BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 October 17, 2023

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.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:029 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.860:15

Good morning I will call to order the October 17th 2023 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk please call the roll.

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈28s recited, not transcribed
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:24

At this time please stand and

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.860:25

join

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:25

the board in pledging allegiance to our flag

Next item of business is the approval of the minutes from the October 10th meeting. Do I have any corrections or a motion?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:05

Chair, I move to approve the minutes.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:07

Is there a second? Second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The CEO's report.

CommentChris DonatiProposed · by introduction1:16

There's no report this morning Chair Williams.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:20

Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:23

Chair Williams and members of the board, I do have one announcement this morning for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda. Please see page two of the agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page 2. If you have any questions please contact the clerk of the boards office at area code 805-568-2240 again that's 805 5 6 8 2 2 4 0 and that concludes my announcements for today.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:59

Thank you I have a 18 a 22 and a 29 pulled from the administrative agenda are there any further items that the public or board members wish to pull?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:13

Chair Williams and members of the board I have no further requests from the public

0:02 – 0:0726 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:16

then can I get a motion on a balance the balance of the administrative agenda

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.902:19

so moved

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:22

There's a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Then we'll go to A18.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:34

Chair Williams and members of the board administrative item number 18 is from the Human Resources Department it is to consider recommendations regarding a revision to the new hire and promotional incentives policy.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:49

Ms. Capps

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:51

Thank you, Chair Williams. I just wanted to pull this item because I know how hiring has been such a challenge, especially during the pandemic and ensuing months afterwards. And I just wanted to get more of a status update about this item, because I think what you all did as a board to provide these incentives is extremely important. And I just hope that these incentives are being utilized. So I was hoping to ask our CEO or HR department to elaborate on vacancy rates and how departments are utilizing these incentives. Thanks.

CommentChris DonatiProposed · by introduction3:21

Supervisors, I'm going to have to refer that to HR. So are they on Zoom yet? So Ms Torres just jumped on so Yvonne.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:43

Yes, I am here now I missed the question actually.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.843:49

No problem, I'll happy to restate. So I just was again affirming my support for this type of creative solutions to hiring challenges during the pandemic and currently and I just wanted to understand how is it being impacted? Which departments are utilizing these which ones aren't necessarily using these incentives where we still having persistent vacancy rates within departments thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:16

right OK so Supervisor Caps or the chair. So departments have been using based on the needs, based on the vacancy rates, based on the length of time that we have to keep these positions open and based on. The retention of the actual in the positions so recently most recently the departments that have been using them for this year are mostly social services behavior wellness We have some general services position it varies based on what's going on in the market at the time so Currently we are seeing a few custody deputy sheriff's laterals that they're using the bonuses Currently General Services is also giving some IT has given a few but it's mainly It's it's not all the departments. It's about 20% of the departments are using them.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.845:26

Thank you and do we still have a fairly high vacancy rate in planning and development? We

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:30

do.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.845:31

And is that a department that's using them, these hiring incentives?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:36

That is not a department that has used them this year.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.845:39

Okay taking note of that thank you very much.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:48

And I have a request even though we just well first let's have a motion on this. Motion on A18. Is there any public comment?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.906:01

Chair Williams, it does raise the bigger question. It would be nice to know which departments are using and which not particularly where we've got a gap. A lot of vacancies and yet no utilization. Which departments are those? And why are they not using that? Are there other things we can do?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:26

I think it's an important piece of information for us to have as a board so perhaps we could make a request just from HR to let us know that in some kind of summary form say how many employees have utilized it in each department.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.906:44

And compare it to the vacancy rate, thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:49

Did you hear that request?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:51

Yes we can. We can get that to you. Thank you so much.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:54

Right. Thank you. Let's get a motion on. We have a motion and a second on this no public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:05

Motion Laura second. Sure absolutely

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.867:09

great. All those in favor please say aye. Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:14

Chair Williams, members of the board we did not have any requests to speak on that item thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.867:17

Great I do have a request we just voted on it but a comment on A14 Mr. Nelson?

0:07 – 0:127 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:28

Chair Williams, members of the board. Administrative item number 14 is from the district attorney's office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the acceptance of Board of State and Community Corrections B.S.C.C award for an organized retail theft vertical prosecution program O.R.T.V.P.P., and there was a four-fifths vote required on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:48

All right thank you I apologize for not pulling it earlier although I would still support Approval of this. This one just caught my eye it is a for a grant from the district attorney's office for theft prosecutions there were some various grants throughout the state that were applied for and It caught my eye that Santa Barbara County was the only County to apply for a small allocation most of the other grants for about two million dollars, and there were larger allocations Some counties larger than us some county smaller than us So I reached out to the district attorney's office. I just wanted to understand why we didn't apply for the bigger amount and I got some answers, and I understand that Assistant DA Kelly Duncan may be available on maybe zoom to speak to that.

CommentI'm Kelly DuncanProposedself-stated8:38

Yes, Supervisor Nelson through the chair. I'm Kelly Duncan, assistant District Attorney and with respect to your question on Organized Retail Theft Prosecution Grant. We did evaluate the number of cases that we have in the county when applying for this grant, while retail theft is has increased significantly from I want to say about 70% from 2019 to 2022. We did not have the type Sort of like flash mob thefts that you're seeing in some of the larger jurisdictions We don't have that sort of problem in Santa Barbara County. So we wanted to have a competitive grant Application and and we thought that this smaller Grant award would be appropriate for our county With respect to the vertical prosecution. We were also aware at the time that the sheriff's office was applying for the Separate prevention grant.

I'm aware now that they were not awarded that grant, but we do think that with the $800,000 grant we will be able to make significant impacts on the problem in Santa Barbara County.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed10:04

Thank you, Miss Duncan. I don't want to seem ungrateful by any means and I think this is a good news story that number one that our county was awarded this grant but also number two that we don't have the same level of thefts in other counties that have been experienced so we didn't need to apply for the larger grant. My concerns when I talked to the district attorney yesterday was that we may not be moving forward from some various municipalities with bringing forward theft cases to the DA's office because of some of the issues with the backlog in cases. And so, I was hoping that this also by highlighting this might alert them that there is going to be some additional funds available at the District Attorney's Office.

So that they can move forward with bringing these prosecutions ahead and invest the investigative time in there. Many law enforcement officers are frustrated because they often will arrest somebody or deal with an issue, but then it goes nowhere. It's good to know that some of these funds have been made available so that our DA's office can address that. Retail theft is one of the biggest issues that I hear about when I talk to my constituencies and businesses. It is a huge concern. And with some of the changing laws that have taken place in the state of California limit the penalties potentially that we've seen some increases in some areas not so much in Santa Barbara County but it's something that I have an assurance when my conversation with days Avernoche that if this crown is available and that we do see upon prosecution of some of these cases that it does lead to additional cases that they will be applying for those grants in the future

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8611:45

supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9011:47

Yes, thank you Supervisor Nelson for raising this to our attention I we may not have the Same issues with retail theft But we certainly do with rural that and if there are any grants in that area. I hope we will pursue them aggressively

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8512:04

Supervisor Lavanya Thank you And I was gonna mention that as well that just in a recent conversation with one of the officers at Santa Maria PD that they have now because Much of the rural theft that we have going on. That they've actually, for the first time in a long time put together a property crimes unit and they're gonna start investigating and prosecuting these cases so good news for all of our farmers and folks out there

0:12 – 0:185 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8612:35

Again we don't need a motion because we already voted on this but it is I have confidence in the district attorney to make this into a success and hopefully our success will engender more grants that we can obtain. Okay let's go to A22. which has been pulled by the public.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed12:59

Chair Williams and members of the board administrative item number 22 is from the Public Health Department it is to consider recommendations regarding Lawrence J Bynes MD professional corporation agreement termination fiscal year 2023 through 2024 board contract number two three one two six and we do have one request to speak on this item from the public and that is here in Santa Maria we are going to Lawrence Bynes, Lawrence?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed13:38

Thank you. Good morning. Three out of five of your health care centers currently have no clinic administrator, a record high in the 31 years I've been working for you. There's currently no medical director in the public health department. Your last medical director lasted just six months in the current PhD environment. In the Department of Women's Health at the main clinic, two of the most experienced RNs and two of our best medical assistants have recently resigned.

Citing such things as a toxic work environment, an unsupportive clinic administrator, and hostile supervising nurses is the reason they left. Losses of our most talented employees in what Chairman Williams referred to as a limited labor environment indeed hit hard and should be primary focus of our leadership team. In his last 10 months as director of the Public Health Department, Dr. Hamami has visited my clinic once.

It was a five-minute meet and greet during his first week on the job. He's never reached out to me since. As the lead Women's Health Services physician I would have enjoyed sharing my vision for the future of the women's health program with him. He must have had his reasons for sidestepping me and ultimately taking advantage of a department imposed suspension to then put my contract up for termination.

It's been eight weeks since Deputy Director Gamble removed me from my duties in Santa Barbara. Unfortunately, it would appear that the HR team has not made a good faith effort to resolve the situation. As of last Friday, Mr. Ventura of HR said that he has taken statements from me and from two nurses who apparently complained about me and from nobody else. He's not willing to come to any conclusion, to either clear my name or recommend any type of discipline.

He said he's not sure what follow up if any is required to complete with me since I'm a contractor and not an employee. In the meantime, Dr. Hamani revealed the nature of the complaint against me in multiple emails to multiple members of the medical community, a violation of policy that I don't take lightly and neither should you. Perhaps you noticed that he mentioned the investigation at least four times in his remarks to you last week. This tactic must have made you wonder what sort of dastardly deed I committed as do I.

I realize that my contract is an at-will contract and that it may be terminated at any time with 30 days notice without cause. I'm not here to contest that and expect that you'll vote to terminate. I am here to put the work of your public health director and his team on your radar. I am here to put you on alert that the largest revenue generating specialty in healthcare services is at risk.

I'm here to make you aware of how poorly two of your departments have treated me after 31 years of proud service. I'm here to make you aware of the potential for deteriorating quality of OB patient care at your Del Remedio Clinic because of the actions of the leadership team. You have some of the finest, most caring capable people in the healthcare field working in the trenches at your clinics It's been my honor to work with them all these years and I hope you will honor them by providing them with effective leaders in the future.

And I thank you, and I particularly thank you Mr. Nelson for giving me the opportunity to speak today and thank all of you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8616:58

Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Nelson?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed17:00

Yes, thank you Chair Williams. I pulled this item and asked for it to be continued last week because some of the information that Dr. Bynes had provided me was new information and I really take our public comments seriously and when I am presented with information that I don't know how to litigate in front of everybody, a continuation I thought was appropriate so that I could meet with Public Health staff get some additional information Better understand the issue. I acknowledge that I didn't know who Dr. Bynes was prior to last Tuesday, and I appreciate his comment as well as some of the emails that we received this week.

I know there was talk that we might be micromanaging this but you know this item did come before us it does need our approval to be terminated Since last Tuesday, I met with Director Amani. I met with other staff and I asked questions about how this might impact women's health care in the Santa Maria Valley. My understanding of this contract doesn't apply to that. I am satisfied that the department has done the work necessary to move forward and so again, I appreciate my colleagues indulging me and waiting another week so I felt comfortable but I would support staff's recommendations at this time.

0:18 – 0:2112 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8618:14

Any other questions from the board? Supervisor Caput.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8418:20

Just a comment, I will respect staff's recommendation here but I just want to acknowledge the many members of the medical field who did write it to us with in support of the doctor so I just wanted to acknowledge that and his length of service to this community and the support that's out there amongst the medical community thank you

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8618:43

I would echo that just to thanks to all those who work in the field of women's health for the county. It is important work and if a contract came back for less money in a future time, I would be open to it. Okay can I get a motion on A22? So

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9019:09

moved.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8619:11

All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? 829.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed19:19

Chair Williams and members of the board administrative item number 29 is from Supervisor Capps it is to approve the appointment of Joanne Meade Young to the Commission for Women term ending December 31st 2025 and this is in the second district

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8419:36

Thank you. Just a quick note of gratitude to our Women's Commission, of which I served years ago and I just wanted to thank in particular here Joanne Mead Young for stepping up she's a longtime educator former principal of Ellwood Elementary and I know she'll be a fantastic addition to an already fantastic commission so I just wanted to say thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8619:57

Supervisor Nelson?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed19:59

I will make a note that we're also appointing on this agenda a third member of the fourth district women's commission so for the first time in a long time we have a full contingency. JoJo Murdoch is an amazing young woman who has lived experience and adds value to the women's commission. It's important to have women that look like the fourth district on the women's commission. It is a very diverse county.

Having additional input and different perspectives you know leads to better decision-making just like it does here on this board. So I'm looking forward to having Jojo join my already terrific team representing the 4th District.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8620:45

Can I get a motion?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8420:49

Yes, I'm happy to move to approve this item.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8620:53

Second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, now we have resolutions for presentation beginning with A32.

0:21 – 0:288 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed21:06

Chair Williams and members of the board administrative item number 32 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams it is to adopt a resolution proclaiming October 2nd 2023 as World Habitat Day 2023 in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have John Silva and joining us via zoom we have Susan Renahan and Jessica de la Arbra And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.

Habitat for Humanity is an international organization that has built and repaired homes all over the world, and whereas Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County or Habitat Santa Barbara is a local affiliate organization founded in 2000, and whereas Habitat Santa Barbara delivers their mission to build homes communities and hopes In partnership with individuals and families in need of a place to call home throughout South Santa Barbara County. And whereas Habitat Santa Barbara believes that a safe and decent home is a human right, and whereas Habitat Santa Barbara produces, preserves, and protects local housing by building new homes, repairing existing homes, and advocating for affordable housing at the local state and national levels.

And whereas Habitat Santa Barbara has built four different new construction housing builds including 22 homes, housing 84 people 50% of whom are children and has repaired more than 200 homes for low-income individuals and families including seniors those living with a disability and veterans. And whereas Habitat Santa Barbara believes that homeownership is a path to stability and self-sufficiency for low income families and having a stable and predictable housing payment creates opportunities for children and families for educational growth and improve mental and physical health. And whereas Habitat Santa Barbara and Santa Barbara County have partnered since inception to work together to achieve home repair outcomes for county individuals and families, and whereas World Habitat Day was observed worldwide on October 2nd 2023 kicking off World Habitat Month now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors celebrates World Habitat Month and commends Habitat Santa Barbara for their work to ensure that every family individual and child in Southern Santa Barbara County as a safe and decent home in which to live.

Further, the Board of Supervisors congratulates them on their plans to build their fifth affordable housing development, Dakota Street Affordable Homes, and looks forward to celebrating with them when six families can achieve the life-changing power of homeownership. Lastly, the Board of Supervisors thanks them working to end substandard housing conditions and looks forward to continued partnership. Pass it adopted today.

PresenterJohn SilvaProject Management and Housing for Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa BarbarProposedself-stated23:44

Thank you very much. My name is John Silva, Director of Project Management and Housing for Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County. I just want to say thank you for this honor. We want to thank you for the positive impact we're going to take on Southern County. Habitat is mainly known for building homes globally worldwide but kind of the unsung hero is home repairs and that's what this program is gonna go to This is going to allow so many homeowners to keep their homes safe, secure and livable. From roof repairs to handle the heavy storms and furnace replacements in the winter to keep the heat going.

To shower renovations and ramp installations for our elderly so they can age in place properly This money is going to help so many different homes in that area and the number of people that we are desperately trying to go and help is ever-growing and never ending. So, we cannot thank you enough for this honor to be able to partner with you and work on getting these homes addressed. So thank you again.

Not sure if the CEO is also online but she wants to say a few words.

PresenterJessica Wachanda-LarveraCEO of Habitat for Humanity of Southern San Barbara County what a special occasiProposedself-stated24:45

Good morning. Thank you again so much for this opportunity, John thank you for your remarks and your leadership in the housing programs. My name is Jessica Wachanda-Larvera I serve as the CEO of Habitat for Humanity of Southern San Barbara County what a special occasion for us today. I also wanted to thank you uh for the item later in the agenda approval of our In response to a community where housing costs are growing and the availability of affordable housing is shrinking, we support the three Ps. Producing affordable housing with new construction projects, preserving existing housing Through home repairs and whole home rehabs, we protect affordable housing by advocating for fair and just policies. We wanted to thank you again as we acknowledge that there's more than 2500 homes in need of low income owner occupied home repairs in South County.

And thank you for your partnership as we work to build six new condos and an additional rehabbed home. Thank you very much.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8625:53

Supervisor Hart?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9025:54

Thank you. You are a premier organization nationally and internationally, we're so glad you're here. My question goes to with home repair, are you doing anything related to renewable installing solar and getting grants for heat pumps or things like that? Could you talk about that?

PresenterJohn SilvaProject Management and Housing for Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa BarbarProposedself-stated26:16

Yeah, so 3C REN is a company that's been started. A company that we're working with and their partnership is they go and they actually work with contractors to get special deals they can come across and then install those in homes that are already pre-existing so we can change out the energy inefficient heaters in those homes or the heat pumps AC units stuff like that swamp coolers We are pushing for everything to be solar panel powered.

The kind of problem we have though is in a lot of homes, budgets are our biggest problem so when we'll go in there and see if that shower is unacceptable for that person who's in the wheelchair, we spend a lot of our money to help that and then we forego some of these other programs when it's coming to those usable energy. So it's usually in the new homes that we build which is Takes a little bit of time to get those going. That's where we more focus on the solar-generated projects.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9027:16

Thank you, and I assume you're looking at all the kinds of incentives that are available just because if you can reduce energy costs then it's easier for people to pay their rent or pay for their housing payments over time so anyway thank you for your great work. Thank you very much

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8627:32

And in addition to the home repair program, I just want to thank Habitat for having the boldness to brave the city of Santa Barbara's approval process and putting forth that new project across the street from the Santa Barbara Junior High, which will be badly needed by my constituents in the first district. So thank you so much. Thank you all. We'll go to administrative item 33.

0:28 – 0:358 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed28:02

Chair Williams and members of the board, Administrative Item number 33 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution recognizing the Great California Shakeout with intent to participate on October 19th, 2023. And joining us in person today we have Stacy Silva. Oh, and we also have Kelly Hubbard and Jackie Ruiz! Thank you for being here today and I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas an earthquake is a sudden jolt of ground shaking that occurs when the Earth's tectonic plates shift or slip naturally due to volcanic or magnetic activity, or because of some other sudden change. People living visiting or working in the County of Santa Barbara must be aware of the ongoing and deadly hazards associated with earthquakes.

And whereas the County of Santa Barbara promotes earthquake preparedness Through County Department participation in the Great California Shakeout, as well as year-round efforts to plan for earthquake related disasters. To facilitate the continuity of government and coordinate public assistance following a major earthquake event. And whereas earthquakes will occur with minimal advance warning, the public must be prepared to act and avoid earthquake caused injuries. If you believe an earthquake is imminent or in progress, you should drop or lock cover and hold on. Safely, calmly and quickly protect yourself under a sturdy object and hold that object over you until shaking completely stops.

And whereas public can improve their personal preparedness by making emergency kits and registering for emergency alerts at www.readysbc.org And whereas by supporting the great California ShakeOut, Santa Barbara County can utilize the information available at www.shakeout.org forward slash california to educate its residents regarding actions to protect life and property including mitigating structural and non-structural hazards.

And whereas the county of Santa Barbara encourages homeowners to make their homes more resistant to earthquake damage by applying for a grant from the California Earthquake Authority's 2023 earthquake brace and bolt at www.earthquakebracebolt.com, and whereas all Santa Barbara County residents and guests are encouraged to practice how to safely drop or lock cover and hold on during this year's great California shakeout exercise at 1019 AM on October 19, 2023 Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors do hereby proclaim the day of October 19th, 2023 as Earthquake Preparedness Day and approve participating in the Great California Shakeout passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed30:46

Chair Williams, Supervisor Hartman and Board. Thank you so very much for recognizing and highlighting the importance of the Great California Shakeout for us here in Santa Barbara County. I also want to thank Jacqueline because she reads those resolutions so well and it's a lot! But just a quick reminder that we, although we may not experience earthquakes all the time, we do live in earthquake country. And if you go to the USGS earthquake tracking website, you will see that earthquakes are occurring around us continuously throughout the year.

So really want to highlight personal preparedness, including taking the time to practice. So not only making sure that your family and your pets are prepared for emergencies but taking the time to actually practice and that's what October 19th allows us to do. Making sure that you download tools such as the My Shake app that will help you stay apprised to changing conditions with earthquakes.

And if you need more information about how your business, your family can participate in ShakeOut visiting shakeout.org and then finally making sure that you have registered for ReadySBCAlerts For the county, if you're not registered we cannot reach you and that's how we will be able to communicate vital information following an earthquake event to our community. So that is very important but thank you again for highlighting the Great California Shakeout and we look forward to participating!

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8632:23

And I think you covered it in the resolution, but we were just walking back up. Tell us again and the public what's the safest places to go to and be in an earthquake?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed32:35

Sure, the safest place is going to be under a sturdy desk. It used to be they would tell you to stand in the doorway that is no longer the case so getting down and underneath if you are in a wheelchair or Walker making sure that you lock And then duck and cover is the safest place for you to be.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8632:58

And what if you don't have a sturdy desk and a lot of windows?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed33:04

Yes, so getting away from the windows in your home. Going to an interior area making sure the biggest thing is to make sure that you ducking cover so no matter where you are and get away from glass. So anything that's falling take time now to harden your home. So securing those items that could fall off your TVs and other things and then making sure that you cover your head And that's why they say to cover because you're also protecting your insides and getting under a chair or any other sturdy object within your space will benefit.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8633:39

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed33:39

A34 Chair Williams and members of the board. Administrative item number 34 is sponsored by Supervisor Katz and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution recognizing the Women's Legacy in Leadership Conference in Santa Barbara County, and joining us via Zoom we have Susan Rose. And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas women in Santa Barbara County have demonstrated remarkable progress and achievements in the realm of political and civic leadership And whereas the first ever Women's Legacy and Leadership Conference is being organized by current and former women elected leaders dedicated to empowering women and fostering positive change in our community.

And whereas, the upcoming Women's Legacy and Leadership Conference promises to be a groundbreaking and impactful community event that will celebrate the enduring legacies and accomplishments of elected appointed and government administrative women leaders in Santa Barbara County. And whereas this conference will feature distinguished guest keynote speakers, expert panelists engaging breakout sessions and valuable networking opportunities all designed to inspire and empower women leaders throughout Santa Barbara County. And to reflect on the specific policy achievements initiated by women leaders in Santa Barbara County.

And whereas the success of this conference will contribute to the continued advancement of women in leadership roles, furthering strengthening our community and promoting gender equity in political and civic spheres. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proudly supports the first ever Women's Legacy and Leadership Conference on Saturday November 4th 2023 and encourages people from around the county to participate in this event passed and adopted today.

0:35 – 0:389 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8635:37

Supervisor Susan Rose.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed35:39

Thank you all, can you hear me? This is a new experience for me. Yes

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8635:43

we can hear you loud and clear.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed35:45

Good morning so I want to thank the Board of Supervisors for supporting us and our two co-chairs who are sitting there and will share the day with us. I want to mention two things to everybody who's watching. The first is that we would ask those who are going to attend to register. We want to know how many are coming or gonna serve lunch on that day have a capacity.

The way you register is by going on the website and that would be, the address is legacyandleaderships.com and the word and is spelled out so it's legacyandleaderships.com please register as soon as you can. And the other thing I would encourage everybody who's coming or considering coming is to bring in a young guest with you so you will be the mentor for that young guest for the day This is an opportunity for all women in our community to meet those individuals who are playing, as you are today, playing a very strong role in developing programs and policies in our county. As well I know.

Finally just to comment it's a day of celebration. We would invite all five of you to come and share that day with us and it'll be in the Planning Commission room, newly redone Planning Commission room. So thank you for supporting us and we look forward to November 4th Everybody engaged with us as we celebrate women in their leadership roles.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8637:08

Thank you, Supervisor. Ms Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9037:12

Yes well I just wanted to acknowledge that former supervisor Susan Rose has probably done more in her post-supervisorial career to cultivate women leaders both with courses at Antioch and many informal forums and so this will be an opportunity in one nutshell to get the benefit of all that she's learned and taught over the years. And so thank you very much Supervisor Rose

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed37:43

Thank you Supervisor Hartman. I always appreciate a comment like that, I do.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8637:48

Supervisor Caps?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8437:49

Thank you all just add that I don't know of anyone who's more passionate about women being elected women in leadership positions than Susan Rose and it continues day in and day out and I wanted to thank her and thank the other ladies who are part of this effort which are Santa Barbara City College trustee Anna Everett As well as Liz Martinez, as well as Suzanne Peck. And to echo what Supervisor Rose said we're really hoping to get emerging leaders to this conference that's a primary goal so please help us spread the word and everyone is welcome. Thank you.

0:38 – 0:445 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8638:28

Let's go to administrative item 35.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed38:31

Chair Williams and members of the board, administrative item number 35 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2023 as Arts and Humanities Month and recognizing Joseph Woodard and the Montecito Bank and Trusts. And joining us in person today we have members from the Arts Commission as well as Joseph Woodard. I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.

Whereas the month of October has been recognized as National Arts and Humanities Month by the White House and Congress for 30 years. And whereas the Board of Supervisors formed the County Arts Commission in 1977 to support, foster, and encourage participation in and access to arts and culture for all county residents. And whereas through programs such as Percent For Art, the county has furthered its commitment to cultivating dynamic and culturally relevant public spaces and opportunities for all.

And whereas through their leadership and arts award program, the Arts Commission honors civic partners who further promote creative expression through visionary thinking and exemplary dedication to advancing community well-being through the arts. The Arts Commission commends Montecito Bank & Trust and Joseph Woodard for their tremendous commitment to uplifting our diverse creative communities and local artists. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims October as National Arts and Humanities Month, and encourages all community members to explore Santa Barbara County's vibrant arts and culture venues passed and adopted today.

PresenterGeorge Lee'sMontecito Bank and TrustProposedself-stated40:09

Oh gosh, I'm George Lee's president of Montecito Bank and Trust. And boy, I wish Mike Tobes was here today because you know our founder Mike Tobes really set a tone at our bank that supporting the arts is so critically important And Mike's dream was that we would have a branch here in Santa Maria. So it's even more special that, you know, we get recognized here as the largest locally owned privately held community bank in the Central Coast that I get to receive this award on behalf of our board of directors and executive management team. I know Janica Rufus would have loved to have been here if she could have. But this is really, really special Having an office here in Santa Maria is the sort of pinnacle of Mike's dream.

So on behalf of everybody at Montecito Bank & Trust and our newest branch here in Santa Maria, I am so grateful and honored to the Board of Supervisors to give us this honor. So thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed41:17

Hello, Joe Woodard from the Santa Barbara Independent and multiple places who will hire me. I've been a pretty much lifelong freelancer. I don't know how I've survived but partly because Santa Barbara's cultural life is so vibrant and multifaceted and I just had a thought that part of the reason is this culture of patronage which includes Montecito Bank That's been so important, especially in the classical arts.

I feel like pop music doesn't need the help you know but anyway I've been a kind of a cultural omnivore since I was a teenager, and I was thinking Roman Baradyak very kindly put forth this honor which I appreciate. And I used to go to UCSB to see art and foreign films which he programmed so I was teenager before he knew me and I've just followed all kinds of music and art and film ever since And I was thinking, people have congratulated me for my Lifetime Achievement Award. And I said no that's not what this is you know it's called Leadership in the Arts but really I'm an obsessive and professional follower of the arts. You know I'm on the sidelines And it's so wonderful to get this honor, you know, to sort of pull me back and think about the many years I've been doing it.

And Santa Barbara has given me much to write about and will continue to do so. So thank you again for the honor.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9043:15

Supervisor Williams, could I just say a few things? Thank you. Well, I think South County enjoys a tremendous wealth in the arts but we're really excited to see more and more coming up to various communities in North County. I represented Guadalupe for awhile and there was some sculptures that came around and it really enlivened the entire city And cyclists came to get their selfies. It really generated commerce as well, and I think about the new theater project that they have underway there and everybody is so excited about that.

There was a teacher of the year and I asked her, what made you come to Lompoc and stay for all these years, these decades? And she said, I was attracted by the murals. I'd never seen a city in that really spoke to me. And Lompoc is now engaged on a theater project and is famous for its mural. So I don't think you can overestimate how important the arts are to uplifting communities and bringing people together. And so I thank you for all your work, because it really matters.

0:44 – 0:488 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8644:35

Thank you. Now's the time for general public comment and for members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed44:45

Chair Williams and Members of the Board, yes we have three requests The public and county staff and general public comment. We're going to begin on zoom with Joe Devonick to be followed by Chris Donati, Joe.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed45:07

Good morning Mr Chairman and members of the board can you hear me?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:10

Yes we can please proceed.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed45:12

Good morning this is Joe Devonick Deputy Director of Housing and Community Development in the Community Service Department. I'm here today to read a statement regarding public comment period for an upcoming board item. The Community Service Department is extending the public comment period for a draft action plan amendment that includes 1.25 million dollars to the construction costs of the Bulton Garden Apartments.

A 30-day public notice was published in local newspapers advising the public that they could speak on the item during the October 17th Board meeting. However, this item has been moved to the November 7th Board of Supervisors meeting and the public notice period has been extended to November 7 when the board considers approval of the funding. Public comments may also be provided in writing for more information call 805-568-3521. And this concludes my statement thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed46:13

We will now go to Chris Donati to be followed by Joseph Morgan, who's our final speaker on general public comment. Chris?

GuestChris Donati I'mTreasurerProposedself-stated46:24

Hello my name is Chris Donati I'm a supervisor for the Public Guardians Office and Public Administrator which is a division of the Treasurer Tax Collectors. I've been a County of Santa Barbara employee for over 14 years and live in Supervisor Caps' district. I'm actually a third-generation employee, my grandmother and father both worked for the county and my wife is a supervisor for behavioral wellness and is also an SEIU 620 member.

I have been raised on the belief that civil service is a wonderful way to both stay connected to and help your community and it's a lesson they teach my children as well The Public Guardian's office helps ensure that members of our community who cannot make decisions for themselves due to a brain injury, developmental delay or neurocognitive disorder do not fall through the cracks and that they are properly cared for once a conservatorship can be established. These individuals are usually elderly and being financially abused or neglected. I have an amazing staff and co-workers who are all hardworking and care for their community.

We are quickly approaching a new bargaining session, and with it comes employees who have had to see inflation quickly soar above what was negotiated in the last contract. Please help us keep up with inflation and ensure our wages are competitive compared to other comparable counties and other cities within our county. By doing so you allow us to retain the hardworking employees we have and hire top talent leaders to come. Thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed47:47

We will now go to our final speaker on general public comment, Joseph Morgan. Joseph? Joseph I see you have unmuted yourself but we cannot hear you. Are you able to get closer to your microphone? Unfortunately, Joseph we cannot hear you on our end. There is an option to call in perhaps we can return to this portion of our general public comment momentarily if you want to try and call in with the information provided in the email. Why

0:48 – 0:5111 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8648:50

don't we go to departmental item number one and return if he's able to call him?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:00

Chair Williams and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the treasurer tax collector public administrator. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the housing authority of the County of Santa Barbara issuance of tax exempt multifamily housing revenue obligations for the benefit of heritage rich special needs family apartments.

CommentJoseph MorganProposed49:25

Go ahead. Good morning Chair Williams, members of the board. This item before you today is a TEFRA hearing for the Housing Authority of Santa Barbara County I have with me Bob Havlicek who's here to answer any kind of questions regarding the project or the financing terms 147 F of the Internal Revenue Code provides the pathway for nonprofits to access municipal markets and that's what this hearing today is about. I just want to remind everyone that the county has no obligation for the repayment of the obligations either legally or morally and so we are just holding the public hearing as part of the process

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8650:12

Thank you Mr. Hagan. Questions from the board? Any public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:20

Chair Williams and members of the board we have no request to speak on this item.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8650:24

Supervisor Caps?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8450:26

Well Mr. Hagen just answered my question, I tend to focus my attention on these board items to the fiscal impact and really had a hard time with the way that this was explained on paper but the way that you explained it verbally was helpful that basically there's no fiscal impact if this is just a holding so thank you for that if I might make a pitch as I have done before These are public documents and the more that we make them accessible to the public in advance, maybe perhaps through the CEO's office just helps me because this is my first TEFRA. I think that's the acronym hearing and I just think we need to view the work from those from that lens of people trying to understand what the business of the county is so thanks for explaining the fiscal impact and In better language than I found on the written document, thank you

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8651:23

There's no public comment so can I get a motion?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9051:26

Move staff recommendation.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8651:28

Second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. It's unanimous and then unless we have the public speaker back online.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed51:44

Chair Williams and members of the board perhaps we can try to unmute him once more he has not joined via telephone but we can try to unmute him Joseph, are you able to unmute yourself?

0:51 – 0:5513 turns

CommentJoe MorganProposedself-stated51:59

Hi there. I'm trying to join the Board of Supervisors meeting. My name is Joe Morgan.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed52:04

Joseph we can hear you and you can please proceed with your comments thank you

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8652:07

but please speak up

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed52:09

yes you're very light so if you can just speak very loudly into your microphone that would be much appreciated

CommentJoe MorganProposedself-stated52:16

okay good morning ladies and gentlemen of the board my name is Joe Morgan can you hear me okay yes Okay, I'm a plumber for the County of Santa Barbara General Services Department in the South County. I work to protect public health and all the public service employees in the South County. I'm here today to comment on the issue that's very near and dear to my heart about land development on the Gaviota Coast in an area known as Naples.

The proposed land development wouldn't create Affordable housing in a time of housing crisis here in Santa Barbara County, but instead it would be creating luxury estates for the privileged few that would be able to obtain housing there. I would just urge you to please vote no on any proposed land development on the Gaviota Coast and that area. But on another note, I would also like to say that I look forward to the next round of contract negotiations as a member of SEIU 620.

And I hope that we can reach favorable and fair contracts. Thank you for your time. That's all I have to say.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8653:37

Thank You Mr. Morgan.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed53:39

And that concludes general public comment

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8653:41

Let's return to Mr. Hagan and departmental item number two.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed53:45

Chair Williams and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Treasurer Tax Collector Public Administrator. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara issuance of tax-exempt multifamily housing revenue obligations for the benefit of Heritage Ridge Senior Apartments

CommentJoseph MorganProposed54:06

Thank you Chair Williams, members of the board. This item again is a TEFRA hearing for the Housing Authority of County of Santa Barbara. Again Bob Hablicek is here to discuss any questions you may have on the project or the financing. This is a TEFRA hearing as part of the process under the Internal Revenue Code that allows nonprofits access to municipal markets And again, I'll reiterate because it is really important to me as it is with Supervisor Caps that the county has no obligations for their payment of these bonds either morally or illegally. We are just holding the public hearing so the public can provide input.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8654:48

Thank you. Question from the board motion from the board

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9054:54

staff recommendation and I second

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8654:56

And there is no public comment on this item, so all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you Mr. Havlicek. Thank you. Let's go to departmental item number three.

0:55 – 0:569 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed55:18

Chair Williams and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the applicant appeal case number 23 APL 32 of the County Planning Commission's denial of the Garrity garage conversions project case number 22 CDP 9 and this is in the second district.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8655:44

First we'll call for ex parte communications. Mr. Nelson?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed55:49

No ex parte communication from our office.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8655:52

Mr Lavagnino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed55:53

None to report.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8655:55

I have no ex parte communications on this item. Supervisor Caput?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8455:59

I spoke with my planning commissioner, I doubt that that's ex parte but I just wanted to double check.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8656:04

Supervisor Hermann? Thank you. Staff presentation. I can give you a couple minutes to get situated.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed56:16

Mr. Chair, that would be greatly appreciated.

1:00 – 1:083 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:00:44

We're reconvening for item number three staff presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:00:52

Mr. Chair members of the board I would like to introduce Veronica King she's a planner with Development Review and this is her first time at the board so she will be presenting and then we have Joe Dargal supervising planner.

CommentVeronica KingProposedself-stated1:01:10

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is Veronica King and I will be presenting the appeal of the director's denial of the Garrity Garage conversions project. Next slide please. This is an aerial view of the proposed project site. The subject property is outlined in red, it's located at 6794 Trigo and 6793 Posado Road in Isla Vista and in the coastal zone.

The property is a .17 acre parcel zoned SRM 18 and is currently developed with a 1900 square foot single story duplex and two attached 200 square foot single car garages. The existing duplex was permitted in 1960. Next slide, please. Here are some photos of the site. The photos on the left are of 6794 Trigo and the photos on the right are of 6793 Pasado Road.

You can see in the photos on the right that there is space for about two vehicles in front of the existing garage doors although this configuration does not actually meet Article 2 parking standards. It has been a recognized issue for decades now that the existing parking demand in Isla Vista greatly exceeds the parking space availability and that many lots are legal non-conforming with respect to parking.

This is a site plan of the proposed project. The project is a request for CDP to allow for the conversion of two single car garages into dining room additions for the existing duplex. The garages to be converted are shown here in blue, two uncovered parking spaces are proposed to replace the lost garage spaces shown on the site plan to the left of the proposed dining rooms.

However as previously mentioned, the spaces denoted with red X's do not meet the dimensions required by Article 2 Here is the floor plan. Again, there are the garages to be converted on either side. Each unit has three bedrooms, a kitchen, a living room and one-and-a-half bathrooms. These are four rental units and the appellant does not live on the property.

The CDP was initially denied by the director and appealed by the applicant to the PC. The decision to deny the project was due to the conversion of two accessory structures into habitable space, which pursuant to Article 2 triggers the requirement to comply with current parking standards. The proposed project is non-conforming as to parking and would require 12 spaces to conform to current code standards.

Because it is nonconforming, the structure cannot be enlarged or extended unless the enlargement or extension complies with all requirements of Article 2. In this case, elimination of garage spaces exacerbates the subject lot's non-conformity to current Article 2 standards and would have the practical effect of exacerbating already overburdened parking supply issues in IV.

The applicant appealed the director's denial to the PC and was denied by a vote of five to zero. The applicant then filed an appeal, the PC's decision to the board. Staff reviewed the appeal and finds the issues raised are without merit. In the first appeal issue, the appellate asserts that the project does not constitute a change of use. In response, staff has determined that while garages and residences are both permitted uses in the SRM zone. They're listed as separate uses in the permitted uses section.

The project creates a change of use when converting garages which are considered non-habitable accessory structures incidental and subordinate to permanent use into newly habitable space at the duplex which is listed as a two family dwelling. They're distinct and separate uses therefore the project does constitute a change of use. In the second appeal issue, the appellant asserts that the zoning ordinance specifies that with a change of use, the number of parking spaces shall be calculated for the new use only and that dining rooms do not require parking.

In response, staff has determined that the ordinance requires a recalculation of parking spaces upon the change of any use, not just for new uses only. Further, the new use in question is the principal residential use. Converting garages into dining room space is converting non-habitable garage space into habitable residential space. Lastly, dining rooms are not used within Article 2 and are instead considered part of a dwelling which does require parking.

In the third appeal issue, the appellant argues that the parking ordinance is confiscatory and unconstitutional. The appellant contends that the only way to bring existing buildings in this zone into compliance is to remove bedrooms and to do so would be unreasonable. In response, staff has determined that the regulation of residential parking is consistent with the county's police powers and ability to regulate land use in the county.

The SRM zone parking requirements have been in place since the original adoption of Article 2 in 1982, and the time to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance as it relates to the SRM Zone has passed. Although many of the properties in IV are illegal non-conforming with respect to parking, including the subject lot. The requirement to recalculate the parking and comply with current ordinance standards is specifically triggered by the change of use.

The legal non-conforming status of the subject lot can be maintained if the garage is not converted. In the fourth and final appeal issue, the appellant claims that the PC hearing was biased because he was called dishonest and was unable to rebut statements made by commissioners. In response, staff has determined that the hearing before the board is de novo and therefore any claims related to an unfair or biased hearing at the PC is not relevant to the board's decision.

The PC complied with the Brown Act and the procedures manual. The applicant was allotted 25 minutes to present and the PC is not required to allow time for an appellant to rebut statements made by the PC. In summary, the existing garages cannot be converted into dining rooms because the subject lot cannot meet current Article 2 parking requirements triggered by the change of use.

The duplex which is considered legal non-conforming due to insufficient parking cannot be extended or enlarged without conforming to all Article 2 development standards including the recalculated 12 spaces. Parking modifications to reduce the number of parking spaces in the SRM zone are not allowed by this code specifically due to the longstanding issue of parking shortages in the IV community.

Therefore, the project cannot be approved as proposed. The denial of a CDP request is exempt from environmental review based on section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Staff recommends that your board deny the appeal, make the required findings for denial of the CDP. Determine the denial of the appeal and denial of the CDP is exempt from CEQA and denied to know of the CDP That concludes my presentation staff is available for questions.

1:08 – 1:1313 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:08:31

Any questions from the board? I just have one, so if this appeal is denied what are the options that the applicant has? Essentially to leave it as is.

CommentVeronica KingProposedself-stated1:08:49

If he wants to maintain his legal non-forming status, it would be leave it as it is

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:08:55

or

CommentVeronica KingProposedself-stated1:08:55

propose a

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:08:57

project that doesn't form,

CommentVeronica KingProposedself-stated1:08:59

yeah.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:09:00

Got it, okay. Supervisor Kaps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:09:04

Thank you for discussing this. We all know that parking in Isla Vista is a nightmare, but you're talking about impacted. Are there actual data for that? I know we're working with Isla Vista Community Service District and UCSB on a parking study, but can you just elaborate as to why the determination is made that parking is a challenge in Isla Vista other than the experience that all of us have?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:09:41

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Caps, I think what I would say is anecdotally we all know that it's a problem and historically we have tried to adopt the Isla Vista Master Plan and parking permit program was part of that process and that ended up being rejected by the Coastal Commission because The constraints that that program would put on coastal access. So I don't know that we have any more recent data other than what's being gathered by the study that we are partnering with on with Ivy Parks and Rec or CSD, I'm sorry.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:10:16

Yeah, exactly. And I'll check on the timing on that. But this certainly this case certainly puts more imperative on getting that study done. So it's in partnership with Ivy CSD as well as UCSB County. Thanks.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:10:30

And we will go to the applicant appellant's presentation, 10 minutes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:10:38

Hi, David Garrity, thank you for hearing me. I want to begin by saying that I've owned that building for close to 30 years now and I've never seen a car parked in those garages ever, 30 years. This is not a parking issue. This is an anti-growth issue, this is an anti-housing issue that we have with the County of Santa Barbara flat out. It's not a parking issue. I'm talking about doing the garage into a dining room and relocating the parking The staff has never brought up the fact that the parking as it was proposed did not meet the regulation. That's never been brought up before in any of the hearings or in any other writings until this moment. Again, this is an anti-growth thing that's going on. It's not about parking. I'm providing the parking in a different location.

I am not reducing the parking. I am not increasing the housing. It is solely a housing thing. And I really need to be able to provide quality housing and everyone knows that people are living in garages on a regular basis. They use them for habitable space, this is common. It's not just like I've locked these kids out of the garages they break in it's a common problem. I need to bring this place up to habitable space. I need to do that. It is a quality of life and this is about It's about quality of life in Santa Barbara, and it's about housing. It's about people being able to afford an education and being able to live closer to the university frankly.

The university students don't need a car. They do not need a car, so when I hear people complain oh my gosh there's not enough parking in Isla Vista too bad, don't bring your car you can still go to school right? You can still take the bus to City College, you can still go to the grocery store like people do not need cars there and so I'm tired of people complaining about that but people need housing we need housing out there and we need habitable space. I cannot provide this space and have this continue to be in illegal garage where people are breaking into it and living there Like it's just not good planning.

And the cost of parking has made it so that only wealthy people can live there. My son goes to NYU, he lives in Brooklyn. Do you think he has a car? He doesn't have a car in Brooklyn. Does anyone think he's gonna have a car in Brooklyn? No. He doesn't even have a car here in Santa Barbara when he comes back. People do not need cars. They need a place to live and they need quality housing And they don't need garages where it's not habitable. I need to be able to convert this. This is not about parking, this is about quality of life and this is about housing.

Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:13:16

Any questions from Mr. Garrity? Yes I just wanted staff to explain so the Mr. Garrett he mentioned that he was creating additional parking is it more parking let's just in a pretend universe say that the garage was being used for parking is it big enough for two cars or one car and so is there additional parking that he's creating as part of the plan

1:13 – 1:1920 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:13:49

Mr. Chair, so on the plan, so currently as it's permitted there are two single car garages and then there is the driveways to those. So those are the parking spaces that are permitted for the current site plan. And so what's proposed is that those garages would be lost and then there would be parking in the driveway. So there would not be any new parking that's created.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:14:18

Supervisor Nielsen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:14:19

Yes, thank you Chair Williams. I guess my question is for Mr. Geraghty he did say he's providing parking somewhere else where exactly is that parking that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:14:28

so that it's fairly obvious on the site that I'm proposing four spaces two and each side I don't know what planning staff is saying how many parking spots that I'm providing right now but there is not a reduction in parking The staff cannot say in any way that by converting the garages there is a reduction in parking that's impacting. There's no impact, there's no reduction in parking that's going on. Look at it up there. How are you getting like I don't understand how staff is saying that there's a reduction in parking? There's no reduction in parking.

It's just not the case. This is an anti-growth issue, this is an anti housing and an anti growth thing that's going on from staff it's not about parking at all.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:15:07

So those X's are where the two parking spots would be?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:15:10

Yes and right now that single car garage backs up into those two spots so if you had a car parked there it would back up into those spots. There is no reduction in parking that's going on on that site and staff can't say that there is.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:15:28

Supervisor

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.901:15:30

Hart? We had a case come up in Isla Vista some time ago, and the outside parking issue was setbacks. Does this meet the setbacks? I'm just curious.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:15:53

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman. So I'm going to have staff respond but the way that the parking is configured, the way Mr. Garrity is showing it those cars cannot independently pull out from...

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.901:16:10

They're in tandem.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:16:12

Well they're not tandem but once you explain Mr. Darko.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:16:18

Yes, thank you Director Plaman. So if we could pull up the site plan again I think it might be easier to see and I'll clarify a couple things so first your question about the setbacks so it looks like it does meet the way the parking is drawn on the plan it does meet the front yard setbacks of 20 feet but as you can see the two red X's that are shown in front of the garage each car would not be able to independently pull out And access those parking spaces, the way those are arranged. So that does not meet the code requirements in Article 2 for two parking spaces. They both have to be able to pull out independently.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.901:17:00

Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:17:05

Supervisor Nelson? Is there any public comment on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:17:11

Chair Williams and members of the board we have no requests to speak on this item from the public.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:17:19

So let me make sure I get this confirmed. Mr. Garrity, you're essentially trying to ratify the situation as you see it on the ground which is people parking in the paved area outside of the garage and then use the garage as other space?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:17:43

I think that's a fair assessment, yes.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:17:47

And staff, essentially your objection is that this is the legal requirement for parking. People are not legally required to park in a garage but the garage is the legal amount of parking and the replacement of a legal spot needs to be created with an additional legal spot at very least to meet code.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:18:09

That is correct. In addition to the fact that losing that space is a conversion of that use, which requires any nonconforming use to be brought to code requirements, which in this case it wouldn't require simply replacing that single spot that's lost but also bringing it up to code compliance, which has 12 spaces

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:18:31

just to add on Mr Chair. While that number may seem kind It's crazy in Isla Vista because I don't disagree with Mr. Garrity that students can ride their bikes and it may not be necessary for every student to have a car in Isla Vista and whatnot, but it is what our code says. And so if we want to change that, that's something the board can direct, but we're required to follow the law that we have codified today.

1:19 – 1:2614 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:19:05

Supervisor Harmon?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.901:19:07

So when the parking study is completed that Supervisor Capps mentioned, could we use that as an opportunity to rethink this? I mean ultimately there's an awful lot of land devoted to parking in Isla Vista and it's a waste of land. And it's ugly. It's really not conducive even to walking and biking because it makes makes for blind areas. So I think the parking study is an effort to move forward so how would you imagine a process unfolding where we could look at that study and where they intend to go and how we might change our ordinance? And also, I guess you talked about the master plan and just wonder how that might be revived. I believe the CSD has Activate their powers planning is one of them and they're gonna be looking at that. So I'm trying to see forward how this might be resolved so mr.

Chair

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:20:15

supervisor Hartman Parking is such a tricky issue in Isla Vista mostly because of the Coastal Commission, I would say. That's kind of where we ran into the trouble with the IV Master Plan because controlling parking was a really critical aspect. It was a fundamental piece of that plan. So while I think we could rethink it and reconsider it, and if the CSD wants to start up the master plan in conjunction with the county and the university again. I think we would analyze that but right now the Coastal Commission has been the barrier because they do not want people parking in the right of way in place of parking on the site because of coastal access.

So that's our challenge and so we really need to engage them early in the process and see where we can go, I mean even with ADUs outside the coastal zone there doesn't have to be replacement parking when you convert a garage but they would not let that go in the coastal zone particularly in IV. And so we had to set a distance from the coast to say, okay all ADUs that are on the other side of the 101 don't have to have replacement parking. But ADUs within a certain distance of the coast still have to have replacement parking. So it's something that they're very passionate about.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.901:21:46

So if I might follow on, that sounds like something to begin engaging the Coastal Commission in a dialogue. But if we overrode our own rules then the Coastal Commission might likely pull this in and appeal it themselves because okay so we're at legal risk really.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:22:11

Supervisor Gaps?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:22:14

I appreciate this case. A relook at the IV master plan because we have so many issues going on in Isla Vista as we saw with the mass eviction earlier. There are families in Isla Vista, there's complete overcrowding of parking but there's overcrowding of housing and I'm just in no way an indictment of what Mr. Garrity is doing but it's so common that you have Six people to a two-bedroom place currently listed. Right now there's a four bedroom apartment listed for 19 people at $21,000.

This is the way of life in Isla Vista and we have a lot of work to do and I'm just appreciative of this conversation to lay the groundwork for that work that my team and I are set on doing because it's it's a lot of parts of it aren't workable and this conversation is leading us in the right direction I believe

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:23:22

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:23:23

Nielsen. It's not for Mr. Geraghty, but it was a question for council. So if we did move forward, I want to understand the legal risk that we'd be facing from the Coastal Commission? If they decided to pull this item, if we did grant the appeal? What would be the next steps along the Coastal Commission process? Sorry if I'm not articulating that very well.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:24:04

Mr. Chair and Supervisors, so the proposed project is located in the coastal zone but it's not within the appeals jurisdiction. And also it's a coastal development permit and for its, it's for primary use of the site. So that type of permit is not appealable to the Coastal Commission. So in general there's probably not much risk of getting appealed. I don't think it could be appealed to the Coastal Commission.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:24:29

Okay thank you for the clarification.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:24:32

Supervisor Labneau? Thank you Mr. Chair, well I think I'm joining my colleagues that you know I don't disagree with the appellant that this is probably a workable solution. I actually have a house where we have one long driveway and I'll have four cars and if I want the first car... You know you got to do that whole circus to get the first one out so but what my job is to decide if this meets our code which it clearly doesn't But I think what's been raised here today is that what you're successful in is us looking at moving forward with the parking study and IV, and discussing with the Coastal Commission in the future what this looks like it would be right for something in the future that we might be able to change. I will say too though that my recent travel to another country when I came back to this country, A lot of times we have some of what we think are overbearing rules and regulations because it's what makes everything work is that.

We do have these, what some would consider, like I said, overbearing regulations but when you don't have them, you also realize what other consequences can happen. So appreciate you bringing this. I'm not going to be supporting the appeal but I think you gave us an action item to be working on.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:25:58

Just want to make sure that both the appellant and the staff have additional time for rebuttal if there's anything that you wish to address. Mr. Garrity first and then staff

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:26:13

again I just want to end by saying this is not a parking issue it's not a parking issue this an anti-housing issue It's a group of people who are opposed to housing and opposed to improving housing in Isla Vista. That's what's been going on for a long time. I am providing the same amount of parking there as it is existing, and I'm talking about improving the existing living situation that's going on there.

I think that's it, thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:26:41

And staff?

1:26 – 1:3212 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:26:45

The other thing is legally. I did submit a number of legal documents and legal casework, and I will be taking this to court. Or I'm planning on it so I'm reading that into the issue since I already submitted that. That's done and it's in your record so I don't need to bring that casework up because it says you know in order to bring anything up in trial you have to bring it up in the public comment or through and so that's all been written and all that case work has already been submitted to you. Additionally, I have 45 residents in Isla Vista that I'd like to give petition a letter to you to ask that I'll be allowed to convert the garages into dining rooms so that's 45 people local residents out there voters who have asked that I'd be allowed to ah to do that they've got their the first one they didn't put the but the rest all have like phone numbers and names and everything like that.

So it's quite a few people there and I wanted you to know that there's nobody In public comment here who's opposed to what I'm doing. You guys are the only ones we're holding up the housing and preventing the improvement of housing in Isla Vista just so it's clear.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:27:59

And staff?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:28:03

Mr. Chair, we don't have anything to add at this time.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:28:13

Apparently the submittals were late, and so we do have discretion whether to vote it in the record. I suppose we should give deference to the applicant and allow him to sue us by voting it into the record. It would seem a convenient thing to deny him but you should give him- There's a motion and a second to allow this into the record. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed?

I will be supporting Supervisor Caps's motion to deny the appeal. Though, I do wanted to ask staff questions that might hopefully guide the applicant into a more productive path than suing the county. If he were to re-propose say a two story addition on the garage Or some other configuration that did both convert the garage, but then we built a second garage closer to the setback that had more parking But still less than the zoned requirement of 12 units 12 parking spots would staff recommend a variance to the Planning Commission because it's The thing that I find meritorious is there's just no way to do 12 parking spots there. There's no physical Way to do it and so would not a application that improved the parking numbers But fell short of the zone for merit consideration

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:30:04

Mr. Chair and Supervisors, so a couple of things with that question. As far as, so building an addition beyond the setback would require a modification or variance, and that is something that the code could allow. However without providing the full code requirement for parking, that's not something that the code currently allows. So the project is located in the SRM zone district, which specifically by code prohibits any variances for parking.

Because it's listed so directly in the code that way, the only way to allow that would be to do an ordinance amendment to strike that from the code and to allow the decision maker or the county to authorize variances for parking as well.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:30:55

And how widespread is that zoning designation in Isla Vista?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:31:03

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure exactly how many properties are the acreage associated with it but it's generally associated with Isla Vista. It's SRM.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:31:16

So a good, Mr. Chair, I think a good portion of IV is zoned SRM and SRH which is medium density and high density.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:31:26

Well, you know obviously the first step is this parking study but just a suggestion to Supervisor Caps and the staff that examination of changing that rule within this SRM zoning might be necessary to make any progress because if you want to reward additional parking or changes of configuration. This may even interfere with attempts to move back development on Del Playa away from the cliffs. If you can't replace your parking, even if you're improving the parking then that's a pretty big disincentive to doing anything.

Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.901:32:11

Just a quick follow on with the Coastal Commission then need to approve that ordinance change?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:32:18

Yes, that is correct and any ordinance changes would have to be certified by the coastal commission as well

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.901:32:23

So we need further discussion with the Coastal Commission, especially armed with the parking study.

1:32 – 1:4612 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:32:31

Awesome. And yes I do not mean awesome.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:32:36

I didn't expect to come and get such support for a parking study but I'll take it so thank

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:32:42

you. Mr

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:32:42

Nelson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:32:43

Yes thank you Chair Williams this was a tough one for me. You know We have rules and it's important that what we're up here is in our judicial function to apply those rules. At the same time, we understand the challenges that are out there with housing and we have goals that we're trying to meet as well as try to especially in some of these really densely urbanized areas go away from being so slaves to vehicles right?

These are competing issues, I typically am a more conservative jurist and I go back to the law. And my hope is that we change the law and make the law better so that people can move forward. On the practical side, I see how frustrating this is for Mr. Gary. I have a lot of sympathy for you sir and it's not easy for me on this one because I have a lot of sympathy for the real life situation you're going through. I can't imagine the money you've spent just to make your project better and have a better housing stock and solve a problem on your private property.

But in the end, like I said, I'm more of a conservative jurist when it comes to the letter of the law. And so with that, I would also like to just support Supervisor Katz as she tries to solve this problem instead of just with a band-aid here maybe there's a more comprehensive approach. My only hope is that is done in a quick fashion which I know is unusual for government. But it's in a way that can be resolved so that Mr. Garrity can fully utilize and maximize his personal property.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:34:22

And since all this will probably be subject to litigation, I want to back up staffs and your motion by just saying something that maybe you guys should have said upfront. To grant the appeal we would have had to award a variance on parking which the zoning specifically prohibits. So we would have to break our own ordinance in order to grant the appeal. That's a pretty significant fact, and an unfortunate one because there should be a path to improve parking without getting to 12th.

And in defense of staff they're decidedly not anti-housing but it seems to me that held hostage by an ordinance that it would be questionable whether we could ever get changed by the Coastal Commission. Awesome, I will entertain a motion.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:35:30

Yes, I will move to deny the appeal in full support of better housing and better safety in Isla Vista.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:35:41

Is there a second? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The appeal is denied. Yeah we'll take a ten minute break and then we'll take up departmental item number four.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:04

Chair, members of the board, prior to our break can we just get confirmation that was to approve staff recommendations A through D including the denial of the appeal?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:36:14

Yes,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:15

that was my motion. Thank you for clarifying.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:36:17

And the seconder of the motion agrees? Thank you We're reconvening for departmental item number four.

1:46 – 2:043 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:46:41

Chair Williams and members of the board, departmental item number four is from Supervisor Nelson. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara County housing element policy discussion.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:46:56

Mr. Nelson?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:46:56

Yes thank you Chair Williams. First of all I'd like to just start off by thanking the chair and the clerk for indulging me in putting this item in at the last minute It was a little rush but I believe we are at a critical point in the housing element update process and it is necessary for staff to get feedback from the board so there are not unnecessary delays later in the process on important policy decisions that have the potential of impacting our ultimate flexibility in the rezone process that will follow the adoption of the housing element update.

How about that for run-on sentence? For full disclosure, I've been working with planning and development staff on these policies since June. Some of the changes have been able to be made without coming to the board but after my meeting earlier this month with Director Plowman she and I felt it was necessary to get feedback from the board on an important policy because of a tight timeline I volunteered to bring this item before the board and present it today.

Got any jokes, Steve? We're close. Yeah, do you know where your children are? It's 10 PM. Yeah so we can get into the next slide. Thank But before we get much further I do want to introduce Hunter Hall, a staff assistant in my office. A 2022 graduate of St. Joseph High School. Also today I'd also like to thank my staff Erin Hankey, Lee Collier and Elizabeth Zepeda for helping to put this together And last but not least, I want to thank some representatives from the Santa Maria Association of Realtors that we have today with us today. And that's President Laura Passmore and Executive Director Jesse Andrade.

So we can move to slide two. A quick review of the timeline to see where we're at, how the element update has proceeded to this point and where it's going. The board last had substantial discussion on February 14th followed by submission of the draft to the State Department Housing Community Development on March 31st. The state offered preliminary comments back to the county on June 30th and upon revision planning and development submitted a revised draft housing element update on September 22nd.

On October 4th, a couple weeks ago housing from the state reached out with some minor questions that we addressed and yesterday we received a letter. We were substantially complete under the current schedule. The Planning Commission will be hearing the housing element update in November followed coming to the board in December upon adoption. The Planning Commission Board will certify the EIR and do rezones in early 2024.

For background, it's critical to understand the importance of each step in this process. Just as the RHNA allocation from SBCAG informed the county housing element update process, it also ultimately limited our flexibility. That is why it's important to understand how these policies outlined in the housing element update will ultimately limit or expand our flexibility when we enter the rezone process.

Unlike SBCAG, we are the decision maker on both phases But changes in an earlier process could lead to months of delay and further noncompliance with our state mandated allocation of unmet needs. Another important concept to keep in mind is the state passed SB 166 in 2017, it's also known as the no net loss law. It states a jurisdiction must maintain adequate sites to accommodate its remaining RINA by each income category at all times throughout the entire planning period.

Failing to maintain adequate sites throughout the arena process will lead to stiff penalties and additional work for our long range planning staff, and should be avoided if at all possible. As mentioned before, the board last discussed the housing element update together on February 14th. Our board went through each goal and policy provided feedback. We adjusted the projected ADUs in the North County based on building permit trends.

We modified the buffer policy from 20% down to 15%. And we identified additional county owned or other publicly owned locations for housing opportunities. Today's discussion will hopefully address the affordable housing allocation methodology for distributing low-income units in the North County, while protecting us from falling out of compliance with the no net loss law.

Much of the RHNA and Housing Update stuff is complicated and often difficult to explain I tried to borrow on my skills as a former high school teacher to break down the issue and I'm going to try to resolve that by using simple round numbers. I've even tried this out on my staff, see how this goes. Under this scenario there would be a need for 100 additional units to meet the unmet needs for low income category.

Using some of the policy levers that the board has put into place in the housing element to protect us against a no net loss, the first one being the 15% buffer. So this would actually create the need for the board to move forward with actually rezoning 115 units versus the 100 units that were in our unmet needs but then there's another criteria that is applied as well and that's applying the current affordable allocation methodology.

So the goal is to really to rezone 100 affordable low-income units, but because of this methodology we are applying uniformly throughout the county. Of the rezone only 50% of those are for low income units 25% for moderate and 25% for above moderate While that might not seem like much, when you apply that to the 115 units that has been allocated through the buffer policy it requires the Board of Supervisors to actually rezone 230 units just to meet the 100-unit need.

As you can see, that's 130% more units than are legally required. Some jurisdictions have avoided using buffer policies or affordable allocation methodologies like ours and have still received either approval from the State of Housing and Community Development Department like Marin County or their own substantially complied letter like the City of Goleta. The 50%, 25, 25% affordability strategy has very different impacts depending on where you are in the county if it's applied.

In the South Coast, the 50% allocation is an optimistic projection. This argument was laid out in the League of Women Voters letter to Long Range Planning in February of this year. It is likely that many of the South Coast sites will need an aggressive mix of deed restriction and publicly owned projects in place to maintain an adequate inventory of low-income sites throughout this cycle.

In contrast, the North County region could and would benefit from a more conservative model that recognizes and acknowledges the affordability targets can be met from a market approach. This is a this is crucial to maintain the goals of the housing element update that we're developing to make sure we have satisfied the goals of the job housing balance throughout the county and acknowledges the existing inventory of affordable housing units and lower rents in North County that have also led to construction and financing challenges of multifamily projects in the region.

In this slide here you will see a data range, long-range planning has provided to determine the affordability at the various household size as well as the various income levels. These numbers were provided to us by the state's housing community development in 2022 If we go to the next slide here, I want to key in for my colleagues the following numbers here. This is the low-income units at a two person household, three person household and four person household. As you can see it's $2,239 for 2 people, 2519 for 3 and 2798 for 4. That's going to become more important as we move to some of the other slides here in the future After many discussions with planning staff and our frustration over what we believe to be a flawed methodology for the North County, my office worked with the Santa Maria Association of Realtors to do market survey of the rental market in the northern Santa Barbara County this summer.

As I mentioned again earlier, that I have our Association President Laura Passmore and Executive Director Jesse Andrade here if there's any questions. The survey took place over July and August. We had eight different property management companies participate. They looked at mostly multifamily and some single family rentals And in all, evaluating 14 zip codes and there was representation throughout the three regions of Santa Maria, Lompoc and San Diego Valley. In total, there were 849 rental data points, 29 studio, 69 one bedrooms, 263 two bedrooms, 273 bedrooms and 119 four or five bedrooms.

Next slide. When combining the market survey provided by Housing and Community Development with the survey from the Sandring Valley Realtors, it paints an important picture of understanding the affordability of units in North County. For the illustration of this issue, I have here a one-bedroom unit size two and three bedrooms with households of two, three and four people. That third column there has our maximum affordability according to Housing Community Development.

67 out of 68 of the rental units actually fell below the maximum affordability, making 98.5% of North County units that were affordable. The average rent was actually $1,460 which is actually $779 under the state's maximum affordability targets. For a two bedroom, we look at 95.4%, much larger sample size of 263 units and with an average rent of $1,830 still nearly $700 under the maximum affordability according to state numbers.

And last, our three-bedroom units. We found 83.8% of those to be under the state target it's important to note that we actually had a combination in the three bedrooms single family homes as well as multifamily units that were described there with those numbers average rent of nearly $2,300 which fell about five hundred dollars under the state numbers It is my goal today to get support of my colleagues for revising the North County methodology.

My proposed methodology would balance density and affordability, and incentivize the maximum use of properties rezoned for multifamily dwellings as you can see on the slide. Those developments with 20 units per acre would receive a 65% allocation for low income, 25% for moderate and 10% for above moderate. As we move towards denser projects and often that typically are more affordable by design the low income target would go up 70% for 25 units per acre, 25 percent moderate and five above moderate.

And at the dense 30 unit per acre category, the county would use a 75% allocation for low income and 25% for moderate. This by itself needs to be looked at not only as part of moving forward for our potential rezone sites. This should apply just for the non-deed restriction sites, we have sites in the proposal that are already deed restriction like Keysight H and Santa Maria that are already working with a nonprofit developer as well as the Brisas Encinas project that's in Vandenberg Village.

The methodology should also be used in the pending projects section and attachment D within the building envelopes. And what I mean by that is, in the North County we have a lot of sites that are big in acreage but they typically have small building sites because environmental constraints and open space requirements so it may be 100-acre parcel but there's only four or five acres that would potentially developed.

It's important that these density units are used into within that building envelope and not spread across the entirety of the property. Lastly, and something to consider is to use this methodology also with proposed builder remedies projects. I don't know of any in the North County at this point but we're surely to have some before we're all said and done. In my conversations with Director Plowman, the strategy that planning staff is to use only 20% of builders remedy projects to qualify under the low income category because that's all they are required to do. But I think as we see through this market-based approach, that these numbers should also be used when it comes to builder remedy projects in North County.

Next slide. Wrap it back around. Take the earlier example that we talked about what would be the impact of this minor adjustment? So I have a revised methodology. We've got 100 units that we had before. That stays the same. We maintain the 15% buffer policy But we apply on the 20 unit per acre methodology what I call the revised affordable allocation method.

65% low, 25% moderate and 10% above moderate. This ends up resulting in the county only need needing to actually rezone 177 units per every 100 units that are needed for a low income it is Far more than what is legally required by the county, but it's still far less than what the previous uniform methodology that may be more appropriate for the South Coast. But is obviously overkill in the North County. So this is essentially what I'm looking for if we can go to last slide here.

When our housing update is adopted, we will move on to rezone process. The rezone process will change the face of our county and hopefully for the better. But a mistake here can further frustrate many of the housing challenges that face our county. We have waited this long, it's important for us to not rush it and get it wrong. Let's take a small step back and get it right.

Here are my recommended actions I'm hoping for support in directing staff to take into consideration the North County methodology Another note that I like to do for the record is that Recommended Action C is a slightly revised CEQA determination. This one would be the more accurate and appropriate for our discussion today. So with that, I'm open to questions from my colleagues. I also know that Director Plowman has some slides and likely has some comments on my suggestions as well.

2:04 – 2:137 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:04:10

Supervisor Hart.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.902:04:12

I have three sort of areas of questioning the first is, I believe we have done this in the past had different that used to market analysis in the north county that was different from in the south and am I correct on that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:04:27

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, what we use is we use different data from the different housing market areas to come up with our basically As you can see in our, well I don't have this slide unfortunately but in our housing element we determine where people are cost overburdened and we use data from those housing market areas to make that determination and then we provide that in the housing element. So yes, we use different housing market data They also use that when they update the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, right? So they look at the housing market areas and decide which category low, moderate or workforce apply in those housing market areas. In this instance we would have analyzed information from the different areas, yes.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.902:05:25

But we still have the same assumption for the entire county so it hasn't really.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:05:30

So yeah, we do have the same assumption for the entire county and the reason we did that is because We basically found that There will be some projects throughout the county that come in at a lower percentage of affordability, right? There will be ones that'll only offer 20% because they're only required to. They'll be projects that come in at 100% because they're non-profit proposed projects and so we sort of balanced it at 50% across the county.

I should say that, you know, I understand Supervisor Nelson's perspective about the housing market area being different in the North County. And I did speak to State HCD about making a change in that assumption and they indicated that they wouldn't have a problem with going to 60% assumption For lower income categories in the North County area, but they have not had a chance to reflect on Supervisor Nelson's proposal. And so I don't know if that would cause them to slow our process or not.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.902:06:43

And so, so they said 60 but he would like 65.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:06:50

Is that? Well I saw a tiered program. Okay. So he goes much higher the higher the density. Right. What we have found and I want to note too historically HCD had said we'll accept 20 units per acre as a zoning that will provide 100% low income But now that, and that was the last cycle. They're very aware that actually is not a realistic assumption. And even in our North County one of the MH, the- MRO. MRO, thank you. MRO sites, Keysight 30 developed and they are not providing affordable units.

I think if all happy to go through questions, but I have a presentation that we may want to Go through they'll kind of help answer some of these things This is gonna work Okay. Thank you. So when we are coming up with our assumptions, right? We have to look at what we've been producing in the past. So when we were figuring out how much inventory we had that would be able to serve the existing demand under RENA.

We use this assumption and then we figured out how much land we would need a rezone based on that assumption so I'm just gonna keep going here because we already discussed that and Supervisor Nielsen, I think did a good job of describing what no net loss is but I think the key thing here is for us. Is that We count new units. We have to report on new units when it comes to no net loss, so every project that's approved in the county we have to identify what income category That project is meeting. So let's say they have 20 units at lowering at low in lower incomes because their builders remedy project and then what is the rest of the project providing so?

So it's not I mean, I understand supervisor Nelson's argument that there's this larger market that may provide For lower income units, but the state is looking at new units. They want to add new low-income units new moderate units and We'd have the above moderate which we have no trouble meeting So if we don't comply and we get to a point in our housing cycle where we have chewed up through our 15% buffer that we've included in the process, and that's on purpose that we do that because we know some projects will not develop at the level of affordability we may have assumed.

But if we get to a point where we all of a sudden do not have sufficient sites to meet our arena in each income category, we only have 180 days to rezone land to meet that shortfall. And if we fail, then we have a violation of housing element law and HCD can revoke the jurisdiction's compliance or refer us to the Attorney General. So the same kind of consequences that we have faced without having a non-compliant housing element would come back to the county and be something we'd have to manage.

And this sort of, the reason I'm cautious about it. One, I'm cautious about it because I don't know if state HCD will require additional data from us and slow our process to adoption because all these assumptions are built into our housing element. And the other is that if we are too conservative in our assumptions meaning that we allocate a very high percentage to lower income coming from our new projects And then we will be in a position where we will bump up against this no net loss law, and then we'll be having to rezone properties.

And I say this because it's just, it's a workload item for the division. There are a lot of programs. We have 25 programs in our housing element. We are the lead or a partner on 19 of those programs and we're responsible for implementing 54 of the implementation items. So there's a substantial amount of work That is going to be following the housing element in the previous cycles. We used to be able to adopt the housing element and say, OK, we can sort of put that aside and start working on other work program items.

But now we don't have that luxury. We have a lot of programs like we have to change our code to update our development standards, to make it more flexible for housing. We have the SB 9 laws that were actually working on that now. We have all of the state laws that we have to implement so it's just a vast amount of work that's going to continue forward and if we end up doing rezones and where you know we've overestimated Then that will delay other things in our work program and I think that's just important for the board to understand as they're considering this item.

2:13 – 2:1818 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:13:06

And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:13:07

that just gives you our reallocation plus our buffer.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.902:13:09

So I just wanted to go back to clarify something you said, so if the builder's remedy could be reimposed if we don't get the rezones done within 180 days and we're at risk of that because we have a heavy workload for P&D. And then that builder's remedy would apply countywide, not just in the market area. That's correct. I'll just leave it at this final question then.

North County, I mean the Santa Ynez Valley is quite different than Lompoc. That is quite different from the Santa Maria Valley and even Santa Maria and Orchid are quite different. So I just wonder how the assumptions, I know they did a market analysis for all of them but that's an average. So can you, I'm uneasy about that. Am I uneasy about that for a reason that you can discern?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:14:13

Well I may ask, I have some staff on the line Allen Bell who's been overseeing the housing element. Allen if are you there?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:14:33

Allen we are having trouble hearing you I could see your microphone is on but perhaps you can get closer to it

CommentChris DonatiProposed · by introduction2:14:41

Okay. Better? Can you hear me now?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:14:44

No, we cannot. I can hear him but I can't

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:14:47

very

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:14:47

well. Yeah, we can hear you. You're just very faint. Perhaps CSB TV can also turn you up a bit.

CommentChris DonatiProposed · by introduction2:14:53

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:14:57

How about we try that? Is

CommentChris DonatiProposed · by introduction2:15:00

that improved?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:15:02

It's a little bit better but not...

CommentChris DonatiProposed · by introduction2:15:05

Be close to the microphone now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:15:12

Okay, if you could just speak as loud as possible that would be greatly appreciated.

CommentChris DonatiProposed · by introduction2:15:18

Sure. I think the question is whether or not in part staff has considered the variations between the different housing market areas and we certainly did when we looked at things like cost burden as Ms. Plowman mentioned a few minutes ago in the housing elements we do break down information on I'm going to talk about the cost burden for different HMAs. And so clearly we know that the rents in San Yanez, for example, are quite different from what we would see in the Santa Maria area. So for example if you take the cost burden numbers, that is households that are paying more than 30% of their income In San Yanez you have about 55% of the renters that are cost burdened, that are paying more than that amount. Whereas when you get into the Santa Maria area it's around 43%.

So we did take that into consideration as we did our work and it's the same kind of consideration that Mrs. Baumann mentioned a few minutes ago when we update our IHL requirements which was done in September and presented to your board Again, we look at what's happening in each HMA and we look at whether or not the market is actually meeting certain income categories. And in that report, we found for example that San Yanez, Santa Maria and Lompoc were not meeting the moderate income levels. So again, we do try to look at those when the data is available but oftentimes unfortunately the data is kind of all put together Or the Santa Barbara, Santa Maria region. So it's hard to pull out some of that data specifically from census and other sources of information.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.902:17:14

It is so last question. So you've described what what you've done and I guess what I'm trying to understand is if we went forward with what Supervisor Nelson proposes What does that mean? I mean, if we have this assumption that's based on an average that is weighted heavily towards Santa Maria. How does that affect what might happen in Lompoc or the Santa Ynez Valley? Would that put us at greater risk, I guess is what I'm asking.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:17:48

I Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So we would consider that right now We're looking at would it apply? to the North County and I think I Don't think it puts you at greater risk I mean, I think that I think the decision is a question whether or not puts the whole county at risk as falling out of compliance I Think the numbers are Too optimistic that that's my personal opinion based on the data that we've Come up with and identified and And based on the recent history of development in that particularly in the Orcutt area so I'm not sure that it's going to put you at any greater risk. I think it's a question of the broader County and

2:18 – 2:268 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:18:40

Supervisor Nielsen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:18:41

Yes, I actually have an extra slide if I can bring up slide 16. So I understand you know that I've been going back with Director Plowman on the optimism that I share versus hers and you know the frustration that I felt this process was I didn't want to disparage Long Range Planning staff's work but when we looked at The data to determine what affordability was, I felt it was lacking and that's why I went out and looked for additional data points. If we bring it up here in a second, I just believe that the data that long-range planning used as this comes up...

Right here. I believe there's a flawed methodology for determining market rates in the North County. First of all, they looked only at two apartment complexes so obviously very small sample size of north counties and those two complexes only one of them is actually occupied. One is still being built. Staff only looked at the Internet listed price not any of the actual rental roles for those complexes as well.

Both those projects are geographically narrow. This is a number that they're using for the entire North County, but there were two projects within 1.6 miles of each other. And then also both these projects are more executive type apartment units. They have multiple on-site managers, pools, gyms, lounges, games and movie rooms. And so when you're looking at rental rates, you're seeing all those added into it. When you look at a market It's the average of all of the rents in that area divided by the number of units, plus or minus amenities. These are heavily amenity heavy units.

It would have been better I believe for an accurate number for planning staff to actually go out and reach out to the Santa Maria Association Realtors, reach out to the Apartment Association. Unfortunately none of those organizations were reached out to during their housing element process And so I know that there's been a heavy lift at the planning department has had to, you know, do to get us where we're at today because this has been a lot of work. You know unfortunately I needed to take that upon myself and reach out with some of our local professionals to get a more accurate number that I suspected to be true.

These actually numbers were much more conservative than I actually originally thought what we'd see. I'm not proposing that we go to a Goleta model where it's you know as long as there are 20 units to the acre, we'll go 100% with that on low numbers. By the way that did get accepted from the state. I'm still saying that we should have a conservative approach. And again, what I propose with the 65% number I think is balanced. I think it really does acknowledge that the difference in the North County versus South Coast and still gives them more than adequate buffer for us.

Likely the burden will be shouldered by the North County when the South Coast doesn't meet their low income rates. And so I acknowledge that I'm not asking for for the moon. I'm just asking for a little bit more big acknowledgement and that in our methodology

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:22:05

Yes, I would just like to add some additional information. I think when we analyze the market we look at new units because the state and that's that so I understand Supervisor Nielsen's reasoning about the whole of the market, but what we are constrained by is new units. And so when we're analyzing what new projects are going to provide, we look at the newest projects to give us a gauge for that.

And in this case, the newer projects as he pointed out are they're expensive in that particular area and we know the costs have been going up. So I, you know, as the director have to make sure that when we are making these assumptions that they are consistent with what we're seeing happening on the ground from the new perspective. There will be units that will be in the market that will meet the lower income but they're not gonna be the newer units Based on what we've seen our hope is that we can get more 100% affordable projects And then I just a quick point of clarification for supervisor Nelson Did you say that you are only requesting?

65 percent lower for all the zone for all the densities and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:23:31

65 for 20 units acre, 70 for.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:23:34

So you're requesting the tiered?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:23:35

Correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:23:36

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:23:39

And I think, you know, I used to be an apartment manager in another life. And when you're looking at a market, it's a simple solution or the answer to almost every economic question is supply and demand right? And that's been one of the big challenges. The one complex that was called out here was the first one that was built. In this, you know in South Santa Maria Valley in 25 years and so it did have a higher premium there because of a lack of supply. But if you drive around the Santa Maria Valley today, you're going to see hundreds if not well into about the thousands of units are actually already under construction.

And I know that we're tasked with solving the issue for the unincorporated area, but it really is a market as a whole as you look at it. Yes there's some parts of Santa Maria that are going to drive prices down, but many residents don't look at whether they've crossed the city boundary before they know whether they're in the Santa Maria market or the Oregon market.

And ultimately these additional units that we are bringing online in the city of Santa Maria as well as through this housing element, you know will likely continue to drive prices down. I think we have data from the associates and realtors that It's good evidence that the market already supports a market rate approach on our rezones for the low income category.

But I think even as the City of Santa Maria continues to move forward, as we move forward with additional rezones and opportunities I think we're going to see rent stabilize for the North County. The other issue that I've seen here is, and if we do some re over zoning what's going to happen here is we're gonna have to do some large complexes to solve this problem here.

Large complexes in the North County have not been successful in getting financed, at least in the Orchid area. Right now we're sitting on a 179-unit project in Keysight 3 that cannot get off the ground, cannot find financing because we do have lower rents here and we do actually have some inventory. That same unit in Santa Barbara is twice as much and we know that ADUs are going for $5,000 apiece down there. It's a different market And so to use the same approach in both North County and South County doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I think by using this tiered approach, it's going to give us the flexibility to be more precise with the allocations and rezones that we do up here in the North County so that we can actually identify smaller projects that actually can get built by locals potentially instead of some of these massive projects that need large financing from outside the area That's my goal. I want to make sure that we really build these units.

I've been committed to that, I've been committed to putting my money where my mouth is just look across the street at Hope Village you know these are things that I'm not just saying that I'm against I'm trying to find solutions but I'm trying to find solutions that work for my community and I'm afraid the current methodology We'll call it because cascading problems and frankly will have us over zoning certain areas or chasing bigger projects that may not be appropriate for our district.

2:27 – 2:3311 turns

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:27:00

Thank you. I appreciate this conversation, especially timed with the announcement that the state has accepted the housing element and kudos to the staff for that. I just wanted to, you know what we're getting at is sort of wrestling with this how hard it is to build affordable and I appreciate your optimism because I can seem very sincere in that and I know that's That same drive to make sure that we provide housing for our working families, our low-income families is what we all care about. And Supervisor Hartman and I worked hard to get county owned sites in the element that was just accepted because That assures us more control over being able to deliver when we actually own the property. So my question though is what with this optimism and this, what happens?

I understand Director Plowman that there's ramifications of staff capacity but are there other ramifications for us if these optimistic projections are not I'm not doubting that they aren't, but I just want to know what we're getting into if we support this proposal.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:28:21

Well there's two concerns really, three actually I would say. One is, I don't know if the state will accept it and we may not be ready to move forward with our hearing so that's one issue. The other issue is that we don't actually produce those number of units and that we're not meeting the need for those lower income categories. And then, so that could be on its own and we could still be within our buffer. And then the third is, we drop below that buffer And then we have to rezone the land within 108 days, which is a very fast time frame. Right? Very fast time frame. So I think those are the three things that you need to factor in and what that means to the workload.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.902:29:06

And if I just may follow up and if we don't rezone then we risk builders remedy for the entire county. That's a little scary that's correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:29:16

And I mean just to reiterate the state you know in an effort to work with Supervisor Nielsen I did try and work with the state and they did accept a 60 percent number for that housing market area so we could move forward with that today and not risk the compliance determination

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:29:38

I just wanted to ask real quick if there's some public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:29:43

Chair Williams and members of the board we have no request to speak on this item.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:29:48

Just for my part, you know, I do find Mr. Nelson's case compelling and I do from experience know that higher density projects do yield more affordables So it makes sense to me to do a tiered approach You know, I Wonder you know if there's any thought that the director has in of the the allocation How much will be in each of those density? Project, you know categories meaning of the North County's allocation how many really are in each one of those categories so If they ended up being 65% and not 70, how much would be off? Would we be off by a score of units or by much larger. Because if we're only going to be off by 50 units that's a pretty solvable problem quick but if we're off by hundreds or thousands it's harder.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:30:57

Yes, Mr. Chair I'd need to look at the interactive map but I believe we have a fair amount of proposed zoning at the higher densities so I would have to if we could take you know 10 minute break and I could have staff do a quick analysis on that but that's my recollection and maybe Mr. Bell can weigh in on that

CommentChris DonatiProposed · by introduction2:31:30

When we did look at rezoning, the general principle was is to zone at a higher density than what is currently allowed. So currently we typically use about 20 units per acre in the DR zone for example so what we tended to do is to pump it up to 30 to 40 units and Unless there were some conditions on site that made it impractical or infeasible to develop at that higher density. So to be clear, what we would do is put in a minimum density of 30 units per acre and a maximum density of 40 units per acre which is a bit of a shift from what we do right now which is our current zoning just establishes a maximum density and developers can actually build at a lower So I'm

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:32:25

using Mr. Nelson's methodology would the majority of our units in the north be be this the assumption B 65% because they were lower density or or 70 set or 75 because they're higher density

CommentChris DonatiProposed · by introduction2:32:44

provides a grilling sport it would be Most of them would fall. I'm just kind of going from the general perspective here without going through and counting, but I would say it's really more of how you couched it is they would fall into the 70 to 75% category again. Our principle was is to increase the efficiency of land use an as Supervisor Nelson pointed out here typically the higher the density, the more opportunity there is for lower income units to occur.

2:33 – 2:4115 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:33:19

Supervisor Harbin

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.902:33:22

I just wanted to be clear about what HCD has said. They would accept you said 60% But that's not tiered and so supervisor Nelson would like a tiered with the 65 is that correct? He starting can we show this? slide

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:33:57

Right so what Mr. Bell is indicating is that the bulk of the rezoning lies in the 25 to 30 units per acre, so we would be looking more at 70 to 75 percent. And what's the

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:34:14

base in the North? I'm sorry? The base number of units and the categories required

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:34:20

again? Our base assumption

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:34:24

No, the base number of units allocated to the north that we'll have to reset.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:34:30

Oh I have that number hold on it's in my slide presentation

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:34:40

With the buffer, it's 928 units The moderate and the above moderate all will be satisfied with existing inventory. So for the North County it is just a lower Affordability math problem and that's why I've been focusing on that specifically To address the problem

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:35:01

We did do some analysis that if we went from when we originally working with Supervisor Nelson, we analyzed what it would mean to go to 60% from 50%. And that's a difference of 170 units roughly that we would not have to rezone for. So if we went higher than that obviously that number climbs.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:35:31

My 5% Okay, let's say 7% of 960 is not 170. It's it's more like 70. It's closer to 70 So we're talking about what the question on whether we would be off by You know 70 something unit units right if majority of it is zoned at 25 or 30 acres in its breaker

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:35:59

Act Super Mr. Chair, the analysis that we did showed if we went from 50 to 60 percent for all of the land reason proposed for rezoning We are off by 170 units and so if we increase the percentage that were assuming I wouldn't say, I don't want to use the word off. It's a difference of but if we increase the percentages that number is going to go up so that means we have to rezone less land in theory to accommodate the lower incomes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:36:34

So if I may, I know this seems very academic and I know that on top of that I'm actually gonna say something that can sound somewhat contrary. I'm not afraid to over go above our number in the North County. I actually completely intend to go above our number What I don't want to do is be forced into a corner. There's a lot of these projects that have some people that are doing some unsavory things and trying to force the county's hand.

Affordable housing and to additional zonings in North County, we need them. I mean that we need to have housing stock at all different income levels. I know I need to have something so my kids can actually move back here. And so I'm committed to the effort. I do think though that this maximizes our flexibility. I don't want to sit here in June or sorry not June hopefully not June knock on wood.

Saying hey, if we would have changed this assumption a little bit, we'd have other options at our disposal. And so that's one of the reasons why I've brought this forward. Also something to consider is what I'm asking in North County is something I think that is reasonable to meet and I think there's some evidence on the record. Going back to the South Coast, if you actually looked at the numbers that the League of Women Voters suggested because they said really only 19% of properties should qualify under low income.

And so the big jump is really down south. I totally understand that. I'm still good with keeping the 50 because I think there's some different strategies we can use by working with developers to get more, and I'm confident that we're going to be able to do that through this process. But that's not where the risk's at. The risk's really down in the South Coast on this process.

Maybe if my colleagues are struggling with this, maybe what we could offer here is that moving forward the 60% allocation. With this caveat that we make this proposal to Mr. McDougall and if he in writing says you will not accept this I'm willing to accept the 60%. So I think what this is legally defensible, and if they're not willing to accept that then I'm okay with that. But I would want to have that in writing from HCD that this would not be acceptable for us to substantially comply.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:39:00

So to clarify you what you're suggesting is a one-two. You're suggesting that we propose your current plan and but authorize the director to fall back to this 60% that Mr. McAdoo has already agreed to if there is written pushback?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:39:22

So, Mr. Chair and Supervisors I think what would happen is that he would ask for more data I think that's it's not he's not going to say yes or no. He's gonna say back it up with the data That would be the likely response but it just put I have concerns about that because I don't know how long it's gonna take to get that information from him and Because I worked with him for months and months on some of the questions that Supervisor Nelson had.

And we are scheduled to be at a Planning Commission hearing in three weeks, essentially, on this adoption. So I have some concerns about whether or not I could achieve Supervisor Nelson's request

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:40:13

I would counter with provide the data that I've made available. If that's acceptable to him then that's fine if it's not we default to the 60%. You know, I know it seems like we're sitting here at the last minute asking for things right before we come to Planning Commission our office has been engaged on this and we have been trying to negotiate with planning staff And with the state, you know we haven't always seen eye-to-eye or got the same answers. You know there's been a lot of requests that our office has made of the state to clarify some of these standards they've failed to do that.

The reason why I'm bringing this forth is because you know we're gonna get past the point of no return here pretty darn quick I think I am proposing something that is modest, reasonable and already compromised coming to the table with an option that would work. So again that would be my direction and I hope I can get some support with that.

2:41 – 2:4813 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.902:41:12

I think I would reverse your proposal, Chair Williams. And that is go with the 60% and explore the 65%. And then we would need a drop dead date. What are we going to do with the Planning Commission hearing? We would have to get a response to change things in probably shorter order than we've generally gotten responses back from HCD.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:41:42

So Ms. Hartman is proposing that we amend to do 60% now, maybe some hope that it would be ready by in three weeks and then push the higher amount to HCD knowing that they might ask us for that data and give them the data and they might take some time to look that over. Is that to your, you know is that responsive to your request?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:42:13

It's fairly responsive. It's the mechanism so You know, I'm happy to 60% especially if we can apply it to both the potential rezones and the pending projects. And the builders remedy. I mean that's really important because I don't want to get stuck with a 2000 unit project that only get only able to give you know 20% out of that that just does not seem like that be that makes a lot of sense so I would as long as the 60% applies to that I'm okay moving forward.

Make the request though for the tiered approach and whether that can be incorporated at our adoption either at the Planning Commission or the board hearing in December. I would really like for a written explanation. I know you're in constant communication, and I know it's hard, and sometimes bureaucrats don't want to go on the record of taking a position. I think the position we are taking is legally defensible And it's really a question on whether they'll accept it or not. And so that's still my proposal. To me, that gets us a better product and so I hope I can have support in that caveat.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.902:43:31

May I ask an additional question? So if we went with the 60, we had a period of time working with HCD. We move forward with the Planning Commission and then we hear after that perhaps positively from HCD do we have to go back to the Planning Commission or is that something that the board itself could adopt?

CommentChris DonatiProposed · by introduction2:43:56

Supervisor, I think County Council has been discussing

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:44:01

Chair and Supervisor Hartman, as long as it's something that the Planning Commission discussed then the board would have the option to pick either or something different.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:44:12

That'd work for me.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:44:14

So we could certainly advise the Planning Commission that we're in the process. I think one thing I want to just tease out a little bit so that the board is aware of something Supervisor Nielsen just said, and that is the assumptions that we currently apply are to the rezone sites right? And then when proposed projects come in pending projects come in we look at what they're proposing So if they say we're providing 20 percent affordable and the rest is going to be market rate, that's how we calculate it.

If they say we're all market rate, that's what how we calculate it. And I think what I heard Supervisor Nelson says he wants us to then apply a different standard to the pending project

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:45:02

I want to have the same standard that we're going to be applying for our rezone sites to our pending projects. We're making assumptions there that a portion of that will be affordable by the market conditions and so that makes a lot of sense, that would satisfy not only our rezone sites but our pending project sites as well. For us to use A different standard for our pending projects than we are for a reasons of sites do not seem to be Consistent and that's what I'm trying to rectify.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:45:38

So Supervisor Nelson through the chair, I think it's It's tricky right? We have pending projects that come in and say this is exactly what we're doing And that's what we report so I understand The thinking that if this 100% market rate project is being proposed, why wouldn't it meet this assumption? But the assumption is based on averages right and every time a pending project comes in and they tell us what they're doing we change the assumption for that site based on what they tell us.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:46:14

Does a pending project actually tell you the rental numbers what they're going to charge for rent in

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:46:19

advance? Mr. Chair, Supervisor Nielsen, I think we're talking about let's just use a real-life example we have a project that's come in in Vanderburg Village and they're in a pre-application phase and so they we have said what are your you know what's your proposal do you have any affordable units and they said no So we don't have what their rents are per se yet, but we would certainly be asking for information about that at some point in the future if we wanted to try and count those as affordable units. And then we get into how do we track that, and for how many years do we track that.

It can start to head down a

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:47:03

slippery slope. Chair Williams? Yeah so here's where the disconnect is. I think Director Plowman is only considering things that are deed restricted affordable. And we know what that project that's been proposed in Annenberg Village. It's targeting actually housing for base families, and we've seen some presentations have been done by REACH. Those base rates at the base would be providing would be count under the affordability target that we have here if we go back to it about $2,700.

So when we ask them are they gonna be affordable? You're asking them where you have deed restricted units and the answer is no because they don't need to have deed restricted units because there's the market rate their target audience already meets our low income standard. And so, and I get it you the South Coast you need to have that you have to have that piece in place to protect that property from going wild But that's not the case here. When you ask somebody if it's going to have affordable units, that is based on income category. If I talk to that developer and I said hey so making sure for a family of three or that you have rates at $2,500 the answer could be absolutely we'll have affordable units but also tell you as it's too early to give you concrete promises of what rental rates will be but that's where the disconnect is and that's what I'm trying to resolve

2:48 – 2:5831 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:48:30

Is that the case? Are you only counting those that are deed restricted?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:48:35

Well, Mr. Chair we can't really do just that because moderate is never deed restricted right so we have to try and figure out where we're going to be getting the moderate units We do ask if they're going to have any deed restricted, but we are going to need in this process to ask all of our applicants what rental rates are you going to be offering because we have to know how we're meeting our moderate requirements.

And and we just don't have any way to subsidize those moderate requirements so they will never be deed restricted. So we may be in the position where we're going to be having to ask for rental data for our future projects. For five years, to determine whether or not these units are coming online at a moderate or lower income. And how long they're staying that way. That's the problem with non-de... I mean, it's a problem for us. Some communities in California can build housing and it meets the moderate income or even meets the lower income. That used to be the case for Santa Barbara County. 20 years ago that was the case. Santa Barbara County's vacancy rate was 5% to 6%, and our rental market met moderate.

But today it's just not the case and things will change as more units come online. But these are sort of the restrictions that we're working with, with the state.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:50:05

Can I make a suggestion to bridge this? Because I don't think we should overrule the department in revising The actual rents that they're doing, but we should be asking the applicants how many of your units fall into this category? How many fall into this category? These guys all do pro forma. It might not be science, right? But it's estimates and most of them will answer that question and revise it based on the applicant response Is that possible?

Instead of just ask deed restricted and moderates or make the assumption that could be higher than the actuality.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:51:03

I know all those projects would say that they're gonna have to meet those numbers. I've already talked to those developers, that's why I'm bringing this forward because it's a problem and so that's why I'm trying to help planning staff Acknowledge that in our housing element so that we have the right tools

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:51:21

Then that would meet your interest, right? I mean and what would that be a problem if we were asking an applicant How many of your units fall into that category how many fall into that category and that category isn't that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:51:34

Spirit

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:51:35

of what you're trying to do.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:51:36

Absolutely. I have no problem with that We should be asking that You should be asking that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:51:40

Yeah, because right now there's been this amorphous what are you gonna have affordable units? And this is the first time in the conversation that Director Baum and I have said that it's something other than debt deed restricted. Because that's what all the conversations we've been having is that's deed restricted as affordable. We can't do affordable if it's not deed restricted and again I've been making the case that that's not the situation in North County absolutely it's a South County problem and so That's what I'm trying to accomplish. And so, I do think that the modest 60% number for those pending projects is a good assumption that we could be baking into our housing element. That makes perfect sense if we're going to be using that for our rezone sites why wouldn't we be using that for our pending projects as well and less as a default?

Some of these projects because what happens when I ask that let's say the constellation project there and they say okay a hundred percent of our units are going to be below that current rental rate. Are we okay with adjusting our pending projects to make that 100% affordable?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:52:42

Supervisor Nelson through the chair, if we had information from them about what their proposal was and those rates were within the moderate and lower income I would be okay with counting it. I mean I think that would be in keeping with how we would want to track it and record it and report it to the state.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:53:00

So, if that's the case then we do have a mechanism now and we will have a significant change. It's probably gonna be higher than 60% of our pending projects will likely then be moving towards low income.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:53:12

So the motion would be to tag them at 60%, both rezones and pending until the pending can provide information?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:53:26

I thought I heard what I thought. I heard was 60% We'll look at what the applicants give us and then if that and then we'll insert that into our calculations That's what I thought.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:53:39

I think we just said the same thing The assumption would be 60 percent until the information comes in from the pending projects, right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:53:51

That's that's what but I actually support that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:53:54

Right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:53:54

So,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:53:54

I think that is more challenging for us because then we have I'd rather I would prefer from a tracking perspective to make an assumption of 60% for all the reasons And then get information from the pending projects and insert that in rather than making assumption, a different assumption. And then changing that when we get data from them. So let's get the data and just put that into our calculation so then we can figure out how much land needs to be rezoned in the north area.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:54:25

And maybe this isn't that much of a fight because we can get an answer out of these folks? I mean do you, do both of you agree that we can get the applicants to answer this question?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:54:35

I think they would. In other jurisdictions I've worked in they provide, they typically will provide that information and Supervisor Nielsen you believe that they would?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:54:44

Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Most of them, you know. But the problem is those that don't or feel like that and just make sure it's clear that they're not obligated if market conditions change for the rents to change and likely with that that will move forward but I think if all we're looking for is a forecast I'm sure that they'd be more than happy to apply that information.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:55:07

Okay then are we going somewhere? Okay so We're going to go ahead and revise

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:55:15

the North County methodology to represent 60% of the sites for low income. Since we're changing the number here, I'm going to go to 25% on moderate and 15% above moderate. That makes us equal 100. And that would apply to the rezone sites. We would be open to adjusting pending projects with information provided by the applicants and we'd also apply the new methodology to builders remedy projects because those will be essentially rezone sites and then direct staff further to make contact with HCD on whether they accept a tiered approach for our December hearing.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentChris DonatiProposed · by introduction2:56:17

Chair I think there's some discussion about when you talked about Builders Remedy so to ask Director Plowman and County Council. So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:56:26

right now our builders remedy projects are required they're mandated to provide 20% and that is what they're providing, that's what the applications say. So I haven't seen one come in with any higher percentage than that and so I would not recommend that part of the motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:56:45

Let me revise that then. So if that developer said that the market rate units were still below our low affordability, we could then adjust that accordingly?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:56:57

I think that's fair to say. Okay

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:56:59

so the same standard as to pending

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:57:01

projects right? That would be my motion.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:57:06

I will second Mr. Lavinino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:57:11

Yeah, I want to know what the time frame is so now I understand that we don't have an issue of going to the Planning Commission as long as it's brought up and I'm sure your planning commissioner will be bringing this item up. So does that take away this kind of clock ticking scenario? I mean, it gives us how long till March? Well until it comes to the board in December.

That's correct. OK. Yeah, I'm supportive of this. It is two different markets to get it and I appreciate you getting deep in the weeds on this because it really affects your district And someday I know someone's going to look back and we're going to appreciate all the work that went into this. So thanks.

2:58 – 4:079 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.902:58:14

I just wanted to say, I appreciate the math on this. It really drives the point home.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:58:22

Yeah, I'm happy to support. I think we came to a good conclusion here and I just again echo the legwork that you've done and is remarkable and I know how much you care and I'm happy to support this.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:58:37

Great so there's a motion

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:58:39

and

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:58:39

a

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:58:39

second let me just make sure that if we bring that back up probably County Council wants me to bring the proposed actions up because I did change or revise the CEQA determination so we could bring up a slight number 14. So it's my motion was the stated compromise and receiving file we've directed staff that was B and C and accept this CEQA determination that this is not a project under subject to environmental review

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:59:21

And as the seconder, I agree. A motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Great now can I get a preview of closed session

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:59:39

Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board. In closed session today the board will consider one item of existing litigation, Torres versus County of Santa Barbara which is a Santa Barbara County Superior Court case and conference with labor negotiators. The employee organization is Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff's Association. The agency designated representatives are CEO Monomi Asato and HR Director Maria Elena de Guevara. And the time estimate is 30 to 45 minutes.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:00:07

I'm going to defer on the longer side of that, and that will come out at quarter till. We have returned from closed session. Can we get a report from closed session?

4:07 – 4:072 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed4:07:12

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board met in closed session one item of existing litigation Torres versus County of Santa Barbara and conference with labor negotiators with Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff's Association as the employee organization and there was no reportable action.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:07:30

We are adjourned to Tuesday November 7th in Santa Maria