Meeting Summary
Present: Katz, 3-Hartmann, 4-Nelson, 5-Lavagnino
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Chair and Vice-Chair Appointments
- Supervisor Lavinino was appointed as Chair and Supervisor Capps as Vice-Chair for the 2024 term.
- Chair Lavinino outlined procedural changes, including rearranging the agenda to place resolutions before administrative items.
- New protocols were established for a midday lunch break and strict time limits for public comment.
CEO Report
- The CEO announced the appointments of Christine Schmidt as Human Resources Director and Metta Richardson as Child Support Director.
- The Planning and Development Department reported that its new solar app has issued over 110 permits with one-day inspection turnaround.
- The Straus Wind Energy Project near Lompoc became operational at the end of December, delivering power to the state grid.
Human Trafficking Awareness Month Resolution
- The board adopted a resolution to proclaim January 2024 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County.
- Presenters from the District Attorney’s office and community partners spoke in support of the initiative.
Employee of the Month Resolution
- The board adopted a resolution honoring Florentina Lopez of the Planning and Development Department as the January 2024 Employee of the Month.
- The Planning and Development Director and Florentina Lopez spoke in support of the recognition.
Commendation for Claire Gottsdanker
- The board adopted a resolution honoring Claire Gottsdanker for her service on the Montecito Board of Architectural Review.
- Claire Gottsdanker spoke regarding her long-term service to the Montecito community.
Retirement Commendation for Joni Maden
- The board adopted a resolution honoring Joni Maden upon her retirement from the Child Support Services Department after 30 years of service.
- Joni Maden and the incoming Child Support Director spoke in support of the resolution.
2024 Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees
- The board reviewed and confirmed appointments for various boards, including the Adult and Aging Network, Area Agency on Aging, and Beacon.
- Specific roles were assigned for committees such as the Debt Advisory Committee, LAFCO, and the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act Board.
- The board unanimously approved the list of 2024 appointments to these external bodies.
Percent for Arts Program
- Staff presented three options for improving the Percent for Arts ordinance, with Option 3 recommending a single annual allocation of $200,000 plus CPI.
- Supervisors discussed the potential impact on departmental incentives and the need to explore alternative revenue sources beyond the general fund.
- The board conceptually approved Option 3 and directed staff to return with funding options for sustainability beyond the first year.
Rooster Keeping Ordinance
- Staff presented a proposed ordinance to limit the number of roosters kept on properties based on parcel size and establish minimum care standards.
- The board discussed exemptions for commercial poultry, educational projects, and animal welfare organizations, as well as the legal authority for such regulations.
- The board adopted a revised version of the ordinance with specific amendments regarding enclosure spacing and animal welfare organization approvals.
Housing Element Update
- Staff presented criteria for determining parcels to rezone as part of the sixth Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycle.
- Supervisors discussed priorities including affordability, local preference, partnerships with nonprofits, and the development of county-owned sites.
- The board provided direction to staff to draft a document reflecting these priorities for upcoming rezone hearings.
Closed Session
- The board discussed existing litigation involving the University of California and American Medical Response West.
- The board addressed anticipated litigation regarding a claim from Mr. Crable.
- The board conferred with SEIU Local 620 and unrepresented employee managers regarding labor negotiations.
Full summary
Meeting Opening and Chair Transition
- The January 9, 2024, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. Nominations were accepted for the 2024 Chair and Vice-Chair positions. A motion was made and seconded to appoint Supervisor Lavinino as Chair and Supervisor Capps as Vice-Chair. The motion passed unanimously. Outgoing Chair Williams presented the gavel to incoming Chair Lavinino. Chair Lavinino outlined procedural changes for 2024, including rearranging the agenda to place resolutions before the administrative agenda, defining a lunch break near 12:30 PM, and enforcing strict time limits for public comment.
Approval of Minutes
- The board considered the approval of the minutes from the December 12, 2023, meeting. A motion was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
CEO Report
- The CEO presented announcements regarding two new director appointments: Christine Schmidt as Human Resources Director and Metta Richardson as Child Support Director. The CEO reported on the success of the Planning and Development Department’s new solar app, which has issued over 110 permits with a one-day inspection turnaround. Additionally, the CEO noted that the Straus Wind Energy Project near Lompoc became operational at the end of December, delivering power to the state grid.
Clerk Announcements and Agenda Adjustments
- The Clerk announced that three administrative items (A6, A14, and A15) were withdrawn at the request of the sponsoring departments. Administrative Item A26 was noted as a continuance to January 23, 2024, requested by the Public Works Department. The Clerk reminded the public of decorum rules, prohibiting booing or clapping during deliberations. A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda with the announced withdrawals. The motion passed unanimously.
Administrative Item 1: Human Trafficking Awareness Month
- The board considered a resolution sponsored by Supervisors Williams and Capps to proclaim January 2024 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. Presenters from the District Attorney’s office and community partners spoke in support of the resolution. Supervisors Capps and Williams expressed support for the initiative. The resolution was adopted.
Administrative Item 2: Employee of the Month
- The board considered a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino to honor Florentina Lopez of the Planning and Development Department as the January 2024 Employee of the Month. The Planning and Development Director and Florentina Lopez spoke in support of the resolution. The resolution was adopted.
Administrative Item 3: Commendation for Claire Gottsdanker
- The board considered a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Williams to honor Claire Gottsdanker for her service on the Montecito Board of Architectural Review. Claire Gottsdanker spoke regarding her long-term service to the Montecito community. Supervisor Williams expressed appreciation for her contributions. The resolution was adopted.
Administrative Item 4: Retirement Commendation for Joni Maden
- The board considered a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Nelson to honor Joni Maden upon her retirement from the Child Support Services Department after 30 years of service. Joni Maden and the incoming Child Support Director spoke in support of the resolution. Supervisors Nelson and Hartman commented on Maden’s leadership and service. The resolution was adopted.
General Public Comment
- Two members of the public provided comment. One speaker discussed the Straus Wind Project and conservatorship issues, referencing specific individuals and legal complaints. Another speaker, appearing via Zoom, raised concerns regarding First Amendment rights and urged the board to pass a resolution supporting a ceasefire in Gaza.
Departmental Item 1: 2024 Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees
- The board reviewed the 2024 appointments to various boards, commissions, and committees. The board discussed and confirmed the following appointments:
- Adult and Aging Network: Supervisors Williams and Hartman.
- Area Agency on Aging: Supervisor Lavinino.
- Beacon: Supervisors Williams, Capps, Hartman, and Nelson (as alternates).
- Behavioral Wellness: Supervisor Capps.
- CSAC (California State Association of Counties): Supervisor Williams (Chair) and Supervisor Capps (Alternate). Supervisor Nelson offered her alternate spot to Supervisor Capps, who accepted.
- SenCal Health: Supervisor Hartman.
- Child Care Planning Council: Supervisor Capps (Primary) and Supervisor Nelson (Alternate).
- Communify (formerly CAC): Supervisor Capps (Primary) and Supervisor Lavinino (Alternate).
- Community Corrections Partnership: Supervisor Williams.
- Debt Advisory Committee: Supervisor Lavinino (Chair) and Supervisor Nelson (Alternate).
- Elected Officials Committee on Regional Homelessness Solutions: Supervisors Hartman and Nelson.
- First Five, Children and Families: Supervisor Williams (Primary) and Supervisor Capps (Alternate).
- Golden State Connect Authority: Supervisor Nelson (Primary) and Supervisor Lavinino (Alternate).
- Juvenile Justice Coordination Council: Supervisor Nelson (Primary) and Supervisor Capps (Alternate).
- Kids Network Policy Council: Supervisors Hartman and Capps.
- Law Library Board of Trustees: Supervisor Lavinino. Supervisor Hartman deferred her appointment to allow Supervisor Lavinino to designate an appointee.
- Legislative Program Committee: Supervisors Williams and Hartman.
- Library Advisory Committee: Supervisor Williams.
- LAFCO: Supervisor Williams (term ending 2026) and Supervisor Nelson (Alternate).
- Psychiatric Health Facility PUF Governing Board: Supervisor Lavinino (Primary) and Supervisor Capps (Alternate).
- SB Serves Retirement Board: Supervisor Lavinino (term ending December 31, 2025).
- Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC): Supervisor Nelson (Primary) and Supervisor Lavinino (Alternate).
- Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act Board: Supervisor Nelson.
- A motion was made and seconded to approve the appointments. The motion passed unanimously.
Departmental Item 2: Percent for Arts Program
- The Community Services Department presented options for improving the implementation of the county’s Percent for Arts ordinance. Three options were outlined: 1. Option 1: Clarify policy terms, standardize timelines, offset 25% of allocations for management costs, and update the budgetary threshold for board discussion. 2. Option 2: Include Option 1 elements plus policy expansion options to improve reach and sustainability. 3. Option 3 (Staff Recommended): Replace project-by-project calculations with a single annual allocation of $200,000 plus CPI, derived from 1% of the structures and structural improvements capital projects line item.
- Supervisor Nelson asked questions regarding ownership and maintenance of public art, noting that art is often integrated into structures and maintained by the owning department rather than a dedicated arts fund. The CEO’s office clarified that while the county owns the art, maintenance responsibilities fall to the department responsible for the structure or location. Supervisor Nelson raised concerns about potential unintended consequences of Option 3, specifically that departments might lose the incentive to incorporate artistic elements into capital projects if the funding is allocated centrally rather than per project.
- Staff clarified that while Option 3 represents a budget expansion, the county’s five-year forecast indicates no ongoing general fund availability in the immediate term; therefore, the plan would utilize one-time dollars to fund the expansion until ongoing general funds become available. Supervisor Nelson suggested exploring alternative revenue sources, such as assessments on activities at county facilities, to avoid competing with other critical general fund needs.
- Supervisor Hartman asked how the Arts Commission allocates funds to specific projects. Staff explained that site-specific builds receive "first right of refusal" for funds generated by the percent-for-art provision, with remaining funds supporting other initiatives. Staff noted that the current ordinance creates ambiguity regarding timing and definitions. Supervisor Capps asked how Option 3 would eliminate this ambiguity and increase community input. Staff responded that a fixed allocation allows for better planning and more intentional community engagement.
- Supervisor Williams asked if federally or state-funded projects usually qualify for the 1% match. Staff indicated that the timing of these funds is variable and often indefinite, which hinders the county’s ability to demonstrate immediate matching funds for grants. Staff noted that knowing the allocation in advance would make the county more competitive for grants. Supervisor Hartman asked if moving to Option 3 would mean the 1% comes entirely from the county’s general fund. Staff confirmed that Option 3 relies on general fund contributions, though the trigger for applying the percent is the addition of county dollars.
- Four members of the public spoke in favor of increased arts funding, citing the importance of public art for community legacy, quality of life, and accessibility. One speaker shared a personal experience working on a mural project in Guadalupe. Another speaker urged the board to choose Option 3 to ensure transparent and generous funding. A third speaker, a poet laureate, emphasized that public art is a democratic form of visual arts essential to community identity. The final speaker, a parent, highlighted the role of public art in childhood development and encouraged the board to follow staff recommendations.
- Supervisor Lavinino proposed a hybrid approach: making an initial $200,000 general fund investment while simultaneously working to implement new policies to backfill that amount in future years. Staff recommended Option 3 for its simplicity but noted that the board must clarify the status of the existing percent-for-arts ordinance. Staff suggested that if the board proceeds with Option 3, the existing ordinance would likely need to be rescinded or amended. Staff proposed returning to the board in April during budget workshops to discuss other revenue generation ideas and the specific mechanism for funding.
- Supervisor Nelson asked for clarification on whether the existing ordinance must be repealed to move to Option 3. Staff indicated that the board could either rescind the ordinance or amend it, but if the 1% calculation is being replaced, rescission is the likely path. Supervisor Nelson expressed interest in the "simplistic step forward" of Option 3 but stated he was not ready to commit general funds without exploring other revenue options first. He proposed rescinding the current ordinance effective July 1st to align with the new fiscal year, contingent on finding alternative revenue sources.
- Supervisor Williams moved to conceptually approve Option 3, with the department to return with funding options for sustainability beyond the first year. Supervisor Hartman seconded the motion, adding that she is committed to maintaining the status quo of funding levels and seeking additional funding rather than just backfilling. Supervisor Capps agreed with the motion, emphasizing the need to look for creative ways to build on the program rather than just achieving status quo.
- Supervisor Nelson asked about the fallback position if budget hearings reveal too many competing commitments. Staff confirmed that the board always has the option to revert to the status quo if the new funding model cannot be sustained.
- The motion to conceptually approve Option 3, receive the file, and find the item exempt from CEQA review was passed unanimously.
Departmental Item 3: Rooster Keeping Ordinance (Chapter 7, Article 9)
- Staff presented a proposed ordinance to regulate and limit the number of roosters kept on properties in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County. The proposal aims to address health, safety, and noise concerns associated with large-scale rooster keeping. The ordinance would set limits based on parcel size:
- 1–5 acres: Up to 2 roosters without a permit.
- 10 acres: Up to 5 roosters without a permit.
- Greater than 20 acres: Up to 20 roosters without a permit.
- A permit could allow up to a maximum of 25 roosters, subject to specific care standards and setbacks.
- Staff noted that Santa Barbara County would be unique in distinguishing limits for properties larger than 20 acres. The ordinance would also establish minimum standards of care, prohibiting practices such as tethering or keeping roosters in undersized cages. Two fees would be established: an annual operating permit fee of $182 and potential billing for complaint investigations if violations are found. Staff recommended the board approve the first reading of the ordinance, waive the full reading, and continue the hearing to January 23 for second reading and adoption.
- Supervisor Nelson asked whether poor conditions for roosters were found at all locations or only select ones. Staff indicated that results have been mixed, with some properties not accessible for evaluation. Supervisor Nelson asked if the "gamefowl" community was invited to the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) meetings. Staff confirmed they were not specifically invited, as the committee was not aware of their representation in the county. Supervisor Nelson asked for a definition of "quiet enjoyment of property," noting that roosters are not the only noisy animals. Staff stated there is no specific definition in the ordinance, but it was the intent of the initial board action.
- Supervisor Nelson asked Planning staff if current operations are in violation of the Land Use Development Code (LUDC). Planning staff confirmed there are two active violations on AG-1 property where the number of fowl exceeded "reasonable family use." Supervisor Nelson asked if there was evidence of cockfighting. Planning staff stated they had not found clear evidence of cockfighting, only large numbers of roosters. Animal Services staff noted that without probable cause or owner consent, they cannot access properties, which limits their ability to find evidence of illegal activities.
- Supervisor Capps asked for clarification on whether roosters are needed for egg production. Staff clarified that roosters do not lay eggs and are not required for hens to lay eggs; the ordinance targets roosters specifically due to noise and other concerns.
- Eighteen members of the public requested to speak, with the board limiting comments to two minutes per speaker. Comments included:
- Support for the ordinance, citing the link between cockfighting and other crimes such as drug trafficking and violence, and the need for stronger local policies to protect public health and animal welfare.
- Arguments that the ordinance is preempted by state law, specifically Civil Code Section 3482.5, which protects agricultural activities, and that it violates constitutional rights.
- Requests for wording changes to allow bona fide rescue organizations to take in roosters.
- Opposition from poultry enthusiasts and breeders, arguing that the ordinance would negatively impact 4-H, FFA, and exhibition poultry communities, and that it threatens legitimate agricultural operations and heritage breed preservation.
- Reports of noise nuisances from large numbers of roosters in residential and agricultural areas.
- A veterinarian supported the ordinance, stating that reducing the concentration of animal housing improves avian and human health.
- Supervisor Nelson asked Mr. Keegan if he was familiar with the Association for the Preservation of Game Fowl. Mr. Keegan stated he was not familiar with that organization and his experience was limited to exhibition poultry through 4-H and FFA. Supervisor Hartman asked Mr. Keegan about his practices for keeping roosters quiet. He described using a barn, planting shrubs, and situating his property against a hill to mitigate noise. Supervisor Hartman stated that the board’s intent is not to hinder 4-H or legitimate show activities.
- Staff explained that the ordinance includes exemptions for commercial poultry ranches, educational projects (4-H/FFA), veterinary hospitals, and animal welfare organizations. Staff noted that the rooster limits were benchmarked against other counties and reviewed by the Agricultural Advisory Committee. County Counsel confirmed the county’s authority to enact such ordinances under police power and cited a 2019 Monterey County case where a similar rooster ordinance was upheld as constitutional. The Agricultural Commissioner supported the ordinance as a reasonable compromise that balances agricultural operations with community concerns.
- Supervisor Hartman asked about the methodology for determining rooster limits per acreage and the legality of the ordinance. Supervisor Nelson asked about the maximum limit for permits (confirmed as 25 roosters) and expressed concern about the process, noting that gamefowl groups were not invited to the Agricultural Advisory Committee meetings. Supervisor Williams asked for clarification on the age definition of a rooster (male chicken six months or older with full adult plumage) and suggested that the current thresholds might be too high compared to other jurisdictions. Supervisor Nielsen expressed support for the ordinance but requested that it be sent back to the Agricultural Advisory Committee for further review with all stakeholders, including gamefowl groups, before final adoption.
- Staff presented a revised version of the ordinance incorporating feedback. Key changes included:
- Limiting unpermitted roosters to a maximum of five on parcels larger than five acres.
- Requiring enclosures to be at least 10 feet apart and covered to prevent roosters from seeing each other.
- Prohibiting wire flooring and requiring separate areas for elimination and food/water.
- Changing the exemption for animal welfare organizations to require approval by the Animal Services Director rather than merely employing humane officers.
- Supervisor Hartman proposed specific limits based on ag zoning and suggested setbacks for enclosures. Staff explained that the 150-foot setback was the most stringent among compared counties and that increasing it further could eliminate the ability to have rooster operations on smaller parcels. Supervisor Lavinino questioned the value of the permit system versus direct enforcement but ultimately supported the permit approach for clarity and compliance. Supervisor Nelson reiterated his inability to support the motion due to concerns about the process and the exclusion of gamefowl stakeholders from the advisory committee.
- Supervisor Hartman moved to adopt the revised staff recommendation, with the specific amendment to substitute "approved by the Animal Services Director" for "employs humane officers" in the definition of a rooster keeping operation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Williams. The motion passed. The revised rooster keeping ordinance was adopted.
Closed Session
- The Board entered closed session to discuss:
- Existing litigation: County of Santa Barbara v. Regents of University of California and American Medical Response West v. County.
- Anticipated litigation: A claim from Mr. Crable.
- Labor negotiations: Conference with SEIU Local 620 and unrepresented employee managers/executives.
- No reportable action was taken.
Departmental Item 4: Housing Element Update
- Staff from the CEO’s Office and Planning and Development Department presented a discussion on criteria for determining parcels to rezone as part of the sixth Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle. The purpose was to identify potential community benefit criteria to guide developers and align project designs with county priorities during the housing element update process.
- Staff presented background information regarding the county’s RHNA allocation, noting that the existing land inventory was insufficient to meet the allocation at required densities. Key data points included:
- Income Levels: Defined categories for very low, low, moderate, and above-moderate income households.
- Housing Burden: 47% of households are renters; 55% of renters are cost-burdened (paying >30% of income for rent), with 29% severely cost-burdened.
- Price-to-Income Ratio: The median home price increased from 4 times the median income in 1983 to 22 times in 2021.
- RHNA Allocation: 5,664 units total for the county (4,142 in South County, 1,522 in North County). A 15% buffer was added to the allocation due to the state’s new "no net loss" law, which requires jurisdictions to maintain sufficient land for the entire eight-year planning cycle. If the county falls short, it has only 180 days to identify and rezone adequate sites.
- Rezoning Findings: Staff outlined three required findings for rezoning: the request is in the interest of community welfare, consistent with the comprehensive plan/state laws/development code, and consistent with good planning and zoning practices.
- Community Benefits: Staff proposed criteria for community benefits, including providing >20% of units as very low/low income for extended periods, creating "missing middle" (moderate/upper-moderate) units, marketing to local employees first (local preference), and including public amenities such as childcare, parks, trails, or open space. Staff noted a deficit of over 9,000 childcare spaces for children ages 0–5.
- Supervisor Hartman asked if "good zoning principles" include a mix of housing types. Staff responded that higher densities stimulate a mix of housing types, though the specific mix is a developer decision. Hartman also suggested requiring developers to make presentations of their projects, which Staff supported. Supervisor Williams supported the suggestion for public presentations to ensure maximum public benefit and accountability.
- Supervisor Capps proposed five criteria: 1. Focus on Affordability: Noted that market-rate housing is already over-allocated and suggested focusing rezoning on low and missing-middle housing. Staff confirmed that while market-rate units are not required for rezoning, they are often necessary to finance affordable units. 2. Incentivize Partnerships: Proposed prioritizing projects where developers are already partnered with nonprofits to achieve affordability. Staff confirmed that no full market-rate projects will be rezoned due to Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements. 3. Conditional Rezoning: Asked if rezoning could be conditional on affordability percentages. Staff cautioned that creating mandates that render projects financially infeasible could be viewed by the state as new barriers to housing development. 4. Local Preference: Proposed going beyond marketing to include master leases or partnerships with local employers to secure housing for local workers. Staff indicated a housing element program exists to study local preference and that developers are open to master lease options. 5. County-Owned Sites: Proposed assessing all county property for housing potential. Staff noted a program exists to prioritize disposal of county-owned land and that a contract to analyze workforce housing on county sites is coming to the board. The report is due May 31, covering nine sites. Staff clarified that county-owned inland sites do not require rezoning as the county is exempt from its own zoning regulations, unlike coastal zone sites.
- Supervisor Nelson asked whether Builders Remedy projects and pending discretionary projects would be included in the rezoning process. Staff explained that rezoning Builders Remedy sites provides security for the RHNA allocation under the no-net-loss law and allows the county to apply objective design standards. Staff noted the board has discretion to include pending projects in the housing element rezoning process.
- Supervisor Williams emphasized the need for urgency in developing county-owned sites for employee housing, noting that limiting these sites to low/moderate income only could exclude many county employees. He supported including the downtown parking lot site in the inventory. Staff emphasized the need to focus on moderate-income housing for county-owned sites due to a dearth of moderate-income sites in proposed projects.
- Fourteen members of the public spoke. Key points included:
- Noting the absence of site feasibility factors (water/sewer, transit, school capacity) in the criteria.
- Expressing commitment to partnering on affordable housing and highlighting the county’s high housing costs and workforce housing shortage.
- Supporting focusing rezoning on parcels producing very low and moderate housing and suggesting establishing a trust or special funding for affordable housing.
- Suggesting prioritizing county-owned and faith community sites, and asking developers to consider pro-community designs, moderate-income condos, and partnerships with nonprofits.
- Promoting the employer-sponsored housing consortium program, where multiple employers partner to acquire or lease housing for their employees.
- Suggesting prioritizing moderate-income/missing-middle housing and considering whether to rezone Builders Remedy sites to provide certainty and allow for program implementation.
- Urging the board to require public amenities, open space, trails, and parks to maintain quality of life and environmental justice.
- Emphasizing the importance of trails and public access to public health and welfare.
- Requesting a hearing for developers to explain concepts, immediate consideration of a bond/tax measure for affordable housing funding, and a requirement for local preference.
- Emphasizing the importance of basic urban planning principles and the challenges of selling high-density market-rate housing to support community benefits.
- Staff confirmed that they will present basic land use principles to the board, including criteria regarding urban boundary status, proximity to commercial services and schools, and access to water and sewer. Staff proposed creating a one-page handout or website update reflecting the board’s comments on priorities for new projects, to be completed before upcoming rezone hearings.
- Supervisor Capps inquired about the next steps and the specific product to be developed for developers and the community. Staff indicated that the process would involve workshops and hearings at the Planning Commission and Board level prior to rezone decisions.
- Supervisor Williams emphasized the importance of requiring developers to articulate community benefits before the rezone process, prioritizing projects that produce more low- and moderate-income housing than required, local preferences, recreation, and child care.
- Supervisor Nielsen outlined specific priorities: 1. Prioritizing existing projects in the process that satisfy low- or moderate-income requirements. 2. Noting that projects under the Builder’s Remedy are not exempt from CEQA hurdles. 3. Supporting four-unit projects, home ownership options (townhouses, condos), and local preferences (including for local high school graduates). 4. Encouraging youth sports facilities and community recreation spaces. 5. Ensuring projects conform to existing community plans. 6. Addressing the job-housing imbalance by locating projects along corridors or including industrial components to support local jobs.
- Supervisor Hartman invited Diane Black, representing the League of Women Voters, to provide additional advice. Black suggested a local bonus density program to compete with state incentives and emphasized the need for tools to provide affordable housing.
- Supervisor Hartman stated that the criteria in the memo are appropriate but noted the critical importance of moderate-income housing. She highlighted the value of partnerships, such as employer consortiums and collaborations with housing authorities, to ensure durable affordable housing. She emphasized the need for public amenities (trails, parks) rather than private enclosed amenities, particularly as affordability decreases.
- Chair Lavinino asked if staff had any further questions regarding the direction provided. Staff confirmed their understanding of the criteria and stated they would draft a document for the website.
- A motion was made to provide direction to staff as appropriate (Items A, B, and C). The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.