Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)

Good afternoon. I will now call to order the May 7th, August 6th 2027-2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission. Madam Clerk would you please call the roll?

Make a motion to approve. Did you hear me make make motion to yes, thank you.

Is there a second? Second Commissioner Geier. We have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk would you please call the roll?

Motion passes with six, wait one two three four five yeah six ayes and one abstain.

Thank you this brings us to public comment Now is the time

public comment.

Thank you. That concludes the public comment. Is there a consent calendar? Yes. Are there any commissioners that wish to pull any items from the consent calendar?

I move that we approve the consent calendar.

I'll second. There's a motion. Second. There is a motion. There's a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll for the consent calendar?

Chair Starkey and members of the Commission changes of organization number one is to consider approval of LAFCO application file number 2602 first fear of influence amendment in annexation of the property located in the unincorporated area of the county at 4385 Via Prasada in Goleta California to the Goleta Sanitary District

Thank you. We have a staff report.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon commissioners. We do have a brief presentation for ya. This is one of our more routine sphere amendments and annexations of the property here at Via Prasada. Get that up. Here we go. So this was an application filed by the landowners, by petition through their agent. It's a parcel of 1.6 acres located on Via Persada within Hope Ranch area.

The annexation is for sewer service connection to an existing single-family residence In order to annex, because this property is outside the sphere of influence for Goleta Sanitation we have to amend the sphere as well. And so we're taking a concurrent action of amending the sphere and annexing the parcel. Parcels located here in this little finger. That's not highlighting working, but there's an arrow little finger that dips down and the whole branch community will give you a close up look at that parcel so it is contiguous to the district as much that finger was annexed in prior actions that were taken by the commission And so the land use for it is residential, as with all parcels in that area. There's no change that is needed. It's an existing single family residence under county zoning.

None of that will be changing as part of this project. The district has provided a plan for services that indicate that they do have the capability of providing that service To the parcel, the connection would be via Cepedora Street rather than via Prasada. Cepedora has the existing sewer line in it and so the line will carry over to that location. And so when we amend this fear of influence before an annexation are always required to go through the determinations to amend the sphere That includes whether or not there are planned land uses in the area. So obviously, housing is planned within the county's community plan.

The house exists. What's the present probable need? The house is there as a private sewer system that's been failing so they now need public sewers. So we're able to meet both those tests within those determinations. The three other determinations are Is there capacity within the sanitation district's service capabilities? And we rely heavily on our municipal service reviews that we've written. We most recently completed that for Goleta Sanitation District in 2022.

That indicates that they do have remaining capacity and as indicated via Tranquilla is the connection point at which this property would connect to. And then we look at social and economic communities of interest. And would they add to that? There are obviously part of the community already having an existing single family residence, and then we have to determine does this particular property meet the definition of disadvantaged unincorporated communities in which case it does not.

And so we've met the test on those five sphere of influence determinations. With that, we move on to environmental review. In this case staff has determined that a Class 19 qualifies annexation of the small parcel for facilities that are exempt already which classifies those under Class 3 Section 15303 So we're asking the commission to adopt the finding for that as well.

And we'll file the appropriate CEQA exemption once the commission has made its determination. We also look at whether or not there's consent by both a landowner and the district itself, given that this was an application by the landowner they've obviously consented to that And the district has also consented, so therefore we can proceed moving through the application process without a notice or hearing of election for protest proceedings. So we waive those proceedings as result of that consent.

So the conclusion that staff has made for the commission to consider is, uh, the site is located in the most logical area for the district to provide these services. Uh, therefore we should amend this sphere and annex, um, the property into the district as a reasonable extension of services. So with that, we'll conclude with the option that we've asked this commission to adopt if there are any particular questions. We're happy to answer any.

Thank you. Are there any commissioners that have any questions or comments concerning this proposal?

I have one question from Santa Barbara. This is a Director of Service, the application was submitted in April. Was it delay coming before us because we didn't meet or Or another reason and also could it not have obtained an emergency approval from the chair?

Commissioner Ceves to the Chair. The application initially came in and was deemed incomplete and required some additional submittal material, and that's why it took a delay from its submittal. To answer the second part of the question because the property is located outside of this sphere of influence it could not seek an out-of-agency service agreement authorized by the chair Those are reserved only for properties that are already in spheres of influence of the district. So it would have required an out-of-agency service agreement application to be submitted to the Commission at which we felt we could equally reach the commission through a full pledge annexation application rather than a two step out-of agency service agreement and then later annexation.

All right, thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the Commission? Commission members? Hearing none, I would ask are there any requests to speak from members of the public?

Chair Stark and Members of the Commission, there are no requests to speak on this item.

Dare I ask is the property owner present?

I believe their agent is in the back of the room.

I don't see any necessity for the property owner's agent to speak. So if there is no other public comment, I would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Geyer, I'll move for approval of option one.

Commissioner Nelson seconds.

There is a motion and a second and that would be inclusive of the annexation, the sphere of influence amendment Finding. Correct? Thank you, Madam Clerk could you please call the roll.

Motion passes unanimously

Thank you. This brings us to business item number one, Cal LAFCO Board Nominations. I would call upon our analysts to give the, would you read that into the record please?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission business item number one is to consider making nominations to the 2026-2027 Cal LAFCO Board of Directors and selecting voting delegates for the 2026 Cal LAFCO elections.

Thank You and Ms. Carbajal

Thank you, Chair Stark and members of the commission. Nominations are now open for the fall elections for the CalAFCO Board of Directors. Any LAFCO Commissioner, alternate commissioner or staff person are eligible to run for an open board seat. Each region will elect four members to the CalAFCO Board of Directors and in order to stagger the terms two positions in each region will serve an initial one year term and two will serve an initial two year term And nominations will be accepted until Friday, September 4th of 2026.

Secondly for this item every commission also needs to assign voting delegates to the CalAFCO 2026 elections that are set to take place at the annual conference in October. The Commission should assign a voting delegate and an alternate And CalAFCO did inform us that all candidates must attend a one-hour candidate nomination orientation, which will be held virtually on Thursday, September 10th at 10am.

And all newly elected board members will set to officially begin their term starting December 1st 2026.

Thank you. Are there any commission members have any questions about this? I have a couple of them. I just want to clarify something. The one-hour orientation ordeal, that's only if you want to run for office is that correct? Correct. Not for the voting delegate? Correct. And am I also corrected either any Commissioner any staff member can be a candidate. Correct. And am I also, is that true of delegates as well?

Either commissioner or a staff member can be a voting delegate.

That is correct.

Okay. In that case, I would if I may solicit volunteers to either be a candidate for office. This is under the newly restructured Board of Directors. Am I correct on that Mr. Prater?

Yeah, Chair Stark. So as you recall the board adopted new procedures and new seat assignments. And so this is the first time we're going to put that into implementation. I will note that we are still under the four region system. So we still have four regions. The region process is being evaluated and we're thinking about going to six regions but that hasn't occurred yet So our first vote under these new procedures does allow staff members to also run as a board member seat.

And so that was all part of the bylaw changes that the commission voted on at their last annual meeting when we amended all of the bylaws at that annual meeting. You are correct, these are new procedures. Staff is allowed to now run if we so choose to run with nomination and consent of the Commission identifying which persons you would like to see run as a nominee.

And lastly Am I correct that if you want to run for a one-year seat or a two-year seat, you should specify which one you're running for. Is that?

That is correct. If you're opting for a 1 year seat, you should specify

that. Without tarnishing my increasingly enfeebling me brain thing. You can't run for both right? You got to pick

It's interesting. I don't know if it specifies if you have to pick one year or two years seat, but

I should never I've heard I've never heard of anybody running for two offices simultaneous that guessing. I guess it could happen, but I would think you'd pick one thing that answers my question any Any other commissioners have any interest? That is not to imply that I have any interest because I have none.

Chair Stark, I'm interested not at this time but it will be in the future. I've been serving on a couple of different state boards right now and in the future I'm definitely interested in running so I'll just let my colleagues on the board know that's something I'd be interested in a year or two from now. Currently I'm in leadership and on executive boards and a few other state organizations I probably need to get off of before I start picking up other assignments So but I am interested and I would.

But I also would be supportive of any of my colleagues that want to jump in there and lobbying, and I'd be happy to lobby on behalf with some of the other supervisors about the supervisors throughout the state that we work with.

Thank

you. I'll go ahead and say at this point, I'm not interested, but I'll be more supportive if anyone here that would like to do it. Thank you,

Commissioner Lee. I'm going to suggest that our Executive Officer would be a fine member of the Board. I notice there is no groundswell of support.

Chair,

you say

not it? Is that what I

said? No, I appreciate the sentiment. I will inform the Commission so that you are aware Mr. Joe Serrano, the EO from Santa Cruz LAFCO has already indicated that he would like to run for the coastal seat and there are already two members that sit on Cal LAFCO board that will be rerunning as well One from San Mateo and one from Santa Clara. And so I think there's a full group of candidates that you know, I'm happy to add my name if you'd like if you think that would be of service to Cal LAFCO but at the same time recognize that we're fairly busy already doing Santa Barbara LAFCO work

Thank you. I would suggest that unless you really affirmatively want to volunteer, we could choose from whatever other candidates. No and I guess I would point out that I have already been requested to be on the LAFCO 101 Celebrity Jeopardy program which features Mr. Serrano as the acting Alex Trebek figure on that, so if we have no candidates I don't think that's a big thing.

What about delegates? Does anyone wish to be a voting delegate? That just calls you attend a business meeting and vote right

Chair Stark and Commission. So yeah, the delegate an alternate delegate cast a vote on who they would like to see take the position and that this year can be done in two different ways it can be done by absentee through an electronic mail vote so if you're not planning on attending the conference but still want to be the delegate to cast that vote there's an option for you to do that Or if you are planning on attending and wanted to meet the candidates and talk to them in person at the conference, then anybody attending the conference could act as that delegate.

And then we have an alternate delegate in case last minute there are some changes. You planned on attending but you couldn't. We didn't file for an electronic. Then the alternate can step in and do that. And that can be either a commissioner attending or staff member that's attending.

Thank you. I would again call for volunteers could be anybody don't even have to attend the convention to cast a vote.

I'd be interested. Hello, Chair. I like to be as an alternate delegate

That would that be Commissioner Johnson?

Yes. Thank you. I forgot to mention my name. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson.

Got a volunteer for alternate.

Staff is happy to take the role of the regular member if there is no commissioner that is interested so we can move this item along.

I would respectfully think it's not going to hurt you that you're gonna go the convention anyway. I would respectfully suggest our executive officer would be a fine voting delegate. So, any commissioners wish to comment on this? Anybody, any members of the public wish to speak on this?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission there are no requests to speak on this item.

Thank you I would entertain a motion to appoint our executive officer as the voting delegate and Commissioner Johnson as the alternate. So moved Carriaco and Santa Barbara Is there a second?

Nelson seconds.

There's been a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. The next business item is the Cal LAFCO Achievement Award. Would you please read that into the record?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, Business Item Number 2 is to consider making nominations for the 2026 Cal LAFCO Achievement Awards and provide direction to staff.

Thank you. Staff report.

Thank you, Chair Stark and members of the Commission. This is now the time for our commission to make a nomination for a CalAFCO Award for 2026. You will see in your packet that there is a list of categories that you can select from and direct your executive officer and staff to file a nomination for this year. Staff has provided the commission with a recommendation for the Mike Gottsch Excellence in Public Service Award for Innovation, Collaboration and Outreach category.

Your commission is being nominated for the innovative approach to the five-year MSR SOI program. The Commission's decision to embark on revamping its Municipal Service Review Program using a multiagency approach and review categories has allowed staff to comprehensively evaluate multiple cities and special districts within a given year. Under this new approach from 2020 to 2025, staff has now completed five service reviews under its work program and has provided the public with a better understanding of how Santa Barbara LAFCO makes informed boundary decisions, ensures accountability and transparency, evaluates service adequacy, and identifies efficiencies from agencies that are being evaluated.

We do hope that the commission will grant us the authority to submit this nomination which is due Friday August 26th.

Thank you. Is my information correct is that there are two kinds of Mike Gotts awards and this one would be for innovation, is that right? That is correct. Thank you. Are there any commissioners have any questions or comments on that? I have a question do you know of any other LAFCO in the state That has a five year multi-agency program such as ours.

Chair Stark, I think we are the only agency that has folded all of the service reviews within a five-year time frame under this style. There are other LAFCOs that have achieved adequate service review evaluations within a five year time frame many of them are done on individual agency basis and they just write a bunch of them or consult have consultants help them write a bunch of them And many LAFCOs are now moving towards a countywide service review. So that in itself isn't unique, but the fact that we have done it in five-year time frame covering 62 agencies is unique and covering the topics that we jointly combine together. You'll often find a wastewater MSR or fire MSR. We're doing fire and police and EMS, we're doing water wastewater and stormwater so we're combining multiple level of services under one service review which is unique.

Thank you. Are any commissioners have any comments or questions about this?

I move staff recommendation that

Got to ask for the public first. Is there any public comment about our applying for the Mike Koch Innovation Award?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, there are no requests to speak on this item.

I would

entertain

a motion. Yes, Chair Stark, I would make a motion that we go ahead and move forward with the nomination as proposed by staff.

Thank you. Second? Lee second. Second by Commissioner Lee. Motion by Commissioner Nelson. Madam Clerk, call the roll please.

Motion passes unanimously

Thank you. We now come to business item 3. Madam Clerk, would you please call that item?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, Business Item number three is to receive and file a report prepared by 2025-2026 grand jury reporting regarding what are those extra charges on my property tax bill and either direct staff to return at the next meeting with draft responses or take no further action.

Thank you. Do we have a staff report on this?

Thank you, Chair. So this year the grand jury did convene and write a report for their 25-26 year entitled What Are Those Extra Charges On My Property Tax Bill? And so hopefully the commission has had a chance to read that grand jury report Mostly it's mentioning dependent special districts that are governed by the Board of Supervisors. However, LAFCO is mentioned with regards to two of the findings and two of the recommendations that were related to particularly County Service Area 3.

And really in anticipation of new growth that is likely occurring in the coming years under county jurisdiction. The recommendation is for the County Board of Supervisors to ultimately consult with LAFCO on any governance options that might be available and transparency. of any needed services that might come out of this new growth opportunity. And so the Commission should discuss this report and decide if responses are needed or take no further action as staff has laid out in the report.

The Board of Supervisors are required to respond to this, LAFCO was just invited to provide a response If we choose to write a response, it's due within 90 days and that would be by September 21st. So we encourage the commission to discuss the report and talk about whether or not you think LAFCO needs to weigh in or if we can just allow the County Board of Supervisors to provide their responses.

Thank you. So if I understand correctly, we are not required to respond to this report? Is that right?

That is correct.

I would assume that if the Board of Supervisors requests us to consult with them, that we would do so as a matter of course. Is that also correct?

That is correct.

Do we need to take a motion or action to indicate then we would be willing to consult with the Board of Supervisors should they request or would that just happen as a matter of course?

That just will happen as a matter of course in LAFCO's business Thank

you. Are there any commissioners that want to ask questions about this report or I

have one in comment on it? I have one in Santa Barbara. Go ahead. On finding two, the majority of the new housing projected for the South County to meet the state's affordable housing requirements will be built in what is now CSA 3. I kind of want to stop there. Can we get some clarity on what that sentence means? Does that mean those areas are Not now currently in CSA 3, but will be coming into CSA 3 as part of the anticipated future actions.

Or are we saying those things are actually already in CSA3 now and the building will be happening in CSA 3? And I ask because that depending upon What happens or doesn't happen that potentially has impacts on things like library funding, Measure L funding and other potential impacts.

Thank you Commissioner Kariakou through the chair. I think that is what the grand jury is identifying. There are existing development going through the county process that currently resides within CSA 3 boundary, others are just outside of the boundary that may need services and To your point, the opportunity for increased other fees such as library could be on the table for that discussion should the boundary need to change. And so I think that is what the grand jury is pointing at and in In fairness of their review, they were unclear about transparency of all of that.

And that's where they were seeking the Board of Supervisors and LAFCO to work together in consultation to determine are those projects in the boundary and what kind of level of services are needed? And what kind of funding is needed for a library and whatnot?

Yeah, I mean it would be helpful if there had been included in the packet a map of CSA 3 because the way that statement and the finding is worded is a little peculiar. Because there's as I recall the map of CSA 3 and I don't have it in front of me But as I recall it, there are significant land areas that were selected in the county housing element process that are sites for housing that will result in significant housing production. That were not in the CSA 3 map because of actions taken by LAFCO many years ago when those ag parcels were up for designation.

So it'd be good to get some clarity on just exactly which parcels we're talking about here when they are asserting this finding. Can

I jump in as well?

Commissioner Nelson.

Yes, thank you Chair Stark. It's my understanding of those properties that are currently not in CSA 3 it's the intention of the county to request or condition those projects on coming into CSA 3 so they can begin to contribute to those So I don't have the exact details on all of them. I'm just texting right now with one of my department heads that has informed me that's the intention there and so That makes sense to me if they're going to receive those services, it makes sense that those taxpayers would also be Contributing like their neighbors would be. So, you know, I'd be my encouragement for the county to do that as well as for us at LAFCO to bring those into CSA 3 when those annexation applications come before us. That it makes a lot of sense to me.

Well, that is welcome news to me. And I also just want to acknowledge that the conversations that myself and Mayor Pro Tem Smith have been having with the county, the two Goleta County supervisors related to the sphere of influence have been very productive and collaborative conversation. So I'm happy to hear that the collaborative nature of the county here is continuing.

Thank you.

Thank you. Perhaps in to further this, is there anything that we would want to say to indicate that we continue to support collaboration and inform the grand jury of that or is that not necessary in the view of the commissioners?

I mean, I'll just say for myself. I think the way the motion is worded is fine with me. I don't have any wordsmithing.

Do we have a motion yet?

There's no motion recommendation. We have a report and we have the option as to whether we want to respond to it or not that my understanding

I had a question. The question is whether we direct staff to come back with some draft responses for us to approve their next meeting or we just make no further action? Yeah, I would actually say that we could save staff a lot of work here and just we can come up with our response here on the dais which i think would be that LAFCO is ready willing and able to discuss These issues with the county when approached.

I would support that.

That seems like a reasonable response. We indicate our support for the collaboration and we'll deal with matters as they come

up. Let's save a board item for next time and just get, I think we can move forward with that right now if that would be acceptable to our executive director and council.

Thank you.

That makes sense?

Would that be a motion and a

second? Motion on by Commissioner Nelson.

Okay, thank you.

And yeah and that would be a second by Kerry Occo. I should ask is there public comment on this?

Commissioner Geier and members of the Commission. Oh excuse me Chair Stark and members of the commission there are no requests to speak on this item.

Thank you in that case I would ask, having a motion and a second. I would ask the clerk to call the roll please.

Motion passes unanimously

Thank you this brings us to the information item Madam Clerk would you please read information item number one into the roll.

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, Information Item Number One is to receive and file a report on the 2026 Cal LAFCO Annual Conference in Sacramento October 21st through 23rd 2026 and provide direction to staff as necessary

Staff report.

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, we are approaching our annual Cal LAFCO conference which this year will be taking place at the Sheraton Grand Hotel in Sacramento. The conference will be held October 21st to the 23rd and given the distance for travel staff and any commissioners who are interested typically will end up leaving a day early in order to be there and be prepared If any members of the Commission would like to attend, please let our staff know so that we can get you all registered and get hotel rooms booked for your attendance.

And just a reminder that they do offer different rates and the early bird rate for us to schedule anyone is prior to August 28th.

Thank you. Any questions from commissioners? I'm not hearing any. Uh, I would offer that in fact I would be going on account of my status as the foil to the Celebrity Jeopardy 1-0 Cal LAFCO 101. I guess that would put me in the role Bert Reynolds, I think. Bert Reynolds as the nemesis to the faux Alex Trebek that will be on. So I'll be going. It's not Hollywood Squares? It's not Hollywood Squares. No you would need like 12 people they're not even close to the 12 people I'm probably going to drive. So if anybody wants to ride along with me, I would be happy to get a passenger and have them be able to ride if somebody else wants to drive but I don't trust the airplane.

You have to fly. If you want to go to Sacramento, they send you to Denver and what I know about the sheriff's Auxiliary flying squadron and the airplanes that you're liable to wind up on is just downright frightening.

Chair Starks, there's now two direct flights from Santa Barbara to Sacramento. Just let you know.

It's not that I'm worried about getting there it's the getting back that always poses the difficult. I'll look at it though. It doesn't take seven hours to fly there if it does you're stuck in Denver or something like that. Do we need a motion on this? No, we do not. I guess we don't need to wait. Is there any public comment? You can

take public comment. It's always nice to let staff know as early as possible so that we can book their rooms and hotels and get you registered. So, I think the commission is aware of the dates now and you'll let us know. So thank you.

Thank you. That brings us to information item number two, I believe would you call that into the read that into the record.

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, information item number two is to receive and file a report on the Cal LAFCO Legislative Committee meetings held on March 19th, April 16th, June 25th, and July 16th 2026. And Cal LAFCO's 2026 current tract legislation.

Thank you. Is there a staff report?

Yes, we do have a brief report. As you'll note in the packet there is a link to a whopping four tracked bills right now by CalAFCO so it's a little slow in the legislation cycle Two of those bills, Cal LAFCO had sent letters. One was opposing a position on SB 1312 which has to do with affecting private cemetery districts and having them be annexed into a public agency because of the process in which that legislation is proposing it sort of circumvents a bit And so they opposed that with suggested changes and they've listed those in their letter.

And the other one was a support bill for the annual omnibus bill that makes periodic non-subsided changes to the CKH Act. So, a bit of a slow legislative process right now but we'll keep the commission informed of any bills that have an effect on LAFCO's and we'll keep reporting back so with that concludes our presentation

Thank you. Any commissioners have any questions about the legislative process so far as reported? What's the deadline for the bills to be passed, do you know?

The deadlines for this legislative year is already come and gone. So we're now opening the session up for next year

Okay.

Proposed bills and currently, I think LAFCO members throughout the association currently have two or three bills that they're proposing some legislative change on but it's still open for next year's legislative process.

Thank you. Any commissioners have any questions about this comments etc? Not hearing any. Is there any information from the public? Members of the public want to comment.

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, there are no requests to speak on this item.

Thank you. I assume we do not need a motion on this. Thank you. Does this bring us to the executive officer's report?

Executive roster has no additional comments you may want to take any commissioner announcements or future agenda items if there are any.

Thank you, any commissioners have any announcements for future agenda items? Not hearing any I do have one. I would like to ask our executive officer If we could have a report on the proposed incorporation or incorporations that are in the works, one of them and concerns Isle of Vista and the other I believe concerns an area described as La Parisma which if I understand is around Vandenberg Village area somewhere near the city of Lompoc.

For the commission's information, when a commissioner requests a future agenda item it does go through, needs to go through general consensus by members of the Commission to be added and then staff will work that item in when we have time to get it. I don't think anything is far enough along that there would be any any urgency. And so there is a request if there's general consensus among the commission staff will add it to the future agenda items.

Thank you, we have anything else? All I can say is Viva La Fiesta and I would declare the meeting adjourned thank you very much