Measure A investment
plan
A
measure approving a Measure A investment plan was
adopted May 8 by the Buellton City Council, and will now be put before the
city’s voters on the Nov. 4 ballot.
The
council also heard comment from a resident of a mobile home park on a
hot-button issue in Buellton, mitigation of the consequences that befall
residents when a mobile home park is sold.
During
the hearing on Measure A, the council heard testimony from Greg Hart, who
represents the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, on the need for
the continuation of the revenue stream from sales taxes imposed by Measure A.
Explaining
that Measure D, the precursor legislation adopted in 1989, had a sunset
provision that extinguished it after 20 years; the 0.5 percent tax that it
piggy-backed in Santa Barbara County on top of California’s regular retail
sales tax is set to expire in 2009. Hart
said that the major projects undertaken with Measure D funds to maintain county
roads and transportation infrastructure will be guaranteed completion with the
passage of Measure A.
The
final portion of widening Highway 101 between Montecito and Carpinteria
from four lanes to six lanes will receive needed funding for that final stretch
of road only if Measure A is adopted.
“The
promise to widen Highway 101 was made in 1989 … it wasn’t done,” said Hart.
Council
members Dale Molesworth and Ed Andrisek
both voiced concerns that the new tax measure was for a period of 30 years, 10
years longer than the measure it is replacing.
Buellton
Mayor Russ Hicks was the city’s representative on association of governments board.
Hicks provided much of the explanation of the process and work that was
done to find a wording that will be acceptable to the voters. A similar measure to replace Measure D was
offered to voters in 2006. At that time,
the measure did not receive the needed two-thirds vote. Had it been adopted, it
would have added an additional quarter point above what the original Measure D
had imposed.
In
other business, the council heard testimony from a resident of Ranch Club
Mobile Estates, seeking adoption of an ordinance pertaining to mitigation and
relocation cost compensation for mobile home owners if a change in use occurs
in the mobile home park.
The
staff report noted there is sufficient state law on “conversions” of mobile
home parks and adoption of additional regulations most likely would create
grounds for a lawsuit that potentially could involve the city. Presenting three options to the council, city
Planning Director Marc Bierdzinski recommended that
staff not be directed to develop a complete and detailed mobile home park conversion
ordinance as “Staff does not believe (this option) is in the best interests of
either the City or residents of the mobile home park due to the legal
uncertainty of developing regulations that may conflict with or be preempted by
State Law.”
Bierdzinski presented two other
options that would be legally defensible, and would better protect the city as
well as the residents of the mobile home park.
After
listening to the testimony of the mobile home park resident and of staff, the
council voted to table the discussion of this matter until its July meeting.
The
planning director also made a presentation to the council on acceptance of the
Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Plan. This plan would allocate 279 new housing
units in the city for the next 7 ½ year housing cycle.
“As
your representative on (the Technical Planning Advisory Committee), I
ultimately voted to accept a scenario that allocated 292 housing units to
Buellton, but the SBCAG Board modified this number to 279,” he said.
“I believe this is a fair allocation
based on the growth projections in our General Plan and because of the number
of jobs that are anticipated on being created in the city,” he said.