Commentary

July 29, 2007
Dear Supervisor Firestone, Supervisor Gray, Supervisor Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf, Supervisor Centeno, CEO Mike Brown and County Counsel Shane Stark,

I would like to clarify that what is being called the Greater Santa Ynez Valley Baseline Report that was announced to the public on July 12, 2007 is the county's version of what was approved at the February 27, 2007 hearing as a Comprehensive Impact Study that was to include: "traffic, crime, economic, social, environmental and infrastructure impacts of the existing 2,000 slot gaming operation at the Chumash Casino," according to the transcripts.

Is this the same report as we are being told?  After reading the notices that have been sent out to the public and reading the county Web site regarding this report, there is no mention of the word casino.  If the Baseline Report is a change of the approved Comprehensive Impact Study, when was this change made and why is there no mention of the casino in the Baseline Report description?  As a matter of fact, there is no mention of the word "impacts" and "costs,"  just "changes" and "characteristics" of the region. 

If you don't call it what it is, then how do you get an accurate and comprehensive study on the cost/benefit and impacts of the casino?  The stated intention of a Comprehensive Impact Study, as was approved by a majority, was very specifically to study "casino impacts" and the "cost/benefit of the casino."   

Furthermore, there was never any mention in the motion or otherwise for "land-use" proposals and the following two sentences in the county announcement of the Baseline Report appear to contradict each other.  In fact, land use is mentioned several times while the casino is not mentioned at all.  "The report will be a journal of facts that can aid policy makers and the community in making informed decisions affecting future land use proposals...It is distinctly different from the Santa Ynez Community Plan which shapes the community’s land-use policy vision for the future."

The way this is reading is that this report would supersede the Community Plan and community planning would essentially be under the direction of the County Office of Long Range Planning, essentially CEO Mike Brown.  This section of the report description is concerning.  

Could you answer the following questions for me:
1) Is the Greater Santa Ynez Valley Baseline Report the Comprehensive Impact Study that was originally voted on and approved by the Board?  

If the answer to No. 1 is affirmative, then I would request the following questions be clarified:
2) Why is the casino not mentioned?

3) How do you expect to solicit public input and feedback from the affected community on the "impacts of the casino" when this report and the description of the report makes no mention of the casino? 

4) Why is "traffic, crime, economic, social, environmental and infrastructure impacts of the existing 2,000 slot gaming operation at the Chumash Casino" (the motion according to the transcripts) not in the scope of the report? 

5) Why is the project director, Dave Matson, not aware that the casino was suppose to be included?  When asked about the scope of this Baseline Report, Matson never mentioned the casino and the impacts of gambling, even after further questioning.  Therefore, how could he study the impacts of the casino?  Also, on Matson's list of the things to be included in the Baseline Report, he mentioned "wine industry needs."  How did the "needs" of the wine industry get mixed into the original motion to study casino impacts?

6) Why has land use been added to this report?

On February 27, 2007, the Board acknowledged and voted that it was both important and necessary to have the raw data of the casino impacts and cost/benefit, and I do not see how this report provides that.

I would very much appreciate clarification so we can inform the community.

- Thank you,
Kathryn Bowen