[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6512300,"mediaKeyId","5114315-43c20d22206d4c5aa60db429966e2458","parentId",5114315,"title","Scores of speakers urge council to keep Faro Center as drop‑in day center; neighbors cite safety concerns","audioSeconds",2683,"startMs",2303865,"endMs",4987625,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5114315-43c20d22206d4c5aa60db429966e2458&start=2303&end=4987","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5114315-43c20d22206d4c5aa60db429966e2458/thumbnail_2303865.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6512300/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Scores-of-speakers-urge-council-to-keep-Faro-Center-as-dropin-day-center-neighbors-cite-safety-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6512300-03af6607d7c0a6ac44c535984de4a2a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191975&Signature=DLK4AhalewpgMb0H2W5cBrUxoC5iZzszZYv6vErVFpjf7cKndSkEjpGcqvQ1YZqbC3Kjxs~zfnpJfgRfDMjn-zgAnTBzpfFC7Bu049PEaO5oY2cUGpwDU~Zt9rjPfP~zfSgNlOQ2dYeGSqfUJ~ObA-fIkTmClJ-jhXvgxB4Cg8VxudFr1LOIzaMMOa0CofXmZkEqO9Wyfk8WMc8xLuDnFa~-X-KMbCBJgAZUmaSsZ~2BeUzLFhV21Nt7~~txftHONj4TUag10mD2B2kEqs4EBtWIhJMEEMh39XtpV5WwMDCZ70tywHXGOoIH1bWA2EEroJ9tVcDbXeSNhVW6groHOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Santa Barbara, CA","date","2025-07-02T11:10:58Z","article","Dozens of residents, service providers and people who use the Faro Center pressed the Santa Barbara City Council on July 1 to continue the city’s partnership with SB Act and keep the Faro Center operating as a low‑barrier, walk‑in navigation and day‑center for people experiencing homelessness.

The comments — which occupied a large portion of the public‑comment period — included repeated appeals from Faro Center staff, volunteers and clients about the center’s role in connecting people to housing, health care and other services, and forceful complaints from neighbors and a property manager who said the center’s current operation has created public‑safety and nuisance problems.

Why it matters: The Faro Center is operating as a downtown drop‑in navigation center that, speakers said, has housed more than 100 people since it opened and serves dozens of people per day. Supporters argued that changing the center to an appointment‑only model or eliminating food and other services would block access for the city’s most vulnerable residents. Neighbors and at least one property manager said they are experiencing threats, trespass and defecation on adjacent private property and asked the city for stronger mitigation or a change of operator.

Supporters described outcomes and individual stories. Lindsay Black, executive director of Jody House, a brain‑injury support organization adjacent to the Faro Center, said, “Jody House does not oppose providing targeted services at the Faro Center for people experiencing homelessness who are actively seeking those services,” and asked the council to “restore the Faro Center to its original vision.”

Several speakers with lived experience described the center as a lifeline. Christian Herring, identified as a client and employee at the Faro Center, said, “The Faro Center has made a difference by providing support and compassion,” and recounted help with job navigation and health services. Landon Ranke, associate director at SB Act, said the center’s busiest day sees an average of 71 visits and that days with meals do not correspond to higher neighbor complaints.

Health‑care and service providers said the drop‑in model is critical. Deirdre Gautau of Public Health Nursing said that, “If the Faro Center were referral‑only or appointment‑only, many of my clients would not receive necessary dental treatments, visual exams, and care from medical specialists.” Stephanie Bumadian, representing Jody House, said the agency supports about 169 brain‑injury survivors and that “predictability and safety are not luxury. They are lifelines.”

Neighbors and property management complained about spillover impacts. Rob Koiman, property manager for 606–614 Chapala Street across from the Faro Center, said his company has produced incident reports listing defecation, trespass and break‑ins since the center opened. A nearby resident, Gabriel Zahony, said he had his life threatened three times in a single week and urged the council to consider a different management team if the center remains open.

Legal counsel for Jody House framed the issue as a potential nuisance. Ted Schneider said the center’s operation “constitutes both a public and private nuisance” as currently run and said the operator had rejected recommended programmatic adjustments. That legal framing was offered as part of a broader call by several speakers for the city to continue negotiating program changes while keeping services available.

Calls for a timeline and for continued partnership. A number of speakers urged the council to extend SB Act’s operating agreement or to give the organization a short runway to implement changes. Marie Corbin, executive director of Project Heal of Santa Barbara County, specifically asked the council to “grant SB Act the 120‑day extension that they need.” Supporters said the center has connected people to housing (more than 100 people housed since opening, a figure cited by a board member) and that closing it or limiting meals and low‑barrier access would strain emergency rooms and other systems.

Council response and action: The July 1 meeting record shows these matters were raised in general public comment; the transcript contains no formal council vote or motion on changes to the Faro Center during the session. Council members acknowledged the volume of testimony and the need for collaboration between the city, SB Act and affected neighbors, but no formal direction or decision was recorded in the transcript.

What speakers requested next: A range of remedies was urged — continued partnership with SB Act, targeted programmatic changes (security staffing changes, more neighbor outreach), a 120‑day extension to implement improvements, or, from neighbors, a change in operator. Several support organizations and faith groups said they would continue supplying meals and other services while the city and SB Act negotiate.

Clarifying details from testimony: Jody House described serving about 169 members, 75 percent of whom rely on Medicaid or Medicare; SB Act staff said the Faro Center’s busiest day averages 71 visits; supporters said the center has housed “more than 100” people since opening; Project Heal and other speakers urged a 120‑day extension for SB Act to implement changes. Several speakers said security changes in April reduced some escalations.

What to watch next: Council staff and SB Act were described by several speakers as actively engaged in conversations; neighbors and service providers requested formal summit‑level collaboration and clearer mitigation steps. The transcript does not record a staff report or council direction; future council agendas or staff reports would be the likely next opportunities for formal action.

Ending: Speakers on both sides urged continued dialogue. Supporters emphasized lives saved and services delivered; neighbors emphasized immediate public‑safety impacts. The council did not take a formal vote on Faro Center operations during the July 1 meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council - July 1, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Dozens of residents, service providers and people who use the Faro Center pressed the Santa Barbara City Council on July 1 to continue the city’s partnership with SB Act and keep the Faro Center operating as a low‑barrier, walk‑in navigation and day‑center for people experiencing homelessness.","taxTitle","Santa Barbara City, Santa Barbara County, California","taxId",4209,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6512295,"Council adopts changes to sign code to allow limited weekend parkway signs, citing Supreme Court precedent",1755,5155895,6911635,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5114315-43c20d22206d4c5aa60db429966e2458&start=5155&end=6911","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5114315-43c20d22206d4c5aa60db429966e2458/thumbnail_5155895.jpg","/articles/6512295/Santa-Barbara-City/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Council-adopts-changes-to-sign-code-to-allow-limited-weekend-parkway-signs-citing-Supreme-Court-precedent","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6512295-149d7f8bd2a357728f42751349c66ec1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191975&Signature=lgqEhgSDlFQWk1vaJeU6Jse0WRQ5h5yQZWAmGwsw4id2qhrl9IXlBJEXqBk0ZC0TeaAFCTDdeFU9IcaFDX-kTgvRT0IP3bPfi2hqS~SWtgX6iXYN~kiYJjDR9Tjp56FmlzuBWFTHxTn5mUP1L4SRmqDCFUCQN0IlMjZLX51Vi616-tU6J4sQUVPsahPgQs-w2usNC7IksMhXvO6MeLS6NyzzTlPSozJs3oPGD~TN8EljBjGjV8JPmyedq8GSVeJjqTxR~d507O5AgstYcBqm5yKp8NgvYhTvC9X5PrcbkkZSL63XeKvaXttSOwTkWwDYbkdnjag19NzbJ8dtKxp4yA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Santa Barbara City Council on July 1 voted 6‑1 to adopt amendments to chapter 22.70 of the municipal code that revise the city’s sign regulations to make temporary‑sign enforcement constitutionally defensible and to establish limited allowances for off‑premise temporary signs in parkway areas on weekend periods.

City staff presented the ordinance changes as a response to U.S. Supreme Court guidance on content‑based regulation of signs and years of complaints about signs placed in public rights‑of‑way. John Duemos, identified in the meeting as a city staff presenter, told council the goal was “to have a constitutionally sound ordinance that’s enforceable,” citing the need to avoid content‑based rules after the court decision referenced in staff’s presentation.

What the ordinance does: The amendments permit temporary off‑premise portable signs in parkway areas (not blocking sidewalks or vehicle lanes) for a limited weekend window — described in staff presentation as a 42‑hour period from 6 a.m. Saturday to 11:59 p.m. Sunday — with size and placement limits (staff said signs must be freestanding, limited to 42 inches above ground and within an area no greater than six square feet, and not attached to utility poles). The ordinance allows immediate removal of signs that violate the new rules and requires the city to store removed signs for 90 days. The downtown El Pueblo Viejo landmark district is excluded from the parkway allowance for safety and pedestrian‑volume reasons.

City staff emphasized that the changes are narrowly targeted to address legal vulnerability in the prior code and that future administrative steps — such as a streamlined review process, wayfinding and directional sign programs for events, and potential design standards — would follow implementation of the ordinance.

Council debate and outcome: Councilmember Jordan, who moved the staff recommendation, framed the adoption as the first step in a longer process to address event wayfinding and downtown signage. Councilmember Gutierrez cast the lone vote against the ordinance, saying the rules could make it harder for local businesses during a fragile economic period. The roll‑call vote was: Sneddon — yes; Friedman (Mayor Pro Tem) — yes; Gutierrez — no; Jordan — yes; Harmon — yes; Santa Maria — yes; Mayor Ross — aye. The motion passed 6‑1.

Key points from staff presentation and Q&A: Staff cited Reed v. Town of Gilbert (Supreme Court case referenced in the presentation) as the legal driver requiring content‑neutral sign regulation. Duemos said the city’s prior ordinance effectively prohibited all temporary off‑premise signs but had been unenforceable because it treated similar signs differently (for example, allowing real‑estate signs). Councilmembers asked for clarification about what counts as a “parkway” (staff said it need not be grass and that the test is whether the sign blocks ingress, egress or ADA access), and whether event or government safety signage would be allowed (staff said government speech and safety signage would not be restricted).

Votes at a glance (formal actions recorded on July 1):
- Consent calendar (items 3–5; item 6 removed for separate vote): Motion to approve the consent calendar except item 6. Mover: Mayor Pro Tem Friedman; Second: Councilmember Gutierrez. Roll call: Harmon — yes; Santa Maria — yes; Sneddon — yes; Friedman — yes; Gutierrez — yes; Jordan — yes; Mayor Ross — aye. Outcome: approved.
- Item 6 (authorize amendment to legal services agreement with Jarvis Fay LLP; appropriate $50,000 from general fund reserves): Motion by Councilmember Jordan; Second: Councilmember Gutierrez. Roll call: Santa Maria — yes; Sneddon — yes; Mayor Pro Tem Friedman — stepped out/recused; Gutierrez — yes; Jordan — yes; Harmon — yes; Mayor Ross — aye. Outcome: approved (all present; Mayor Pro Tem Friedman recused).
- Item 12 (amend chapter 22.70, sign regulations): Motion by Councilmember Jordan; Second: Councilmember Sneddon. Roll call: Sneddon — yes; Friedman — yes; Gutierrez — no; Jordan — yes; Harmon — yes; Santa Maria — yes; Mayor Ross — aye. Outcome: approved, 6‑1.

Next steps and implementation: Staff told council they will develop administrative procedures for enforcement and appeals (appeals to be heard by the full sign committee), create an inventory of enforcement processes and consider wayfinding templates and a streamlined permitting path for sanctioned directional signage. Councilmembers asked staff to return with implementation details and with approaches for event signage and downtown wayfinding that avoid content‑based review.

Context and caveats: Staff said the changes are focused on creating an enforceable, content‑neutral framework rather than remaking sign aesthetics; future design standards or downtownwayfinding programs would be pursued separately. The ordinance also retains prohibitions on signs that are obscene, incite violence or promote illegal activity (the presentation referenced existing penal‑code standards for obscene matter).","The City Council introduced and adopted amendments to Chapter 22.70 of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code on July 1, establishing a constitutionally framed approach to temporary signs in the public right‑of‑way, restricting signs in the El Pueblo Viejo landmark district, and directing staff to develop administrative procedures for implementation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Scores of speakers urge council to keep Faro Center as drop‑in day center; neighbors cite safety concerns

Council adopts changes to sign code to allow limited weekend parkway signs, citing Supreme Court precedent