BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Resolution Honoring Patricia Wheatley

• The board presented a resolution honoring Patricia Wheatley for her service as the first Executive Director of the First Five Commission.
• The resolution detailed her career in social services and early childhood education.
• The resolution was passed and adopted.

Resolution Honoring Morelle Brooks

• The board presented a resolution honoring Morelle Brooks for her service as the Third District Planning Commissioner.
• The resolution noted her role in community plan adoptions and community involvement.
• The resolution was passed and adopted.

Vendor Expenditure Summary

• Public commenters raised concerns regarding the local vendor program and alleged lack of bid opportunities for local businesses.
• The board noted the report identified 306 contracts over $100,000 but lacked specific contract descriptions.
• The board approved the report for filing but directed that the item be brought back as a D agenda item for further discussion.

Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report

• Public commenters criticized high traffic mitigation fees and argued for lower rates to stimulate the economy.
• Staff explained that fee increases are mandated by local ordinances based on the Engineering News Record construction cost index.
• The board approved the item, with staff noting intent to include funding for a consultant to update the mitigation fee program in the 2013-14 budget.

Property Assessment System Contract Amendment

• The board discussed cost increases and timeline extensions for the new integrated property assessment system.
• County Counsel confirmed the amendment is legally sufficient but noted they had not evaluated the merit of continuing the contract.
• The board directed that the item be continued to the January 15, 2012 meeting as a D item.

Lake Cachuma Marina Concession Amendment

• The board requested that the item be continued to allow for further discussion with staff.
• The CEO’s Office confirmed that holding the item to January 15 works for timelines.
• The board directed that the item be continued to the January 15, 2012 meeting as an A item.

CAL FIRE Presentation

• CAL FIRE presented the state responsibility area fire prevention benefit fee, explaining it replaces general fund allocations rather than providing new money.
• The board discussed mapping errors, the appeals process, and the fee's impact on local residents.
• The board agreed to draft a letter expressing concerns to state legislators and schedule a closed session to discuss litigation options.

Body Art Fee Resolution

• Staff presented a revised fee structure for body art practitioners following an ad hoc advisory meeting with industry stakeholders.
• The proposed changes reduced the annual practitioner registration fee from $300 to $205 and the temporary event sponsor fee from $11.50 to $8.25.
• The board accepted the proposed fee schedule as presented in the staff report.

Hanada Park Road Bridge Replacement

• Staff presented the project to replace the structurally deficient Hanada Park Road bridge using federal and state funds.
• The preferred alternative involves building a new bridge adjacent to the existing one to preserve the historic structure.
• The board approved the project, the final mitigated negative declaration, and authority to solicit construction bids.

Stonegate Affordable Housing Agreement Amendment

• Staff requested approval of a second amendment to adjust the schedule for building 10 restricted affordable units.
• The amendment allows for concurrent construction of equal numbers of market-rate and affordable units up to the total requirement.
• The board approved the second amendment with the language amended to allow up to 10 units to be built concurrently.

Orchid Community Plan 2012 Amendments

• Staff presented three options for handling the Orchid Community Plan amendments related to a court order.
• The board adopted Option 2, approving the regional basins policy and Clark Avenue level of service reductions.
• The board continued the wetlands delineation removal to the February 5, 2013 hearing.

Agenda Items 6 and 7

• The board considered the remaining agenda items.
• The board continued Agenda Items 6 and 7 to the January 15, 2013 meeting.

Closed Session

• The board conferred with legal counsel regarding existing litigation and other legal matters.
• Staff reported that no actions were taken during the closed sessions.

Minutes of the December 4, 2012 Meeting

Approval of Minutes

• Action: Motion to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2012 meeting.
• Discussion: No changes were noted.
• Motion: Moved by Supervisor Wolfe, seconded by Supervisor Gray.
• Outcome: Motion carried.

Public Comment

• Supervisor Gray presented a photograph from the opening of the new Orcutt Library, noting the expansion from 2,000 to 4,000 square feet and the installation of a historical gate made from sucker rods.
• Doug Coleman expressed appreciation for Supervisor Gray’s service.
• Supervisor Wolfe acknowledged Supervisor Gray’s request to limit praise and expressed gratitude for her tenure.
• Supervisor Lavagnino commented on the changes resulting from Supervisor Gray’s departure and her contributions to the Orcutt Library and Union Valley Parkway.
• Supervisor Carbajal discussed the board’s efforts to move beyond North-South divides and credited Supervisor Gray with fostering camaraderie and civility.
• Chair Allen echoed colleagues’ sentiments regarding the importance of collegiality and personal relationships in local politics.
• Supervisor Gray responded to the comments, reflecting on her 14-year tenure, the board’s dynamics, and her gratitude for the county staff.

Administrative Agenda – Resolutions

• Action: Motion to approve the first two items (resolutions).
• Motion: Moved by Supervisor Lavagnino, seconded by Supervisor Carbajal.
• Outcome: Motion carried.

Resolution Honoring Patricia Wheatley

• Discussion: Supervisor Carbajal presented the resolution honoring Patricia Wheatley for her service as the first Executive Director of the First Five Commission. Mr. Allen read the resolution, detailing her career in social services and early childhood education. Ms. Wheatley accepted the honor and thanked the board and staff.
• Outcome: Resolution passed and adopted.

Resolution Honoring Morelle Brooks

• Discussion: Chair Allen presented the resolution honoring Morelle Brooks for her service as the Third District Planning Commissioner. Mr. Allen read the resolution, noting her role in community plan adoptions and community involvement. Ms. Brooks accepted the honor, thanked Supervisor Farr and fellow commissioners, and commented on the planning process and staff professionalism.
• Outcome: Resolution passed and adopted.

Administrative Agenda – Item A3 (Vendor Expenditure Summary)

• Item: Receive and file the 2011-2012 expenditure summary of county vendors over $100,000.
• Public Comment:
• Steve Labard (Labarge Computer Center) raised concerns regarding the local vendor program, stating that his company was not receiving bid opportunities despite being a local vendor, while a competitor received significantly higher sales. He requested a meeting with the CEO to rectify the situation.
• Andy Caldwell (CoLab) supported Labard’s comments, citing frustration with the lack of bid notices for local vendors and alleging potential retaliation. He urged the board to investigate the disparity in sales between local vendors.
• Board Discussion:
• Supervisor Lavagnino noted that the report identified 306 contracts over $100,000 and requested that the item be brought back as a D agenda item to discuss next steps, prioritization, and the lack of contract descriptions in the report.
• Bob Geis (Auditor-Controller) agreed that the report lacked specific contract descriptions. He discussed potential opportunities for relief on court contributions and the need for improved monitoring and automation of the contracting process. He noted that one staff member is currently reviewing 306 contracts.
• Supervisor Carbajal emphasized the importance of the local vendor outreach program and the need for additional resources for the Auditor-Controller’s office to manage contract oversight effectively.
• Supervisor Wolfe inquired about the timeline for a new contracting policy being developed with the CEO’s office.
• Bob Geis clarified that the policy is on the current agenda and that the contracting process requires continuous improvement, including training for departmental staff.
• Supervisor Gray commented on the new tools available for monitoring expenditures.
• Chair Allen directed that the item be brought back as a D item before the budget process to discuss issues such as court contributions, jail construction nexus, and vendor coordination.
• Decision: The board approved the report for filing but directed that the item be brought back as a D agenda item for further discussion and follow-up.

Administrative Agenda – Item A4 (Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report)

• Item: Receive and file the Fiscal Year 2011-12 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report, Fund Account Activity Reports, and the Fiscal Year 2012-13 Fee Schedule.
• Public Comment:
• Andy Caldwell criticized the high traffic mitigation fees, citing a disparity between fees in different areas (e.g., Orcutt vs. Goleta) and arguing that fees should be lowered to stimulate the economy during a recession.
• Board Discussion:
• Supervisor Lavagnino questioned the justification for a 3% fee increase given that construction bids have been coming in significantly lower than estimates.
• Gregory Levin (Auditor-Controller) explained that fee increases are mandated by local ordinances based on the Engineering News Record construction cost index, which has not decreased in the past three years.
• Supervisor Wolfe expressed concern that the county has not conducted a new mitigation study in years and relies solely on the index, suggesting a more in-depth study is needed.
• Chair Allen agreed with both the public comment on fee disparities and Supervisor Wolfe’s call for updated fee studies, noting that the Orcutt Library was funded in part by these fees.
• Chandra (CEO’s Office) stated that staff intended to include funding for a consultant to update the mitigation fee program in the 2013-14 budget.
• Decision: The board voted to approve Item A4.
• Vote Outcome: Passed 4-1.

Administrative Agenda – Item A8 (Property Assessment System Contract Amendment)

• Item: Consider recommendations regarding a second amendment to the contract for the development and implementation of a new integrated property assessment administration and valuation system. (Requires a four-fifths vote).
• Board Discussion:
• Supervisor Carbajal requested clarification on cost increases, timeline extensions (from 2012 to 2015), and travel costs. She suggested continuing the item to January to allow for a fuller understanding of the project’s status and challenges.
• Supervisor Wolfe supported continuing the item due to concerns about the timeline extension and cost increase, emphasizing the need for assurance that the project will be completed.
• Mr. Holland (County Clerk-Recorder) agreed to bring the item back on January 15, noting that delays in such projects are not unusual but acknowledged the board’s questions.
• Supervisor Wolfe requested input from County Counsel regarding whether the vendor has met their obligations to date.
• County Counsel confirmed the amendment is legally sufficient but noted they had not evaluated the merit of continuing the contract.
• Supervisor Carbajal emphasized the need for transparency regarding project glitches and the importance of pre-meetings with the CEO for significant items.
• Decision: The board directed that the item be continued to the January 15, 2012 meeting as a D item.

Administrative Agenda – Item A13 (Lake Cachuma Marina Concession Amendment)

• Item: Consider recommendations regarding the First Amendment to the Bill of Sale for the Lake Cachuma Marina concession. (Requires a four-fifths vote).
• Board Discussion:
• Chair Allen requested that the item be continued to the January 15 meeting to allow for further discussion with staff and to ensure the staff report includes sufficient information, given the item’s history.
• CEO’s Office confirmed that holding the item to January 15 works for timelines.
• Decision: The board directed that the item be continued to the January 15, 2012 meeting as an A item.

Administrative Agenda – Final Approval

• Action: Motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda, with the amendments to continue Items A8 and A13 to January 15, and excluding Item A4 (which was voted on separately).
• Motion: Moved by Supervisor Lavagnino, seconded by Supervisor Wolfe.
• Outcome: Motion carried.

Departmental Agenda – Item 1 (CAL FIRE Presentation)

• Item: Hearing to receive and follow presentation by CAL FIRE on the recently implemented statute response state responsibility area fire prevention benefit fee.
• Presentation by CAL FIRE Unit Chief:
• Legislative History: The fee was part of the 2011 budget, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is developing regulations, currently operating under emergency regulations. The Board of Equalization issues the bills.
• Funding Purpose: The fee is not new money for CAL FIRE but replaces general fund allocations lost during budget cuts to provide stable funding. It does not fund additional services, engines, or personnel.
• SRA Definition: State Responsibility Areas are lands with watershed value threatened by wildfire. In Santa Barbara County, this includes vast areas, including the Los Padres National Forest interface and rangelands. Incorporated cities and federal lands are excluded from the fee.
• Fee Structure: The fee is $150 per habitable structure in an SRA. A $35 reduction applies if the property is protected by a fire department (County or District), bringing the fee to $115. Multi-unit buildings (apartments) receive one fee per parcel; condominiums with separate parcel numbers receive individual fees. Non-habitable structures (barns, commercial) are exempt.
• Contract County Status: Santa Barbara is one of six "contract counties" where the local fire department acts as an agent for CAL FIRE for wildland fire protection, avoiding duplication of stations and resources. CAL FIRE provides funding for nine stations, nine engines, two bulldozers, and staff, totaling approximately $6.4 million.
• Appeals Process: Citizens can file for "redetermination" via the website firepreventionfee.org. If denied, the remedy is likely a civil matter or writ of mandamus. The Unit Chief recommended paying the fee and filing a redetermination to avoid penalties.
• Mapping Issues: The SRA maps were designed for fire protection, not billing, and may contain errors (e.g., map shifts, inclusion of urban areas). A five-year review cycle is in place, with the next review in 2015. Errors identified are being corrected, and refunds are being issued where appropriate.
• Discussion and Questions from Board Members:
• Supervisor Wolk questioned why incorporated cities are excluded from the fee despite CAL FIRE crews working in those areas for fuel reduction. The Unit Chief noted that prior to the fee, CAL FIRE was fully funded by the general fund and worked in cities; future policy may change.
• Supervisor Gray asked about work done in the Orcutt/Guadalupe/Santa Maria areas. The Unit Chief stated that target hazard areas are prioritized based on volatility, and while specific recent projects in that area were not listed, work is done where needed.
• Supervisor Gray & Clerk of the Board discussed the appeal process. The Clerk noted that the redetermination form requires significant documentation (maps, tax bills), which may be burdensome. Supervisor Gray suggested residents file appeals to demonstrate public concern.
• Supervisor Wolk asked about mobile home parks. It was clarified that if mobile homes are on separate parcels with APNs, they are billed individually; if on a single parcel, one fee is charged per dwelling unit.
• Supervisor Wolk & Chief Dyer discussed potential mapping errors. Chief Dyer stated that areas exceeding density criteria but still needing SRA status are being reviewed with CAL FIRE. Corrections for clear errors (e.g., map shifts) are being made immediately.
• Clerk of the Board asked about mechanisms to review mapping before 2015. The Unit Chief stated this would likely require regulatory changes or legislative action.
• Supervisor Lavagnino expressed concern about the "haphazard implementation" and the fact that the fee was a budget maneuver to fill a general fund gap. He suggested the county memorialize its opposition, support the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association lawsuit, and support a bill by Senator Gaines to repeal the fee. He also warned residents about liens and foreclosure risks for non-payment.
• Supervisor Carbajal noted mixed feelings in his district, with some residents supportive if funds enhance prevention, but frustrated by the lack of new grants. He asked for clarification on grant formulas. The Clerk of the Board responded that a letter from the CAL FIRE Director stated funds are currently used to pay for existing programs formerly funded by the general fund, with no new grants currently available. The Unit Chief added that the Board of Forestry is still developing permanent regulations for grant distribution.
• Supervisor Carbajal clarified that the staff report’s statement that the fee funds "new prevention programs" may be inaccurate based on the Director’s letter.
• Supervisor Wolk expressed concern about taking an opposition stance that might result in the state removing the fee without backfilling CAL FIRE’s budget, leaving the county in a deficit. He suggested caution and further research.
• Supervisor Lavagnino asked County Counsel for guidance on the legal implications and costs of joining the lawsuit. County Counsel noted that the county’s standing to join the lawsuit has not been fully researched and that other counties are in a holding pattern.
• Public Comment:
• Andy Caldwell (Colab) urged the board to join the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association lawsuit, arguing the fee is an illegal tax used to backfill the general fund. He requested that the board ask state legislators to support a repeal bill.
• Rudolph Henderson stated the fee is a tax in violation of Proposition 13 and urged support for Howard Jarvis.
• Joe Armendariz (Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association) argued the fee is a tax and that the state is overtaxing residents. He urged the board to join the lawsuit and focus on economic development to increase revenue.
• John Gamper (California Farm Bureau Federation) stated the fee is an unconstitutional tax under Article 13A. He noted the lawsuit was filed in December 2012 in Sacramento Superior Court. He suggested a surcharge on fire insurance as an alternative funding source. He confirmed the Farm Bureau is assisting Howard Jarvis in finding plaintiffs but is not joining the lawsuit directly at the Superior Court level.
• L. Ted Sands expressed support for the board’s concerns, calling the fee a "scam" and urging the board to actively seek reversal.
• Motion and Decision:
• Motion: The Clerk of the Board proposed a three-part action:
• 1. Write a letter of opposition/concern to state legislators and relevant parties, detailing the county’s concerns about the fee’s implementation, mapping, and lack of new services. 2. Request a closed session report from County Counsel regarding the litigation options and implications. 3. Direct the Legislative Committee to continue monitoring existing and new legislation (including Senator Gaines’ repeal bill) and report back on potential actions.
• Discussion on Motion:
• Supervisor Carbajal supported the motion but suggested the letter be characterized as expressing "strong concerns" rather than outright "opposition" to retain flexibility.
• Supervisor Wolk suggested reordering the actions to prioritize the Legislative Committee’s follow-up and research before finalizing the letter, to ensure the letter aligns with the latest legislative developments and does not harm CAL FIRE funding.
• Supervisor Lavagnino supported taking action and sending the letter to legislators who voted for the fee.
• Clerk of the Board agreed to have the letter drafted to express concerns and to be reviewed by the board after the Legislative Committee’s input.
• Decision: The board agreed to proceed with the proposed actions, with the understanding that the letter would express the county’s concerns and be finalized after further review by the Legislative Committee and County Counsel.
• Follow-up Actions: Staff clarified that the letter to legislators would be drafted with input from the Board and returned for approval before sending. The Board agreed to place the matter on the closed session agenda for the January 15 meeting to discuss litigation. Additionally, the Board directed staff to post a link on the county website providing instructions for constituents to file objections to the fee.
• Vote: The motion to approve the plan to send the letter as proposed, include the website link, and schedule the closed session discussion for January passed.

Closed Session Report

• Discussion: The Board entered closed session to confer with legal counsel regarding existing litigation (Naples Property Owner Association v. California Coastal Commission, County of Santa Barbara v. California Commission on State Mandates, Schaefer v. County of Santa Barbara), confer with real property negotiators regarding Westar Associates, and confer with labor negotiators.
• Outcome: Upon returning to open session, staff reported that no actions were taken during the closed sessions.

Agenda Item 2: Public Health – Body Art Fee Resolution

• Discussion: Staff presented a revised fee structure for body art practitioners (tattooing, piercing, permanent cosmetics) following an ad hoc advisory meeting with industry stakeholders. The proposed changes reduced the annual practitioner registration fee from $300 to $205 and the temporary event sponsor fee from $11.50 to $8.25. Staff explained that operational adjustments, such as changing inspection protocols to match benchmark counties, would help stabilize costs.
• Motion: A motion was made to accept the proposed fee schedule as presented in the staff report.
• Vote: The motion passed.

Agenda Item 3: Public Works – Hanada Park Road Bridge Replacement

• Discussion: Staff presented the project to replace the structurally deficient Hanada Park Road bridge (built in 1916, sufficiency rating 26). The project is fully funded by federal and state sources. The preferred alternative involves building a new bridge adjacent to the existing one, preserving the historic structure in place while minimizing environmental impacts to the creek and oak woodland. Staff confirmed that photo documentation of the historic bridge was completed previously as part of a related project and could be linked in the agenda minutes.
• Motion: A motion was made to approve the project, the final mitigated negative declaration, and authority to solicit construction bids, with the addition of a link to the prior environmental document containing the photo documentation.
• Vote: The motion passed.

Agenda Item 4: Community Services – Stonegate Affordable Housing Agreement Amendment

• Discussion: Staff requested approval of a second amendment to the agreement to provide affordable housing at the Stonegate development. The amendment adjusts the schedule for building 10 restricted (affordable) units. The developer requested the ability to pull more building permits at once (up to 10 market-rate and 10 affordable units concurrently) rather than the previously proposed limit of 4 permits (2 market-rate and 2 affordable) to avoid economic delays associated with waiting for certificates of occupancy between batches. The Board agreed to amend the language to allow for concurrent construction of equal numbers of market-rate and affordable units, up to the total requirement of 10 affordable units, without a specific cap on the number of permits pulled per batch, provided the ratio remains 1:1.
• Motion: A motion was made to approve the second amendment with the language amended to change the concurrent build limit from 2 units to 10 units (allowing up to 10 market-rate and 10 affordable units to be built concurrently).
• Vote: The motion passed.

Agenda Item 5: Planning and Development – Orchid Community Plan 2012 Amendments

• Discussion: Staff presented three options for handling the Orchid Community Plan amendments related to a court order. Option 1 mirrored the previous recommendation. Option 2 separated the actions, allowing the Board to act on the regional basins policy and Clark Avenue level of service reductions now, while continuing the Keysight 22 wetlands delineation removal to a February 5, 2013 hearing. Option 3 continued all amendments to February 5, 2013. A representative for the property owners stated that Options 2 and 3 were adequate as they provided time to finalize documents per the court order. Staff noted that Option 2 might allow reliance on the existing environmental review for the immediate actions.
• Motion: A motion was made to adopt Option 2, approving the regional basins policy and Clark Avenue level of service reductions and continuing the wetlands delineation removal to the February 5, 2013 hearing.
• Vote: The motion passed.

Agenda Items 6 and 7

• Discussion: The Board considered the remaining agenda items.
• Motion: A motion was made to continue Agenda Items 6 and 7 to the January 15, 2013 meeting.
• Vote: The motion passed.

Public Comment / Closing Remarks

• Memorial for Wayne Perry: A speaker offered remarks in memory of Wayne Perry, a 67-year-old resident of Guadalupe who passed away from a heart attack on the job. The speaker noted Perry’s lifelong work in agriculture and his family connections to the district.
• Memorial for Peter Sklar: The Clerk of the Board offered remarks in memory of Peter Sklar, who passed away at age 50 from brain cancer. The Clerk noted that Sklar was the founder of a business established in 2003, that a memorial will be announced later, and that donations can be made to the Cancer Center of Santa Barbara. The Clerk also stated that, according to Sklar’s final wishes, Ed Hatt will continue the business.
• Additional Remarks on Peter Sklar: Another speaker noted that Peter Sklar was a constituent of the First District who lived in Mission Canyon. The speaker stated that Sklar’s wife was a member of the Mission Canyon pact and that the board had previously presented a resolution honoring Sklar upon the start of his venture.

Adjournment

• Decision: The Clerk of the Board stated that the agenda was concluded and the meeting was adjourned.
• Next Meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for January 8th.