the map.
In response to these comments, staff discussed several ideas with the planning commission at its hearing on May 2nd. First there is a disclaimer on the adopted overlay that explains the limitations of the overlay map. This was adopted in 2015 with the community plan. There are minor text revisions proposed and they're included in the amendments and the texts will also be enlarged on the map.
Staff is also researching other opportunities to improve the public education and provide more information. Such as finding website tools that would make it easier to view the disclaimer, making it more prominent when opening up the overlay map. Staff will also be preparing and posting the department's biological resources data layer. It's currently publicly available information, but it's only available on request because it's in a GIS format and it needs to be reworked so that it can be posted and be user friendly on our website. So that's one of the things we're looking forward to doing.
We're also looking at options to develop new webpages that are focused on ESH and biological resources. That would serve any community that has an ESH overlay, including how to address fuel management in those areas. We have also corresponded with the lead scientist of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, CNDDB. Who agreed with P&D's approach to a share limited data with the public pursuant to the scientists review and approval while still complying with our licensing agreement. So that is something that we also look forward to making available in the near future on our website.
Finally, on May 2nd, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the project to your Board of Supervisors. Therefore, staff recommends you approve the Planning Commission recommendation and for your motion follow the detailed recommended actions beginning on page one of your board letter. This completes our presentation and we're available for your questions. Thank you very much.
1:52 – 2:0110 turns
Questions from the Board? Requests to speak?
Chair Williams, members of the board we have nine requests on this item and we will start in Santa Maria with Mr. Caldwell and I think we may not have to have the phone. Should I just
hold it anyway?
So go ahead Mr.
I thought it made you guys look really important
you know.
I was gonna unplug it and just hold it for aesthetic value or that it doesn't have one of those little cords you could detach Oh, yeah it's on. Can you hear me? You can't hear? Yes. Well you can? Okay thank you. I want to talk about a failure we consider from the top down and this failure has to do with the reality of our fire hazards here. A couple months ago I came across this funny but painful map of California that was on the internet And it renamed the counties based on what they're really known for.
So Kern County's name on this fictitious map was basically Texas already. Ventura and Santa Barbara counties are named usually On Fire. And there's a reason that they are usually on fire nowadays, but they weren't always on fire in previous generations. And it has to do not with wind, not with drought, not with climate change. It has to do with policy. We used to do control burns, we used to do mechanized clearing, chemical clearing and thinning and all sorts of stuff. We used to have more roads in the wilderness that doubled as fire breaks and access. Well, the feds came up with a no roads wilderness policy. The Forest Service had a number one policy of fire suppression versus fire is a management tool.
And then the big one, environmental sensitive habitat protection. So what have we seen in the last couple of months? We've seen our congressman, Salud Carbajal vote no on two bills that would make it easier to prevent forest fires and get rid of dead trees, diseased trees and overgrown trees. State Senator Hannah Beth Jackson a week ago announced this big push for control burns. The prologue is beautiful, I wish I could have written such a compelling argument for control burns. But then buried in that piece of legislation it says special consideration will be paid for chaparral and sagebrush.
Read that protection not consideration. Well, that's the baby in burn baby burn and now we have the board finally again failure from top to bottom. The board protecting environmentally sensitive habitat when in reality we should be managing it, eliminating it, reducing it instead of protecting it. There is nothing, there is absolutely nothing that doesn't make the list of environmentally sensitive habitat in this region.
We have seen lichen on a boulder protected by the county. We have seen poison oak protected by the county. We have seen thistles protected by the county. Sage Scrub and Chaparral are not, they're our friends in normal circumstances and situations but not as far as mitigating and preventing wildland fires. When are our elected representatives going to get it that they've got to change the policy because that's the policy driving the fires?
Thank you.
Back to Santa Barbara for Phillip Fanshawe, followed by Lee Moldaver.
Please proceed.
Hello, my name is Philippe Fanchon. I've been a resident of San Marcos Pass for years since 1982. I'm a retired professor at Cal Poly and UCSB. And I'm very concerned about this project. I oppose the upgrade of the map for several reasons. Number one is that there was a lack of public participation. The reason is, I don't know but I guess the public is not sufficiently informed about these events Publishing something in the news press actually is obsolete. Now people use social media to get their news, so maybe something should be done about that but no, the fact that only 25 people showed up at the meeting reflects that they were not informed correctly.
Object to the project on two reasons. Number one, the AIS map is inaccurate or is incomplete and then the second one is that the ESH map is inaccurate and inconsistent The AIS map is inaccurate because it's taken from aerial photographs. In particular, you cannot see what happens under the oaks, under the trees and because you cannot see what's under it, you cannot decide whether it is a habitat or not.
If you have a bunch of poison oak and thistle and what not, and it's been cleared then it is not a habitat. You know if you have cleared land under the oak trees the only habitat it is for tree squirrels. The rest is I mean personally I mow down all the vegetation under the oak trees The EIS map does not include sensitive plants, does not include things that are rare or endangered.
And there's no on-site verification. The ESH map is inaccurate and I showed you in this thing where you have inaccuracy in my area. You have 20 areas that have Oak trees on them, and it's not included for some reason. It's not really included in the map while all the oak trees are including some other areas so the map has to be consistent either include the oak trees as a sensitive area or you don't but you don't have pick and choose and do it here on this lot and not on that lot.
Then again, besides those mapping mistakes and omissions you have no location of the sensitive plants and animals. It includes some areas where there's no proven rare or endangered biological resource. This is related to this. In the San Marcos Pass area, oak trees are diseased and you cannot, the disease will spread. I went to the Ag Commissioner who told me that he was interested only in strawberries and avocados. So then I went to the planning commission, to the planning department where they're supposed to have an oak specialist. The position was canceled and then I decided to go to the UC Extension that has moved to San Luis Obispo. There's no resource to protect the oaks in Santa Barbara County.
Finally, I called the fire department who came and decided that there is a pathogen in the area. That pathogen is contagious. It's going all over the area. The trees are dying. I have about two or three oak trees dying every month falling to the ground. Nothing has been done. And the reason is that the regulations are so expensive for the homeowners. If you want to document that, you have to have a biologist or botanist or somebody go with their Lee Moldaver followed by Sherry Topper
2:01 – 2:074 turns
Good morning Chair Williams, members of the board. I'm Lee Moldaver speaking as the Vice President of the Santa Barbara Audubon Society representing over 1,100 families on the South Coast. This is a very exciting Good morning. Conversation that began in this room many years ago with Supervisor Susan Rose, which has been on the front burner for the entire time that we've been served by Supervisor Janet Wolfe is approaching a positive conclusion and your persistence and leadership are very much appreciated and valued.
I'd also want to say thank you I want to thank Planning Director Diane Black and Julie Harris and the entire team for listening to public and expert input and coming back with proposed new data which is very, very important. A lot of people in the room and in the community don't realize that the birds we see Direct relatives to the actual T-Rex from 100 million years ago that still survive here.
And the birds in Santa Barbara County as throughout California have evolved relationships with the habitats around them and in the mountains of the South Coast, this has to do with the chaparral and the coastal sage scrub. And if you're at any of the museums and you see the paintings of what the landscapes look like when the Europeans first arrived here, you'll see the chaparral in the coastal sage scrub and a occasional oak and very little else because the chaparral habitats have been adapting to the environment for thousands of years.
We were very pleased to have a terrific meeting last week with Fire Chief Eric Peterson, and he was talking about the need for fire breaks and wind-driven fires and fuel driven fires. And being responsible for people's lives, people's property, and most especially of all, for the lives of the firefighters that we put at risk. So the idea that we think that the chaparral habitats in the mountains deserve further study and further protection is not taken lightly.
But the chaparral were here before we are, and they're best adapted to the climate that is changing. And I think you've received the four scientific reports on what we're expecting for climate change in Santa Barbara County over the rest of this century It was very, very sobering in terms of temperature, rainfall, heat. And finding ways to work with these ecosystems and to protect them and to study them better are things that the Santa Barbara Audubon Society would encourage you to do.
So we support the work that's done so far but we think a little bit further away is needed yet to travel. Thank you.
Jerry Cherry Topper be followed by Steve Ferry.
Good morning Chair Williams and members of the Board of Supervisors. I'm Cherie Topper, and I represent the Santa Barbara Audubon Society. I am their Executive Director. We've been following this issue since its inception before 2015, and we continue to stand in support of our native chaparral habitat being designated as ESH. We appreciate the updates that were done to the outdated 1993 map, specifically the addition of the 236 acres of ash and we urge you to approve this edition. But there remains a missing piece. The Coastal Act provides a definition of environmentally sensitive area as any area in which Plant or animal life, or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature. Or role in an ecosystem which could easily be disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.
This definition makes the mapping of all known ash critically important in protecting sensitive species and habitats and allowing informed coherent use land planning. So here's the missing piece. The ESH map does not delineate all rare species habitats as ESH so that landowners, public and planners consulting these new maps will be unaware of the presence of these rare and or sensitive habitats.
Chair Williams' comment earlier that biodiversity is an investment that lasts eons. I just want to remind you that there's a scientific miracle continuing to take place in our local chaparral. It's a real-time species split that's happening to our local Santa Ynez walking stick. The phenomenon has generated global scientific interest. Teams of researchers come to our local mountains each spring to document this evolutionary split. The scientists collect samples, observe and document the extent and progress of this new species emerging here and now specifically because of the diversity of our local chaparral habitat.
We urge you to direct planning staff to add the rare species to the ESH map, to support the complete mapping of chaparral communities. And therefore ensure that stakeholders are fully informed before taking actions that might unnecessarily harm this precious habitat. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Steve Ferry be followed by Brian Troutwood
2:07 – 2:134 turns
Good morning, Chair Williams and Supervisors. I'm Steve Ferry. I am the former co-president of Santa Barbara Audubon and currently a member of the Conservation Committee. I would like to urge you to approve the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Map Update. Designation of ESH is important in protecting the rare species that make Santa Barbara County the wonderful environmentally diverse place that it is.
Many people in Santa Barbara County have witnessed clearing of unmapped ash. In many cases this is inadvertent, the result of the fact that the current ash map excludes many types of ashes. The county's natural resources can be better protected by updating the ash map to better identify ash including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's rare species data.
Updating the ash map so that it does not omit certain ashes will ensure that the public, landowners and planners are all working with the same information about the locations of ash in the Eastern Goleta Valley. I recommend that specific rare species habitat areas mapped in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database be added to the ash map.
The map should also be updated to include other types of ash Other types of ash protected by county policy include rare upland and wetland vegetation alliances and associations, raptor and turkey vulture roosts which are particularly important to Audubon. Critical wildlife habitats and wildlife corridors. These should be added to the ash map after these modifications to the map the board should then adopt the map as part of the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan thank you
Ryan Troutwine and we'll hear from Phil Seymour.
Thank you very much and good morning Chair and Supervisors. I'm Brian Troutwein, Environmental Analyst and Watershed Program Coordinator with the EDC. EDC represents the Santa Barbara chapter of the Urban Creeks Council regarding the ESH map update and we're here today to request your approval of the updated ESH map which is required under the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan Action EcoEGV5A.
The update is needed because the existing map is 25 years old and it's really outdated The draft map, however, omits rare species habitats which are designated ESH in the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan. So the map is not complete. The draft map does not map any rare plant species or animal species habitats And these habitats are ash, according to the plan and so should be mapped on the ESH map.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife sent you a letter on June 15th clarifying that the state authorizes the county to use the state's rare species database on the ESH map to make the map more complete and useful, to make it more informative. The state's rare species data includes specifically mapped habitats of rare species which can and should be on the ESH map because they are ESH by definition.
On the ESH map are threefold. First, the map will be more complete. It'll have more information. Planners, landowners and the public will all have equal access to that information and up-to-date information at the same time. And three there will be less confusion over what is and what is not ESH. So there's good reasons to add rare species habitats to the ESH map. And doing so is not difficult, it merely involves taking a layer from the state's map and overlaying it on the county's map. It's not a big time intensive project to add the rare species habitats to the map.
Now in addition to rare species, the map also omits other types of ESH identified in the plan including raptor and turkey vulture roosts and nests. Critical wildlife corridors, critical wildlife habitats, native grasslands, the list goes on. The list of missing ashes that aren't mapped on this ESH map. The board should direct staff to add these other types of ESH to the map as resources allow in the future.
In closing, EDC and Urban Creeks Council and the 13 other groups that signed our sign-on letter support the map update. And we asked you to approve it today because the existing ESH map is out of date and the Eastern Glade Valley Community Plan requires it be updated. However, the draft updated map Excludes several types of ash identified in the plan, including all rare species habitats. They're just not on the ESH map at all and the state has information on this that could be included and should be included.
So the board should direct its staff to one add the rare species data which the Department of Fish and Wildlife authorized for your use on the ESH map. And two, the board should then approve the updated ESH map and finally as resources become available in the future The Board should direct its staff to add the other types of missing ashes so that we can finally have an up-to-date and informative ESH map. Thank you very much for your time.
Phil Seymour, then Richard Halsey will be our speaker following.
2:13 – 2:193 turns
Hello I am here today representing the Wildland Residents Association in San Marcos Pass and Paradise Canyon areas. We represent 250 dues paying households in the mountains and Paradise Canyon And it's a very diverse group of people, but I think I can safely say most of us who live there don't want to see major changes in the environment where we live. But we are also extremely worried about losing our homes or pets and maybe our neighbors to a wildfire.
While your staff has been working on the environmentally sensitive habitat map, some of us along with County Fire have been working on another action item in the East Goleta Valley Community Plan and that is preparation of a community wildfire protection plan for our area. And for the Foothill areas where so much damage was done during the Painted Cave fire.
The good news is we have found that we can balance environmental protection and fire protection. We've mapped out the areas where we think we really need to work, and if you look at the ESH map there's very little conflict. And where there is conflict, there are a few exceptions always. Those can be resolved within the policies in the East Goleta Valley Community Plan.
So we urge you to approve this map because it's a useful tool. It helps us know we're doing the right thing. There is one rather major problem with the little disclaimer that the staff wants to put on the map. Now, we understand the maps not complete and we all need to be alert. There might be situations in which we unexpectedly encounter rare species or everything and We have flexibility in the community wildfire protection plan to avoid them.
But as currently phrased, the disclaimers on page 5 of the staff report implies that all chaparral in the mountains is an environmentally sensitive habitat. It's not I mean it's the map tells you 99% of the What I call ordinary chaparral is not protected, it's not ash. And whatever the problem that staff is trying to solve, I don't think it's appropriate to solve it by misstating the plan or misleading the public. We don't want people to be intimidated from doing what they have to do to defend their homes, create the minimum 100-foot defensible spaces required by state law. In some cases more is required.
Are discouraged from doing that by having to apply for permits or get a biological report that they don't really need. So I would strongly request that you direct staff to change that language on the disclaimer so it actually conforms to what East Goleta Valley Community Plan says, and there's a suggestion for that in the letter I submitted last Friday. As far as next steps, yeah we all want to know where the Esh is out there. I don't think a map is ever really going to solve the problem. Things change. We're gonna get a fire sooner or later and things may change a lot then.
What is a better investment? Is to make a nice public database record the locations where you know There's a vernal pool up there, it's on Forest Service land but I can tell you where it is. Get that kind of information make people know it so when they're about to go out there and do some work on their land they have a way of finding out without having to go through a prohibitively expensive permit process thanks thank you
Richard Halsey then we're gonna hear from Brian Baker who was our final
Good morning, it's an honor to be here. I'm Richard Halsey and with the California Chaparral Institute. My family has been involved with agriculture on the Moore Mesa since 1950 so we love this place. I want you to urge the rest of you to approve this new map that's including And I also include some of the rare species habitats that previous speakers have been talking about. It's important to cover it all for two reasons, and I'd like to submit two maps to you that will help explain this. The first one is produced by the US Forest Service, and I'll pass this around. What it really says is there are really two Californias.
There's the southern part of the state, which includes Santa Barbara here, which has more fire than ecosystems can actually tolerate. Then there is the northern part where areas have been missing fire cycles so it's important to understand this and its relationship to fire. The second map has to do with Climate change, and this has been produced by the state of California. Previous one again was by the US Forest Service.
And what this is showing you is based on the worst case scenario which a lot of climate scientists now say is going to be the given. If you can see the red areas on here, Santa Barbara's part of that. This is where chaparral is no longer going to be able So the important thing here is to look into the future rather than what we've seen already. And that's the essence of planning, because probably by the end of this century a lot of this common chaparral that you see today may very well be rare. So you want to make sure that you've got plans together now that will protect what's left in the future.
And I would like to make a couple of comments about fire for a moment, if I would. One of the previous speakers talked about how all this horrible nature has been the cause of the fires. Trees and forests in the Thomas Fire really had an insignificant role to play in how that spread. It was mostly spread by depending on where the areas are, by non-native grasses, grazelands, areas that have been there for a long time. The difference is, and the scientific community's really clear on this, Climate change and the severe patterns that we've seen because of the dryness and the lack of rain is really compromising the landscape, and it's just making it more flammable. And unfortunately Southern California wildfires are heading north as we're seeing now so we have to look into the future And think about how we're going to plan our policies and our land management plans that will account for that.
Not what has happened, but what may happen in the future. Thank you very much. One last thing, for some good after dinner reading I only have one of these. But it's a great testimony to what Chaparral is all about and why potentially it's very important to protect in the future especially. Here you go.
2:19 – 2:246 turns
Bryant Baker. Bryant will be our final speaker.
Good morning, Chair Williams and members of the board. My name is Bryant Baker I'm the Conservation Director at Los Padres Forest Watch. We're a Santa Barbara based non-profit that works to protect watersheds wildlife and wild places in and around the Los Padres National Forest and other public lands along the Central Coast. I'm going to be really brief I'm basically gonna be reiterating some of the previous comments In support of this updated ESH map.
We support the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan ESH map update, it's really important but we have a few suggested modifications. I'd like to point out that the map would protect some Chaparral areas as ESH and as Rick who you just heard from talked about the importance of Chaparral. Especially as we face a changing climate. It's one of the rarest ecosystems on earth and it is the one that I would say truly defines our region.
That's one of the reasons it's so important to protect it, Chaparral for its ecosystem services and our natural heritage here along the central coast. And it contains more plant diversity, biodiversity and rare plant species than any other vegetation community in the state of California. Unfortunately, the ash map update excludes most types of ash including all the rare species habitats. So we urge the board to direct the planning staff to add all known ash types including rare species habitats to the map in order to better inform the public landowners planners about the presence of sensitive habitats and that we should be striving to protect I'd also like to just I just wanted to point out that defensible space, which was brought up earlier is exempt from this in this plan.
And that's an important thing to keep in mind. Thank you.
That concludes public comment.
Supervisor Wolk?
Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask Ms Harris Some of the public speakers talked about the CNDB information and you touched on it in your presentation. But I would like you just to clarify that this information, while it may not be part of the map itself, that it will be available to the public? And that's my understanding so if you could just confirm that.
Supervisor Wolfe through the chair. Yes, indeed we are going to be working with California Fish and Wildlife to be able to make available CNDDB data. It will not be exactly the data that they make available to us because we do have a license agreement and Allowances and limitations into how we can present the data. One of the reasons we do not recommend putting the CNDDB data on the map is that, that is a living document whenever they get new information submitted to them to include in their statewide database.
We'll vet that information and determine, and make sure it meets their criteria before they add it to their database. In addition there are some caveats that have to be provided when people do look at the data because their maps consist of a variety of polygons or circles. And the larger the polygon or circle, The information that they obtained and whether that information, so we try to put more specifics on our ESH map where we feel comfortable that the ESH exists. But it doesn't mean that ESH exists elsewhere. The CNDDB's map will put these variety of polygons from really small where it's certain to very large where it's more uncertain.
Because of that, and because they update this on a regular basis. And every month they let us know when they've updated the map for our area and provide us with new information if they have any for our area. We couldn't provide updated information to that on our ESH map because our ESH map is adopted by your board and it must go through public process. So we'll be working with them Thank you that's what I was understanding.
2:24 – 2:305 turns
I guess I'll make a comment. First of all, thanks to everyone who came out. Those who were at the public meeting, those who attended the planning commission, those who were involved in the development of the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan. As was stated many times this is an update to what was already Thank you. Mr. Chair and members of the board this is an update in the community plan in 1993. This is an update does it include all ash and riparian corridor species? No. In fact that has been Those are the people who did the flyover and marked the map. They said specifically that this project is only a bird's eye view of the cover that was mapped, thus the cover of understory layers which were obscured by overstory layers were not included in this analysis.
So yes, we would like to have had everything mapped but that wasn't what was part of what we were fiscally able to do. Might this happen in the future? In future boards it may request that we do an updated map. That may occur but at this time I think what we have before us is It's a good thing, and it's used as a tool for our planning staff. It's used as a tool for the public to help them make appropriate decisions.
So I mean obviously board members may have comments or questions but I'm hopeful that we can move this forward. I think the information and additional language that was proposed, the new text that was proposed by staff at the Planning Commission is appropriate. It deals, it mentions section EGV 5.2 and 5.4 which is very specific on the types of ESH. So I think staff has done an exceptional job in pulling together all of the information with the financial support Supervisor Adam.
You know, first of all, ESH is over broad and vague in my opinion. As defined everything's ESH. If it's special it's ESH? That's just too much. Aerial photographic mapping in my experience is notoriously inaccurate. There's too great an area here. I think it's just an improper use of a community plan, too much over-regulation, also denial of fire management and I think it's going to overly complicate fire management for people in those rural areas and that could be tragic.
And yes, she is going to be out there long after we're all gone. So I'm not gonna be supporting
this. I'll just ask a couple questions first. I just want to see if staff has some reaction to sort of Both sides of the debate, the augmentations that are being requested by the environmental community. This is not something that could just be done today. This would require additional work, additional expense and in the meantime if we didn't adopt it today, we wouldn't have the increased protections of ash that would be highlighted by having this map. Is that correct?
Mr. Chair, members of the board that is correct
and on the other side we have this sort of question about the introductory statement you know my understanding is the substantive part of this does not interfere with the community's ability to adopt Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm here to talk about the community wildfire protection plan am I getting the acronym right? The CWPP and therefore it's sort of the argument is that the perception of this would interfere but not
2:30 – 2:3515 turns
I'm sorry to interrupt. On the CWPP on that issue, I am required to recuse myself. But I don't know if in this context I'm going to ask Mr. Gazzone what I need to do at this time or if it's okay if I'm still here?
In this case Supervisor Wolf had alerted me to a letter by Mr. Seymour that
includes
two parts,
first
comments about
the ESH
map
itself January and February 2017. Supervisor Wolf through Office of County Council had informed the Fair Political Practices Commission that she was recusing herself from actions on the Community Welfare Protection Plan, although she did not believe she had a conflict. And the FPPC agreed with the proposal from my office that the second district staff itself is not prohibited from coordinating with county departments and going to community meetings about the Community Welfare Protection Plan. All of that takes us to Part 3, which is that although recusal is always a personal decision I have not heard anything in the agendized materia itself that triggers Supervisor Wolf's prior decision to recuse from the Community Welfare Protection Plan.
And if the board wanted to discuss or consider Mr. Seymour's request to provide direction to staff about the community wildfire protection plan staffing, maybe that's something that Supervisor Wolf could recuse from and just leave the room and the board could have that discussion separately but I don't see anything that would require you to recuse from this item itself.
So with that, maybe you can answer the question?
Well, are we agendized to deal with the fire protection plan?
No. I think it's just obvious that the question that's been arisen from testimony is this In essence, a proxy battle over stuff that is coming down the line perhaps with CWPP. And I would like to know whether it prejudges that or because the question has been raised is that this interferes with wildlife protection under fire and it's my understanding substantively it does not.
Mr. Chair and members of the board, Mr. Chair I believe you are correct this would not have any substantive effect on that process for the CWPP. The plan policies addressing fuel management and the amendments to the LUDC which specifically allow for exemptions from the S requirements if you're doing Fuel management around your personal property and around your particular home on your property. Those exemptions continue, and none of the policies or the LUDC would be amended as part of this map update.
So I think what I'm hearing from one side is, we like this plan but we want you to do more. And what I'm hearing from the other side is, we like this plan but we don't want you to take it too far. And what I am suggesting is why don't we just stop today at just the first part? Is that we all like this as an improvement and save the battle for the second part for another day.
The maps are useful, they are not gospel. Obviously with FEMA maps I've gotten a lot of experience with people sometimes wanting improvements to a map but you can look at the map of the world and say it's totally wrong. Africa is way bigger than that. You can point out a million things that are wrong with the standard map of the world, it doesn't stop it from being a useful tool. And my point is here this is a better tool than what we have and would like to support Supervisor Wolf's sentiment that we adopted today. Thank you.
Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you Mr. Chair, I had a question about the disclaimers and it is a tool and it's not comprehensive, it won't answer all questions so I'd like you to talk a little bit about the disclaimers and maybe where they point elsewhere I also want to put in a plug for the Santa Barbara County Conservation Blueprint, which is something that was funded by the Santa Barbara Foundation and many other partners. That has many kinds of data layers and I hope this is going to be included in that.
That allow the public and even government agencies to ask different questions and layer data together to answer those questions. So that's the first thing, and then I'd like to come back to something else but would like to have Ms. Harris answer that.
2:36 – 2:4010 turns
Mr. Chair and Commissioner, Supervisor, apologize, Hartman. The disclaimer is put on the map precisely to make it clear to people that the map isn't gospel, as Supervisor Williams pointed out. It is a tool. It provides information where we feel comfortable that there is ESH, but it doesn't mean that it's all ESH and that's because of the inherent difficulties with trying to map everything and the costs involved with trying to map everything. So the disclaimer is to provide information and to inform people that they should also go to the policies in the plan to get more information about what is ESH. And then if they have more questions, to consult with the planning department staff To find more answers.
So you don't refer, in other words to any of the other databases including Fish and Wildlife or the blueprint?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair we do not refer to the CNDDB because the CNDDB's Information that's available to the public is essentially a list. It doesn't provide any geographic information about where things are available, they're very reserved about what they will release. We have the information and if someone were to come into the county and talk with our counter staff, that staff can look it up and has access to it and can work with a landowner to find out what might be occurring on their property or near their property. We also have this biological resources data layer where we've compiled a lot of information over the years from a lot of different sources of documents, including project EIRs and other surveys that had been done in the past.
That information is also available on our GIS. It is available publicly if somebody has GIS and requests the information. Our staff has provided before, so for example there are biologists who do consulting work who have obtained the bio resources layer and they use it to help them do bio studies for a particular client.
Thank you, well that opened up the issue of how will people actually use this and I think that's very helpful to know. And it just leads into my second comment which has to do with the community wildfire protection plan and I appreciate what Mr. Seymour had to say. That if we're intelligent about this, Supervisor Lavanino. Thank you Mr. Chair.
I guess my two questions have pretty much been answered, and I just want to make sure. So folks that are clearing defensible space around their houses regardless if it somehow encroaches into these new maps still are exempt from having to go out and get a permit?
Supervisor Lavinino through the chair, as long as they comply with the county fire department standards for making and maintaining defensible space.
Okay, and then who brings back the wildfire protection plan? And where are we at on that?
I'm not sure if this is a time that Supervisor Wolff has to recuse herself.
So I think we could have the brief discussion, brief question and answer. And then again, I think a housekeeping point would be if the board wants to provide scheduling direction later that could follow right after this item. Supervisor Wolf could recuse from that.
Supervisor Lavanina through the chair. So my office has been coordinating that, Mr. Buzanich who's on vacation this week but there had been work by the development team. The last draft I saw had an April 2018 date that it was completed and then Mr. Seymour said it was done six months ago. We can bring an update back to the board. There had been some issues I think Mr. Buzan was just trying to make sure there was collaboration and cooperation of all those who were initially part of the development team.
We also had some staff changes, there's an internal staff group that included a couple I just wanted to know if there was anything I see, some representatives from FIRE.
2:41 – 2:4715 turns
You had any comments or you wanted to weigh in at all, or are you just here for questions? Okay perfect. Well I guess I do have a question then if you'd like to come forward. I just want to know in your opinion does this in any way hamper your ability to fight fire in this area?
We, this is not the place for our fuels driven debate here. Certainly anything that would impede some of the prevention aspects of us trying to manage the wild land would do that. I agree and I think there's a collaborative approach and This step is not adversarial to that. And I think that we can still come up with some mitigations to provide safe engagement opportunities for firefighters.
Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. I know you're walking a tightrope pretty much and so are we and that's the thing is I think everybody's trying To that point, I would just add that in
defense of these CWPPs If you map out and you plan something, in my view, you can do vegetation removal that is more environmentally benign and more protective of species. Then when you do it during a fire where all CEQA is exempted and It could be a dozer crew from out of county that doesn't even know what the species are, cruising along bulldozing everything. So to me as an environmentalist it makes sense to me that you do it in advanced thoughtful way instead of just around large fire events.
Supervisor Wolf, unless you want to close. I was going to make a motion. Okay. Supervisor Hartman? Just have
a question. This is a process or scheduling question. If I understand it we have two things coming back the community wildlife protection plan and then some kind of presentation about fuel management more generally and I just wonder how those relate to one another. How
Supervisor Hartman is referring to an item that Chief Peterson is planning to bring, I believe in early October just to talk about what efforts have been done on field management and to provide an educational opportunity for the public and get any board direction. The CWPP, I'm not sure when we'll be able to bring that back to the Board. Again staff will have to review it.
County Council's input on it and talk about next steps. So I'm not sure the timing of it, they may be related. Obviously the CWPP for Eastern Goleta Valley is much more targeted to this particular area. I believe Chief Peterson is talking in general about fields management.
Might I address the board on that? If you want to, if you can answer that question. The county adopted a process for developing
CWPPs and it's basically led by a citizen group which is the development team that was referred to all we want now is for County staff to give us their comments so we can complete a draft that will then go to public hearings And we will present it to the board in due time, but we would just like to be able to get it out to the public. If they're not able to comment after all the time that's been allowed, maybe we just need to go ahead and they can come to a public hearing. But we need to go forward on this, not wait two more years.
Mr. Gazzani? Chair and supervisors, just through an abundance of caution my recommendation would be that if you want to have further discussions about scheduling on CWPP that maybe first take the vote on this item and allow Supervisor Wolfe to recuse and leave the room.
Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you for all the comments from my colleagues.
And I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we move forward with staff's recommendation A, B, C and D. Specifically adopting the ordinance amendment to section 35-1 of Santa Barbara County Land Use and Development Code of Chapter 35 zoning of the county code amending the EGVCP-RZ zoning overlay map for rural areas as noted in attachment 3.
I'll second. There's a motion and second, any comment on the motion? All those in favor please say aye. Aye.
Opposed?
It's 4 to 1. We will, I think there is a desire to talk about scheduling update so if Supervisor Wolf wishes to recuse herself. Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you. Well, I would like to see the Community Wildfire Protection Plan expedited. I think that this is the approach moving forward that very effectively helps us address and balance issues having to do with fuel management. And I think being able to see what this looks like would help the discussion that we're going to have with our fire chiefs so They may not come together, but I would encourage the county to move forward on whatever is needed to complete the process for the community wildfire protection plan.
2:48 – 2:507 turns
And I don't think I'm looking at a crystal ball. I have to look at a crystal ball to know that there's that's a sentiment that's widely shared on the board so it is Maybe appropriate to just say yes, we'll make it happen or appropriate if you want to give us more details.
Supervisors, we can certainly make that happen with an update to the board. I'm looking at our guidelines that Mr. Seymour referred to the board adopted in 2011. The process and the processes to make sure that once the plan is developed to allow for review by the working group which is the staff group. And again, Okay, I'll go get Supervisor Wolf and we can continue now with one more item before lunch. That is Departmental Item 3.
So just an announcement on behalf of staff, for staff and the public that we're going to hear item three. And then the board's gonna break for lunch. We'll hear item four after the lunch break.
Start? Okay. Mike, do you want to read or should we just...
I'll take over as vice chair.
Let's move to item three. Mr. Allen would you read it into the record please?
Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Item three is from community services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the approval of a $3,175,437 loan in federal home and inclusionary housing ordinance in lieu funds for the residences at Depot Street project in Santa Maria and fiscal year 2017-18 action plan substantial amendment. This is in the fifth district.
2:50 – 2:559 turns
Good morning, Vice Chair Lavagnino and members of the Board. Today we're here before you to present the residents of Home Depot Street located in Santa Maria for consideration of funding. With me in presenting will be Senior Housing Program Specialist Matt Kropke and our Grants and Programs Manager Lori Baker. I'll turn this over to Matt.
Good morning, Vice Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara is requesting Federal Home Investment Partnership Funds or HOME funds for the residences at Depot Street Development Project. HCD is recommending the board approve a loan of just under $2 million. The actual numbers are on the slide in home funds and under $1.2 million in inclusionary housing In lieu funds for a total of just under $3.2 million to the residents of Depot Street LP.
Staff will return to the board on August 28th for approval and execution of the loan documents. I'll describe the project a little bit later. The county receives an annual allocation of home funds from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. To be used to expand the supply of affordable housing to low income households. Approval of the home funds for this project requires submission of an action plan substantial amendment to HUD.
Today concludes a 30 day public comment period on the proposed amendment. No comments were received on the item at this time. The property is located at 201 and 205 North Depot Street, near West Main Street in Santa Maria. The proposed use of the property is to provide permanent housing for homeless households and persons with disabilities. A total of 80 rental units divided between two buildings will include six studios, 32 one bedroom, 36 two-bedroom, and six three-bedroom units.
A project description is included with the board letter as attachment B. This slide shows the development costs and financing sources for the project. Note the home slash in lieu loan on the left side, about four down. And the total estimated development cost at the bottom gives you an idea of the proportion that this loan is providing roughly 8.5% of the project costs.
In addition to the roughly $3.2 million in HOME and INLU funds, the board will also consider a loan to this project by the Department of Behavioral Wellness on August 28th for roughly $2.4 million in Mental Health Services Act or MHSA funds. Total funding from all county sources, MHSA, HOME and INLUE of roughly $5.6 million is required to complete the project.
This is a summary of today's recommended actions. We are happy to answer any questions you might have. Additionally, John Polanski of the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara is in attendance if you had any project related questions. Thank you, this concludes the staff report.
Questions from board? Is there a request to speak?
No requests to speak.
Supervisor Labanino. Thank you Mr. Chair, I just want to thank everybody that's kind of brought this to fruition there's been a increased I guess sensitivity in the city of Santa Maria for folks that are homeless and there's been a considerable push for outreach and the problem is at the end of that outreach is there's just limited spaces for people to go and so I think this would be great help I know we're spending a lot of time and energy on the front end now with Home for Good and United Way, where you've got AmeriCorps volunteers out there dealing with people. But like I said at the end of the day somebody still needs a front door and a roof over their head so this is going to go a long way into Rectifying that situation.
I do have one question, so when we provide the loan and it moves forward how does the upkeep, the maintenance, how is that all built into the funding?
Supervisor Lavagnino through
the Chair.
The operating expenses have been calculated to cover those ongoing costs and would be covered by rental income through vouchers.
Great, all right thank you very much
2:55 – 4:173 turns
And I just want to take the opportunity to encourage you to look for the opportunity to do a project in the South County, particularly Carpinteria where our per capita production of housing is the lowest in that entire county. And where our discussions ironically over marijuana with the city led to at least an opening that they're very open and All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That went faster than I thought.
Can you give us a primer on closed session? Mr. Gazzani?
Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board is agendized to consider five matters. Three cases of existing litigation. The first is O'Keefe versus County of Santa Barbara. Second is County of Santa Barbara versus Southern California Edison. And the third is a public employment board item, Service Employees International Union Local 721 versus County of Santa Barbara. And that was added on Friday. You also have two other items, one matter of anticipated litigation for significant exposure to civil litigation and conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives. And my estimate is between an hour and a quarter and an hour and a half.
Thank you, Mr. Gazzani. We will return 115. We'll reconvene. Report from closed session.
4:17 – 4:2219 turns
Chair Williams and supervisors, today in closed session the board considered five matters, three cases of existing litigation which were O'Keefe versus County of Santa Barbara, County of Santa Barbara versus Southern California Edison and Service Employees International Union Local 721 versus County of Santa Barbara within the Public Employment Relations Board.
Departmental item number four.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item four is from Public Works and to the Board of Directors of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District and from General Services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Lower Mission Creek reaches 2B phase two and three fee acquisitions. This is in the first district this requires a fourth as well.
Please proceed Mr. Fair.
I believe Mr. Gazzone might start.
Chair and Supervisors this is an area although most of the board's actions concerning resolution of necessity are clearly legislative actions, I would recommend ex parte disclosures at this point in case there are any questions that might arise from contacts you've had concerning this matter
Let's move on down. I've had no ex parte to report. I have had no ex parte to report. None.
Nothing other than an email. And
none for me.
Chair and Supervisor Wolf, were you referring to the email that contained the letter of objection from the landowner's attorney?
Correct.
Okay thank you.
And are there any questions of the board members? Mr. Chair
and members of the board, I have two short slides just to show you in general where this property is in relation to Lower Mission Creek. I'll note that at this point in time all of the lower reaches below Highway 101 have been constructed are now in place And I would also note that during the construction of the Crosstown Freeway, Caltrans built the additional part which will become part of what we call the bypass part of the project. The property that we're talking about today sits strategically right at the upstream end of US 101 and For the culvert system that diverts water, that gets to the capacity that we need. And then also the remaining natural channel which is left in place. So that's where this two areas divert. The close up here shows the subject parcel with Mission Creek running through it and again this is the point of diversion for the bypass culvert and where the natural channel also continues.
And that ends my report.
Any questions of the board at this time? Is a public hearing to allow the owners of the property or their representative and any person who will be impacted By the project to address the district only with the following issues. Whether the project is necessary, whether the project is planned and located in a manner which is most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. And whether the property is necessary for the project and whether a written offer has been made to the owner.
Mr. Clerk, has there been any letters that are requested to be made part of the record?
Mr. Chair, no.
Is there anyone here to address the board on this matter?
I've not received any speaker slips
Chair Williams and again, just calling your attention to the fact that there was a letter of objection from the Silverstein Law Firm that was attached to the electronic record available to the public. And that is dated August 13th 2018 objections to the departmental agenda and that's part of the record that's available to the public.
So I'll now call public hearing on this item and ask the clerk of the board to please call forward the owner of the property or the representative if they are here.
4:22 – 4:2621 turns
We've received no requests to speak from anyone in attendance at the hearing today.
Any discussion from the board? Can I get a motion? Supervisor
Hartman. I would like to ask Mr. Fairam just for the record if he could comment on the Silverstein letter contention that the county hasn't gone back to the long-plan partial and temporary easement takings rather than the current full take. I'd like it on the record why we...
Yes, Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman The project through its development and through the EIR also contemplated this as being an expanded habitat zone. And then in addition, it's strategic location for construction of the upper part of this project is really a key to not only for the construction of the project but also our ongoing maintenance and then ultimately would be expanded habitat zone which was identified in the projects EIR.
And Chair Williams and Supervisor Hartman, I'd also comment that within the electronic record of the hearing General Services submitted two memos on August 6th. The first concerning the proposed resolution necessity and the second relating to an amendment to the resolution. And I would ask just through a procedural vote that Although they're posted already, just to make clear that those have been adopted into the record of this proceeding. Both memos from General Services.
I would move then that both of those documents are part of our formal record in this decision.
And the approval of A, B and C?
I think we want to take these separately.
Okay.
I'll second that.
Second,
yeah. Any comment on that particular portion of this? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed?
That's unanimous. And then as the board is moving forward I note that the second memo provided by General Services was a brief amendment to the resolution for the project as originally docketed and that was throughout the resolution to remove the words quote reach 2B phase two and three end quote and that was into two places as well as a change in the date to August
Supervisor Adam. I'll
just make a motion to that effect.
Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed?
And again at the risk of covering the same ground, I understand that Supervisor Adams' motion was to move staff's recommendations as amended for the slightly reworded resolution that was docketed on August 6th. Is that correct? Yes it is.
And that is inclusive of A, B and C. Clarification, is that true?
What I'm looking at is the August 6th memo with the changes.
But I understood that your motion was to move staff's recommended actions as agendized for item 4, A, B and C as amended through the slightly reworded resolution that I described that was docketed on August 6th?
Correct. Okay. That has a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you.
4:26 – 4:319 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item five is from Public Works. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 15A of the Santa Barbara County Code related to floodplain management.
Good afternoon Mr. Chair, members of the board John Fryer engineering manager will be giving you a short presentation on this item mostly a housekeeping item on our chapter 15a floodplain management
Thank You Tom mr. Chair members of the board we are here to contemplate amending chapter 15a of the Santa Barbara County Code the floodplain management ordinance This ordinance was adopted in the 1970s to bring the county into the National Flood Insurance Program. There's a number of advantages with that, it allows residents to buy flood insurance through the federal program.
It also opens up an opportunity for federal disaster relief for both individual parties and the county in the event that a federally declared event occurs. The ordinance is intended to promote for the public health, safety and welfare. And it includes a number of building standards which are intended to minimize flood losses. The proposed changes fall into two categories. First category is a number of housekeeping items that FEMA brought to our attention with their request slash requirement to incorporate into this code in order to bring it up to conformance with their model for floodplain management.
All routine items. And then the second category is to acknowledge the board's action on June 19th, to adopt the FEMA recovery mapping that was provided to us by FEMA to cover the Thomas Burn area. So the items include routine things such as updating references to vertical datums from a 1929 to a 1988 datum. It gets into referencing the FEMA recovery mapping, it gets into procedures that are required when contemplating changes to the mapping which are known as letters of map revision.
More changes, two letters of map revisions are called out. And lastly anytime a county border changes FEMA wants to be notified about it. So what staff is recommending action be taken today is approval of actions A, B and C. The first reading and introduction and to return on August 21st for the second reading and the adoption of these amendments. And if there's any questions we'd be happy to take them.
Questions from the board? Is there any public comment on this item?
No request to speak.
Then it's to the board, is there any misconceptions that you think the public has had that you want to make sure that you clarify since maybe there are some folks watching on TV or watch the hearing
Mr. Chair, what I may say to that is that the timing on this amendment was driven initially by FEMA and it had nothing to do with the 1-9 debris flow. It was totally housekeeping in order to bring up the code. They review our code every so often and they do when they tell us what they want changed. And then the timing was coincidental with the separate action of the FEMA recovery mapping. So I thought it was a good idea to wrap those actions into this amendment as well.
Thank you, that's what we were fishing for is understanding the relationship and the relationship really is there is none except they're both under your bailiwick. Great. Any other questions or comments from the board? Mr. Gazzani?
Chair and supervisors, we had one housekeeping recommendation that is in the presentation I believe it discussed continuing the hearing to the administrative agenda on the 21st but that meeting has been canceled as posted on the agenda that now reads to continue until the administrative agenda on August 28th.
4:31 – 4:428 turns
So can I get a motion with that change to the 28th?
So moved.
Motion second, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. We'll move to departmental item number six.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item six is from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the adoption of amendments to the county land use and development code, Montecito land use and development code in article two, the coastal zoning ordinance to revise existing development standards and permit procedures to implement state law regarding accessory dwelling units And amend the Santa Barbara County Uniform Rules for Ag Preserves and Farmland Security Zones to allow ADUs as a compatible use on agricultural preserve contracted lands. As you recall, we did trail item A25.
For the administrative agenda and if you'd like I can read them to the record now.
Sure, and I'll just say if you are monitoring this on TV because you didn't think the ADU ordinance was going to come up this fast Hurry down here because it is being taken out
Chair Williams, members of the board then item 825 from planning and development is to consider recommendations running submittal to the California Coastal Commission for certification of amendments to the Santa Barbara County Local Coastal Program for the Highway 101 Carpentaria to Santa Barbara Local Coastal Program Amendment Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
So Mr. Chair, just to clarify A25 was we requested that that be trailed until after the ADU ordinance if your board does take action on ADU today then we would recommend adopting A25 as it was submitted and if you don't then we would take out the ADU ordinance and simply submit the 101 HOV lien project. Understood. And with that I'm going to turn it over to Jesse Steele who's going to give a staff presentation
Good afternoon, Chair Williams and supervisors. My name is Jessie Steele and today I'm going to be presenting the Accessory Dwelling Unit or ADU ordinance amendments. In 2017 and 2018, long range planning staff prepared draft amendments to the county land use and development code. Montecito Land Use and Development Code and Article 2 in response to new state legislation that made it easier for homeowners to develop ADUs.
On September 12, 2017 staff presented the proposed amendments to your board. And the board directed staff to address six issues which we will review in the next few slides and then to return to the planning commissions and board with revised amendments. Accordingly, staff returned to the Montecito Planning Commission on January 3rd and the County Planning Commission on March 28th of this year with revised amendments that streamlined the permit process for ADUs.
After these hearings, staff made final revisions to the proposed amendments which are shown in attachments three, four and five to the board letter. And at the request of the County Planning Commission, staff has also prepared an amendment to the uniform rules for agricultural preserves and farmland security zones to allow ADUs as a compatible use on agricultural preserve contracted lands.
And that's going to be contained in attachment six, exhibit one to the board letter. Since the last planning commission hearings, staff has made several major changes to the proposed amendments including changing the permit required for ADUs. The Planning Commission's recommended permitting ADUs with land use permits. However state law requires that local agencies approve or disapprove ADUs ministerially and without discretionary review.
Therefore, to streamline the permit process and ensure compliance with this requirement. Staff revised the proposed amendments to create a three tier permitting structure for ADUs. In the inland area, the first two categories of ADUs qualify for an exemption. And the third category qualifies for zoning clearance. The first category of exemptions, which we'll call Exemption 1 is for ADUs that specifically comply with the provisions of government code section 65852.2 subsection E.
These ADUs must be located within the existing space of a one family dwelling or accessory building on a lot zone for one family use. They must also have independent exterior access from the principal dwelling, and have sufficient side and rear setbacks for fire safety purposes. ADUs allowed with this exemption are not subject to additional parking standards or standards for special problems areas.
ADUs that comply with some but perhaps not all of these criteria may still qualify for an exemption, but they would likely qualify under Exemption 2. For example, ADUs located within existing one family or multiple family dwellings or accessory buildings are allowed with an exemption provided that they're located on a lot for one family or multiple family use.
These ADUs must comply with a few standards that limit the extent of exterior alterations and the size of the ADU. These ADUs also must comply with additional standards including those related to ADUs in special problems areas. And lastly, ADUs that are located either partially within an existing building or within a new building on lot zone for one or multiple family use are allowed with the zoning clearance.
These ADUs must comply with additional standards related to design height size parking tree protection etc. In addition, the director may send these ADU applications to the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission or the chair of the Montecito Board of Architectural Review for comments. These ADUs are also subject to additional standards including standards for ADUs in special problems areas.
One of the additional items that the board asked staff to look into was to clarify the regulations for on-site wastewater treatment systems for ADUs. The County Environmental Health Services Division, or EHS, regulates these systems pursuant to county code chapter 18C and the county's local agency management plan or LAMP. EHS implements their regulations through the Planning and Development Department's planning and building permit process.
And the county building code requires that these dwelling units are served by either public sewer or an approved OWTS. Staff recommends that all ADUs continue to require public sewer where available or an approved OWTS that's approved by EHS. And pursuant to the county building code, we are going to require that this EHS approval occur prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Next, the board directed staff to clarify the start of the 120 day application review period for ADUs. According to state law, the county must approve or deny ADUs within 120 days of application submittal. This applies to planning and or building permits. The Planning Commission's recommended that this 120 day deadline be included in the proposed amendments.
However it's not required nor is it the normal practice for the county to include internal deadlines within the zoning ordinances. Furthermore, pending legislation may shorten this review period to only 60 days. Therefore staff has removed the deadline from the proposed amendments. However regardless of whether or not it is included in the proposed amendments we plan to still implement it internally.
Next, the board directed staff to submit the proposed amendments to state HCD for review. Accordingly, staff submitted the Montecito and County Planning Commission's proposed amendments to HCD in February and April of this year. HCD completed a cursory review of the proposed amendments and provided verbal comments on April 18th. And staff correspondence with HCD can be found in attachment 11 to the board letter.
To address HCD's comments, staff added language to the proposed ADU development standards. To clarify that ADUs are allowed on lot zone for one family and multiple family uses. Staff also added language to these standards clarifying that the setbacks for fire safety clearances are pursuant to the current adopted edition of the California Fire Code. And lastly, staff revised the proposed amendments to eliminate planning permit requirements for ADUs within existing one family dwellings or accessory buildings pursuant to government code section 65852.2 subsection E.
Lastly, the board directed staff to reconcile inconsistencies between the Montecito and County Planning Commission's recommendations for the proposed amendments which differed in regards to nine standards. Per the board's direction, staff has revised the proposed amendments to reconcile these differences with one exception and has recommended one standard to be applied countywide.
For this one exception, staff retained the provisions that allow the director to send Montecito ADU applications to the MBAR chair for comment. As discussed in section 2.6 of the board letter, staff revised the proposed amendments to implement the county planning commission's recommendations for In summary, staff removed the Montecito Pine Commission's recommended lot coverage, owner occupancy and site preparation standards.
Staff also revised the proposed amendments to allow for the following. Mechanical automobile lifts may be used for replacement parking. ADUs are allowed in the resource management zone. The director may send applications to the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission for review and comment. And the location of detached ADUs is to be determined by lot size. And lastly, the maximum size of an ADU is 8% of the net lot area up to 1,200 square feet.
The State Legislature is currently considering Assembly Bill
4:43 – 4:4812 turns
On that, that doesn't mean I don't think the county PC's recommendation is better. I just want to compare it in my head. What square footage would then be allowed on a half acre or three-fourths of an acre lot? And if you don't want to do the math this second, just come back to it if you don't mind.
We can certainly come back to that in a moment, Chair. Chair Williams and Supervisors, a half acre at 8% of the net lot area would be over 1700 square feet. So they would be subject to the 1200 square foot maximum.
So then it would be safe to say that the county planning commission's recommendation was far more generous in square footage allowed than the MPCs won?
Chair Williams, supervisors yes that is correct. The state legislature is currently considering Assembly Bill 2890, which proposes to amend government code section 6585 2.2 and would affect the county's ADU regulations. In part, this bill would limit the county's ability to impose lot size or lot coverage restrictions on ADUs. It would shorten the 120 day application review period to 60 days.
Increase the minimum ADU size from 150 to 800 square feet. Expand the types of ADUs exempt from planning permit requirements and also allow for multiple ADUs on certain qualifying lots. Staff will continue to track the state legislature's progress on this bill
and its
implications.
One more question, Supervisor. Just
a quick, so 1200 still remains the maximum size even under the new proposed legislation?
Chair Williams, Supervisor Hartman. Yes the 1200 square foot maximum would still apply however currently our minimum size requirement is an efficiency unit which is 150 square feet so that requirement would change. Staff recommends that the board determine that the proposed LUDC, MLUDC and uniform rules amendments affecting the inland area portions of the county are exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15282H.
And this section provides a statutory exemption for cities and counties to adopt ADU ordinance amendments to implement government code section 6585 2.2. And staff also recommends that the board determine that the proposed article two and uniform rules amendments affecting the coastal zone portions of the county are exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15265, which exempts government activities involving the preparation and adoption of local coastal program amendments.
On August 10th, staff identified two revisions that should be made to the proposed ADU ordinance amendments and they're detailed in the staff memo dated August 10th 2018. First, staff added language clarifying that the additional standards related to ADU fees, passageways, utilities and rental and sale shall also apply to ADUs that are located entirely within existing one family dwellings or accessory buildings. Those ADUs that were listed under exemption 1.
These amendments can be seen in the revised attachments 3, 4 and 5 to the staff memo dated August 10th 2018. These additional standards also clarify that ADUs should not be used as short term rentals and cannot be sold separately from the principal dwelling. Second, staff revised the standards to clarify the procedures for proposed ADUs in special problems areas.
Including an additional requirement that specifically applies to the Mission Canyon planning area. As revised, the proposed LUDC amendment allows the director to approve ADUs in special problems areas including those in Mission Canyon provided that the ADUs first comply with all of the applicable development standards and also have been reviewed by the Special Problems Area Committee.
Mr Chair?
Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, thank you. Who comprises that Special Problems Committee? Is it staff or citizens of the community and who appoints
4:48 – 4:536 turns
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Wolf, the Special Problems Area Committee is comprised of staff members from various departments, Public Works, Flood Control, Environmental Health, Surveyor, there may be another but it's staff from those departments that make recommendations.
And maybe elaborate on this one, because I was under the impression that community plans were still applicable in the state law. And of course Mission Canyon happened to be the one place where the community plan said nothing, it's because of a high fire zone conflict. So what's the reasoning behind this?
So Mr. Chair and members of the board, the current ordinances which are no longer applicable but current ordinances had a special provision for Mission Canyon to allow second residential units in areas where there were two abutting lots. And the adjacent lot wasn't developed and they were under common ownership. So it didn't require that the lots be merged, but it allowed an ADU to be developed as long as that lot remained vacant. So its a very specific situation still in Mission Canyon where an ADU would be allowed because of the community plan policy.
Understood. Sorry we keep on interrupting you.
That's all right. In conclusion, staff recommends that your board take the following recommended actions. First make the required findings for approval including CEQA findings. Second determine that the project is exempt from CEQAs pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15282H and 15265. Third, adopt the ordinances amending the LUDC, MLUDC and Article 2 as attached to the staff memorandum dated August 10th 2018.
And lastly, adopt the resolution amending the uniform rules as attached to the board letter as attachment six. And that concludes my presentation. Staff can answer any additional questions you may have.
Mr. Chair, before you move on if I could just make a couple of comments. Just echoing a few issues that Jesse presented in the staff presentation. First of all on the onsite wastewater system, I think your board was concerned about whether or not the two acre limitation was going to be applied by environmental health and I believe they are. Environmental health is available up in the North County hearing room. Not positive. Given our experience this morning, but that was our understanding. They are not going to be applying the two acre minimum standard so I just wanted the board to be aware of that. But they do want to make sure that the septic systems are adequate to deal with the additional load.
In terms of the 120 day requirement and the fact that we are proposing not to put that requirement in the ordinance. I draw a corollary to the shot clock requirement for Telecommunication facilities, and we did not put that in our ordinance either. Even though we are extremely aware and careful to meet those requirements because we don't want development to be automatically approved. And the reason we didn't include it for telecom is pretty much the same reason we're recommending that we not include it today for the ADUs. It changes over time. Those two areas of the law have evolved pretty rapidly, and you can see it takes us a while to get ordinances in place. And so it may, in fact, be outdated before it's really ever in effect. But I just wanted the board to be assured that we do monitor those deadlines carefully because they are the law.
And then my final comment is with regard to pending legislation I know the last time we were before the board, the board was concerned that there was pending legislation and some of it was adopted. There's pending legislation today too. I think it's time to get an ordinance in place. We know we're going to have to amend it probably in the future to address But right now we have nothing on the books in the inland area of the county. And we have approved or reviewed and almost approved over 100 ADUs since the state law changed. So I think it's good for us to have our own standards in the ordinance, and if we have to come back and make strategic changes based upon changes in the law then we will obviously do that. So just a few comments for your consideration.
4:53 – 4:5813 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair. I appreciate your comments on the sewer. One thing that I'm still unclear about is what impact or jurisdiction do our water purveyors have in any of this approval, if any?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Wolf, I'll answer the question I think you're asking. So if a property is within a water district or a sewer district then they are to be served by that water district or sewer district and they have to get approvals from the district. Can and will serve letters from the district for service. I think there are limitations under the law as to what those Districts can charge for hookup fees to address sort of the concern that these water districts and sewer districts are charging a pretty significant hookup fee which deters the development of ADUs but they still need to get can and will serve letters.
Okay so then I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my question, I guess by law, what I'm hearing you say is that water districts have to allow water hookups or provide water to ADUs.
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Wolf, if they have the ability to serve they have to provide the service. Okay
another question we talked you talked about getting a letter from HCD I'm curious if any of our ADU units would count toward RENA not any of our RENA numbers?
Chair Williams, Supervisor Wolfe. One to be clear staff did submit draft ordinances to HCD but they did not submit a formal comment letter. Staff had follow up conversations with them and they did provide some verbal comments. The second answer is yes ADUs will count toward the county's arena. And what we would do is go through and look at the units and determine kind of what income level they fit whether it's lower How
will you know that? Because an applicant doesn't, in their application for an ADU doesn't need to give that information right.
What we typically do and the practice we've had for when we prepare our general plan, annual progress reports is we actually go through and look at kind of what the typical rents are in particular areas. And then calculate that on a bedroom basis and come up with an estimate. Those are methodologies that HCD finds acceptable.
Okay. And I just, you know we had exchanged phone calls and you mentioned it in your presentation in discussing the difference between an ADU and a short-term rental. Because the whole purpose of this is to provide housing or housing alternative that it is in our ordinance to know that it has to be a rental over 30 days. So, so it's in our ordinance but if someone comes to the counter and asks for an ADU is that information are they advised of that clearly? That this is not to be used as a short-term rental,
Chair Williams, Supervisor Wolf, the way we've set up the proposed ordinances now that is essentially one of the standards that has to be met and would become a condition of approval for that project. So it is codified and that's one reason why we sent a revised memo is that in the original version Those ADUs that were in one family zones didn't have that standard applying to them. So we made a slight revision to ensure that that provision would apply as it does to ADUs, that would be allowed through other exemptions and the zoning clearance.
And thank you for that but I just want to ensure that if someone comes to the counter that they may not look at the entire ordinance. Is that something that they would be told?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Wolfe, yes. And in fact I think it would be extremely helpful because as you can see this is a pretty complicated issue and it sort of flows from the state law which is written in a fairly complex way. I think it would be very helpful for us to do a fact sheet that says if you're this ADU here's what applies and if you're this here's what applies and if it's this, this is what applies. And all of them would have the disclosure about not having it be a short term.
Okay, excellent thank you. Thank you Ms. Kutcher.
4:58 – 5:048 turns
I'll just float something. Is there been any thought to Seems like the Planning Commission made a slightly generous size thing, or maybe my idea of size is just warped by growing up in Santa Barbara. Because 1,200 square foot ADU seems like a house to me not an ADU. But it is the ceiling that was put in state law. I mean, was there any thought to having 7% or 6%, was there discussion at the planning commission? What was, I know there was discussion at the Montecito Planning Commission but trying to understand. And again my My concern would be less size, bulk and scale though that would be maybe other people's concern. My concern would be primarily affordability but please illuminate my understanding if there was discussion along those lines.
Chair Williams and Supervisors, through the last couple of County Planning Commission hearings they consistently recommended the 8% net lot area up to 1200 square foot regulation. However part of the maximum size regulations also say that the ADU can only be 50% of the living area of the dwelling. So if they're doing an addition to their house for example, Even if it's 1,200 square feet, it can't be bigger than their house radically.
Okay.
Mr Chair, Commissioner, Supervisors, one point to be clear about however is when we get to the category of ADUs that are allowed under subsection E of the government code and allowed under section E in the ordinances here. Those are ADUs that are within a zone for single family use. And are contained within an existing dwelling or an existing accessory building. There are no size limits on those in order to comply with state law, so if you come in and you have a garage for example that's 1800 square feet and you fit the criteria under subsection E of the government code.
then the county cannot apply any size requirements and the ADU could be 1,800 square feet or whatever the score footage of that structure is. So there's nothing we can do to control that. The other factor to consider is when we look at the 8%, so if you have a lot that say 10,000 square feet in size and apply the 8% you get an ADU that's say 800 square feet.
Once you go up to about 1,500 square feet then you get into an ADU that's 1,200 square feet and then you're basically topped out at that size. So it just then begins to apply the 8% becomes really moot and the upper limit, the maximum of 1,200 square feet is really what becomes effective in controlling at that point.
Gee we have people with 1800 square foot garages? That's just not my world. I might want to ask them if I could live in their garage. Well that's what they're doing in Santa Maria, that's why we have this ordinance. Supervisor Hartman
Thank you. The first thing I'd like to say is that, I think it would be helpful to have on the website a frequently asked questions. I frequently refer to the cannabis one and that is extremely helpful and well done user friendly so something like that would be helpful. My second question is, originally if I understood this ADUs apply to different zone districts.
Residential or AG1 or AG2 but maybe I had that wrong but what I understand now is that it's where a single family or multi-family so if it's AG1 or AG2 The same rules apply. So my question, I think I saw for Williamson Act an ADU has to be within the two acre development envelope is that correct? Is what I'm saying correct so far?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. Yes, for the uniform rules amendments, the ADU does have to be located within the applicable development envelope. I believe it's two acres as you mentioned. I'm sorry, the other part of your question
was? That's good enough. Then this question is for Miss Black and really goes to something a little different in the Gaviota Coast plan if there were an incentive for residential second unit or ADU. It could be outside that envelope or and maybe this is something for the future but I just wasn't. Do we have an additional incentive given the relationship?
5:04 – 5:1020 turns
Chair Williams and Supervisor Hartman, I think even the incentive dwelling units on the Gaviota Coast if they're on a parcel subject to a William Snapp contract would have to be within. Okay
thank you. And then I guess what I don't still understand is the difference between what exists now and what will exist especially in terms of exemption So say I've got a garage or a barn or something and I come in, and I think it's exempt. Do I still have to come in? What do I have to get? What does the process look like?
Supervisor Hartman, through the chair. You would come in to the counter and apply for a planning permit exemption. And in that process it wouldn't be applying for a permit but it would just basically be a checklist to ensure that what you're proposing is indeed exempt from planning permit requirements and you can move on to the building permit process.
Thank you, that helps a lot.
Supervisor Labadino. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is so strange for me because I always pictured like to me my thing was ADUs were always something separate from the house and now these are basically add-ons is what you're talking about as an inside the existing building it's just adding a room or garage conversion
Chair William, Supervisor Lavanino. An ADU could be a conversion of existing space or an existing accessory building on a property or it could be adding on to your house or an accessory building on a property or alternatively just building an entirely new structure.
Okay, so on your slides then when we go to 18 and 19 which I guess we didn't get to. Just the ones that show kind of what the status is and where we are right now with the data. I'm trying to understand what these are showing us. So it looks like 160 people filed, what is file? Does that mean they came into our office and applied? Yeah, so that's an application.
And we determined 48 were exempt, 70 were approved. So I didn't know if that was inclusive of the 48 and then kind of what is the difference between approved and issued and exempt?
Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair. So by filed, we basically mean someone submitted an application and so we have those numbers from 2017 and 2018 with the final right hand column being the total of both years. And then below that, those that we put in the exempt row are ADUs that were conversions of an existing space. Those are the ones where they filed an application came and They meet all the requirements and they're exempt. So those are not included in the approved or issued rows below.
Those permits that are included in the approved and issue rows would be LUPs, or CDPs, Coastal Development Permits for ADUs. So those would be additions or completely new ADUs And so with the planning permit process there are two steps Two generally large steps where you have to get an approval first. And then if you meet certain requirements after that, you get your permit issued.
Okay. How many of them have we denied?
There have been two exemptions that have been denied to date.
Okay and have we denied any new ones that now fall under I mean not exempts but
I guess my other question is, so as I understand it tied with the fact that we passed this ordinance would
be that
Approvals that are under the old rules, that have not proceeded to the building permit stage would be invalidated. Is that the case? Or is there just a certain amount of time on their permit? We had a public speaker earlier today that talked about this and I'm trying to get my head around Is there any allowance that we could do or is it just sort of inherent in replacing one law with another?
So Mr. Chair, yes several people have asked how far do they have to be through the process before they're assured. So if somebody's gotten an exemption or an approved permit but they haven't gone through the building permit phase and actually pulled a building permit And the ordinance goes into effect, so in the inland area that would be 30 days from the date of adoption of the ordinance. Then they would need to come back through and be approved under the new ordinance.
If they've gotten a building permit and started construction, they're fine.
And tell me, I mean just for policy wise is there any logic to giving them additional time? Isn't the old rule more restrictive? Isn't there some kind of policy goal served by having them build it under the old permit.
Mr. Chair, I don't
think you can say the old rules
are more
restrictive or
5:10 – 5:1514 turns
They're probably less restrictive in most instances, except for the permit path. Now we've recommended instead of doing land use permits that we do zoning clearances for these permits and there were exemptions and land use permits. Those were the two processes and under the proposed ordinance we're proposing an exemption For the two classes of ADUs and then zoning clearance for the third. But there are more standards associated with the ordinance before you today than we could apply under state law, I think that's true.
And say somebody had a land use permit, how long would it usually take for them to get from a land use permit to securing a building permit if they worked their butt off to make it happen fast?
Yeah, Mr. Chair I would say typical time frame is three to six months for a small project like this, like these are.
And is there any logic to giving people that amount of grace period in order to process that? Or is it sort of inherent in us passing a new set of rules that we're invalidating those permits?
So Mr. Chair, the typical is you typically are replacing your rules and setting a new set of rules but your board has discretion to phase these things in.
Well, I put that out there for discussion. It is something that's been talked a lot about in Montecito and I think there's two ways to look at it. One is you knew this was coming but then the other is sort of the argument that was presented earlier today which That given how what a crazy year it's been both in terms of construction costs, in terms of dealing with natural disasters.
Maybe some logic towards giving some grace period but I put it out to my colleagues because essentially thinking about whatever you're willing to tolerate. Other comments questions from the board? Supervisor Wolk.
Thank You Mr. Chair, Ms. Black or Mr. Gazzone can you talk about the appeal path if any
So Madam Chair, or Chair Williams and Supervisor Wolf excuse me. The way that we've recommended the permit path, we have not recommended a formal appeal path. So zoning clearance is not subject to a formal appeal.
Okay and then if there is Let's say staff denies an ADU and so there is no opportunity for that individual to seek a remedy. No remedy for CEQA? Is that what you said? No remedy to build an ADU. So, for instance, you mentioned that two have been denied if one of those people want to appeal that decision.
Their only recourse Supervisor Wolf would be in court. So because we haven't provided a local appeal path, if your board were to adopt the zoning clearance process and we have adopted it for other things in the ordinance then their recourse would be to go to court.
I
would just add that we've been talking, Ms. Black was most recently talking about the inland ADUs because the Coastal Zoning Ordinance Article 2 preserves the appeal path for the coastal development permit in that the state ADU law does not supersede the Coastal Act.
Okay, so I guess down the line then the county would always have that option to let's say we saw a lot of appeals going to superior court. We could always amend our ordinance to follow what we're doing in the coastal zone?
Right? Yes Mr. Chair and Commissioner or Supervisor Wolff, we could do that. Thank you.
5:15 – 5:217 turns
Other comments questions from the board? Is there a motion?
We have one request to speak from Steve Ford.
I think there's a second one. Good afternoon Chair Williams and Board Members. Steve Fort, I'm a board member with the Coastal Housing Coalition also employed at Suzanne Elledge Planning and Permitting. The Coastal Housing Coalition we really appreciate the effort of staff in the planning commissions to adapt to this Granted sort of top-down state mandated opportunity to create some infill housing inventory for us. I did submit a letter, which I hope you received via email. I'm going to hit on a couple items in that letter with regard to onsite wastewater treatment was glad to hear Ms. Black's comment that EHS It does not seem like they're going to be proceeding with just a blanket two acre minimum lot size requirement. We encourage development of an efficient approval process with DHS that allows for consideration of the necessary test results and the ability of each property to treat waste water rather than a blanket prohibition based on lot size.
Coastal Housing Coalition, we enthusiastically support the proposed amendments to allow ADUs with an exemption and or a zoning clearance. It's an efficient certain process and we support that. With regard to location on the lot There are some provisions in the draft ordinance. Various lot sizes require various different setback requirements to adhere to. We would just offer that an ADU ought to be required to comply with the same side and rear setback I'm And other potential accessory structures. Maximum living area, requiring it not to exceed 8% of the net lot area up to 1200 square feet. That's reasonable and we support that. Tree protection, we support where staff has gone with that. ADU shouldn't be subject to more restrictive tree protection standards than a principal dwelling or another accessory structure.
With regard to historic landmarks advisory committee review, We would just recommend it would be nice in that section to provide some explanation of the potential outcome of HLAC review. Would it result in binding requirements or would it result in non-binding recommendations for HLAC? And then with regard to vesting, which just came up. We would encourage you to consider that if someone has an approved land use permit, that land use permit ought to be able to stay valid even with adoption and incorporation of the new ordinance. If they have an approved land use permit it's good for a year. They should have that year to be able to get the building permit and operate under the ordinance that they submitted the application under.
Thanks, that's it. I think my time is up. Thank you, bye.
Hello Chair Williams, members of the board. My name is Valerie Frosher I'm a practicing architect member of the AIA long-time member of SBAR and am a big supporter of ADUs as a form of low density My big concern in the county ordinance is the location on the lot. Because there were concerns about ADUs being located in front of the primary residence, I've started watching different properties and Cases of properties 2 to 10 acres where the main house is set way back on the property.
And there are plenty of areas where a small ADU would have no impact on neighbors if it was in front. And if it's required to be behind, it just eliminates a lot of opportunities for properties where it's semi-rural and the main house is set way back. So I would support what Steve Fort said regarding the setbacks following the same thing for main houses for the ADUs. Thank you.
Alex Pujo?
Good afternoon, I'm Alex Bourgeaud. I am a member of the American Institute of Architects and the President sent an email letter to you yesterday that enumerates most of these points. We have been working with the county and the city of Santa Barbara and Goleta and so forth In pursuit, trying to help the approval of these units because we firmly believe that this is the easiest, the lowest hanging fruit in the housing crisis. These are small units they're already there to be built in areas already developed. They have a maximum of 1,200 but most of them are smaller. Most of them are half that size and a good number of them are already in place. They have been illegally over the last 40 years. This is a great venue to legalize these units and make more housing available.
All of the provisions of the staff report and we share some concerns regarding septic and siding. In septic, I understand it's out of the ordinances up to EHS to make a determination but in the past we have faced problems regarding size and the automatic denial because of flood size and we think that is incorrect. There should be a technical analysis of the capability of the soil for percolation purposes Other than that, we think this is a good way to move forward. It will make the process easier, simpler, cheaper.
It will be easy on staff and easy on everybody so thank you for this effort. That
concludes public comment.
5:21 – 5:2715 turns
Can I ask the setback issue? Was it discussed whether to just put it to what is the standard residential setbacks? Was that rejected by the planning commission or was it discussed?
Chair Williams and Supervisors, this location on the lot requirement came from the county. Well both the Montecito and County Planning Commissions recommended some variation of this requirement but it came out of the Planning Commission's concern for the ADU not being located between the house and the street They prefer the ADUs be located behind the house. But the County Planning Commission made these standards a bit more flexible in that they broke it up by the size of the lot, and that is the determining factor on where it can be located either behind the house or on the side of the lot. So they just created more flexible standards but either way was to ensure the ADUs are not located in front of the house.
And so it's only location, the side yard and rear yard setback remains the same. It's just the front yard that's a prohibition on the front yard.
Chair Williams and supervisors, yes it was as you said to ensure the ADUs are not located in front of the house. But there's also provisions for example in LUDC section 35.42.015, subsection G8. And
Chairwoman, I'm sorry to interrupt Ms. Steele so that people can follow along this is revised attachment three which was attached to the memo sent out on August 10th page 40 towards the end of the page number eight just so somebody could follow along.
And would it be the intention of the planning commission to prohibit those or simply to make them discretionary so that you'd have to show that it didn't have the same kind of impacts?
Chair Williams, there's definitely no discretion in determining this. It just places some setbacks from the property lines and also from- So
you couldn't request a variance to do that? Are you allowed to build an ADU in front of the main house or not? Larger than 20
acres, you can.
Yes, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. If the lot is over 20 acres in size it can be located anywhere on the property but if I may we can walk through the different regulations here. So for lots that are less than two acres a detached ADU cannot be located closer to the principal abutting street than the principal dwelling unless there are other zoning provisions or setback requirements that would prohibit compliance with this requirement Then for lots that are two acres or larger but smaller than 20 acres, a detached ADU shall not be located closer to any property line than the lesser of 100 feet or the distance from this principal dwelling to that property line unless other zoning provisions or requirements would prohibit compliance with this requirement.
Wait roll that by me one more time?
So for those lots that are two to up to 20 acres, a detached EDU can't be located closer to a property line than either 100 feet or the distance from the principal dwelling to that property line. Whichever is less unless there's other zoning provisions that would prohibit compliance with that requirement or the location of existing development on the lot. Such as agricultural operations would prohibit compliance with that
requirement. So is meaning from two to ten, it's a 360 degree view that's an average? Or are we just talking about to the front yard?
Chair Williams and Supervisors, this would be any property line. It cannot be closer than either 100 feet or the distance that the house is located to that property line, whichever is less.
So what if the house is 80 feet in one direction to a property 30 feet in another direction to a property line. Does that mean the ADU is held at 80 feet or at the average between, or at 130 plus 80 divided by 2 which is 110? Or is the ADU subjected to the average which would be 110?
5:27 – 5:3212 turns
Chair Williams, I'm going to do my best to answer this but it would be each. So if you have your principal dwelling and it's located 80 feet from say the front property line then the ADU cannot be closer than 80 feet to the front property line as well. But if the house was also, as he said, I think 120 feet from a side property line then the ADU cannot be closer than 100 feet to that property line.
Because the 100 feet is less than the 120 that the principal dwelling is located at, away from that property line. So it'd have to comply from all sides.
That all makes sense to me though I guess the part of that I don't understand Approvals or processes, you have this great big off ramp that's not always used because they're not always granted. Which would be a variance where you can make say a case and say look, this is really not going to impact it because of this, this and this situation that you can't foresee when you're doing it so That just seems strange that we would have a process that has no room for variance.
And hence, Mr. Chair, the problem with not having a permit that's subject to discretion because what you described is a permit that's subject to some discretion. So we're trying to come up with standards that can be applied and really they out in these three instances If it precludes development of an ADU, then we're not gonna be able to apply these standards.
Supervisor Hardin?
Oh, I guess I'm inclined to go forward with what the staff recommends. But I hear what the public commenters said about some larger properties probably smaller than 20 acres where having an ADU in front of the main house might be quite appropriate. So this will probably be back with changes in state law and maybe we could look at that in particular going forward
And is there any interest in the vesting question and tackling that, giving some grace period to process your permit? Your building permit.
Yeah I'm interested in that. If somebody's in the process and I'm not sure where we put that barrier but you know people anticipate changes but this is kind of a wholesale change and I wouldn't want to see somebody have to start over again
And typically you have to process it in a year, is what you get. So would the appetite be to add six months on to that? Or six months from passage of the
ordinance? Well so I'm going to answer the first question that was asked which is how long do you have? So typically a land use permit is valid for a year with the ability to get a year extension So one way of approaching this would be to say that this would only apply to permits that were approved after a certain date and just let those that were approved prior to a certain date go through.
But I don't know if we can come up with language on the fly today. We hadn't quite anticipated that, so I guess I'd look to county council.
I mean most properties would be, so let me understand this. Even if you're in the middle of that year, this ordinance right now would cut you
off? Mr. Chair, if somebody has a land use approval and an issued permit but they have not yet gotten their building permit 30 days after this ordinance is adopted, they would be required to comply with this ordinance.
And so I just think at very minimum, we should keep the amount of time that they had before to process if we're looking for something simple. But I guess I wonder if we could not just approve this because Coastal Commission provisions, we got to send something to the coastal commission.
5:32 – 5:3711 turns
So Mr. Chair I think we have two, well three options. Approve the ordinance as it's drafted Continue this for two weeks so that we can work on language and submit it in the next batch of ordinances and LCP amendments that go to the Coastal Commission. So take it out of A25 or try and work through it today, and I don't know how comfortable County Council is trying to work through that today.
Mr. Guzzone, I mean, I could make two proposals. One which would be just grant people six months more or at very least to just grant them the amount of time that they normally would have which is one year plus one year. How hard would that be to draft and trail for this next item? Which given the number of people in the room is going to take us a little while.
Chair and Supervisors, I think part of the question is focusing on what the board's consensus is on this because when we're talking about vesting, I'm not sure that's actually the term. One option is to delay the operative date of the ordinance. That's probably the most straightforward approach and it would be pretty easy to draft Other than that, when we talk about vesting.
Normally when we talk about vesting, you're doing three things. You've obtained a building permit, you perform substantial work and you've incurred substantial liabilities as the classic case law definition of vesting. So I don't know that although we're talking about vesting in the conversational sense that's what the board's direction is right now as opposed to Delaying the operative date of this so that people could get through a process. And then you're left with, if we do that what about everybody else who's not already
at
the
door? Delaying the operative date would create more damage for everybody else out in the universe. My, I guess my question is why could we not pass an ordinance? Have these rules for everyone going forward but people who already have permits have a certain amount of time to process them under the old rules. Meaning they have obtained a land use permit. They have a certain amount of time before they have to go get a building permit.
What stops us from giving them a certain amount of time to go get a building permit?
So one of the things that, although we're talking about vesting and maybe we'd like to hear back from planning on this or we could just take a quick break is we're really talking about non-expiring. I mean that's another concept that's out there is how long do you have a permit that non-expires? And so we have non-expiring operative dates and vested rights which are all It's on the same page, but they mean different things and have different amounts of complexity to defensively draft into an ordinance especially today.
If I could, Mr. Chair? Sure. I tend to agree with the direction that you're going if you're looking for some concurrence. I would like to move forward and adopt the ordinance and I'm also having some trouble in understanding... You guys can do a lot of things Maybe we do need to just trail this and is that possible that you come back to us with an amendment or something that takes care of this issue for people who are already in the process? It just doesn't seem fair to me. That they drop out and then they have to now abide by this ordinance.
And I do agree if we delay in that situation. I'm kind of getting blank responses, so is there no way to do this?
So what I'm trying to do as we go through here is to make sure that whatever we're doing you know is actually defensible for you. So there's things we can do today and we're not you know we can take as long as you need today to do this or you could provide direction and bring the item back at the next board meeting which I which I know would be a way to provide you with an option another thought would be although I know we don't like to take breaks We can do that. We have another meaty item. Maybe we can hear the item? Why don't you delegate and we'll
hear the AOT item and you guys can talk
amongst
5:37 – 5:5213 turns
I
have a question. Supervisor, how many of these are there that are already in process? What are we talking about here?
Chair Williams and Supervisor Adams, we know we have 160 applications that we've seen since January of 2017. And we've exempted 48. We've approved 70 which means they haven't been issued yet. And we've issued 59 so we have at least 70 that are kind of floating and maybe some of the exemptions. That's a
lot okay all right.
Oh do you have it? Here, yeah. So here's a building permit so they've got 80 that are filed and I don't know as of what date this data? No no no. So as of August 10th, we had 80 filed building permits and 51 issued. And then there's some that probably haven't even filed because those numbers don't add up to the numbers on the previous slide so it's a chunk. Now many of those are in Montecito and many of those are in existing structures and would be exempt under our current But not every single one, so there still are some that could be caught by these new rules.
So Mr. Chair I recommend that we take a break so that we can use Mr. Gazzone's brain for a moment before you
move on to the next item and then maybe we can trail and decide whether or not we can take action today or not.
I'm actually pretty optimistic that when we sit down and talk for a few minutes without the microphone on, that we can come up with a path that would move this forward. But I would like to actually take a hard break for five minutes.
Sure. We'll take our five minute break. We'll reconvene. Mr. Guzzani, you have a menu for
us? Mr. Chair I'm happy to report that I will primarily take credit for hiring the right people. Johanna Hartley had a good sketch and in our five-minute break we came up with a script that Director Black will go through with you with a few hard items of approval that would have already occurred to trigger this longer period then she'll ask how much time you want to actually float in there And then once we have that direction, we can trail the site. My recommendation would be to trail this item and bring it back at the end of the day.
Okay. Please proceed,
Director.
Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the board. So we would add language at the end of the ordinance that says for any, and this isn't as elegantly drafted as perhaps we want it to be but the concepts are here. For anyone who has been approved or issued a land use permit, or approved an exemption on or before August 14th 2018. Then that approval will remain valid if a building permit is issued by and here's where we need your guidance.
However long you want it to be within reason. If you want it to be six months, that would be February 14th 2019. Otherwise that approval will be invalidated and must comply with this ordinance. So that's the concept, and then there would be a slightly different. That language would apply to the Montecito Land Use and Development Code and the County Land Use and Development Code for the Coastal Zoning Ordinance. I think we would have to have a slightly different language because that won't be operative until the coastal commission has reviewed and certified in your board as accepted that certification.
So I guess the question is, does that meet the intention of the board and how long would you like that period to be?
Think the answer is yes. I'm seeing nods that meets, I think the question is how long? Should it be six months? Should it be longer? What is the pleasure of the board?
5:52 – 5:5713 turns
I think any time frame that is within the period that those permits would be valid is fine. So six months would be perfectly fine.
No, they would only have six more months. That's rushing it so a little bit longer I think is what Supervisor Hartman.
Yes, I would put 12 months because a land use permit is a year plus you get a year extension. So I think 12 months would be generous or adequate and this arises largely in the context of Montecito where people were in the process and then the disasters happened right? So this is just so I would rather be generous than not.
Thank you, so 12 months I think is the consensus here. And then we'll trail this item and take up AOT.
Great, thank you.
And we are also trailing of course 825 as well. Mr Allen would you read?
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item seven is from behavioral wellness. It's a hearing to consider recommendations during the assisted outpatient treatment program 2017 annual report.
I'm going to run the presentation once she starts talking.
Good afternoon, Chair Williams, members of the board, CEO Miyasato. I'm Dr. Alice Gleghorn, I'm the Director of Behavioral Wellness. I'm joined here today by my Deputy Director, Dr. Pam Fisher and also my Chief Financial Officer Chris Ribeiro. We're here today to present to you the annual update on the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Pilot Program that the board authorized To implement and also to evaluate the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Feasibility Study in Santa Barbara County.
The majority of the report is going to be presented by Dr. Fisher, but I wanted to take this minute to remind the board that as part of the feasibility pilot, the board also authorized and funded an objective third party evaluation Of the program so that we could bring data to the board as it was collected and analyzed during the year and follow up. The last time we came before the board, we had really just launched, I'm getting my years confused, January 2016. And we appeared about a quarter into that work last time we came to you. So this time we're bringing the full annual report that was developed by Harder and Company.
But I do want to note that the first year data collection would have finished up in December. A lot of things were going on in the county for the next few months, January, February, March. And then we had a few issues trying to get this on the agenda and almost got kicked off the agenda today but I'm delighted that we snuck our way back on because Dr. Fisher really wanted to be able to present the data herself in person.
So you're gonna actually get an annual report plus another little three months of data so kind of a twofer there. Very pleased to be able to bring this project to you. And as you know, the department received funding for the board to implement this pilot project and as we discussed when this first happened any day that the board allocates additional funding to behavioral health is a good day in paradise as far as I'm concerned. So we're pleased to be able to present this to you today and Dr. Fisher will take you through the slides.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Williams and members of the board.
Am
I on? Okay, next slide.
Go ahead.
5:57 – 6:118 turns
Okay. So as you recall, back in 2002 the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1421 which is also known as Lohr's Law. Which is an assisted outpatient treatment program designed to provide court ordered treatment for adults with serious mental illness who are also experiencing severe mental illness and crisis events who are also not engaging in treatment on a voluntary basis.
And in May, 2016, the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors approved and directed the Department of Behavioral Wellness to develop and implement the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program as a three year feasibility pilot program designed to serve approximately ten people at any given time. With the assistance of the CEO's office, the department convened eight stakeholder meetings throughout the county which included representation from a diverse group.
And this group included family members, consumers, providers of the current assertive community treatment or ACT programs, courts probation, district attorney's office, county council, public guardian, sheriff's department and CEO's office. Listened to the community, we got recommendations for program philosophy, treatment design. We discussed the court processes, the evaluation criteria and from these meetings we developed an implementation plan and the program was developed. And we launched January 1st 2017.
Santa Barbara's AOT program received a total of 65 referrals since inception January 17 and through the first quarter, which was March of this year. Four referrals we did not open, and that was because two were from non-eligible parties. And as you recall when we did our first presentation, the eligibility criteria means that you have to be an adult family member, a person over 18 living with the individual, a director from a treating agency like a licensed residential care facility or hospital, or a treating licensed mental health professional. Or a police, parole or probation officer that's supervising the individual. So those two referrals were from a non-eligible party and two others were referred when the program was at capacity. However with those four referrals we did refer them over to our triage program and we served them in that manner.
The 12 individuals were also receiving services when they were referred to us in our program, but the people referring weren't aware of that. And three individuals that were referred to our program could not be located. So of the remaining referrals, of the 61 referrals that we did outreach And provide engagement services to 54, you can see came from parents and family members. 25% came from the mental health professionals. 17% came from law enforcement. 2% came from multiple sources and the 2% were from ineligible parties that I just spoke about.
Referral trends varied greatly from month to month. The largest number of referrals occurred during the first quarter of the first year, which was January through March and they had as many as eight referrals during one month. However on average the program continues to receive about four referrals per month. And then as you can see by the pie chart on the right, referrals also varied by region with the majority of the referrals coming from the South County at 61%, followed by the North County at 23% and the West County at 16%. Individuals.
No, it didn't show up. Okay, I will tell you what it says. Individuals referred tended to be predominantly male at 59% and 41% were female. And there was a wide range of individuals being referred to the AOT program. However 49% of the referrals were for individuals between the age of 25 and 44 years of age with the average age being 39 years. And the oldest client referred this far has been 68 years of age.
This slide shows other characteristics of individuals being referred. We see that 82% of those being referred were referred with a dual diagnosis, meaning they had substance abuse as well as mental health diagnoses at time of referral. 59% were homeless, 50% were referred to us while on probation. The pie chart on the right shows the ethnicity of the individuals being referred with 60% being Caucasian, 23% being Latino or Hispanic. 9% being multiracial, 4% African American and 4% Asian. The AOT staff report 1,535 engagement attempts over the past 15 months.
Of these, 580 attempts were successful in actually meeting with the client. Translating to roughly four successful visits for every ten engagement attempts. So as you can see, it takes a lot of outreach to engage this population. It takes time to get a population that doesn't often recognize that they have an illness to develop a relationship with the complete stranger and trust them enough to accept the services we're offering to them and accept the mental health treatment.
So you're having multiple attempts at the same person?
Yes.
Repeatedly?
Yes, so when going back to the very first couple of slides, of the 64 folks that were referred we actually provided engagement to 61 clients. So these 1,535 engagement attempts were with 61 clients. Great. Okay. The primary-
That's diligent.
Very, the primary goal of assisted outpatient treatment is to improve access and adherence to behavioral health services in order to improve the client's quality of care. As such we measure three primary indicators Of three primary indicators such as psychiatric emergencies, arrests or incarceration and psychiatric hospitalizations. The individuals Had prior 12 months to being referred, and then again during our AOT engagement. And as you can see the data shows the referred individuals in our program have experienced a decrease in the psychiatric emergencies from 44% to 22% in psychiatric emergencies. From 77% to 56% in arrests and incarceration, and from 62% to 21% in psychiatric hospitalization when comparing the 12 months prior to AOT.
To during AOT engagement. The results of AOT engagement efforts have been effective and as you can see by this chart, 34% have accepted voluntary treatment into our mental health programs. 27%, we are continuing to attempt to engage. 27% have been closed because the referred individual didn't meet AOT criteria. 11% have been closed because the referred individual, we were able to initially contact but then we lost contact with them because they moved or unable to locate after.
None have entered into any type of settlement agreement and we've filed no court petitions as of today. Now we got close with a couple, however when we were getting ready to do the assessment in order to go into the court petition. One of them agreed to enter into services and the other one we started to begin temporary conservatorship on. The next slide shows the budget summary and the board adopted pilot of assisted outpatient treatment services for an initial three year period was subject to annual appropriations. The initial allocation from the board in fiscal year 2016-17 for this program was 606,888. The actual operating costs for this year however was 83,414 leaving a balance of 523,474.
The board then allocated an additional 275.30 to the program for fiscal year 17-18, however the operating cost for that second year were only 290.468 leaving a balance of 508.36. Going into fiscal year 18-19 the department didn't ask for additional allocations from the board and we anticipate that at the end of the year we should have a balance of 78.832. The operating costs include outreach, housing, administrative and contractual services. It is important to note that the costs have been less than anticipated every year because we've not yet needed to go to any type of a court petition or a court order. Yet we budgeted each year for those processes anticipating those costs.
The program will end at the end of the third year unless additional general funds are allocated. I'd like to take a few minutes now to tell you kind of the human stories of the program and show the differences that the extended outreach and engagement services by our AOT staff has made in the consumer lives. And so, I will talk about client A for a minute. So Client A was referred to our program experiencing psychosis and disorganization and delusions after walking into a business with a weapon.
The police were called and he was arrested, and the client remained hospitalized for several months. Our AOT staff visited him several times per week to establish rapport while he's in the hospital and encourage him to work with the courts. The client was eventually released to his parents' home and AOT continued to work with them. With the help of our staff, he stayed clean and sober and he graduated from Mental Health Treatment Court. All the while AOT continued to work with him. He agreed to continue with mental health treatment services after he was released from mental health court. And today connected with services and takes part in activities. He's taken martial arts classes. He listens to music. He has goals to attend local sporting events.
He has his own apartment. He frequently spends time with his parents who are very happy with AOT and mental health services. This person went into our mental health program, and reports that without our help he wouldn't have made the progress he's made. Another client, Client B was referred to us for being highly delusional and paranoid and medically compromised. And to compound issues this individual was wheelchair bound and frequently reported to us by police and concerned citizens. Due to her physical condition and behaviors. So the AOT staff went out and engaged with this individual, and worked on building rapport, and eventually found housing for this person in an unshared apartment. And after much engagement, the staff were also able to get this individual to agree to services with our ACT team.
So this client's been receiving services now for about a year. And it's also beginning to follow through with some medical appointments that didn't want to do and was denying that she needed some appointments. She's continuing to meet with our ACT staff on a weekly basis, and is allowing a homeless-oriented health outreach group now to also attend to her health concerns.
Can I have one more? Client C was referred to AOT for engagement due to psychosis and abuse of drugs and alcohol. And he was referred by the parents who were really concerned about their child, though they were estranged from their child because of the symptoms. So AOT met with the individual and the parents, and discussed his goals of becoming clean and sober. And returning to school, and after some time about reaching engagement, the individual agreed to link to our mental health services where he's now receiving treatment for mental health and substance abuse. And he's since gone back to school and is working on reunifying with his family. And at last report this client continues to be clean and sober So our recommended actions that we have before you today are to receive and file an annual evaluation of our report for assisted outpatient treatment for the county.
For the period of January 1st, 2017 through December 31st, 2017 from the Department of Behavioral Wellness. And it's determined that these activities are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review per the CEQA guidelines section 15378B5. Thank you for your time. Do
you have questions board members?
6:11 – 6:177 turns
Thank you. Great staff report and it's always good to hear some good news. I appreciate the success of the program so far. The question I have, and I met with a few individuals as well was about, I guess explain to me what I'm getting AOT and ACT kind of together. So, what's different about AOT as just our regular intervention and ACT team?
So, AOT by definition is assisted outpatient treatment. So AOT comprises of an outreach component and a court component. And the actual assisted outpatient treatment is really a court component. We've not yet had to get to that, although we've been close a couple of times, we've not yet had to get to that. ACT however is just an outpatient services that is a wraparound type program where our staff do kind of whatever it takes for the client so they do more than just a traditional outpatient model of mental health services.
Okay so one of the questions I was thinking about was, well one other question I have for you too and I don't know what my other board members think about this but for me, I just, I don't want you guys to have in the back your mind because you were looking at the budget side of things too and you realize that once you do go to court that's when you start expending a lot of money.
I hope there's not a thought process for you guys that you're thinking And we don't want to get to that point because we don't wanna spend the money. Cuz that's basically why we allocated the money in the first place, so is it just that we just haven't got to that point?
Supervisor Lavagnino threw the chair. No, that's not why we haven't done it yet. Like I said, we came close twice and we had already gone out and done the assessment and we worked with county council and we were very, very close. However one person automatically said I want to go into services and we didn't mention the court process to this person they just decided to come on in. And the other person ended up in jail and in the hospital, and we started to work with temporary conservatorship with that person. Currently we have two people that are also very close, and if it goes to court process, it goes to court process.
So last question on that angle of it. So in the board letter, it said that the AOT engagement outcome showed that 34% of the referred candidates accepted services which is great. 27% continue and attempt to engage which is great. So what happens to the other ones that you go out and they just resist? Your initial, I mean it seems like what's happening is based on how many visits you have to make. Is that you're just continuing to go back and go back and go back and trying to get them engaged?
At what point do you say okay, I've made ten visits to this person they don't want to engage we got to try something different or Or do you find that just continually hammering that nail gets you to the point where they eventually engage
Yes, Supervisor Lavenino through the chair. Yes, the last. We keep going out and we keep going out and we keep going out as evidenced by the 1535 engagement attempts. We just keep going out and we keep going out and we keep going our. And we do find that it just takes time to build a relationship where they trust you. You just go out and you introduce yourself, and you ask them how they're doing. And you offer them some water and a sandwich. And you just have to make a relationship with them. Just to go out and offer the mental health services there aren't too many people who just hold up their hand and say yeah me. They just don't want to do that. You would just have to build a relationship with them first. And so it takes a lot of engagement attempts and we do that.
We've got staff who are perseverant.
Supervisor Adam. Well, I'll be damned. You guys wore me out. You absolutely wore me out and I just let go of the rope And I said, all right we're going to have the experiment. And it worked. Congratulations and yay for everybody that's involved in the thing absolutely. A round of applause should've been more people here for that one. It's fantastic and this is probably the only case where somebody actually wore me out.
Yeah, yeah. Well go ahead take the notes but you know usually I'm made of carborundum and nobody can wear me out hardly but that you guys did it. You guys kept up with it and you were right. It's worked and I think all of us who were against it for administrative reasons. I think there was a lot of good reasons from this side of the dais to not engage in it and maybe even from the department, but it just seems like the people who have run it, seems like they've made a tremendous contribution Supervisor Hart.
6:17 – 6:244 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two issues. The first is by region and a couple questions there. I've never seen West County but I assume from us it's Lompoc but where does the San Ynez Valley fit?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair, West County does include mid-county.
Okay. And then I think the issue is really outreach. I mean I can't believe that 61% of the eligible people are really in South County. I mean I think there's at least as many in North County and so I think a lot of that goes to NAMI and Act Now, and the outreach that they've done. And I don't think we have that kind of support from the nonprofit sector in North County and Mid-County, and I think that's a problem. So I just want to get that on the record. I don't know that there's much that we can do about it but I hope that maybe people can comment about that.
The second issue, I remember Dr. Gleghorn when you did the first presentation and you talked about flexible money and you told a story about a young man, I think it was who started a goldfish business and you didn't have that kind of money anywhere else but through this program with the general fund you had more flexibility I know this is a complex area in terms of what's funded and what isn't, but I'll say I'm still dubious about the black robe effect if people don't understand.
If they can't make decisions about taking their medicine, I'm not sure that they can really calculate about the black robe. Maybe, I am open to it but what really interests me is the flexible money and that you have an opportunity to really address specific individual needs and experiment a little bit.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair, I think those are excellent points because in fact up to this date as Dr. Fisher said it is not as though we are holding impending doom over their head, the threat of going to court. That's not really in the dialogue and discussion with the outreach that we're doing because that wasn't really what in the community planning process The community wanted us to do. They wanted us to focus on really trying to reach people, multiple attempts to engage over and over and over. And so that's the direction the program really took is this intensive outreach. And as we've discussed here before because of the way the department is able to bill its services or not, that level of intensive outreach isn't funded typically through Medi-Cal.
Because you have to have an identified patient that has agreed to services in order to submit that bill. So this type of program or any program, we've had some funding as well from the board to do outreach and there's more money coming from the state at this point to do outreach. That kind of money can be used for this intensive effort and so I think That's what you're hearing. We pulled together a number of different strategies, including working with AmeriCorps throughout the county to really have extra intensive efforts to locate people and then to continue to make contact with them.
So it's really important to be able to do that intensive level of outreach. Separately then the second piece. Of AOT is this Assertive Community Treatment Act. Act programs are fundable and funded through the Mental Health Services Act, so the charges you don't see up here are when someone has accepted our offer of services they're no longer billed to AOT. They go on to the MHSA dollar and that's totally funded over on that side, right? So it's this bridging Meeting someone, introducing them, working with them and trying to engage them until we get an agreement that they're actually going to work with us. Whether it's mental health or substance abuse, getting them to buy into the idea that what we have to offer is something they're willing to accept.
And so it's all the services up to that point that is funded through AOT. So ACT also does include flexible funding. So you are able to do the whatever-it-takes model. Okay, so sometimes we've needed to do some whatever it takes on the front end. Whether it's buying the sandwich or helping someone get into a low threshold housing kind of situation in order to address their health needs and to get them to work with us.
So there are things that we have done on the front end that require flexible funding before we get them consent to an ACT program. So you're absolutely correct I don't want to say This additional funding isn't important, it's very important to have money to support intensive outreach and whatever it takes. To Supervisor Lavagnino's point, we're not weighing the cost of the legal service. We just haven't gotten there yet because we're following the directive to really go heavy on the engagement piece first. So we may have some very soon, it's just we're over a year into it now and we haven't had to get there with anyone yet. Because we have such an extensive and well developed process for LPS conservatorship in this county. And as you saw the data 50% of these folks are already on probation so they have extensive histories of being involved with the criminal justice system which is another motivating factor for many people.
Most folks will choose to work with us rather than go face the legal consequences of some of the behavior. So I think it is important that we continue to monitor how we end up spending the money, where the focuses are and then once the three year feasibility pilot is over, we'll be able to come back and give you a full report on exactly how the money was allocated, where did it go? And what kinds of things we really feel need to be preserved in order to have a viable program going forward. The other thing to keep in mind is that we're spending about $40,000 a year on the evaluation.
6:24 – 6:308 turns
So you highlighted one of the issues that are brought up in the letters, which is the advocates say that in some counties they're using Medi-Cal funds. But you would maintain that that's sort of for the portion of the program that we would call ACT, not the outreach and not the court order and legal aspect of AOT? And so I think one of the things that will be, is an important question.
Is number one, well, I guess most importantly is this the people who aren't referred? The people that you're essentially still working on, It's better to keep on going back at folks for voluntary services, even if it is longer than the sort of 90 days idea. When the outreach worker feels that there is long term potential, Or is it better to move towards court ordered services earlier? And I think that's probably one of the things you'll hear from public comment. So can you give us a flavor of what
Yeah,
what's the call that's being made by people in the streets and why are they making that?
I'll speak on that and then Dr. Fisher is probably going to want to jump in as well. Again, the initial directions that were obtained from the eight focus groups that were done was that the community really wanted us to focus on Trying to engage people voluntarily, and I will say that this is not a straight line. There are times that we will go out and it'll be refuse, refuse, refuse, and then you'll make a little step forward. So when you make a little step forward, that's an accomplishment. And then you'll take three steps backwards. You don't immediately go to petition when you had a little bit of success and then some steps backwards. You keep trying, and so I think that's really what the message of the 1500 contacts is. Four out of ten we actually met with them and were able to reach them.
I will say that this is going way back in my career here but I did publish an article about 20 years ago On intensive outreach and following through on services, following intensive outreach. And the results of that study showed that sometimes especially with hardcore homeless individuals and people who have been disengaged from services for long periods of time. That it can take more than 20 outreach efforts to get them to follow through on a recommendation for an appointment or program or service.
So the fact that we're seeing some level of engagement even within ten visits, I think is a very positive thing. Because these are very difficult issues to address and it takes a very concerted effort.
Yes, Chair Williams to answer that question as well. When we met with the focus groups one of the things that we talked about was that yes, we would put a 90 day parameter around the outreach but it would not be a hard and fast 90 days. We want it to be flexible and we want it to be flexible for the very reason that if it looked like we were making progress, we did not want to go right to a court petition.
And there are some reasons for that. And from what I've heard from the staff that are going out and talking with some of the folks that are out there right now, that we are following, they have brought up before to some of the harder-to-reach folks that there are other avenues to go. And they've talked about a court petition and they have said that when they have brought that up which they rarely do anymore but early on when they were talking about this, they would have folks disappear. They couldn't find them anymore. It frightened them, they were like okay now I don't know where to even find these folks anymore. So they found that was really not the way to go and to talk about any kind of court petition on the horizon for them.
And so they tend not to do that and not to use those, that language anymore. They just talk about what are some options we can do to get you to engage? When you see in any of the annual reports for some of the range of services or range of engagement attempts going a longer term, there's various reasons why. And that is because some of the folks that we do engage with, we will lose contact with them and we won't restart their case. So we'll put them on hold, and they may be gone for a month or two or three. Or they may go to jail for a month or two or three or four, and when they come out, we'll re-engage. And so it looks like our time with them is very long when it's because there was a lapse in time that we could actually be doing outreach services with them because they were gone.
So when you see that it was more than 90 days, for some of them it was because they physically weren't here. And we just put them on hold and when they came back, we picked them back up and continue to do the outreach. Let's
go to
public comment.
Chair Williams, members of the board, we have four requests. We're going to go to Santa Maria first for Don Casebolt, and then back here for Jan Winter and our other speakers. Go to Santa Maria please?
6:30 – 6:378 turns
Yes. Hello, my name is Don Casebolt. I'm here representing my daughter who's had schizophrenia for about 10 years and is very hardcore in her belief that she does not need any treatment. I noticed that in this study 59% were homeless 82% were dual diagnosis 50% already on probation and essentially although about a third voluntarily When we first accepted treatment, we got two thirds or 66% that did not.
And all these factors predict the worst prognosis. Anecdotally I think probably you in this county heard about the case of an Andrew Holland. He's typical of this 66%. He was a schizophrenic and he died in the slow jail and the county there made $5 million settlement to his family for wrongful death. 59% of the 185 public mass shootings in the United States in the last century and a quarter.
Were carried out by people who had severe mental illness. Example, Adam Lanza who killed almost two dozen children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School quit his medication opted out of voluntary treatment. He's part of that 66%. We've enacted legislation that criminalizes the severely mentally ill yet gives them To remain insane and to become Andrew Holland's victims or Sandy Hook Lanza's perpetrators.
We've decided that it's cheaper and kinder to incarcerate the severely mentally ill rather than treat them medically, it's not. The slow county juror could not get Andrew Holland out of jail and into treatment so he died a miserable death. County had to pay out 5 million. Hopefully that didn't come to that point here. Our county jail is no better off. The sheriff said that the county jail was the county's de facto mental health institution.
Preserving the rights and freedom of those folks, the 66% remain severely mentally ill and homeless. And be likely victims of rape, victims of overdose, victims of prostitute by having zero court component is a cruel compassion indeed. Compassionately waiting until they need naloxone for an overdose is like shuffling the chairs on the Titanic when it's already listing at 45 degrees.
A more vigorous court component desperately needs to be added before there's another Andrew Holland or Adam Lonza shooting in our area, or an overdose for naloxone that was too late. Thank you.
Back to Santa Barbara for Jan Winter. Jan? To be followed by George Kaufman.
Supervisor Chair William and Board of Supervisors, I'm Jan Winter from NAMI. I also sit on the Behavioral Wellness Commission but I'm not speaking for the commission today. I am here to speak on behalf of families from NAMi, families of people with severe mental illness and many of those are members of our local NAMI chapter On behalf of them and on my own behalf, I want to thank the department for this program.
I want to thank the supervisors from the bottom of my heart for instituting this pilot program. And I want to thank Tammy Summers who's sitting in the back here for managing the program so well and managing her staff so well so that it's a very effective program. I also want to thank Dr. Pam Fisher for leading a very effective stakeholder series of meetings to design the program, but I have to add as a member of that committee We had a number of consumers on our stakeholder committee and they attended all the meetings. And we spent a great deal of time talking about outreach and how people Like them might best be motivated to come into treatment and that was all taken up by the department. So we spent a great deal of time dwelling on the importance of the 90 day outreach and flexibility at the end of keeping in touch with people, and I hope that's what the department is truly doing.
However, there was never a time that I can recall in those meetings when we discussed that the court option was superfluous or not necessary. We always thought of it as, well I did and I think those who in our discussions thought of it as part of the AOT program an essential part And certainly to be engaged in if people didn't accept treatment at the end of the 90 days.
This AOT program across the country, similar programs to Laura's Law. Has been extensively studied and it's been shown that the court, the dark robe, the black robe effect of the authority figure of the judge saying to the person. It is in my estimation that you are in need of mental health services and that your life could be improved by it. And your behavior up till now, your life up till now is showing to us that you are in need of treatment.
And that is an essential part of AOT. I don't understand why the department has not used it to date.
Thank you Jan.
I want to go on to highlight one figure among the data before you today.
Jan, you got a wrap-up?
I know, 54% of referrals are from family members. We now have a tool to bring our untreated family members to the attention of the Department for Professional Treatment and we thank you for that. Thank you.
George Kaufman. And then Anna Campbell is our final speaker.
6:37 – 6:456 turns
Chair Williams, Supervisors, good afternoon. I'm George Kaufman also representing NAMI. I'd just like to echo everything that Jan said about the folks in the department that have created the results that you saw here. We're just as impressed as you guys are, but before we uncork the champagne bottles, I want to add a note of caution and concern and maybe some ideas for the future.
The first thing is that this business about whether and when to do the referral to the court. I think it's something that is important because as Jan alluded to, this process both here in California and around the country has been studied extensively for over a decade now. And the results are profound. The results prove that this is an evidence-based practice, and that means if it's implemented the way it's designed you should get the same results from one locale to another, and that's exactly what happens.
Our concern is that Right now it looks pretty good. Our results aren't quite as robust as they are in other counties and other places around the country. However, I'm concerned that if we don't use the full components both components of this program Over time, the results will continue to get less robust. So all of us wish that everybody would engage voluntarily. It would be easy.
Well it's still not easy. It's not easy to engage them, to go through the process of helping people to accept treatment. But there's always going to be some folks, and frankly they're often the folks that are so ill that they can't recognize their need for treatment. And we just can't afford to leave half the pie. We have to implement both components to have a viable and effective long-term program. The second thing we have to do is we gotta find And we need to fund this long-term when this pilot's over and we need to implement it in the county. And to that end, I'd like to suggest that somehow either through the board or through the department or perhaps the commission that we kind of reconvene that stakeholder group that you saw on the slide up there early on and let's figure out how to do this now And perpetuate a program that's going to continue to reach folks that need this help and to do it even more effectively than we are now.
So appreciate your time today, and we certainly appreciate your patience and diligence in understanding and hearing us over the course of these last two years. Thank you.
Good afternoon Chair Williams and Supervisors. My name is Anna Campbell, and I started working on trying to get Laura's Law passed in California before 2000. It took two or three or four years. Before California passed this law, and we thought that once it was passed the Board of Supervisors in Santa Barbara County would adopt it. And it took until 2016, that's how long we waited for our county to decide to try it.
And I am so thankful and grateful that you folks were willing to take the risk. And in fact, Janet, I'm looking at you. You were there back then. I know, but you were there when you saw us starting this. And I'm so thrilled. I believe that everyone on the board deserves just huge thanks and congratulations for having the vision and courage to do this in spite of these troubled financial times, especially Youth Supervisor Adam.
And also I just want to congratulate Dr. Claighorn. I know that there are many, many complications in launching a program like this and figuring out all the financing and everything. And I am just thrilled to see the results. When you look at two-thirds reduction in hospitalizations, that's remarkable. And yet I have seen the results from other counties and programs like this in other states. And we can have even more amazing results if we also incorporate the court option.
And I was really glad to hear the answers to the questions about why people haven't been referred and I think it's a good reason. I think it isn't a good idea to hang the court over someone's head as a threat, but I would love to see the court option being used to help redeem some of those 66% that are lost Don't accept treatment. Instead of being lost, they should be in a court-ordered program and according to the report there were 12 people in active engagement of which half of them had been in the initial engagement portion for more than 100 days And knowing the rationale of the department, I understand that better now.
But I bet that three or four of those people could benefit from the court-ordered option and I hope that this is really included as a positive part of the program not to scare people but to give them that extra A nice push towards treatment. For most of them, this will be a new and novel path to recovery which is what our goal is. And again just thank you everyone for approving this and thank you for the people who ran the program that took a lot of dedication Those 1,500 plus visits came out to an average of 25 visits per person. And I'm sure some of those people took even quite a bit more than 25 but you reeled them in and I thank
you.
Okay that's it thank you.
Supervisor Lavanina.
Thank You Mr. Chair well somebody's name who hasn't come up today that is probably was the Kicking the pants for the entire county was Supervisor Farr. And she would push us and push us and push us a couple of times. She did it by hook and by crook, and she got us there so I just wanted to give her a shout out today. I think she was kind enough not to say I told you so but she could get away with saying I told you so today. If she wasn't here, yeah, she would have.
6:45 – 6:518 turns
Supervisor Wolfe.
Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you to all who showed up today and who never gave up the fight. You know what is striking to me about the numbers here is that 50% are on probation and I see that probation was part of your stakeholder group and I'm just wondering If they're on probation, they obviously have a probation officer who's working with them. But I'm trying to understand and maybe this is a Mr. Gazzone question.
If someone violates probation and they go before a judge, is there any way to wrap this AOT process into that probation hearing?
Chair and Supervisors, we try to keep a separation between the voluntary mental health program and the course of nature of probation. But we have had discussions with the court on this and essentially many steps that you've talked about today are these guided discovery steps and we try to offer the voluntary treatment every step of the way so there's nothing that prevents a discussion of that it's just The court would not overtly hang the probation out as the alternative to voluntary.
Would it be the same judge? So let's say you are working with someone who is on probation and then something happens and they have violated probation, they go before the judge. Does that judge have the authority to mandate treatment or is that a whole separate
I normally try to give you a crisp answer but on this one since we have not yet, we don't have an experience with the court and in the counties that have done this with more experience, you know more cases actually being court imposed they'll use a sole judge for that. That will be the starting point of my answers so use a judge for the AOT program and everybody else is outside of that but there's conversation back and forth.
Did you want to say something? Yes, Supervisor Wolfe through the chair. So I think one of the things that Santa Barbara County benefits from is that it does have an array of different specialized courts for both mental health and substance abuse. And in one of our cases here we talked about the involvement in Mental Health Treatment Court which Is it voluntary if you're going to it through a court process? Well, I think you're seeing the involvement of the court process in helping someone comply with our various treatment courts. So it's not an AOT court but we are using the mechanisms that are in place for that. So I won't say that there's no court involvement or no black rope effect through that process. In the planning for this program, the concept is that the same judge that does the LPS conservatorships would be the one where we take the petitions to so it's the same judge and We've had those discussions.
We are ready to go when the team says this person needs to go, but we just haven't gotten there yet. But that doesn't mean that there's not some other legal process going for the individuals who have been referred.
Okay, thank you.
Supervisor Adam? Responsible escalation that you're doing is good. And I'm glad that you haven't gone to court yet, frankly because I think you got some bullets left in the gun. You know, at that point. It's better to go out there 25 times and talk to somebody and get them to voluntarily come in, in my opinion because if you have to go out 35 times or if you guys make the professional judgment at some point that this person is just never gonna come and I don't know what you have to see out of a client to conclude that But and as you do more of it, you'll get more experience. And you'd be able to see with greater clarity who's going to come along at some point and who's really not. And then you'll finally get some more experience in court because we're going to wind up there at some point.
I assume. And it would probably be better if we didn't, but if that's what you've got to do at some point for someone then please do it. But I don't want to see you just leap to that because it has been 90 days and I think you guys are capable of seeing who is Likely to maybe come around and you probably, I would say by building the trust you probably get a better buy in. And probably have greater success long term and towards that end I really look forward to next year's report Where we can, and I'm hoping that we get some follow up on these particular clients that got entrained in your system in this way. And see where they are in a year and see if they're not substantially better than they would have been had they not been treated. And that's what everybody is after in the first place is to make sure that these people are substantially better than being left untreated so.
I'm looking forward to next year's report.
6:51 – 6:576 turns
Well, this has been successful. It's not successful in precisely the same way as I envisioned but it's unquestionably successful particularly if we're getting a lot of people into voluntary services have a greater likelihood of having their buy-in I think for the community and for us to get our head around it, it might be useful just the next time we do this to give us a flavor of You know, obviously you've told us who is going into other paths for services.
But what the status of the people who aren't going into other services meaning how many of them are just people that the outreach worker has gone? We need to have another 90 days with this person because I'm building that relationship it's just not there yet. And how many are just people who dropped off the radar, meaning they disappeared. We don't know what happened. That sort of thing for us to get an idea of how this is unfolding. So this is really good data and I hate to have you guys do any more compliance type stuff but that just might help me get my head around it.
Mr. Chair, I wanted to piggyback on that too because you know we also want to hear the bad news. I mean if there's somebody were following and they were resistant and they end up overdosing or they end up in the hospital or because that's what I want to know too is like what are we avoiding but also what is the reality out there of somebody that's been resistant and we're waiting Thank you Mr. Chair. Who's from NAMI that I can ask a question of?
Can I ask you a question, Mr. Kaufman? If you could just come up here. Do you have a NAMI in North County?
Yeah, I didn't have time to mention that when I was up here before but thank you for the question. There was at one time an affiliate there it became an active and We were going to try to do an outreach up there and start another nominee. And it wound up where we had to have our state organization decertify the other affiliate, and all that. It took about two or three years. Anyway, that happened last summer. So we undertook, about a year ago now, With the, actually Transitions Mental Health Association who actually through their family advocate program dealing with family members. Just like the program that we have down here it's a program that you guys fund that helps with supportive services for families. We went there because we felt they had the greatest ability to contact families and The client services that they have there, the day programs and that for consumer members.
It's been kind of a stop and go up and down effort. In Lompoc we have Family Advocate, who has now identified about 10 or 12 family members mostly who are interested in starting a NAMI activity there. We've been less successful frankly to date in Santa Maria but we're working on that and we can now make it a little easier for them. They don't have to go through the process of having to do their own 501c3 and all that. Our national and state organizations now will allow us To allow them to have a NAMI presence, but to use our 501c3 status. So it's easy to do, but we're doing the outreach.
Speaking of outreach, we're doing that outreach right now and it's been spotty.
Well, you folks have been very successful not just in your advocacy but also being there for families. I mean, I've heard stories of people being able to contact folks in NAMI and getting assistance and guidance about where to go for services. But I was a little concerned about the North County, not that I think that NAMIs should take care of everybody but I actually think it's our responsibility. We have this program and to the extent that we can get more messaging to the community, I'm trying to think of the group of women.
It's a group of Latina women. It's a promatorious, that might be a good start because I mean they're pretty incredible. So I think whatever kind of outreach that we can do in the North County from county to people like you, we really appreciate it. Because what we're doing in the South County is pretty impressive.
Thank you. But we appreciate it and we also would say to all of you, if you know of other potential contacts like you mentioned, we'd like to be able to pursue them. The thing is, we're limited too. We're volunteers. We don't have a single paid staff at NAMI. Some of them are people like me that don't have a meaningful job, but other people have things to do.
And so sometimes it's difficult to get in the volunteer effort that we need. But we're going to continue to do that and if you have any ideas about how we can be more successful at it, we'd appreciate hearing from you. Thank you.
6:58 – 7:038 turns
Can I get a motion?
I'll move that we receive and file this report.
And determine that the activities are exempt from CEQA. Yes. Second. There's a motion in the second, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Anonymous? Thank you so much. We are taking back up D6 and A25. Okay. If you have a slide, could you put this up just for the sake of the public? This looks completely compliant with our wishes.
So Mr. Chair and members of the board, yes I think we did what you asked. And there are copies of the slides in the back of the room as well. Can you just put it in slide view? Yes that's Denise. So this is the language that we're proposing for the county land use and development code in Montecito Land Use and Development Code. And you can see that the sections are referenced above, and it's essentially the language that I read earlier.
For applicants that have an approved land use permit, issued land use permit or issued exemption for a proposed accessory dwelling unit on or before August 14th 2018, the land use permit or exemption shall remain valid providing Provided that a building permit for the proposed accessory dwelling unit is issued by August 14th, 2019. Otherwise the approval or issuance shall be invalid.
And then in the quote for article two language is a little bit different because we don't want to preclude people from continuing to apply for an RSU. Under article two, so they're not operating under state law. They're operating under our existing ordinance for residential second units while the Coastal Commission certification process is going on. So that language instead says for applicants that haven't approved or issued coastal development permit for a proposed residential second unit because that's what they would really be applying for. On or before the effective date of this ordinance, the coastal development permit will remain valid until essentially either August 14th 2019 or the date that the ordinances certified by the Coastal Commission.
And I think that it's much less important in the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, because the RSU ordinance really is pretty much in every way more restrictive than the ADU ordinance that we're processing. But we want to allow people to complete that process if they start it. So I think that's it.
Well, I think it's very compliant with our desire to give people more time and want to thank staff for being able to work furiously and quickly and avoid another hearing. That was very laudable. For my part, I think this has been an important step. We're doing an ordinance that makes sense, is tailored to Santa Barbara but is also compliant with state law which was the difficult part at least it appears to me that it's compliant with state law.
I know ministerial housing is a little new thing for Santa Barbara in some ways and In there's definitely the reality that we desperately need more housing and more housing without Without sprawl, and ADUs definitely are able to accomplish that. So I'm hopeful that this ordinance will make a difference in our housing nightmare that's out there and really appreciate staff for their work.
Any other comment or question by the board? Can I get a motion?
First
on six before we-
So we've put the recommended action slide up, but really I think you want to turn to the board letter for the formal motion. And just note that the ordinances were revised in the August 10th 2018 memo and then as indicated today.
7:03 – 7:0610 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair I know this is so long and may be intimidating to people so I will try a motion. I will move recommendations A roman numeral 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, D. 1 and 2 as reflected in the August 10th memo changes and this amendment for the additional year drafted today.
And as shown on the slide that was distributed publicly?
As shown on the slide distributed publicly. Is there a second? And just a request, once it becomes clear with public health how this whole septic thing is working can you come back and report to us on how that's working out. Okay, motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? And then I need a motion on A25.
Second. All those in
favor?
Mr. Chair just to be really clear with the ordinance as revised and adopted
today? Yes with the ordinance as revised and adopted today.
I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? We do have an adjourn in memory for
our county employee. Thank you Mr. Chair. Yes we had an employee that passed away July 14th, Mary Ostini. She began her career with the County Department of Social Services as a clerk typist at the Workforce Resource Center in July 1998. And over the last 20 years, she provided support in her role as an administrative office professional to the Rapid Response Program, Youth Program and the Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs. Most recently she provided support to the Child Welfare Services and Adoption Programs.
Throughout her career with the department and the many changes she experienced Mary always had a can-do attitude and was known for her eagerness to learn and take on new challenges. She was always willing to do whatever it took to meet the needs of clients and help her co-workers. She was well known for her friendly, outgoing style, warm smile and sharp wit. She cherished her family and friends, loved to collect penguins and was an avid Dodgers fan.
Mary was a true asset to the County of Santa Barbara. She took tremendous pride in all that she did and committed 100% to her work and her relationships. She was a loyal, dedicated member of the Department of Social Services family and a valued county employee. Mary will be fondly remembered for her many contributions and sorely missed. Well said.
We are adjourning for two weeks. That will be 28th in Santa Barbara.