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

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.