UnGovr Words

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

BOARD OF SUPERVISORSMay 1, 2012

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 May 1, 2012

Click any transcript line to jump the video there.

Meeting Summary

  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.

At a glance

Retirement Board Actuarial Assumptions

  • Supervisor Levin reported that the Retirement Board rescinded its 2010 action to lower the actuarial assumption rate.
  • The Board requested that the CEO place the issue on a future agenda for open session discussion regarding the decision and next steps.
  • Supervisors expressed concern about the sustainability of current assumptions and requested an understanding of the actuarial basis.
  • The Board agreed to plan this as a future agenda item to understand the impact on the county budget.

Volunteer of the Week

  • The Board honored Barbara Cerrone for her work with Meals on Wheels.
  • The recognition noted her nearly 30 years of service and her role in managing the San Ynez Valley program.

Item A-13: Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System Actuary Report

  • Public comment questioned the county’s ability to fund studies and raised concerns about the Retirement Board’s decision not to lower the actuarial rate.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino stated that pension reform is estimated to save over $24 million over the next 10 years.
  • The item was not voted on at this time and was pulled for future discussion as part of the broader retirement issue.

Item A-20: Goleta Beach County Park Managed Beach Retreat Project

  • Public comment included requests for more information on project definitions, funding sources, and recreational impacts.
  • Staff clarified that the $1.5 million is a reimbursable grant and that current revetments have expired permits.
  • The Board continued the item to the May 15, 2012 meeting to allow for further review and staff consultation.

Item A-1: Resolution of Commendation for Santa Barbara High School Cheerleading Squad

  • Supervisor Carbajal presented a resolution commending the squad for winning the 2012 USA National Championship.
  • The resolution was read into the record and adopted.

Item A-8: Resolution Proclaiming Older Americans Month

  • A public speaker objected to the resolution and was ruled out of order for directing personal attacks at a supervisor.
  • The resolution was adopted.

Item A-2: Resolution Proclaiming National Public Gardens Day

  • Supervisor Carbajal presented a resolution declaring May 11, 2012, as National Public Gardens Day.
  • Representatives from local gardens and organizations spoke in support of the collaboration.
  • The resolution was adopted.

Item A-3: Resolution Proclaiming Crime Victims’ Rights Week

  • Supervisor Wolf presented a resolution declaring the week of April 22–28, 2012, as Crime Victims’ Rights Week.
  • The District Attorney and Victim Witness Program Director accepted the resolution.
  • The resolution was adopted.

Item A-4: Resolution of Commendation for Employee of the Month

  • The Chair presented a resolution recognizing Tanyel Matlosky as the County Employee of the Month for May 2012.
  • The resolution was adopted.

Item A-5: Resolution Proclaiming National Infant Immunization Week and Toddler Immunization Month

  • Supervisor Lavagnino presented a resolution proclaiming April 21–28, 2012, as National Infant Immunization Week and May 2012 as Toddler Immunization Month.
  • The Deputy Health Officer accepted the resolution on behalf of the Public Health Department.
  • The resolution was adopted.

Item A-6: Resolution Proclaiming National Nurses Day and Week

  • Supervisor Lavagnino presented a resolution proclaiming May 6, 2012, as National Nurses Day and May 6–12, 2012, as National Nurses Week.
  • The Manager of Disease Control and Prevention accepted the resolution on behalf of Public Health Department nurses.
  • The resolution was adopted.

Item A-32: Resolution Honoring Retired Senior Volunteer Program Volunteers

  • The Chair presented a resolution honoring RSVP volunteers during Senior Corps Week (May 7–11, 2012).
  • The resolution was adopted.

Departmental Agenda – Item 1

  • The Board considered a request for continuance for the Planning and Development hearing regarding the Santa Barbara Ranch Inland Development Agreement.
  • The Board continued the item to the May 15, 2012 meeting.

Agenda Item 2: Amendment to 2012 Board of Supervisors Meeting Schedule

  • The County Executive Office requested to cancel meetings on June 5 and July 3, 2012, due to board absence and the holiday.
  • The proposal included adding meeting dates of May 22 and June 26, 2012, to maintain an appropriate number of meetings.
  • The Board approved the changes to the meeting schedule.

Agenda Item 3: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for Santa Barbara Student Housing Cooperative

  • Staff recommended denying the appeal and approving the project, citing UCSB’s available parking capacity and the likelihood that students would walk or bike to campus.
  • The appellant argued that modifications to parking distance and dedication violated the Coastal Zoning Ordinance.
  • The applicant stated that UCSB has guaranteed 15 spaces in perpetuity and offered additional mitigation measures such as lease restrictions.
  • The Board approved the item as recommended by staff.

Agenda Item 4: Measure A Program of Projects Fiscal Year 2012-13

  • Staff presented the five-year program of projects for Measure A, covering North County and South Coast.
  • The presentation included reaffirmation of priorities for Measure A revenues and certification of the county’s intent to allocate local discretionary revenues to satisfy the Maintenance of Effort requirement.
  • The Board approved the item.

Agenda Item 5: Lompoc Animal Shelter Renovation Project

  • Staff presented a hearing to consider the award of a construction contract for the Lompoc Animal Shelter renovation and to hear two bid protests.
  • Staff recommended denying the protests and approving the subcontractor substitution.
  • The Board approved staff’s recommendation, including the contract award to STC Development and the subcontractor substitution.

Agenda Item 6: Appeal of Park Hills Estates

  • Staff recommended the board determine the MND is inadequate, deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s action, and direct staff to prepare a focused EIR on biological resources and fire protection.
  • The appellant argued that the project meets all fire department standards and that there is no substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts.
  • The Board continued the item to the May 22 meeting to allow staff to gather additional information regarding previous project mitigations in the area.

Agenda Item 7: Response to Grand Jury Report "Requiem for Redevelopment"

  • Staff recommended the board partially disagree with Findings 7 and 8 of the Grand Jury report.
  • Staff outlined recommendations for implementing, not implementing, or already implementing specific actions related to the report.
  • The Board approved the item.

Agenda Item 8: Community Services Department – Santa Barbara County Home Consortium and CDBG Urban County Partnership

  • Staff presented the draft 2012 Action Plan and amendments required by HUD for HOME, CDBG, and ESG.
  • Supervisors discussed the integrity of the selection process and the challenges of allocating limited funds among numerous worthy applicants.
  • The Board voted to approve the staff recommendations.

Agenda Item 9: County Executive Office – Tax Transfer Resolution between the County of Santa Barbara and the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District

  • Staff presented four options for transferring property tax revenue from the County General Fund to the Fire Protection District.
  • The Sheriff proposed delaying the decision to allow time to develop a concurrent plan to gradually reduce the Fire Department’s reliance on Proposition 172 funds.
  • The Board agreed to continue the item to allow for further analysis of the combined tax transfer and Proposition 172 reallocation proposal.

Closed Session

  • The board entered closed session to confer with legal counsel regarding existing litigation.
  • No reportable action was taken.
  • The item regarding conference with labor negotiators was not addressed.

Full summary

Opening and Roll Call

  • The Chair called the regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to order on May 1, 2012. The Clerk called the roll, and all members were present. The Board recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes

  • The Board considered the approval of the minutes from the April 17, 2012 meeting. A motion was made and seconded. The motion passed.

Agenda Corrections

  • The Clerk reported several corrections to the agenda:
  • Item A-15: Corrected the APN number for the Figaro court building parcel transfer to 029211002.
  • Item A-20: Corrected the dollar amount for the professional services contract with AMAC Environmental Infrastructure, Inc. to $310,000 and struck Recommendation B4.
  • Item A-32: Added an honorary resolution from Supervisor Farr proclaiming May 7–11, 2012, as Senior Corps Week.
  • Item A-14: Corrected the description of Budget Revision Number 0002164 to reflect a $32,100 payment for Naomi Schwartz building rent from the General Services, Risk, County Liability, Self-Insurance Fund.

Public Comment

  • Dr. Robert Johns: Addressed the Board regarding district representation and community issues. The Chair warned the speaker to address the Board as a whole and stay on topic. After the speaker continued to direct comments at specific supervisors and use derogatory language, the Chair terminated the speaker’s time.
  • Leah Gonzalez: Requested to speak on Item A-8. The Chair indicated that Item A-8 would be addressed later during the administrative agenda.

Retirement Board Actuarial Assumptions (Discussion)

  • Supervisor Levin reported that the Retirement Board had voted to rescind its 2010 action to lower the actuarial assumption rate. Supervisor Lavagnino requested that the CEO ensure the issue is placed on a future agenda for open session discussion regarding the Board of Retirement’s decision and next steps. Supervisor Carbajal expressed concern about the sustainability of the current assumptions and requested an understanding of the actuarial basis for the decision. Supervisor Wolf noted that the Retirement Board had deliberated on phasing the rate down to 7.5% but ultimately decided to keep it at 7.75% for fiscal year 2012–2013, pending a new actuarial study. Supervisor Gray requested that the discussion be included in a future Departmental Agenda item to understand the impact on the county budget. The Board agreed to plan this as a future agenda item.

Volunteer of the Week

  • The Board honored Barbara Cerrone for her work with Meals on Wheels, noting her nearly 30 years of service and her role in managing the San Ynez Valley program.

Administrative Agenda – Initial Motion

  • The Clerk noted requests to speak on Items A-1, A-8, A-13, and A-20. Supervisor Lavagnino moved to pull Items A-4, A-13, A-20, A-28, and A-29. A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda. The motion passed.

Item A-13: Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System Actuary Report

  • Public Comment: Mr. Caldwell (speaking for Santa Maria) questioned the county’s ability to fund studies given previous budget constraints and raised concerns about the Retirement Board’s decision not to lower the actuarial rate from 7.75%. He asked whether Supervisor Wolf, who sits on the Retirement Board, votes in the interest of the Board of Supervisors or independently.
  • Board Discussion: Supervisor Lavagnino stated that the pension reform implemented by the Board is estimated to save over $24 million over the next 10 years, starting with a $219,000 increment next year. Supervisor Gray reiterated the request to include this item in a future Departmental Agenda to discuss the Retirement Board’s decision and its budget impact.
  • Decision: The item was not voted on at this time; it was pulled for future discussion as part of the broader retirement issue.

Item A-20: Goleta Beach County Park Managed Beach Retreat Project (EIR Contract)

  • Public Comment:
  • Mr. Caldwell questioned the definition of the project (permeable pier vs. managed retreat) and the source of funding, asking the Board to pull the item until a full report is provided.
  • Mr. De La Torre (Friends of Goleta Beach Park) submitted an alternative phased plan for the public record, based on recommendations from Dr. Gary Griggs regarding sea-level rise adaptability. He argued the alternative is less costly and more environmentally sound than the proposed managed retreat.
  • Mr. Farr (speaking for Goleta Valley residents) requested assurance that recreational uses of the park would not be negatively impacted by the project’s outcome.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Supervisor Gray stated she was not willing to vote on the $1.5 million federal grant without knowing if it obligated the county to the full project cost.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino stated he had not had time to review the late-added item and requested more time to understand the project details, utility MOUs, and grant requirements.
  • Staff (Ms. Nisic) clarified that the $1.5 million is a reimbursable grant from the Coastal Impact Assistance Program. The county has funds in the Community Services Grant Capital Program to begin the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and engineering studies. The estimated total construction cost is approximately $3 million.
  • Staff (Mr. Gazzone) confirmed that the current revetments have expired permits, placing the county in a violator status with the California Coastal Commission.
  • Supervisor Wolf asked if waiting two weeks would jeopardize the grant. Staff confirmed that AMEC Engineering is willing to hold their bid and that the federal grant agency has been notified of the delay.
  • Motion: A motion was made and seconded to continue Item A-20 to the May 15, 2012 meeting to allow for further review and staff consultation. The motion passed.

Item A-1: Resolution of Commendation for Santa Barbara High School Cheerleading Squad

  • Supervisor Carbajal presented a resolution commending the Santa Barbara High School Cheerleading Squad for winning the 2012 USA National Championship. The resolution was read into the record. The team and coaches were recognized. The resolution was adopted.

Item A-8: Resolution Proclaiming Older Americans Month

  • Public Comment: Dr. Johns objected to the resolution, stating that Supervisor Carbajal does not support older Americans and criticizing the presence of drug clinics in the district. The Chair ruled the speaker out of order for directing personal attacks at a supervisor rather than addressing the resolution.
  • Decision: The resolution was adopted.

Item A-2: Resolution Proclaiming National Public Gardens Day

  • Supervisor Carbajal presented a resolution declaring May 11, 2012, as National Public Gardens Day in Santa Barbara County. Representatives from the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, Lotusland, Casa Del Herrero, and Santa Barbara Beautiful spoke in support of the collaboration. The resolution was adopted.

Item A-3: Resolution Proclaiming Crime Victims’ Rights Week

  • Supervisor Wolf presented a resolution declaring the week of April 22–28, 2012, as Crime Victims’ Rights Week. District Attorney Joy Studley and Megan Rheinschild, Director of the Victim Witness Program, accepted the resolution. The resolution was adopted.

Item A-4: Resolution of Commendation for Employee of the Month

  • The Chair presented a resolution recognizing Tanyel Matlosky, a GIS Analyst in the Surveyor’s Division of Public Works, as the County Employee of the Month for May 2012. Mr. Matlosky and his supervisor, John Nielsen, accepted the commendation. The resolution was adopted.

Item A-5: Resolution Proclaiming National Infant Immunization Week and Toddler Immunization Month

  • Supervisor Lavagnino presented a resolution proclaiming April 21–28, 2012, as National Infant Immunization Week and May 2012 as Toddler Immunization Month. Dr. Charity Thoman, Deputy Health Officer, accepted the resolution on behalf of the Public Health Department. The resolution was adopted.

Item A-6: Resolution Proclaiming National Nurses Day and Week

  • Supervisor Lavagnino presented a resolution proclaiming May 6, 2012, as National Nurses Day and May 6–12, 2012, as National Nurses Week. Paige Batson, Manager of Disease Control and Prevention, accepted the resolution on behalf of Public Health Department nurses. The resolution was adopted.

Item A-32: Resolution Honoring Retired Senior Volunteer Program Volunteers

  • The Chair presented a resolution honoring Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) volunteers during Senior Corps Week (May 7–11, 2012). Mr. Newton accepted the resolution on behalf of the RSVP volunteers. The resolution was adopted.

Departmental Agenda – Item 1

  • The Board considered a request for continuance for the Planning and Development hearing regarding the Santa Barbara Ranch Inland Development Agreement. A motion was made and seconded to continue the item to the May 15, 2012 meeting. The motion passed.

Agenda Item 2: Amendment to 2012 Board of Supervisors Meeting Schedule

  • Discussion: The County Executive Office presented a request to amend the 2012 meeting schedule. The proposal involved canceling the scheduled meetings for June 5, 2012, and July 3, 2012, due to the absence of a full board and the Fourth of July holiday, respectively. To maintain an appropriate number of meetings during the spring, the proposal included adding meeting dates of May 22, 2012, and June 26, 2012, both in Santa Barbara. Board members noted their individual availability regarding the canceled dates but expressed no objection to the proposed changes.
  • Motion: A motion was made to approve the changes to the meeting schedule.
  • Vote: The motion was seconded. The vote was taken by voice.
  • Outcome: The motion carried, and the meeting schedule was amended accordingly.

Agenda Item 3: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for Santa Barbara Student Housing Cooperative (777 Camino Pescadero)

  • Discussion:
  • Staff Presentation: Staff presented an appeal filed by Craig Geyer regarding the Planning Commission’s December 7, 2011, approval of a change of use for an existing office building at 777 Camino Pescadero in Isla Vista. The project converts the building into student housing with 12 bedrooms, a maximum of 18 residents, and a meeting room. The primary issue in the appeal concerns off-site parking. The ordinance requires 27 parking spaces. The Planning Commission approved 12 on-site spaces and 15 off-site spaces located at UCSB facilities (Lot 53 at 700 feet and a parking structure at 2,300 feet). The Commission approved modifications to the standard 500-foot maximum distance for off-site parking and removed the requirement for permanent dedication of specific spaces. Staff recommended denying the appeal and approving the project, citing UCSB’s available parking capacity and the likelihood that students would walk or bike to campus.
  • Appellant (Craig Geyer): Geyer argued that the modifications to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regarding parking distance and dedication were major, not minor, and violated the Coastal Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the 2,300-foot distance is unreasonable and that UCSB does not dedicate specific spaces, meaning there is no guarantee of availability. He requested the denial of the two parking modifications and suggested alternatives such as scaling back the project, purchasing a local lot, or securing dedicated spaces in Lot 53.
  • Applicant (Santa Barbara Student Housing Cooperative): The applicant, represented by Jeff Vestmer and Lisa Plowman, stated that the project is a nonprofit, affordable housing initiative with high demand. They argued that UCSB has guaranteed 15 spaces in perpetuity through a lease agreement, even if not specifically designated. They noted that only 36% of current co-op residents have cars, suggesting low parking demand. The applicant offered additional mitigation measures, including a lease restriction requiring residents to park on-site or at UCSB facilities (with a $100 fine for violations), and expressed willingness to investigate car-sharing options or covenants limiting the number of cars.
  • Public Comment:
  • Andy Caldwell (COLAB) opposed the project, arguing that the parking rules were not applied equally to private sector projects and that UCSB was offloading its parking shortage onto Isla Vista.
  • Frank Thompson (Co-op Board Member) supported the project, emphasizing the educational and community benefits of the co-op and stating that the appellant had not engaged in mediation.
  • Alexander Johnson (UCSB Student) supported the project, citing the affordability and community aspects of co-op living.
  • Brian Granger (UCSB Student) supported the project, describing how the co-op provided affordable housing during financial hardship.
  • Roanne Aksher (UCSB Community Housing Manager) supported the project, confirming UCSB’s agreement to provide up to 16 spaces and noting a 40-50% surplus in student parking spaces based on recent monitoring.
  • Eric Beeson (UCSB Student) supported the project, highlighting the community involvement and skills learned through cooperative living.
  • Sierra Belden (Co-op Board Member) supported the project, noting that co-op rents are 30% lower than the Isla Vista average and that there is a significant waiting list.
  • Ethan Schwartz (UCSB Student) supported the project, describing the positive community impact and affordability.
  • Jeffrey Bard spoke against the project, making comments regarding discrimination and board conduct, which were ruled out of order by the Chair.
  • Rebuttal:
  • Craig Geyer (Appellant) reiterated that the parking issue is strictly about impact and enforcement. He suggested continuing the item to allow for further negotiation on car-sharing or other solutions.
  • Lisa Plowman (Applicant) clarified that UCSB has 400-500 available spaces and that the co-op is willing to implement car-sharing and lease restrictions immediately if required.
  • Staff Comments on New Suggestions: Staff indicated that the In-Lieu Parking Program is not applicable to this residential project and that negotiating dedicated spaces with UCSB is unlikely to succeed given UCSB’s policy. Staff noted that car-sharing could be incorporated as a condition of approval, though it has not been used on purely residential projects before. Staff also noted that limiting the number of cars to 10 could be explored but might be difficult to incorporate immediately.
  • Board Questions:
  • Supervisor Lavagnino asked about the feasibility of the 2,300-foot parking distance and the impact on project size. Staff explained that reducing the project to meet the 500-foot parking requirement would require cutting the project size by more than half.
  • Supervisor Gray asked if the project adds density. Staff confirmed it adds 18 bed spaces but may free up other housing for the community.
  • Supervisor Carbajal asked about affordable housing credits. Staff indicated the project is at least 50% affordable and would likely receive credit.
  • Supervisor Wolf expressed support for the project and the partnership with UCSB, noting that the co-op is a responsible community member.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino expressed support for finding solutions to make the project work.
  • Additional Discussion: A board member commented on the uniqueness of the Isla Vista community and the project, noting that while street parking is a concern, abundant parking is available in UCSB lots and a county-purchased lot on Pardal Street. The member noted that other projects in the area, including private sector mixed-use developments, have received similar parking reductions and opportunities to utilize UCSB parking. The member stated that the target population for the co-op likely relies on cycling, walking, and transit, making the proposed 12 on-site spaces and UCSB agreement adequate. The member expressed support for the project’s community benefits, specifically the provision of at least 50% affordable housing, and noted ongoing efforts to implement car-sharing spaces in the district.
  • Motion: A motion was made to approve the item as recommended by staff (actions 1 through 6).
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed.

Agenda Item 4: Measure A Program of Projects Fiscal Year 2012-13 (Local Streets and Roads Backlog)

  • Discussion: Public Works staff presented the five-year program of projects for Measure A (FY 2012-13 through 2017-18), covering North County and South Coast. The presentation included:
  • Reaffirmation of Resolution No. 10-101, which establishes priorities for Measure A revenues: first, full funding for repair and maintenance of transportation infrastructure; second, projects to improve safety for drivers and pedestrians; and third, projects to relieve congestion.
  • Certification of the county’s intent to allocate local discretionary revenues to satisfy the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement, estimated at approximately $1.6 million for FY 2012-13 (including $442,000 for Prop 42).
  • Details on the five-year program, which includes roadway/bridge maintenance, street trees, storm damage, drainage, and traffic maintenance. The program requires 10% of funding for alternative transportation projects.
  • Financial overview: Total Measure A funding over five years is approximately $29 million ($13.6 million for North County, $14.7 million for South Coast), leveraging approximately $75 million in total projects.
  • Maintenance backlog: The unfunded backlog stands at over $250 million, an increase of approximately $30 million from the previous year.
  • Distribution formulas: Staff requested reaffirmation of the North County formula (100% lane miles) and the South Coast formula (50% population, 50% lane miles).
  • A board member requested further exploration of the distribution formulas, specifically comparing the current South Coast formula to previous lane-mile-based formulas to ensure equity.
  • Public Comment:
  • One speaker requested equal distribution of funds across the county and raised concerns about discrimination.
  • Another speaker representing COLAB criticized the board’s management of the fire department deficit and jail funding. The speaker noted the $250 million road maintenance backlog and the rising cost of asphalt. The speaker argued that the North County receives 65% of Measure A funds for local streets and roads, while the South County commits only 50%, and suggested reallocating South County funds from transit projects to road maintenance.
  • Motion: A motion was made to approve the item.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed.

Closed Session

  • The board entered closed session to confer with legal counsel regarding existing litigation (SBRHC v. Santa Barbara Investments, Naples Coalition v. County of Santa Barbara, and Evan v. County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors). No reportable action was taken. The item regarding conference with labor negotiators was not addressed.

Agenda Item 5: Lompoc Animal Shelter Renovation Project (Construction Contract Award)

  • Discussion: General Services staff presented a hearing to consider the award of a construction contract for the Lompoc Animal Shelter renovation and to hear two bid protests.
  • Project Scope: Renovations include enclosing a carport, creating an ADA-compliant public restroom, and making entrances/walkways ADA compliant.
  • Bidding: STC Development was the low bidder at $196,000. KJ Kane was the second-lowest bidder.
  • Protests:
  • 1. Tomar Construction (third-lowest bidder) protested that STC was not qualified to perform wooden casework. Staff found STC qualified to perform the work and recommended the protest be denied. 2. KJ Kane protested that STC was using a "loss leader" pricing strategy. Staff found no evidence to support this claim and recommended the protest be denied.
  • Subcontractor Substitution: Staff recommended approving STC’s request to substitute a subcontractor (Western Mechanical) with another qualified firm (Bartow) due to a bidding error by STC. The original subcontractor agreed to the substitution.
  • A board member inquired about the wide range of bids for a project of this size. Staff indicated that while the range was larger than typical, it was not unusual given the current competitive bidding climate and did not suggest cause for alarm.
  • Motion: A motion was made to approve staff’s recommendation, including the contract award to STC Development and the subcontractor substitution.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed.

Agenda Item 6: Appeal of Park Hills Estates (Mitigated Negative Declaration)

  • Recusal: One board member recused themselves from the decision and discussion due to residing within 500 feet of the project site, as required by the California Political Reform Act.
  • Discussion:
  • Staff Presentation: Staff presented the appeal of the County Planning Commission’s determination that the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Park Hills Estates project was inadequate.
  • Project Details: The 4.87-acre site in the foothills above Goleta proposes 16 residential lots (including one affordable unit), 1.7 acres of open space/detention basin, and two internal private roads.
  • Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission found the MND inadequate regarding biological resources and fire protection/emergency evacuation, directing staff to prepare a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
  • Fire Protection: The site is in a high-fire hazard area. While the project meets fire department requirements for hydrants and access, the Planning Commission and Fire Department expressed concerns about the reliability of Tucker’s Grove as an emergency evacuation route.
  • Biological Resources: The site contains native grasslands and coastal sage scrub. Staff noted that on-site restoration would result in fragmented habitat and that off-site restoration was considered preferable. Public testimony raised concerns about other species (lichens, invertebrates, birds) and inadequate surveys.
  • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended the board determine the MND is inadequate, deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s action, and direct staff to prepare a focused EIR on biological resources and fire protection.
  • Board Questions:
  • A board member inquired about the density bonus associated with the affordable unit. Staff clarified that the project still receives a density bonus over base zoning by providing one affordable unit, though the bonus is smaller than in previous iterations.
  • A board member noted the confusing naming of the internal roads ("Cozy Drive" and "Cozy Lane") and suggested renaming one.
  • Appellant (Jeff Nelson) Presentation:
  • Argued that the project meets all fire department standards and that there is no substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts.
  • Stated that the project has been modified to address neighbor concerns, including reducing lot count and adjusting building heights.
  • Argued that the Tucker’s Grove access issue is an area-wide problem not created by this project and that the project meets all CEQA requirements.
  • Contended that the biological surveys are adequate and that off-site restoration at UCSB is a significant benefit.
  • Requested approval of the project, arguing that an EIR would cause further delays.
  • Homeowners Association Representative (Danny Vickers) Presentation:
  • Represented the San Antonio Creek Homeowners Association.
  • Stated that the primary concern of the neighborhood is fire safety and emergency evacuation, particularly given recent fires and evacuations.
  • Argued that the MND failed to adequately address fire safety and that Tucker’s Grove is not a reliable second exit.
  • Stated that the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to require further study (EIR) and that the neighborhood supports the integrity of this process.
  • Noted that biological concerns are secondary to fire safety but remain an issue.
  • Requested that the board support the Planning Commission’s decision to require a focused EIR.
  • Board Questions to Vickers:
  • A board member asked why the current project (15-16 homes) raises more concern than the 2007 approval (12 homes). Vickers cited two evacuations since 2007, increased scrutiny of the MND’s flaws, and a lack of trust in the process compared to 2007.
  • A board member asked for a potential solution to the fire access problem. Vickers suggested a process involving neighbors, fire experts, and planners to achieve consensus, emphasizing the need for at least two reliable exits under extreme circumstances.
  • Additional Discussion: The board and public speakers discussed the environmental review requirements for the proposed 14-unit residential development, specifically focusing on fire safety, evacuation routes, and biological impacts.
  • Fire Safety and Evacuation: Public comments and board members raised concerns regarding the adequacy of evacuation routes, particularly the narrowness and condition of the road through Tucker’s Grove Park. Several speakers noted that the road was used during recent evacuations but remains dangerous. The County Fire Department representative stated that the project meets current fire code standards, which require two ways in and out and water for fire protection. However, the Fire Department acknowledged the area is difficult due to topography and limited road options. The Chair expressed frustration that the same access issues have arisen in previous projects (e.g., La Romana, B’nai B’rith Preschool) and that prior mitigations for road improvements do not appear to have been fully realized.
  • Biological Impacts: The applicant’s biologist stated that no sensitive species were found on the site, which is an infill property, and that off-site mitigation at UCSB’s West Campus Bluff site is being utilized. A public speaker (consulting biologist) disputed this, citing personal observations of diverse wildlife in the area. The County staff biologist maintained that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is adequate based on CEQA standards.
  • CEQA Standard: Staff clarified that the board’s decision is limited to determining whether the "fair argument" standard has been met to require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), rather than approving the project itself. Staff agreed with the Planning Commission’s conclusion that the fair argument standard was met.
  • Mitigation and Fees: The applicant noted that road impact fees paid by the project are currently restricted by the Goleta Valley Transportation Improvement Plan and cannot be directly applied to the Tucker’s Grove road unless the plan is amended. Staff indicated that the board has the discretion to require a focused EIR to address specific fire evacuation concerns and potential additional mitigation measures.
  • Motion: To continue the item to the May 22 meeting to allow staff to gather additional information regarding previous project mitigations in the area (specifically La Romana, B’nai B’rith Preschool, and other nearby developments) and to provide a comprehensive picture of fire safety and access issues. The focus of the continued hearing was specified to be on fire issues and infrastructure, not biology.
  • Second: The motion was seconded.
  • Outcome: The motion passed. The board will take a ten-minute break before proceeding to the next item.

Agenda Item 7: Response to Grand Jury Report "Requiem for Redevelopment"

  • Discussion: Staff presented the County’s proposed response to the Grand Jury report regarding the former County Redevelopment Agency (RDA).
  • Findings: Staff recommended the board partially disagree with Findings 7 and 8. Finding 7 was disputed because the Grand Jury’s figures for expenditures and debt were slightly inaccurate; staff provided corrected figures. Finding 8 was disputed because detailed data on individual projects is available in the RDA’s Fiscal Year 2011 Financial Annual Report, which is posted on the County website.
  • Recommendations:
  • Recommendation 1 (Implement): Staff will update the website by May 15 to include specific project details, funding sources, blight elimination descriptions, and recipient lists for amounts over $25,000.
  • Recommendation 2A (Do Not Implement): Staff recommended against providing plans for defining and eliminating blight in the absence of an RDA, stating it is not legally required and is not feasible.
  • Recommendation 2B (Already Implemented): Information on low- and moderate-income housing programs is already available on the Housing and Community Development (HCD) website.
  • Recommendation 3 (Implement): Staff will update the website by May 15 to post retirement debt schedules.
  • Public Comment: One public speaker expressed dissatisfaction with the board’s decision to deny certain recommendations, alleging corruption. The Chair directed the speaker to address the specific response to the Grand Jury report.
  • Motion: A motion was made to approve the item.
  • Decision: The motion to approve was seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: Passed.

Agenda Item 8: Community Services Department – Santa Barbara County Home Consortium and CDBG Urban County Partnership 2012 Annual Action Plan and Substantial Amendments (2008–2011)

  • Staff Presentation: Staff presented the draft 2012 Action Plan and amendments required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Home Investment Partnership (HOME), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG). Total funding involved is approximately $2.6 million. Staff outlined the application process, committee recommendations, and specific project allocations for capital projects, public services, and homeless prevention/rapid rehousing. Staff noted that final approval is scheduled for May 8, 2012, with submission to HUD by May 15, 2012.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Supervisors discussed the integrity of the selection process and the challenges of allocating limited funds among numerous worthy applicants.
  • One Supervisor raised concerns about missing board member information in the applicant packets, which staff confirmed had been added to the public record.
  • Questions were raised regarding the confirmation of audits for recipient organizations; staff confirmed audits were verified.
  • One Supervisor expressed concern that certain areas, such as county parks and disability programs, received no funding, and suggested reallocating funds from specific recipients (e.g., Casa Esperanza’s culinary program and Good Sam Shelter) to other organizations (e.g., Independent Living Resource Center and Santa Barbara Rape Crisis Center).
  • Staff clarified that CDBG capital funds cannot be transferred to public service funds due to HUD restrictions and caps.
  • A motion was made to approve the staff recommendations with specific reallocations of $10,000 from the Casa Esperanza culinary program to the Independent Living Resource Center and the Santa Barbara Rape Crisis Center.
  • Following staff clarification regarding fund restrictions, the Supervisor withdrew the motion to reallocate.
  • A motion was made to approve the staff recommendations as presented.
  • Public Comment:
  • Speakers addressed the board regarding the selection of nonprofits, the lack of formal notification to the South Coast Homeless Advisory Committee, and the operational status of warming centers.
  • One speaker endorsed specific staff members and criticized operational issues with warming centers while supporting St. Bridget’s for its outreach efforts.
  • One speaker thanked the board for supporting the "Jeans for Justice" campaign and requested reconsideration of the decision not to fund the Santa Barbara Rape Crisis Center under CDBG.
  • Decision: The board voted on the motion to approve the staff recommendations.
  • Vote Outcome: Passed.

Agenda Item 9: County Executive Office – Tax Transfer Resolution between the County of Santa Barbara and the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District

  • Staff Presentation: Staff presented four options for transferring property tax revenue from the County General Fund to the Fire Protection District. The transfer would shift approximately $5.9 million in FY 2012-13, representing the current general fund allocation for fire services, plus a share of future property tax increments (20% or 25%) to reach a target rate of 16% or 17% of the cumulative average tax rate. Staff outlined the legal requirements under California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99.02, including required findings regarding the impact on fees, service levels, and school revenues. Staff noted that the county would retain 75% or 80% of future incremental growth depending on the option chosen.
  • Public Hearing on Findings:
  • The board convened as both the Board of Supervisors and the Fire District Board of Directors to hear public comment on the effects of the tax transfer on fees, charges, and assessments.
  • One speaker read a letter supporting appropriate funding levels, criticizing dispatch times, and suggesting an oil/gas royalty tax.
  • One speaker reserved comments for a later section.
  • Board Discussion on Policy and Options:
  • The board discussed the four resolution options (16% or 17% target rate with 20% or 25% increment share).
  • The Sheriff, representing multiple public safety agencies (DA, Probation, Public Defender), proposed delaying the decision to allow time to develop a concurrent plan to gradually reduce the Fire Department’s reliance on Proposition 172 funds, redistributing those funds to other public safety agencies. The Sheriff requested a delay of a few weeks to vet this combined approach.
  • The Fire Chief supported the focus on public safety but recommended analyzing the Prop 172 shift to ensure it does not impede fire department services, suggesting the higher property tax transfer levels might be necessary to offset the loss of Prop 172 funds.
  • Supervisors discussed the impact on the General Fund, the potential cost of a future North County Jail, and the need for collaborative planning among public safety agencies.
  • Staff indicated that providing detailed analysis for a May 22 return date was not feasible due to budget preparation timelines, suggesting a later date in June or during the budget process.
  • One Supervisor moved to schedule the item for May 22 to allow for the combined analysis of the tax transfer and Prop 172 reallocation, arguing that public safety agencies should not be in conflict and the issue should be resolved before the budget.
  • Staff suggested that if the Sheriff’s preliminary information is available, it could be included in the May 22 docket without full analysis.
  • Decision: The board agreed to continue the item to allow for further analysis of the combined tax transfer and Proposition 172 reallocation proposal.
  • Vote Outcome: Continued.

Continuation of Hearing

  • Discussion occurred regarding the timeline for addressing pending options, with members expressing a desire to conclude the matter on May 22. A motion was made to continue the hearing to a time certain on May 22 at 10:00 AM. The motion was seconded. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed.

Adjournment in Memory of Deceased Residents

  • A request was made to adjourn in honor of three deceased community members: Bob Rivers, Evelyn Guja, and Robert Mollenkopf. Brief biographical details for each individual were provided. The chair acknowledged the request, and the meeting was adjourned.