BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Volunteer Recognition

• The Board honored Nancy Emerson as the Volunteer of the Week.
• Recognition was given for her volunteer work with Human Services, environmental efforts, and local community programs.

Resolution A1: Women’s History Month

• Supervisor Carbajal introduced a resolution proclaiming March as Women’s History Month with the theme "Women’s Education, Women’s Empowerment."
• The resolution commended local branches of the American Association of University Women (AAUW).
• Representatives from the Lompoc/Vandenberg, Santa Barbara/Goleta Valley, and Santa Maria branches spoke in acceptance.
• The resolution was passed and adopted.

Resolution A2: Arbor Day

• Supervisor Wolff introduced a resolution proclaiming March 7, 2012, as Arbor Day in Santa Barbara County.
• The resolution recognized county employees for managing urban forests and revegetating the Foothill Landfill.
• Staff from Public Works and the Resource Recovery and Waste Management Division detailed their tree preservation efforts.
• The resolution was passed and adopted.

Resolution A3: Food Bank of Santa Barbara County

• A resolution was presented to commend the Food Bank of Santa Barbara County on its 30th anniversary.
• Eric Tolson of the Food Bank noted the organization distributed 11 million pounds of food in 2011, serving 102,000 individuals.
• Supervisors Lavagnino and Gray commented on the Food Bank’s educational programs.
• The resolution was passed and adopted.

Item A7: Concessionary Agreement (Kachuma Lake)

• Supervisor Wolff presented a concessionary agreement with Pyramid Enterprises DBA Rocky Mountain Recreation Company for Kachuma Lake.
• Supervisor Wolff raised concerns regarding the liability insurance provision, which was limited to $1 million per occurrence and $2 million in the aggregate.
• Staff agreed to work with the CEO’s office and Risk Management to review the provision for future contracts.
• A motion to approve the item was made and seconded, and the motion carried.

Item A14: Measure A Safe Routes to School Projects

• Public Works presented a cooperative agreement for Cycle 1 Measure A Safe Routes to School and bicycle/pedestrian projects.
• David Jennings spoke in opposition to bulb-out expansions, citing mobility and safety concerns.
• Supervisor Wolff clarified that the specific projects in this item did not include bulb-outs and were intended to improve student safety.
• A motion to approve the item was made and seconded, and the motion carried.

Departmental Agenda Item 1: FY 2011-2012 Financial Status Report

• The Auditor-Controller and County Executive Office presented the second-quarter financial status report as of December 31, 2011.
• The General Fund is projected to end the year with a positive balance of $4.2 million after setting aside $8.1 million in concession savings.
• Special Revenue Funds showed a negative variance of $13.1 million, largely due to timing differences and expected improvements.
• Mental Health showed a negative variance of $14.6 million, with $6.2 million attributed to timing differences and $6.4 million due to higher inpatient and salary costs.
• Public Health showed a negative variance of $1.7 million, attributed to lower service charges due to electronic medical records implementation and Medi-Cal client competition.
• Social Services showed a negative variance of $755,000, but staff indicated subsequent rebudgeting would likely result in a balanced year.
• Workers' Compensation showed a favorable variance of $740,000 due to premium savings, helping offset a projected actuarial shortfall of $4.6 million.
• Supervisor Wolff questioned the discrepancy between a previously cited $2.9 million figure and the current $4.6 million actuarial liability for Workers' Compensation.
• Staff clarified that the $2.9 million referred to the change in rates for a specific year, while the $4.6 million represents the ultimate projected liability over a longer period.
• Staff agreed to verify the figures and respond to the Supervisor.
• A board member requested an update to the fiscal outlook report prior to the budget process.
• The CEO confirmed that updated budget information is currently being compiled.
• The CFO noted that the upcoming budget presentation will include an additional year of financial outlook data.
• The CFO reported a favorable variance of approximately $890,000 for the General Liability Fund.
• The fund is in a positive position based on the last actuarial report, allowing for rate reductions and savings passed along to participating departments.
• The CFO stated that actual activity is generally tracking to budget, with revenue increasing slightly due to pickups in sales tax and TOT of about $800,000.
• Property tax revenue is tracking to target but has not shown significant movement yet.
• Most departments are generating salary and benefit savings through vacancies and labor concessions.
• The Parks department indicated it believes it can make up a previously reported shortfall due to higher-than-projected fee collections.
• The CFO reiterated that the mental health department’s financial issues will be presented with potential solutions on March 20.
• The CFO noted that while labor concessions are helpful, departments are reporting challenges in responding to requests timely due to previous staff size reductions.
• Further reductions would be more challenging.
• In response to a question about how the combined Parks and Housing/Community Development (HCD) departments would be reported, the CFO stated the intent is to group them into one department for oversight but show operations separately to maintain insight.
• The board requested that a summary view of the combined departments also be provided to assess savings.
• The CEO noted that the Sheriff is expected to return to the board in April regarding jail capacity and funding.
• The CEO highlighted future challenges, including a potential $25 million increase in county contribution rates if the Retirement Board reduces the investment rate as proposed.
• The Chair asked about the status of a $1 million bond forfeiture.
• The CEO and County Counsel explained that the matter is currently in the appellate court, with no briefing schedule set.
• Historically, this process takes six to nine months.
• No funds are currently budgeted for this item.
• The Chair inquired about the accounting for Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds.
• The CFO stated that these assets have been transferred to a new fund within the county and are expected to appear under capital funds on the signal chart.
• Confident numbers may not be available until next year following audits.
• In response to public comment regarding pension obligations, the CFO clarified that a Stanford study cited a 5% rate of return assumption, whereas actuaries typically use 7-8%.
• Using the current CSRS assumption, the county is approximately 70% funded with an unfunded liability of about $740 million.
• A motion was made to receive and file the report.
• The motion was seconded.
• The motion carried.

Agenda Item 2: Planning and Development – Hearing to Consider Recommendations of the Montecito Planning Commission on Case Number 11-TEX (Time Extension for Amended Miramar Beach Resort and Bungalows Project)

• Aaron Briggs presented a request for a one-year time extension for the coastal development permit for the amended Miramar Beach Resort and Bungalows project.
• The permit was approved on March 15, 2011, and expires March 15, 2012.
• If granted, the extension would run until March 15, 2013.
• Further extensions are available to align with the expiration of other permits (April 6, 2015).
• Approval requires findings of "good cause" and that the original findings for the coastal development permit can still be made.
• Environmental review is covered by CEQA guidelines as no new information of substantial importance requires revisions to the previously certified environmental document.
• The Montecito Planning Commission recommended approval of the time extension.
• Supervisor Carbajal asked if the county could compel demolition of the existing structures or require a performance bond.
• Staff responded that the county cannot compel demolition under building or fire codes, and therefore cannot require a performance bond tied to construction or demolition.
• Staff confirmed that public access to Miramar Beach is not currently restricted.
• Staff confirmed that the Montecito Fire District has the authority to pursue demolition if the site is deemed a nuisance or safety hazard.
• Supervisor Wolf noted a discrepancy in the application date, which appeared to be signed in January 2011, prior to the project approval in March 2011.
• Staff initially suggested it was a human error.
• Matt Middlebrook (Caruso Affiliated) apologized for the confusion regarding the application date.
• He clarified that the correct date was December 19, 2011, consistent with the county date stamp and other forms.
• He stated the "January" date was an error.
• Middlebrook responded to Supervisor Wolf’s concerns by stating that the luxury hotel market has not recovered.
• He cited the lack of ground-up luxury hotel development in the U.S. since 2008 and the sale of existing luxury hotels at significant discounts, making new development financing difficult.
• Middlebrook stated that the applicant has performed substantial cleanup, weed abatement, pest control, and graffiti removal on the site.
• He reaffirmed commitment to the project, stating that without the extension, the approvals would expire, forcing the applicant to start over.
• Supervisor Gray asked about the debt on the property and the suitability of the site for a luxury hotel.
• Middlebrook responded that the site is suitable for luxury hotels, citing interest from various hotel brands, but the market conditions remain challenging.
• The Chair confirmed that the request was specifically for the extension of the amended project.
• Mr. Caruso addressed the Board, explaining that the market collapse in 2008 prevented the completion of the project despite a $50 million loan.
• He stated that the developer negotiated a discount with the bank to pay off the loan, leaving the property free and clear.
• He argued that an extension of the Time of Tenure (TOT) and the proposed TOT incentive would allow the developer to secure new financing, with construction estimated to take two and a half years.
• Mr. Caruso expressed frustration regarding previous delays caused by neighbor complaints about a creek, which he described as resulting in a $2 million payment to neighbors.
• Supervisor Wolf questioned the accuracy of the economic findings, citing a Wall Street Journal article indicating that high-end hotels are seeing revenue gains.
• She asked for clarification on the bank discount negotiation.
• Mr. Caruso explained that the bank sought to sell the loan due to its own financial issues, and the payoff amount was less than the original $50 million.
• He stated that the combination of a debt-free property, the TOT incentive, and the improving luxury hotel market would enable the developer to obtain a construction loan.
• Supervisor Carbajal noted that the Board had two options: extend the rights or terminate them.
• She stated that the Board is not in a position to impose further conditions and that the decision is binary.
• Supervisor Carbajal moved to approve the extension of the development rights, including items 1 through 3 in the staff report.
• Supervisor Lavagnino seconded the motion.
• Supervisor Gray asked if the item required Coastal Commission approval; the Chair indicated it did not.
• Supervisor Wolf stated that she could not make the required findings based on the information provided, citing issues with application dates and economic data, and indicated she would vote no.
• Supervisor Gray stated she would abstain out of respect for Supervisor Carbajal’s district, despite personal reservations about extending the rights.
• The motion passed.

Agenda Item 3: Hotel Incentive Program (Transient Occupancy Tax Rebate)

• CEO Waller and Auditor-Controller Filotti presented a proposed countywide hotel incentive program.
• The program would allow the County to rebate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for new luxury hotels or significant renovations.
• New hotels costing $50 million or more would qualify for a full TOT rebate for 10 years after opening.
• Renovations with improvements of $50,000 per room or ancillary development exceeding $1 million would qualify for a 50% rebate.
• The hotel must be maintained as a four- or five-star facility.
• Rebates would be reduced for opening delays or decreases in assessed value.
• No rebate would be paid if no TOT is generated.
• The program would be discretionary, requiring Board approval on a case-by-case basis.
• Using the Miramar Beach Resort as an example, the presentation estimated that a built-out hotel would generate approximately $3.2 million in annual revenues for local governments and schools after the 10-year rebate period, compared to the current $568,000.
• This includes property tax, sales tax, and TOT.
• The presentation also estimated 1,000 construction jobs and 200 hospitality jobs.
• Supervisor Farr asked about the minimum dollar value for renovation eligibility.
• CEO Waller clarified that while $50,000 per room is a gauge, the total improvement must exceed $1 million.
• Supervisor Farr asked if the agreement is transferable upon sale; CEO Waller confirmed it transfers with the land.
• Supervisor Farr raised a concern about the requirement for developers to demonstrate financial capability to obtain financing, noting the circular logic of needing the incentive to get financing.
• CEO Waller explained that the requirement is for a commitment from a financial partner contingent on the incentive.
• Supervisor Carbajal asked for clarification on the correlation between renovation costs and rebates to ensure the county is not subsidizing disproportionate amounts.
• Auditor-Controller Filotti explained that a base year TOT amount would be established, and only new TOT generated above that base would be rebated.
• Supervisor Lavagnino asked if local hiring preferences could be included in the framework.
• Staff indicated this could be built into the program.
• Supervisor Gray asked about the role of schools and special districts.
• Filotti explained that these entities receive a portion of property tax revenues and would benefit from the increased tax base.
• The Board discussed the financial viability of the proposed incentive program.
• Supervisor Lavagnino questioned how a $1.5 million annual incentive would make a $70 million project financially feasible, given previous estimates of insufficient revenue.
• Staff and the Auditor-Controller explained that while they could not guarantee the project's overall profitability, the incentive improves the bottom line, which helps demonstrate the ability to secure bank financing.
• They cited the Palm Springs program as a comparable model that generated significant economic investment.
• Supervisor Lavagnino stated he would support the measure, noting the risk of inaction and the potential for construction jobs, while requesting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a timeframe for cleaning up the dilapidated property if the project proceeds.
• Supervisor Grant expressed full support, viewing it as a method for the government to generate revenue.
• Supervisor Wolf opposed the proposal, arguing it was bad public policy, unfair to taxpayers who voted to maintain the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate for general government services, and a poor precedent given that neighboring jurisdictions have higher TOT rates.
• She also raised concerns about the lack of a formal economic development plan and the absence of a validation process in the timeline.
• Counsel explained that a validation action could be directed after the ordinance is adopted to provide legal certainty.
• Chair Farr stated that the immediate decision was whether to direct staff to develop the ordinance, not to approve a specific application.
• She supported moving forward with staff analysis, noting the priority of economic development and job creation.
• Supervisor Carbajal supported the concept but proposed specific modifications for staff to consider when the item returns.
• He moved to direct staff to return with the original proposal, an alternate five-year term proposal, and a tiered distribution model (e.g., 90% to applicant/10% to Conference and Visitors Bureau in early years, shifting to county funds in later years).
• He also requested that staff include criteria for local hiring preferences, performance bonds, and legal validation.
• Supervisor Lavagnino seconded the motion, contingent on the Auditor-Controller’s office confirming the feasibility of the tiered financial models.
• Staff confirmed they could provide the requested financial scenarios.
• Supervisor Wolf raised a concern regarding the transferability of the benefit to new owners, which staff confirmed would be allowed.
• A motion was made to direct staff to return with the proposed ordinance, including alternate term lengths and a tiered distribution model for the TOT rebate, along with specific eligibility criteria and local hiring preferences.
• The motion was seconded by Supervisor Lavagnino.
• The vote outcome was passed (3-2).

Agenda Item 4: Historic Landmark Designation – Bryce Beach Cabana and Funicular

• Staff presented the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission’s (HLAC) recommendation to designate the Bryce Beach Cabana and Funicular as a historic landmark.
• Staff outlined the three options available to the Board: approve the HLAC’s action, modify the action, or disapprove the action.
• Staff noted that the property had been previously considered and denied in 2011, after which HLAC reaffirmed its recommendation.
• Staff clarified that while HLAC reviews historic significance, any structural repairs would still require standard land use permits and CEQA review, with potential appeal to the Coastal Commission.
• The applicant’s representative and project historian presented the case for landmarking, highlighting the architect Mary McLaughlin Craig, the unique design translating a canvas tent into wood, and the fact that it is the only remaining example of a beach cabana and funicular system in the county.
• The owner, Jeff Rusak, stated that the family intends to restore the property to its original grandeur.
• Supervisor Wolf moved to approve the HLAC’s action and designate the Bryce Beach Cabana and Funicular as a historic landmark.
• Supervisor Lavagnino seconded the motion.
• Supervisors Wolf, Lavagnino, and Carbajal expressed support, citing the unique nature of the structure and the owner’s commitment to restoration.
• Supervisor Wolf clarified that this was not a repeat of the previous denial but a final decision based on further review.
• The motion was to approve the action of the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission and designate the Bryce Beach Cabana and Funicular as a historic landmark.
• The motion was seconded by Supervisor Lavagnino.
• The vote outcome was passed (Unanimous).

Agenda Item 5: Historic Landmark Designation – Irene and Frances Rich Beach Cabana

• Staff presented the HLAC’s recommendation to designate the Irene and Frances Rich Beach Cabana as a historic landmark.
• Staff noted that the Board had previously denied this designation in 2010 by a 3-2 vote, and there is currently active Superior Court litigation challenging that denial.
• HLAC approved the designation in December 2011.
• Staff presented the three options: approve, modify, or disapprove.
• Supervisor Wolf asked Staff to clarify the current structural status of the building, noting that the record contained information that might differ from the County’s position.
• The Board considered the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission’s (HLAC) recommendation to designate the cabana located in Hope Ranch as a county landmark.
• Staff presented the eligibility criteria under County Code Section 18A, noting that the property met four of the nine required criteria, including its association with significant persons (Irene Rich, Francis Rich, and others), its unique physical characteristics as a surviving beach cabana, and its reflection of the "California Dream."
• Staff outlined three options for the Board: approve the HLAC’s action, modify the resolution, or disapprove the action.
• The applicant, Julia Carr, presented a detailed history of the property, highlighting the cultural and historical significance of the original owners, Irene and Francis Rich, and their connections to notable figures such as Diego Rivera and Catherine Hepburn.
• Carr emphasized that the structure is one of the few remaining examples of its kind in the county and that the current owners are working to address structural issues and obtain permits for repairs.
• Board members discussed the item, with some noting that the property had previously been considered by the Board in December 2010, resulting in a 3-2 decision against designation.
• One Supervisor stated that they remained opposed to the designation, believing the property did not meet the threshold for historic landmark status despite the new information provided.
• Other Supervisors indicated that they had been convinced by the additional documentation and testimony provided since the last hearing, including site visits and input from the Pearl Chase Society and the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation.
• A motion was made to accept the HLAC’s recommendation and designate the cabana as a county landmark.
• The motion was seconded.
• Upon a roll-call vote, the motion passed with a 4-1 vote.

Agenda Item 6: Land Development Fee Resolution

• Staff from Planning and Development presented a request to reinstate fees for the processing of agricultural preserve contracts in the unincorporated area.
• The Agricultural Preserve Program, authorized by the Williamson Act, currently covers approximately 550,000 acres under about 1,300 contracts.
• Fees for reviewing these contracts were eliminated in 2006, and the work has since been supported by the County General Fund, consuming between one-third and one-half of a full-time equivalent (FTE) annually.
• The proposal seeks to make this work revenue-offset by adopting a flat $350 fee for contract assumptions and a $1,500 deposit for other actions such as new farmland security zones, modifications, or replacements.
• Staff noted that the fees would become effective May 5, 2012, and that the action is CEQA exempt.
• Supervisor Gray expressed opposition to the fees, arguing that the county as a whole benefits from the preservation of agricultural land and that the cost should be borne by the general fund rather than landowners.
• Supervisor Lavagnino supported the fees, noting that the Agricultural Advisory Committee had no objections and that the county should recoup the costs of processing.
• A motion was made to adopt the resolution amending the land development fees.
• The motion was seconded.
• Upon a roll-call vote, the motion passed with a 4-1 vote.

Agenda Item 7: Office of Emergency Services Report

• The Office of Emergency Services (OES) presented a report on continued improvements in emergency public information capabilities.
• Staff detailed the formation of the Emergency Public Information Communicators (EPIC) group, a coalition of over 100 public information officers, media representatives, and agency staff across the county.
• The group meets monthly to coordinate messaging and training.
• Key initiatives discussed include hosting a two-day course by the Texas Engineering and Extension Service (TEKS) in May and sending staff to the FEMA Emergency Management Institute for training.
• Technology initiatives include utilizing satellite phones (Iridium/Inmarsat), ham radio operators (ARES/RACES), and an out-of-state teleconference provider for redundancy.
• A helicopter video downlink system funded by federal grants is being implemented, allowing live feeds to be transmitted to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and desktop computers.
• A demonstration is scheduled for early April.
• Social media integration includes Nixle alerts with Facebook, Twitter, and the county website to ensure consistent public communication.
• A bilingual public education professional is being engaged to expand outreach efforts.
• Supervisors expressed appreciation for the department’s efforts in leveraging federal and state grants to enhance communication infrastructure and for the collaboration with media partners.
• A motion was made to receive and file the report.
• The motion was seconded.
• Upon a roll-call vote, the motion carried unanimously.

Adjournment and Remembrances

• Supervisor Gray offered remembrances for two individuals: David Georgie and Mary Arlene George Perry.
• David Georgie attended Goleta Union School District, La Cumbre, and Santa Barbara High School before attending Cal Poly, where he majored in citrus farm production.
• He was identified as a member of the Farm Bureau and Goleta Rotary.
• The Cavaletto and Georgie families celebrated their 100th anniversaries of coming to Goleta in 1993 and 1996, respectively.
• Mary Arlene George Perry was born in Sisquack in 1921.
• She lived at Regina Mariposa, the San Julian Ranch, the Coho Ranch, and the Halama Ranch.
• Perry was the sister of Alice Milligan.
• Supervisor Gray moved to adjourn the meeting in honor of these individuals.
• The motion was accepted, and the meeting was adjourned until the next scheduled session in Santa Maria.

Closed Session

• The Board adjourned to closed session for public employee performance evaluations and appointments.
• Upon reconvening, Counsel reported that the closed session items were completed with no further action required to report.

Meeting Start and Roll Call

• The regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was convened on March 6, 2012. A roll call was taken, confirming all members were present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Minutes of Previous Meeting

• The minutes of the February 21, 2012 meeting were presented. A motion to approve the minutes was made and seconded. The motion carried.

Administrative Agenda Approval

• Supervisor Wolff requested to pull Item A7 for discussion. A request to speak on Item A14 was noted. A motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda was made and seconded. The motion carried.

Public Comment

• Several members of the public addressed the Board regarding various topics, including tax distribution, the history and access to Montecito Hot Springs, the Food Bank, the county budget deficit, foreclosure issues at specific residences, and allegations regarding the District Attorney’s office.

Volunteer Recognition

• The Board honored Nancy Emerson as the Volunteer of the Week, recognizing her volunteer work with Human Services, the environment, and local community programs.

Resolution A1: Women’s History Month

• Supervisor Carbajal introduced a resolution proclaiming March as Women’s History Month in Santa Barbara County, with the theme "Women’s Education, Women’s Empowerment." The resolution commended the local branches of the American Association of University Women (AAUW). Representatives from the Lompoc/Vandenberg, Santa Barbara/Goleta Valley, and Santa Maria branches of the AAUW spoke in acceptance of the recognition. The resolution was passed and adopted.

Resolution A2: Arbor Day

• Supervisor Wolff introduced a resolution proclaiming March 7, 2012, as Arbor Day in Santa Barbara County. The resolution recognized the work of county employees in managing urban forests and revegetating the Foothill Landfill. Staff from Public Works and the Resource Recovery and Waste Management Division spoke regarding their efforts in tree preservation and planting. The resolution was passed and adopted.

Resolution A3: Food Bank of Santa Barbara County

• A resolution was presented commending the Food Bank of Santa Barbara County on its 30th anniversary. Eric Tolson of the Food Bank spoke, noting that the organization distributed 11 million pounds of food in 2011, serving 102,000 individuals. Supervisors Lavagnino and Gray added comments regarding the Food Bank’s educational programs. The resolution was passed and adopted.

Item A7: Concessionary Agreement (Kachuma Lake)

• Supervisor Wolff presented Item A7, a concessionary agreement with Pyramid Enterprises DBA Rocky Mountain Recreation Company for Kachuma Lake. Supervisor Wolff raised a concern regarding the liability insurance provision, which was limited to $1 million per occurrence and $2 million in the aggregate. He noted that County Counsel confirmed this was a standard term since 2002 but suggested the Board ask County Counsel and Risk Management to review the provision for future contracts. Staff agreed to work with the CEO’s office and Risk Management and report back. A motion to approve the item was made and seconded. The motion carried.

Item A14: Measure A Safe Routes to School Projects

• Item A14, from Public Works, concerned a cooperative agreement for Cycle 1 Measure A Safe Routes to School and bicycle/pedestrian projects. David Jennings spoke in opposition to the expansion of bulb-outs at Hope and Pueblo, citing mobility issues and safety concerns. Supervisor Wolff responded that the specific projects in this item (Obern Trail Lighting Retrofit, San Marcos Road/Cathedral Oaks Road sidewalk improvements, and Lakeview Road crosswalk improvements) did not include bulb-outs and were intended to improve safety for students. A motion to approve the item was made and seconded. The motion carried.

Departmental Agenda Item 1: FY 2011-2012 Financial Status Report

• The Auditor-Controller and County Executive Office presented the second-quarter financial status report as of December 31, 2011.
• General Fund: Projected to end the year with a positive balance of $4.2 million after setting aside $8.1 million in concession savings. General revenues showed modest growth. Notable variances included positive results for the District Attorney and Sheriff, and negative variances for Parks and Clerk-Recorder-Assessor.
• Special Revenue Funds: Showed a negative variance of $13.1 million, largely due to timing differences and expected improvements. The actual projected issue was estimated at $2.5–$3 million, primarily in Mental Health.
• Mental Health: Showed a negative variance of $14.6 million. $6.2 million was attributed to timing differences. The remaining $6.4 million was due to higher inpatient and salary costs. The department is scheduled to return to the Board on March 20 to discuss these challenges.
• Public Health: Showed a negative variance of $1.7 million, attributed to lower service charges due to the implementation of electronic medical records and competition for Medi-Cal clients.
• Social Services: Showed a negative variance of $755,000 at the time of the report, but staff indicated that subsequent rebudgeting would likely result in a balanced year.
• Workers' Compensation: Showed a favorable variance of $740,000 due to premium savings, which will help offset a projected actuarial shortfall of $4.6 million.
• Supervisor Wolff questioned the discrepancy between a previously cited $2.9 million figure and the current $4.6 million actuarial liability for Workers' Compensation. Staff clarified that the $2.9 million referred to the change in rates for a specific year, while the $4.6 million represents the ultimate projected liability over a longer period. Staff agreed to verify the figures and respond to the Supervisor.

Discussion and Q&A (Financial Report Continuation)

• Fiscal Outlook Update: A board member requested an update to the fiscal outlook report prior to the budget process. The CEO confirmed that updated budget information is currently being compiled. The CFO noted that the upcoming budget presentation will include an additional year of financial outlook data.
• General Liability Fund: The CFO reported a favorable variance of approximately $890,000. The fund is in a positive position based on the last actuarial report, allowing for rate reductions and savings passed along to participating departments.
• Revenue Trends: The CFO stated that actual activity is generally tracking to budget. Revenue appears to be increasing slightly, with notable pickups in sales tax and TOT of about $800,000. Property tax revenue is tracking to target but has not shown significant movement yet.
• Departmental Performance: Most departments are generating salary and benefit savings through vacancies and labor concessions. The Parks department indicated it believes it can make up a previously reported shortfall due to higher-than-projected fee collections.
• Mental Health: The CFO reiterated that the mental health department’s financial issues will be presented with potential solutions on March 20.
• Staffing Concerns: The CFO noted that while labor concessions are helpful, departments are reporting challenges in responding to requests timely due to previous staff size reductions. Further reductions would be more challenging.
• Combined Departments: In response to a question about how the combined Parks and Housing/Community Development (HCD) departments would be reported, the CFO stated the intent is to group them into one department for oversight but show operations separately to maintain insight. The board requested that a summary view of the combined departments also be provided to assess savings.
• Jail and Fire Issues: The CEO noted that the Sheriff is expected to return to the board in April regarding jail capacity and funding. The CEO highlighted future challenges, including a potential $25 million increase in county contribution rates if the Retirement Board reduces the investment rate as proposed.
• Bond Forfeiture: The Chair asked about the status of a $1 million bond forfeiture. The CEO and County Counsel explained that the matter is currently in the appellate court, with no briefing schedule set. Historically, this process takes six to nine months. No funds are currently budgeted for this item.
• RDA Funds: The Chair inquired about the accounting for Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds. The CFO stated that these assets have been transferred to a new fund within the county and are expected to appear under capital funds on the signal chart, though confident numbers may not be available until next year following audits.
• Pension Funding: In response to public comment regarding pension obligations, the CFO clarified that a Stanford study cited a 5% rate of return assumption, whereas actuaries typically use 7-8%. Using the current CSRS assumption, the county is approximately 70% funded with an unfunded liability of about $740 million.

Public Comment (Financial Report)

• Andy Caldwell (COLAB): Criticized the report for focusing on short-term departmental pulses rather than long-term state and county fiscal challenges, including pension obligations and infrastructure deficits.
• Dr. Robert Jones: Criticized the board’s budget management, alleging a lack of balanced budgets since 2008 and accusing the board of supporting a failing mental health program.
• Maria Lane Ross: Requested reasonable accommodation to finish reading a letter regarding a new non-profit, "Cultural Access for All." After being directed to speak to the fiscal item, she stated that county mental health is a failure and asked questions comparing the costs of therapy versus involuntary commitment.

Motion and Vote (Financial Report)

• A motion was made to receive and file the report.
• The motion was seconded.
• The motion carried.

Agenda Item 2: Planning and Development – Hearing to Consider Recommendations of the Montecito Planning Commission on Case Number 11-TEX (Time Extension for Amended Miramar Beach Resort and Bungalows Project)

Presentation

• Staff Presentation: Aaron Briggs presented a request for a one-year time extension for the coastal development permit for the amended Miramar Beach Resort and Bungalows project. The permit was approved on March 15, 2011, and expires March 15, 2012. If granted, the extension would run until March 15, 2013. Further extensions are available to align with the expiration of other permits (April 6, 2015).
• Requirements: Approval requires findings of "good cause" and that the original findings for the coastal development permit can still be made. Environmental review is covered by CEQA guidelines as no new information of substantial importance requires revisions to the previously certified environmental document.
• Planning Commission Recommendation: The Montecito Planning Commission recommended approval of the time extension.

Board Questions and Staff Responses

• Demolition and Bonds: Supervisor Carbajal asked if the county could compel demolition of the existing structures or require a performance bond. Staff responded that the county cannot compel demolition under building or fire codes, and therefore cannot require a performance bond tied to construction or demolition.
• Public Access: Staff confirmed that public access to Miramar Beach is not currently restricted.
• Fire District Authority: Staff confirmed that the Montecito Fire District has the authority to pursue demolition if the site is deemed a nuisance or safety hazard.
• Application Date Discrepancy: Supervisor Wolf noted a discrepancy in the application date, which appeared to be signed in January 2011, prior to the project approval in March 2011. Staff initially suggested it was a human error.

Public Comment

• Andy Caldwell (COLAB): Supported the extension, criticizing the county’s lengthy review process versus the short build period. Asked if the project had gone to the Coastal Commission.
• Dr. Robert Jones: Opposed the project, alleging it was a "con game" and accusing Supervisor Carbajal of receiving campaign contributions from the applicant, urging recusal.
• Robert Maxim: Opposed the extension, citing a lack of market for hoteliers and previous complaints about drainage, traffic, and construction issues.
• Carol Leaf: Supported the extension, arguing the board should not interfere with private property unless it is a safety hazard. She also raised concerns about campaign contributions to Supervisor Carbajal and objected to a potential rebate (noting this was for a subsequent item).
• Bob Short (Montecito Association): Supported the extension and urged the board to assist in completing the project.

Applicant Response

• Matt Middlebrook (Caruso Affiliated):
• Date Clarification: Apologized for the confusion regarding the application date. Clarified that the correct date was December 19, 2011, consistent with the county date stamp and other forms. He stated the "January" date was an error.
• Market Conditions: Responded to Supervisor Wolf’s concerns by stating that the luxury hotel market has not recovered. He cited the lack of ground-up luxury hotel development in the U.S. since 2008 and the sale of existing luxury hotels (e.g., Bacara, St. Regis Monarch Bay) at significant discounts, making new development financing difficult.
• Site Maintenance: Stated that the applicant has performed substantial cleanup, weed abatement, pest control, and graffiti removal on the site.
• Commitment: Reaffirmed commitment to the project, stating that without the extension, the approvals would expire, forcing the applicant to start over.

Board Discussion

• Supervisor Gray asked about the debt on the property and the suitability of the site for a luxury hotel. Middlebrook responded that the site is suitable for luxury hotels, citing interest from various hotel brands, but the market conditions remain challenging.
• The Chair confirmed that the request was specifically for the extension of the amended project.

Status

• The transcript ends with the applicant's response. No motion to approve or deny the time extension is recorded in this section.

Agenda Item: Extension of Development Rights (Miramar Beach Resort)

Discussion

• Mr. Caruso addressed the Board, explaining that the market collapse in 2008 prevented the completion of the project despite a $50 million loan. He stated that the developer negotiated a discount with the bank to pay off the loan, leaving the property free and clear. He argued that an extension of the Time of Tenure (TOT) and the proposed TOT incentive would allow the developer to secure new financing, with construction estimated to take two and a half years. Mr. Caruso expressed frustration regarding previous delays caused by neighbor complaints about a creek, which he described as resulting in a $2 million payment to neighbors.
• Supervisor Wolf questioned the accuracy of the economic findings, citing a Wall Street Journal article indicating that high-end hotels are seeing revenue gains. She asked for clarification on the bank discount negotiation. Mr. Caruso explained that the bank sought to sell the loan due to its own financial issues, and the payoff amount was less than the original $50 million. He stated that the combination of a debt-free property, the TOT incentive, and the improving luxury hotel market would enable the developer to obtain a construction loan.
• Supervisor Carbajal noted that the Board had two options: extend the rights or terminate them. She stated that the Board is not in a position to impose further conditions and that the decision is binary.

Motion and Vote

• Supervisor Carbajal moved to approve the extension of the development rights, including items 1 through 3 in the staff report. Supervisor Lavagnino seconded the motion.
• Supervisor Gray asked if the item required Coastal Commission approval; the Chair indicated it did not.
• Supervisor Wolf stated that she could not make the required findings based on the information provided, citing issues with application dates and economic data, and indicated she would vote no.
• Supervisor Gray stated she would abstain out of respect for Supervisor Carbajal’s district, despite personal reservations about extending the rights.

Outcome

• The motion passed.

Agenda Item 3: Hotel Incentive Program (Transient Occupancy Tax Rebate)

Presentation

• CEO Waller and Auditor-Controller Filotti presented a proposed countywide hotel incentive program. The program would allow the County to rebate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for new luxury hotels or significant renovations. Key proposed criteria included:
• New Hotels: Projects costing $50 million or more would qualify for a full TOT rebate for 10 years after opening.
• Renovations: Projects with improvements of $50,000 per room or ancillary development exceeding $1 million would qualify for a 50% rebate.
• Conditions: The hotel must be maintained as a four- or five-star facility. Rebates would be reduced for opening delays or decreases in assessed value. No rebate would be paid if no TOT is generated.
• Process: The program would be discretionary, requiring Board approval on a case-by-case basis.
• Using the Miramar Beach Resort as an example, the presentation estimated that a built-out hotel would generate approximately $3.2 million in annual revenues for local governments and schools after the 10-year rebate period, compared to the current $568,000. This includes property tax, sales tax, and TOT. The presentation also estimated 1,000 construction jobs and 200 hospitality jobs.

Discussion

• Supervisor Farr asked about the minimum dollar value for renovation eligibility. CEO Waller clarified that while $50,000 per room is a gauge, the total improvement must exceed $1 million. Supervisor Farr asked if the agreement is transferable upon sale; CEO Waller confirmed it transfers with the land. Supervisor Farr raised a concern about the requirement for developers to demonstrate financial capability to obtain financing, noting the circular logic of needing the incentive to get financing. CEO Waller explained that the requirement is for a commitment from a financial partner contingent on the incentive.
• Supervisor Carbajal asked for clarification on the correlation between renovation costs and rebates to ensure the county is not subsidizing disproportionate amounts. Auditor-Controller Filotti explained that a base year TOT amount would be established, and only new TOT generated above that base would be rebated.
• Supervisor Lavagnino asked if local hiring preferences could be included in the framework. Staff indicated this could be built into the program.
• Supervisor Gray asked about the role of schools and special districts. Filotti explained that these entities receive a portion of property tax revenues and would benefit from the increased tax base.

Public Comment

• Andy Caldwell (COLAB): Supported the proposal if it helps build the Miramar, but emphasized that process improvement and reducing regulatory delay are more critical incentives than tax breaks.
• Jean Montesano: Supported the proposal, citing the developer’s track record.
• Matt Middlebrook (Developer Representative): Supported the program. Stated that if the ordinance is approved, the developer would immediately proceed with demolition of existing buildings (estimated cost $3 million) and commit to building a four- or five-star hotel as quickly as possible.
• Rich Unterman: Opposed the proposal, arguing that wealthy developers do not need subsidies and that the program sets a bad precedent.
• Selwyn Yoslowitz: Supported the proposal, citing the developer’s history of creating community spaces.
• Warren Butler: Supported the proposal, citing economic benefits, job creation, and the need to replace dilapidated structures.
• Richard Nordland (Montecito Association): Supported the incentives, noting that TOT is paid by out-of-area visitors.
• Laura Lodato: Supported the proposal, citing the long-standing issue of the vacant site.
• Mike Lodato: Supported the proposal, attributing project delays to regulatory processes and neighbor disputes.
• Callum DeForest: Opposed the proposal, questioning why a luxury hotel is the only option and expressing concern about coastal preservation and potential spread of luxury hotels.
• Nina Terzian: Supported the proposal.
• Robert Maxim: Opposed the proposal, questioning the precedent for subsidizing private for-profit developments and suggesting it should be a ballot measure.
• Carol Leaf: Opposed the proposal, arguing the hotel is not financially viable without the rebate and that the economic benefits are overstated. She questioned the basis for retail sales estimates and occupancy rates.
• Steve Lavagnino: Criticized the developer and Supervisor Carbajal, alleging corruption and that the developer is receiving a bailout. The Chair instructed him to stay on topic and modulate his tone.
• Maria Ross: (Speaker introduced, but transcript ends before her full comment is recorded).

Status

• The Board has not yet voted on this item in this transcript segment. The Chair indicated that items 4 and 5 would follow after a lunch break.

Agenda Item 3: Hotel Tax Incentive Program (Continuation)

• Public comment concluded with a resident expressing support for the project, citing potential economic activity and live music. The Board then discussed the financial viability of the proposed incentive program. Supervisor Lavagnino questioned how a $1.5 million annual incentive would make a $70 million project financially feasible, given previous estimates of insufficient revenue. Staff and the Auditor-Controller explained that while they could not guarantee the project's overall profitability, the incentive improves the bottom line, which helps demonstrate the ability to secure bank financing. They cited the Palm Springs program as a comparable model that generated significant economic investment.
• Supervisor Lavagnino stated he would support the measure, noting the risk of inaction and the potential for construction jobs, while requesting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a timeframe for cleaning up the dilapidated property if the project proceeds. Supervisor Grant expressed full support, viewing it as a method for the government to generate revenue. Supervisor Wolf opposed the proposal, arguing it was bad public policy, unfair to taxpayers who voted to maintain the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate for general government services, and a poor precedent given that neighboring jurisdictions have higher TOT rates. She also raised concerns about the lack of a formal economic development plan and the absence of a validation process in the timeline. Counsel explained that a validation action could be directed after the ordinance is adopted to provide legal certainty.
• Chair Farr stated that the immediate decision was whether to direct staff to develop the ordinance, not to approve a specific application. She supported moving forward with staff analysis, noting the priority of economic development and job creation. Supervisor Carbajal supported the concept but proposed specific modifications for staff to consider when the item returns. He moved to direct staff to return with the original proposal, an alternate five-year term proposal, and a tiered distribution model (e.g., 90% to applicant/10% to Conference and Visitors Bureau in early years, shifting to county funds in later years). He also requested that staff include criteria for local hiring preferences, performance bonds, and legal validation. Supervisor Lavagnino seconded the motion, contingent on the Auditor-Controller’s office confirming the feasibility of the tiered financial models. Staff confirmed they could provide the requested financial scenarios. Supervisor Wolf raised a concern regarding the transferability of the benefit to new owners, which staff confirmed would be allowed.
• Motion: Direct staff to return with the proposed ordinance, including alternate term lengths and a tiered distribution model for the TOT rebate, along with specific eligibility criteria and local hiring preferences. Seconded by: Supervisor Lavagnino. Vote Outcome: Passed (3-2).
• The Board adjourned to closed session for public employee performance evaluations and appointments. Upon reconvening, Counsel reported that the closed session items were completed with no further action required to report.

Agenda Item 4: Historic Landmark Designation – Bryce Beach Cabana and Funicular

• Staff presented the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission’s (HLAC) recommendation to designate the Bryce Beach Cabana and Funicular as a historic landmark. Staff outlined the three options available to the Board: approve the HLAC’s action, modify the action, or disapprove the action. Staff noted that the property had been previously considered and denied in 2011, after which HLAC reaffirmed its recommendation. Staff clarified that while HLAC reviews historic significance, any structural repairs would still require standard land use permits and CEQA review, with potential appeal to the Coastal Commission.
• The applicant’s representative and project historian presented the case for landmarking, highlighting the architect Mary McLaughlin Craig, the unique design translating a canvas tent into wood, and the fact that it is the only remaining example of a beach cabana and funicular system in the county. The owner, Jeff Rusak, stated that the family intends to restore the property to its original grandeur.
• Public comment was provided by four speakers, all supporting the designation. Speakers cited the property’s unique architectural history, its role in the community’s identity, and the importance of preserving it for future generations.
• Supervisor Wolf moved to approve the HLAC’s action and designate the Bryce Beach Cabana and Funicular as a historic landmark. Supervisor Lavagnino seconded the motion. Supervisors Wolf, Lavagnino, and Carbajal expressed support, citing the unique nature of the structure and the owner’s commitment to restoration. Supervisor Wolf clarified that this was not a repeat of the previous denial but a final decision based on further review.
• Motion: Approve the action of the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission and designate the Bryce Beach Cabana and Funicular as a historic landmark. Seconded by: Supervisor Lavagnino. Vote Outcome: Passed (Unanimous).

Agenda Item 5: Historic Landmark Designation – Irene and Frances Rich Beach Cabana

• Staff presented the HLAC’s recommendation to designate the Irene and Frances Rich Beach Cabana as a historic landmark. Staff noted that the Board had previously denied this designation in 2010 by a 3-2 vote, and there is currently active Superior Court litigation challenging that denial. HLAC approved the designation in December 2011. Staff presented the three options: approve, modify, or disapprove.
• Supervisor Wolf asked Staff to clarify the current structural status of the building, noting that the record contained information that might differ from the County’s position. The transcript ends with Staff beginning to address this question.

Agenda Item: Designation of the Irene and Francis Rich Cabana as a County Landmark

• The Board considered the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission’s (HLAC) recommendation to designate the cabana located in Hope Ranch as a county landmark. Staff presented the eligibility criteria under County Code Section 18A, noting that the property met four of the nine required criteria, including its association with significant persons (Irene Rich, Francis Rich, and others), its unique physical characteristics as a surviving beach cabana, and its reflection of the "California Dream." Staff outlined three options for the Board: approve the HLAC’s action, modify the resolution, or disapprove the action.
• The applicant, Julia Carr, presented a detailed history of the property, highlighting the cultural and historical significance of the original owners, Irene and Francis Rich, and their connections to notable figures such as Diego Rivera and Catherine Hepburn. Carr emphasized that the structure is one of the few remaining examples of its kind in the county and that the current owners are working to address structural issues and obtain permits for repairs.
• Public comment was received from ten individuals, all of whom expressed support for the landmark designation. Speakers cited the property’s historical value, its role in the local arts community, and the importance of preserving such structures for future generations. Several speakers noted that the current owners have demonstrated stewardship and passion for the property’s history.
• Board members discussed the item, with some noting that the property had previously been considered by the Board in December 2010, resulting in a 3-2 decision against designation. One Supervisor stated that they remained opposed to the designation, believing the property did not meet the threshold for historic landmark status despite the new information provided. Other Supervisors indicated that they had been convinced by the additional documentation and testimony provided since the last hearing, including site visits and input from the Pearl Chase Society and the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation.
• A motion was made to accept the HLAC’s recommendation and designate the cabana as a county landmark. The motion was seconded. Upon a roll-call vote, the motion passed with a 4-1 vote.

Agenda Item 6: Land Development Fee Resolution

• Staff from Planning and Development presented a request to reinstate fees for the processing of agricultural preserve contracts in the unincorporated area. The Agricultural Preserve Program, authorized by the Williamson Act, currently covers approximately 550,000 acres under about 1,300 contracts. Fees for reviewing these contracts were eliminated in 2006, and the work has since been supported by the County General Fund, consuming between one-third and one-half of a full-time equivalent (FTE) annually. The proposal seeks to make this work revenue-offset by adopting a flat $350 fee for contract assumptions and a $1,500 deposit for other actions such as new farmland security zones, modifications, or replacements. Staff noted that the fees would become effective May 5, 2012, and that the action is CEQA exempt.
• Supervisor Gray expressed opposition to the fees, arguing that the county as a whole benefits from the preservation of agricultural land and that the cost should be borne by the general fund rather than landowners. Supervisor Lavagnino supported the fees, noting that the Agricultural Advisory Committee had no objections and that the county should recoup the costs of processing.
• A motion was made to adopt the resolution amending the land development fees. The motion was seconded. Upon a roll-call vote, the motion passed with a 4-1 vote.

Agenda Item 7: Office of Emergency Services Report

• The Office of Emergency Services (OES) presented a report on continued improvements in emergency public information capabilities. Staff detailed the formation of the Emergency Public Information Communicators (EPIC) group, a coalition of over 100 public information officers, media representatives, and agency staff across the county. The group meets monthly to coordinate messaging and training.
• Key initiatives discussed include:
• Training: Hosting a two-day course by the Texas Engineering and Extension Service (TEKS) in May and sending staff to the FEMA Emergency Management Institute for training.
• Technology: Utilizing satellite phones (Iridium/Inmarsat), ham radio operators (ARES/RACES), and an out-of-state teleconference provider for redundancy.
• Video Downlink: Implementing a helicopter video downlink system funded by federal grants, allowing live feeds to be transmitted to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and desktop computers. A demonstration is scheduled for early April.
• Social Media: Integrating Nixle alerts with Facebook, Twitter, and the county website to ensure consistent public communication.
• Public Education: Engaging a bilingual public education professional to expand outreach efforts.
• Supervisors expressed appreciation for the department’s efforts in leveraging federal and state grants to enhance communication infrastructure and for the collaboration with media partners. A motion was made to receive and file the report. The motion was seconded. Upon a roll-call vote, the motion carried unanimously.

Adjournment and Remembrances

• Supervisor Gray offered remembrances for two individuals: David Georgie and Mary Arlene George Perry.
• David Georgie: Supervisor Gray noted that Georgie attended Goleta Union School District, La Cumbre, and Santa Barbara High School before attending Cal Poly, where he majored in citrus farm production. He was identified as a member of the Farm Bureau and Goleta Rotary. The speaker mentioned that the Cavaletto and Georgie families celebrated their 100th anniversaries of coming to Goleta in 1993 and 1996, respectively.
• Mary Arlene George Perry: Supervisor Gray stated that Perry was born in Sisquack in 1921. She lived at Regina Mariposa, the San Julian Ranch, the Coho Ranch, and the Halama Ranch. The speaker noted that Perry was the sister of Alice Milligan.
• Supervisor Gray moved to adjourn the meeting in honor of these individuals. The motion was accepted, and the meeting was adjourned until the next scheduled session in Santa Maria.