BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Salentine Appeal Hearing Date

• The board initially trailed the item to allow staff to mediate a scheduling dispute between the applicant and the appellant.
• Parties subsequently agreed to a new hearing date after the initial trail.
• The board set the hearing for July 10, 2012, in Santa Maria.

Truancy Program Restoration

• Staff presented a proposal to restore a truancy program focusing on intervention and family involvement rather than solely enforcement.
• The new model is estimated to cost approximately one-third of the previous program while addressing a 44–48% increase in truancy.
• The board approved the recommendations and directed that funding be considered during budget deliberations.

Fire District Property Tax Transfer

• The board adopted a resolution to transfer property tax revenue to the Fire Protection District using a 17% average rate and 25% of incremental growth.
• Staff clarified that the transfer includes a $5.9 million contribution, with the first year's amount exceeding the standard increment to ensure existing departmental funding is not jeopardized.
• The board accepted the transfer and approved the corresponding General Appropriation Limit (GAN) changes.

Proposition 172 Revenue Reallocation

• Staff proposed a ten-year phase-out of the Fire Department’s share of Proposition 172 funds to offset the property tax transfer for other public safety agencies.
• The board voted to delay the commencement of this reallocation to fiscal year 2014-15 to provide the Fire Department an additional year of full funding.
• This decision allows the Fire Department to retain its current Proposition 172 allocation for one year before the gradual reduction begins.

ADMHS Financial Status and Funding

• Staff reported a $19.4 million liability gap stemming from audit disallowances, self-disclosures, and current year shortfalls.
• The board approved the allocation of $4.6 million from the Audit Exception Reserve and $4.8 million from DMH audit refunds to cover these liabilities.
• The CEO’s office identified additional funding sources to close the remaining gap, while the Auditor-Controller recommended increased scrutiny of revenue accruals.

Park Hill Estates Project Appeal

• The board considered an appeal regarding the Planning Commission’s requirement for a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) due to inadequate biological and fire safety analysis.
• Staff and legal counsel clarified that the board’s authority was limited to determining the necessity of the EIR, not approving the subdivision itself.
• The motion to require a focused EIR failed by a tie vote, resulting in no action by the board.

Public Safety Realignment Plan (AB 109)

• Staff presented the FY 2012-13 operation plan, which allocates $7.9 million for custody components, treatment services, and case management.
• The plan includes new initiatives such as mobile mental health clinics and increased GPS monitoring to address high-risk offender populations.
• The board discussed the balance between administrative evaluation costs and direct service funding, particularly regarding housing and sober living needs.

Closed Session

• The Clerk reported that the board concluded consideration of two noticed items in closed session.
• Closed session was continued until noon.

Meeting Reconvened and Roll Call

• The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors reconvened into regular session on May 22, 2012. A roll call confirmed the presence of all five supervisors. The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Minutes of May 15, 2012

• The board considered the minutes from the previous meeting. A motion to approve the minutes was made and seconded. The motion passed by roll call vote.

Closed Session Report

• The Clerk reported that the board had concluded consideration of two noticed items in closed session and continued closed session until noon.

Public Comment (General)

• Dr. Robert Johns addressed the board regarding election season, the 1968 Voter Rights Act, and pot clinics in Supervisor Carbajal’s district. The Chair cautioned the speaker for repetitive comments and directing remarks at individuals rather than the board as a whole.
• Supervisor Gray provided a public comment regarding the roundabout project at Route 246 and SPCAG. She noted that Caltrans had suggested studying roundabouts instead of stop signals on 166 West at Main Street, Brown, and Townsend, despite allocated funds for signals. She stated that the board needs to discuss this with Caltrans.

Administrative Agenda

• The board reviewed the administrative agenda. Supervisor Gray requested a spelling correction for Item A-23 (Joni Jameson to Jamie Son).

Item A-19: Salentine Appeal Hearing Date

• The board considered a request from Planning & Development to set a hearing for June 26, 2012, for the Salentine Appeal.
• Public Comment: John Salentine requested a date change because he would be out of town on June 26, offering availability in August or September. Andy Brown, the applicant, urged the board to keep the June 26 date, citing previous delays and his own inability to secure a delay for a family emergency in a prior related hearing.
• Discussion: Supervisor Wolfe questioned Salentine’s availability. Planning & Development staff explained that scheduling was difficult due to party disagreements and limited board hearing dates. The next available dates were July 10 (Santa Maria), August 14 (Santa Maria), or August 21 (Santa Barbara).
• Decision: The board decided to trail the item to allow staff to meet with the parties to agree on a specific date.

Administrative Agenda Approval

• The board approved the administrative agenda, excluding Item A-19 which was trailed. The motion passed by roll call vote.

Departmental Agenda Item 1: Truancy Program

• The board heard a presentation on recommendations from an ad hoc subcommittee regarding the restoration of a truancy program.
• Discussion: Supervisors Carbajal and Lavagnino, along with District Attorney Dudley, Sheriff Brown, and staff members Dennis Buzanich and Gordon Auchincloss, presented the proposed program. Key points included:
• Truancy increased by 44–48% since the previous program ended in 2008.
• The new program focuses on intervention and family involvement rather than solely enforcement.
• The cost is approximately one-third of the previous program.
• Schools will have autonomy in implementation but must follow a countywide model (TYPAC checklist).
• The District Attorney’s office will provide enforcement support and letterhead for initial notices.
• Questions were raised regarding coordination between non-unified school districts (e.g., Santa Maria) and the role of law enforcement in the intervention process.
• Public Comment:
• Phil Alvarado (Santa Maria Unified School District) supported the program, highlighting the collaboration between agencies.
• Dr. Robert Johns expressed concern that the program relies too heavily on law enforcement/fear factors and suggested asking children directly why they are truant.
• Warner Owens shared a personal anecdote about a truant student to support the need for intervention.
• Susan Salcedo (County Education Office) emphasized the importance of the DA’s letterhead in encouraging family attendance and noted that superintendents are collaborating across district boundaries.
• Motion: Supervisor Carbajal moved to approve the recommendations and return the item to the board during budget deliberations for funding consideration. Supervisor Lavagnino seconded the motion.
• Vote: The motion passed by roll call vote.

Item A-19 (Trailing Item): Salentine Appeal Hearing Date

• The board returned to the trailed item. It was reported that the parties had agreed to a new hearing date.
• Motion: Supervisor Wolfe moved to set the hearing for July 10, 2012, in Santa Maria. The motion was seconded.
• Vote: The motion passed by roll call vote.

Departmental Agenda Item 2: Tax Transfer Resolution

• The board continued a hearing regarding a tax transfer resolution between the County of Santa Barbara and the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District.
• Discussion: Staff presented graphics illustrating the financial impact of transferring property tax revenue to the Fire District. The board discussed policy choices regarding the average tax rate to be transferred (16% or 17%) and the method of transfer (20% or 25% of incremental tax growth). Staff clarified that the public hearing on the impact of the tax transfer on fees and assessments was closed, but public comment on the policy choices remained open.
• Status: The board was in the process of reviewing the financial data and policy options. No final vote was taken in this segment of the transcript.

Agenda Item: Fire District Funding and Property Tax Transfer (Continuation)

• Staff presented attachments F through J, detailing financial scenarios for fire district funding based on different average rates (16% or 17%) and percentages of incremental growth (20% or 25%). Staff explained that higher rates and growth percentages extend the timeline for fully funding the proposal. Staff also noted that corresponding General Appropriation Limit (GAN) changes are required to transfer financial responsibility from the County to the Fire Protection District. Staff recommended the Board consider a policy on fire district funding, adopt proposed findings from the May 1 hearing, select a transfer resolution and corresponding GAN limit change, and then adjourn to reconvene as the District Board of Directors to accept the property tax transfer.
• Supervisor Wolf asked why this item and the subsequent Proposition 172 item were separated, expressing concern that the elimination of Proposition 172 funds for the fire department should be considered in the context of this decision. Staff advised keeping the items separate to maintain a clear record regarding the specific findings required for the property transfer, but noted that the Board could discuss them together while acting separately on each transaction. Supervisor Gray stated that the Board needed to make a decision on this item first, as it originated from the CityGate report, and that this decision would inform the subsequent Proposition 172 decision.
• Public comment was received from four speakers:
• Andy Caldwell expressed opposition, stating that the proposal rearranges existing funds without adding new money and questioning how the Board could make findings that current departmental funding would not be impacted, given existing deficits in other departments.
• Jean Yamamura supported the proposal, noting that Santa Barbara County receives a lower percentage of these funds compared to neighboring counties and highlighting the reliance of the Mission Canyon community on emergency services.
• Michael Bennett supported the proposal, specifically Attachment H (17% rate with 25% increment), citing diminishing fire protection services in the Goleta Valley over time and the closure of Fire Station 19.
• Adam Estabrook supported the proposal, stating the fire department has been inadequately funded since Proposition 13 and that the funds are needed for infrastructure, training, and firefighter safety.
• Supervisor Wolf expressed a preference for the 20% increment as a more prudent step for the county, noting concerns about the impact on other departments if 25% were chosen, but stated willingness to listen to colleagues. Supervisor Carbajal moved to adopt the 17% rate with 25% growth starting in the coming fiscal year. The motion was seconded.
• Supervisor Lavinia requested clarification on the proposed findings, and Staff explained that the findings are required by the Revenue and Taxation Code and that the Board has discretion, supported by the County’s reserve funds. Supervisor Lavinia stated she viewed the transfer as providing a reliable funding stream for the fire department rather than fixing the overall financial situation. Supervisor Wolf supported the motion, noting that while she preferred having both funding sources, she would support the motion. Supervisor Gray supported the motion, citing the historical underfunding of the fire district since Proposition 13.
• The Board voted on the motion to adopt the 17% rate with 25% growth. The motion passed.
• The Board then moved to accept the property tax transfer between the County and the District and approve the specific GAN appropriation limit change. Supervisor Carbajal moved to accept the transfer. The motion was seconded.
• CEO Waller provided information regarding service levels in incorporated cities, noting similar underfunding issues and offering to provide data on city tax increments. Supervisor Lavinia asked for clarification on whether the property tax shift and the $5.9 million transfer would begin in the current fiscal year. Staff and CEO Waller clarified that the $5.9 million transfer includes a $2 million increase over the previous year’s contribution, resulting in a growth rate higher than the 25% increment for the first year. Staff confirmed that this initial higher amount was necessary to meet the finding that current year funding for existing departments would not be jeopardized. Supervisor Carbajal confirmed the motion intended for the funding exchange to begin in the coming fiscal year.
• The Board voted to accept the property tax transfer and the GAN appropriation limit change. The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 3: Reallocation of Proposition 172 Revenue

• Sheriff Brown presented on behalf of the District Attorney, Chief Probation Officer, and Public Defender, explaining that the property tax shift would strain public safety and law enforcement budgets. He proposed a plan to gradually reduce the Fire Department’s share of Proposition 172 funding and redistribute it pro rata to other public safety agencies to offset the revenue loss. Sheriff Brown requested that this reallocation occur simultaneously with the property tax transfer.
• Doug Martin, Chief Financial Officer, presented the background of Proposition 172, a half-cent sales tax for public safety enacted in 1993. He explained that the Fire Department’s current share is 9.75%. Staff recommended a 10-year phase-out of the Fire Department’s Proposition 172 share, decreasing by 1 percentage point annually until the share reaches zero in fiscal year 2022-23, with the funds reallocated to other agencies. Staff noted that even with the reduction in Proposition 172 funds, the Fire Department’s total revenue would still grow due to the property tax transfer.
• Supervisor Gray asked for clarification on the net increase for the Fire Department in fiscal year 2013-14, and Staff confirmed the net growth would be approximately $355,000 after accounting for the Proposition 172 reduction.
• Supervisor Lavinia asked if the Proposition 172 reduction could be staggered to begin one year after the property tax transfer to allow the Fire Department an additional year of full funding. Sheriff Brown opposed the delay, stating that the proposal and paperwork were built for simultaneous implementation and that a delay would penalize other agencies. Supervisor Gray noted that the charts were built on the assumption of simultaneous commencement. Staff confirmed that changing the start date would require updating the resolution and the memorandum of understanding.
• Supervisor Carbajal stated that a one-year delay was reasonable to ensure the Fire Department’s financial objectives were met. Supervisor Lavinia moved to adopt the Proposition 172 reallocation but with the commencement date delayed to fiscal year 2014-15. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Carbajal.
• Supervisor Gray voted against the motion, stating she preferred the original simultaneous commencement. The Board voted on the motion to delay the Proposition 172 reallocation to fiscal year 2014-15. The motion passed 4-1.

Agenda Item 4: Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Services (ADMHS) Update

• Dr. Dietrich, representing ADMHS, presented an update following a March 20 presentation. Staff provided information on historical staffing trends, service trends, and financial condition. The FY 11-12 expense budget was $76.2 million. Staff reported a 19% reduction in budgeted Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) since the peak in FY 07-08. Core Mental Health Fund 44 staffing had a 39% reduction, while Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funded positions increased as staff moved from core programs to new MHSA programs.
• Supervisor Gray asked which services were mandated. Staff explained that Medi-Cal populations and certain alcohol/drug services were mandated, while some uninsured services were provided based on resources.
• Supervisor Gray questioned the increase in FTEs for the upcoming fiscal year despite a budget decrease, noting a significant increase in administrative positions. Staff explained that the increase was partly due to removing a 5% vacancy factor from calculations, adding direct care staff to the psychiatric health facility, and adding fiscal/accounting staff to improve business operations. Supervisor Gray expressed concern about the increase in administrative staff given the department’s fiscal challenges. Supervisor Carbajal also expressed concern about administrative growth, requesting that the CEO vet these positions during the budget process. Staff clarified that some positions were direct care or necessary for compliance, and offered to provide further details on the administrative increase.
• Supervisor Wolf asked about the reduction in children’s clinic staffing and how the department ensures services for children with severe mental illness. Staff explained that services were reconfigured to include Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) and specialty programs funded by MHSA. Staff noted that child clinic staff across the county decreased from 67 in FY 06-07 to 42 in FY 10-11. Supervisor Wolf expressed concern about the staffing levels and the increasing severity of mental illness in juvenile hall, requesting a future meeting focused on children’s services.
• Supervisor Carbajal highlighted the reduction in uninsured children from 16,000 to 2,000 due to the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Supervisor Gray noted discrepancies between the staffing numbers presented and the budget book, asking for clarification on the actual staffing levels for children’s services. Staff indicated they would provide further data.
• Supervisor Wolf requested clarification on the staffing numbers for children’s services, noting that the numbers presented did not align with the budget book. Staff acknowledged the discrepancy and offered to provide accurate figures.
• Dr. Dietrich noted that under AB 3632, responsibility for children with specialty mental health needs shifted from the county to schools, freeing up capacity for new clients. Staff mentioned an outreach project to inform families of available services.

Agenda Item: Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Services (ADMHS) Financial Status and Recommendations

Presentation and Discussion

• Staffing and Expenses: ADMHS presented data showing a decline in extra help staff (non-civil service) and contractors on payroll (including seven psychiatrists and a dietician) between FY 05-06 and FY 11-12. Administrative office professional FTEs declined by 19% since 2007. Services and supplies costs decreased from $42 million to $36 million over the same period, with approximately 77% of these costs allocated to community-based organizations (CBOs).
• Financial Condition: ADMHS reported a net shortfall of $3.6 million for the current budget year, with a total gap of $5.0 million identified in the third-quarter report. This gap is attributed to accruals and cost/revenue impacts. A $1.4 million transfer of CARES costs from Fund 44 to the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) fund was noted.
• Liabilities: ADMHS outlined total liabilities of $19.4 million, comprising:
• Self-disclosures related to irregular billing practices notified to the state in November 2007.
• Liabilities from reconciled cost reports and audits (five-year lookback period).
• Current fiscal year shortfall.
• Disallowances of mental health services provided by interagency partners (DSS, Probation, Public Health) under the Multi-Interagency System of Care (MISC) County Community Counseling Program, resulting from DMH audits covering FY 02-03 through FY 08-09.
• Funding Sources: ADMHS identified $7.5 million in available funding to offset liabilities, including:
• $4.1 million from allocated audit reserves (originally set aside for self-disclosures).
• $1.4 million from the CARES transfer to the MHSA fund.
• Approximately $1.5 million from MISC CEC reserves and DSS/Public Health.
• $0.8 million in deferred revenue from the discontinued multi-disciplinary program.
• Legal and Compliance Concerns: Board members raised concerns regarding the legality of using MHSA funds for existing programs (specifically CARES) and the accuracy of financial reporting. Supervisor Carbajal requested assurance that the use of MHSA funds was vetted for compliance with state guidelines. Supervisor Gray requested a legal opinion confirming the propriety of the funding use. ADMHS stated they had received a legal opinion from County Counsel (Celeste Anderson) supporting the use of MHSA funds. Supervisor Carbajal requested that copies of all future legal opinions regarding mental health funding be provided to the Board.
• Liability Breakdown:
• Known Liabilities (FY 11-12): $11.5 million, including $1.2 million for self-disclosures, $7.8 million for prior year cost report audits/settlements, $300,000 in legal fees, and $5.0 million for the current year shortfall.
• Estimated Liabilities (FY 12-13): $5.1 million, including cost report audits and MISC CEC liabilities.
• Future Estimated Liabilities: $2.8 million for FY 13-14 and beyond.
• Uncovered Gap: After applying the $7.5 million in identified ADMHS funding, an uncovered gap of $11.9 million remained.

CEO’s Office Presentation and Recommendations

• Additional Funding Sources: The CEO’s office proposed additional funding sources to cover the $11.9 million gap:
• $4.6 million from unallocated audit exception funds (previously reserved for self-disclosures but no longer needed).
• $4.8 million from audit recovery funds (43% refund from DMH for appealed audit disallowances from FY 02-03 to FY 05-06).
• $2.7 million from the Strategic Reserve for Probation (specifically designated for MISC-CEC settlements).
• Total Proposed Funding: $12.1 million in new funding sources, which, combined with the $7.5 million in ADMHS funds, totals $19.6 million against the $19.4 million in liabilities, leaving a potential surplus of $200,000.
• Revenue Accrual Issues: The Auditor-Controller’s office noted a significant over-accrual of FFP (Federal Financial Participation) revenue in FY 11-12, resulting in a $2 million error due to matching requirements. The office expressed concern about the department’s tendency to overestimate revenue and recommended increased scrutiny and weekly meetings with ADMHS to improve accuracy. Supervisor Wolf suggested a dedicated budget workshop for ADMHS to thoroughly review financial projections.
• General Fund Contribution: The Auditor-Controller noted that ADMHS has paid $15.6 million in liabilities from FY 07-08 to FY 11-12, nearly equal to the total general fund contribution of $14.3 million for the same period, raising questions about the adequacy of general fund support.

Public Comment

• Dave Novus (Alcohol and Drug Problem Advisory Group): Expressed concern that funding reductions would cripple programs addressing addiction, binge drinking, and prescription drug abuse. Highlighted the role of community-based organizations in providing cost-effective services.
• Dr. Johns: Criticized the department’s management and adherence to state/federal guidelines, alleging that non-compliance is causing service deficiencies and affecting children.
• Jan Winter (NAMI/Mental Health Commission): Expressed appreciation for the department’s services and leadership, noting that service deficiencies are often due to chronic underfunding. Highlighted the importance of the Pro-Pay Program for 300 clients who rely on money management services.
• Kathy Staples: Proposed the creation of a countywide economic development program director to identify new revenue sources and stimulate job growth, suggesting this could help offset budget pressures.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: To receive the report on proposed funding for alcohol, drug, and mental health service needs; to allocate $4.6 million from the Audit Exception Reserve account for ADMHS Medi-Cal related cost report settlements and liabilities; and to allocate $4.8 million from the DMH audit refund to fund projected FY 11-12 operating losses and Medi-Cal related liabilities.
• Second: The motion was seconded.
• Vote: The motion passed.
• Outcome: The Board approved the allocation of funds as described in the motion.

Procedural Note

• The Board agreed to trail Agenda Item 6 (Public Safety Realignment Plan) and proceed to Agenda Item 7 (Park Hill Estates Project) to adhere to time constraints. Supervisor Wolf recused herself from Agenda Item 7 due to her residence being within 500 feet of the project site.

Agenda Item 7: Appeal of Planning Commission Determination – Park Hill Estates Project (4700 Via Los Santos)

Discussion and Presentation

• Staff Presentation: Alex Tuttle (Planning and Development) presented information regarding the Park Hill Estates project, a proposal to subdivide 14.87 acres into 16 residential lots (15 market-rate, 1 affordable). The applicant, Jeff Nelson, appealed the Planning Commission’s January 25, 2012, determination that the draft mitigated negative declaration (MND) was inadequate and that a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required to evaluate biological resources and fire protection.
• Scope of Authority: Staff clarified that because the Planning Commission had not taken final action to approve or deny the subdivision map, the Board of Supervisors’ authority is limited to the specific issue of whether further environmental review (a focused EIR) is required. Any decision by the Board on this issue would be remanded back to the Planning Commission for final action on the project.
• Emergency Access Analysis: Staff reviewed emergency access improvements imposed on nearby projects (B’nai B’rith, La Romana, Fee Residence, Handor-Hand, and Community of Christchurch). Staff noted that improvements to San Antonio Creek Road, such as paving, retaining walls, and vegetation trimming, were completed as part of the Fee Residence project. However, Public Works staff confirmed that traffic fees from the current project cannot be used for further improvements to this road because it is not on the GTIP Transportation Improvement Plan and is not a County-maintained road.
• Applicant’s Conditional Offer: Staff reported that the applicant made a conditional offer to fund approximately $120,000 in improvements to San Antonio Creek Road (repaving, drainage, vegetation trimming, and widening to 16–18 feet) if the project were approved. Staff stated this offer could not be acted upon because the Board cannot approve the project at this hearing.
• Fire Department Input: Chief Hahn stated that the Fire Department’s minimum requirement for a two-way access road is 24 feet. The proposed 16–18 foot width is insufficient for two-way traffic with emergency vehicles. The Fire Department does not have specific standards for one-way emergency access roads but noted that 16–18 feet is short of their minimum requirements.
• Legal Counsel Input: County Counsel explained that the appeal is de novo regarding the specific decision appealed (the requirement for a focused EIR). The Board is not bound by the Planning Commission’s decision but is limited to the scope of the appeal as defined in the applicant’s letter, which specifically appealed the directive to prepare a focused EIR.

Public Comment

• Jeff Nelson (Applicant): Argued that the Board has full de novo authority to approve the project. Stated that the applicant is willing to make the $120,000 road improvements if the project is approved, but refuses to take on these obligations without final approval. Asserted that the Planning Commission failed to act within statutory timeframes.
• Murray Rubin (Neighbor): Described the San Antonio Creek Road hairpin turn as a critical choke point during evacuations. Argued for a system-level view of evacuation safety and supported the requirement for further environmental review.
• Michael Crandall (Neighbor): Expressed concern about increased traffic and evacuation difficulties. Supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation for an EIR, particularly regarding fire safety.
• Barry Mast (Neighbor): Raised concerns about visibility during smoke events and the potential for Tucker’s Grove Park to ignite, blocking the exit. Cited the presence of nesting birds of prey and argued the biological report was inadequate.
• John Nelson (Neighbor): Stated that the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to require further review. Offered to share the financial burden of improving the exit. Requested denial of the appeal.
• Danny Vickers (Neighbor Association President): Emphasized that the neighborhood’s primary concern is fire safety, not opposition to development. Stated that the neighborhood has met the CEQA threshold for an EIR. Expressed openness to working with the county and applicant to fix the road issue.
• Regina Magid (Neighbor): Cited statistics on neighborhood traffic and argued that current exits are inadequate. Referenced a neighborhood-hired biologist’s study indicating potential wetland habitats. Urged the Board to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
• Carl Schuller (Neighbor): Stated that previous approvals assumed two emergency exits, one of which (Handor-Hand) does not exist and the other (Tucker’s Grove) is insufficient. Argued that a commitment to improve the exit is the minimum requirement.
• Catherine Mast (Neighbor, via letter): Described being trapped in a driveway during the Heseltine Fire. Requested that the Board uphold the decision to require an EIR.
• Karen McDonnell (Neighbor): Noted that the project adds to existing traffic problems and exacerbates fire hazards.
• Larry Cavallaro (Neighbor): Suggested that spending money on road improvements is more beneficial than requiring an EIR, and urged the Board not to require the EIR.
• Danny Vickers (Neighbor Association President, second comment): Reiterated that the neighborhood wants the problem fixed and is open to consensus-building. Stated that the legal threshold for an EIR has been met.

Board Discussion

• Supervisor Lavagnino: Questioned whether requiring an EIR would make the applicant responsible for the evacuation safety of the entire neighborhood (approx. 250 homes). Expressed concern that placing the burden solely on the applicant is unfair and that the underlying infrastructure issue needs to be addressed regardless of this specific project.
• Supervisor Gray: Expressed difficulty in formulating a motion given the limited scope of the Board’s authority. Noted that the applicant’s appeal letter specifically defined the scope of the appeal as the requirement for a focused EIR.
• Chair Farr: Stated that the Board’s purview is limited to the adequacy of the MND and the requirement for a focused EIR. Recommended that if a focused EIR is required, it should include cumulative impacts and direct Public Works and the Fire Department to delineate the specific improvements needed to make the road acceptable for emergency use. Expressed agreement with staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal and require a focused EIR.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: The transcript ends with Supervisor Gray asking for clarification on the motion, and Chair Farr outlining the recommended actions: determine that the MND is inadequate, deny the appeal, and direct staff to prepare a focused EIR.
• Outcome: No vote was taken in this portion of the transcript. The discussion concluded with the Chair outlining the recommended motion based on staff and counsel advice.

Agenda Item: Environmental Review (Focused EIR) for Proposed Development

• Discussion: The board discussed the legal requirements for conducting a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) regarding a proposed development. Staff indicated that a fair argument had been made to require the EIR due to insufficient information. Supervisors debated the legal constraints and the potential outcomes of a tied vote, noting that a tie would result in no action, potentially forcing the applicant to seek judicial relief. The applicant, Mr. Nelson, stated that a Focused EIR would not occur, arguing that the underlying subdivision was already approved and that the board should not delay the project for a two-year analysis.
• Motion: A motion was made and seconded to require a Focused EIR.
• Vote Outcome: The motion failed. The roll call resulted in a tie vote (2 Ayes, 2 Noes), which constitutes no action by the board.

Agenda Item 6: Fiscal Year 2012-13 Public Safety Realignment Plan (AB 109)

• Presentation: Chief Probation Officer Beverly Taylor presented the FY 2012-13 AB 109 Operation and Spending Plan, developed by the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP). Key points included:
• Santa Barbara County’s allocation is $7.9 million for FY 12-13.
• The plan funds custody components, detention alternatives, case management, collaborative efforts, and treatment services.
• Projections include supervising approximately 525 post-release community supervision offenders and 65–100 post-sentence supervision inmates by June 2013.
• The offender-to-officer ratio was adjusted from 50:1 to 40:1 to address higher-than-anticipated risk levels (78% of offenders assessed as high risk).
• New initiatives include AB 109 Mental Health Clinics (contracted with ADMHS), two Rehabilitation Services Coordinators for the Public Defender, one Deputy District Attorney for the Substance Abuse Treatment Court, and increased GPS units.
• Data collection and evaluation will be conducted by UCSB to assess program effectiveness.
• Discussion:
• CEO Waller expressed concern over the lack of constitutional protection for the funding and the adequacy of the allocation, advocating for outcome-based performance measures in future state allocations.
• Supervisors discussed the allocation of funds for evaluation, analysis, and administration versus direct services. Supervisor Carbajal questioned the necessity of the evaluation budget, suggesting funds be redirected to direct services such as sober living and housing. Chief Taylor explained that the evaluation is necessary to determine which strategies are working and to guide future funding decisions, noting that the state is moving toward requiring outcome data.
• Supervisors and public speakers emphasized the critical need for housing, sober living beds, and integrated residential treatment facilities. Public speakers from Families Act and other advocates requested a $100,000 line item for a planning consultant to design a residential treatment center and expressed concern that only 3% of the budget is allocated for housing, detox, and sober living.
• The board discussed the role of social workers in the jail and the Public Defender’s office, noting that existing staff (e.g., Tona Wakefield) would integrate with new hires.
• The board clarified that the "AB 109 Mental Health Clinics" refer to a mobile team of a psychiatrist and psych tech contracted with ADMHS to provide timely services to offenders, rather than the construction of new physical clinics.
• Motion: The transcript ends with the Chair stating, "All right I'll entertain a motion," indicating the board was preparing to vote on the approval of the AB 109 plan.
• Vote Outcome: Not stated in this transcript segment. The vote outcome is not recorded in Part 5.

Agenda Items A, B, and C

• A motion was made to approve Items A, B, and C. The motion was seconded. A voice vote was taken, and the motion carried.

Adjournment

• The meeting was adjourned until the next scheduled session on Monday, June 11th, for budget week. Prior to the final adjournment, a moment of recognition was held in honor of Rowan Lanini.