UnGovr Words

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APRIL 2, 2013

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APRIL 2, 2013April 2, 2013

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 April 2, 2013

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

Resolution of Commendation

  • The board honored Rhonda Murphy as the April 2013 Employee of the Month in the Treasurer’s Office.
  • Murphy was recognized for her 16 years of service, including her role as Veteran Services Officer.
  • The resolution was passed and adopted unanimously.

National County Government Month and National Public Health Week

  • The board proclaimed April as National County Government Month and the week of April 1–7 as National Public Health Week.
  • Presentations highlighted the partnership between the Public Health Department and the Orfalea Foundation for school food reform.
  • Statistics on preventable chronic diseases and healthcare costs were cited to support the resolution.
  • The resolution was passed and adopted unanimously.

National Poetry Month

  • The board proclaimed April as National Poetry Month in Santa Barbara County.
  • A high school student recited a poem to acknowledge the County Arts Commission’s participation in the Poetry Out Loud competition.
  • The resolution was passed and adopted unanimously.

Habitat Easement Agreement

  • The board considered a habitat easement required for a lot line adjustment at 161 Paradise Road to protect Bell’s Vireo habitat.
  • Staff clarified that the easement was a condition of the 2007 environmental review and protects potential habitat near onsite creeks.
  • Concerns were raised regarding the restriction on agricultural use and the precedent of applying easements to simple map changes.
  • The item passed with a vote of 3-2.

2012 Comprehensive Annual Plan Progress Report

  • The board considered recommendations regarding the annual progress report required by the Office of Planning and Research.
  • Staff confirmed that the report is a mandatory annual requirement and cannot be postponed.
  • The item was included in the approval of the remainder of the administrative calendar.

Special Duty Allowance

  • The board adopted a resolution establishing a 10% annual special duty allowance for a certified arborist in the Public Works Department.
  • Staff noted that the internal cost of the position is approximately $11,000 per year, compared to $20,000 for outside contracts.
  • The item was included in the approval of the remainder of the administrative calendar.

Approval of Administrative Calendar

  • The board approved the remainder of the administrative calendar agenda, which included items A13 and A15.
  • The motion to approve the calendar passed unanimously.

Measure A Program of Projects

  • Staff presented the fiscal year 13-14 program of projects, noting that Measure A allocates approximately 58% of revenue to local streets and roads.
  • The deferred maintenance backlog has grown to approximately $250 million, with a projected increase to $750 million by 2027 if current spending levels continue.
  • The CEO stated that the department’s request for an additional $9 million for pavement maintenance would not be supported due to limited resources.
  • The board approved staff’s recommended actions unanimously.

Deferred Maintenance of Roads, Parks, and Buildings

  • A board letter proposed eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog over 15 years by increasing spending by approximately $20.3 million annually.
  • Staff from Parks and General Services reported backlogs of $22 million and $1.5 million respectively, noting that current figures may not represent total facility needs.
  • The board rejected a motion to mandate a 15-year resolution plan but passed a motion to direct the CEO to return with a scoping proposal for a comprehensive assessment of all county facilities.
  • The final motion to direct the CEO to provide a scoping proposal for a comprehensive assessment passed unanimously.

2013-14 Long-Range Planning Annual Work Program

  • Staff presented the annual work program, noting a 50% reduction in departmental resources over the last five years.
  • The board approved Table 2 proposed projects with a vote of 3-2, excluding the Hollister Avenue project due to funding constraints.
  • The board identified a list of potential new projects, including the Good Neighbor Ordinance and Climate Adaptation, for further consideration during budget deliberations.
  • The motion to identify potential new projects for budget consideration passed with a vote of 4-1.

Closed Session

  • The board unanimously approved a settlement agreement with all cities in the county regarding the property tax administration fee dispute.
  • Daniel Nielsen was appointed to the vacant position of Director of Social Services with an expected start date of May 13, 2013.
  • The board approved and executed a habitat easement agreement at 161 Paradise Road, authorizing the County Administrative Officer to finalize the transaction.

Special Events Ordinance Amendments

  • Staff presented proposed amendments to regulate special events on residential and agricultural property, specifically targeting commercial events associated with short-term rentals.
  • Public comment was divided, with residents supporting the closure of perceived loopholes and event industry representatives urging the adoption of a "Good Neighbor" ordinance instead.
  • The board discussed enforcement challenges and the economic impact on the event industry, noting that current penalties are insufficient to deter violations.
  • The board voted to table the item to allow for further review and potential funding allocation for a revised ordinance.

General Services - County Energy Action Plan and Benchmarking Policy

  • Staff presented an Energy Action Plan aiming for a 25% reduction in energy use by 2020, with estimated upgrade costs of $3.7 million over seven years.
  • The board directed that the item be returned in a more refined format as part of a comprehensive sustainability plan covering short-, mid-, and long-term measures.
  • The board requested that the returned plan include performance metrics, funding sources, and a reasonable payback period for investments.
  • The motion to pass the item with additional direction for a comprehensive sustainability plan passed unanimously.

Full summary

Approval of Minutes

  • March 18, 2013 Special Meeting Minutes: A motion to approve was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
  • March 19, 2013 Minutes: A motion to approve was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Public Comment

  • Ben Palin: Addressed the board regarding pending negotiations and affordable housing, noting his management of family properties, his father’s health issues, and a notice of trustee sale on their primary residence. He indicated a willingness to consolidate operations and sell other investment properties to retain the primary residence.
  • Shane Stark: Discussed public official ethics training requirements for new officials and announced a community forum on local public officials ethics training scheduled for April 17. He also referenced a letter regarding the use of a character concept for a mascot contest.
  • Jim Laponis: Commented on the previous speaker’s remarks regarding intellectual property and the "Great Garbanzo" character.
  • Don Sharp (Santa Barbara Conservancy): Presented the David Gebhardt Preservation Award for the restoration of the Spirit of the Ocean Fountain to the Board of Supervisors, County Architect Robert Uli, and the Courthouse Legacy Foundation. He also presented the John Pittman FAA Memorial Award to Killam DeForest. Bill Mahan of the Courthouse Legacy Foundation announced a fundraising dinner for May 3 to restore the mural room.

Agenda Item A1: Resolution of Commendation

  • Subject: Honoring Rhonda Murphy as the April 2013 Employee of the Month in the Treasurer’s Office.
  • Discussion: The resolution was read, highlighting Murphy’s service as the Veteran Services Officer. Shane Stark introduced Murphy, noting her 16 years of county service. Murphy thanked the board for allowing full staffing in the Veteran Services Office.
  • Decision: The resolution was passed and adopted.

Agenda Item A2: National County Government Month and National Public Health Week

  • Subject: Proclaiming April as National County Government Month and the week of April 1–7, 2013, as National Public Health Week.
  • Discussion: Supervisor Wolfe spoke on the partnership between the Public Health Department and the Orfalea Foundation. The resolution was read, citing statistics on preventable chronic diseases and the cost of healthcare in the county. Dr. Wada discussed public health initiatives, including workplace wellness programs. Kathleen Deshada-Ned from the Orfalea Foundation spoke on the partnership for school food reform and wellness. A video produced by the National Association of Counties (NACo) regarding the role of county government was shown.
  • Decision: The resolution was passed and adopted.

Agenda Item A3: National Poetry Month

  • Subject: Proclaiming April as National Poetry Month in Santa Barbara County.
  • Discussion: The resolution was read, acknowledging the County Arts Commission’s participation in the Poetry Out Loud competition. Supervisor Lavagnino introduced Eduardo Cortez, a senior at Pioneer Valley High School, who recited "Ode on a Grecian Urn" by John Keats.
  • Decision: The resolution was passed and adopted.

Agenda Item A14: Habitat Easement Agreement

  • Subject: Approval and execution of a habitat easement agreement for the protection of a leased Bell’s Vireo habitat, a condition of approval for a lot line adjustment at 161 Paradise Road (Rancho San Fernando Ray).
  • Public Comment:
  • Andy Caldwell (CoLab): Opposed the easement, arguing that a lot line adjustment does not change the ground and that the bird is not currently present. He stated that the easement prevents agricultural use and sets a bad precedent.
  • Willie Chamberlain: Opposed the easement, characterizing it as government overreach and "extortion" for a simple map change. He urged the board not to accept the easement.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Supervisor Wolfe requested clarification on who accepts the easement.
  • Staff (Christina O’Keefe) clarified that the easement was a requirement of the 2007 environmental review and conditions of approval for the lot line adjustment. It protects potential habitat 100 feet on either side of onsite creeks and includes an extinguishment clause. Staff recommended accepting the easement to allow the applicant to record the adjustment.
  • Supervisor Adam questioned the precedent of requiring easements for lot line adjustments near water courses and expressed concern about the restriction on agricultural activities.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino questioned why the requirement was not tied to a specific development proposal rather than the lot line adjustment itself.
  • CEO Waller stated that while this approach is common in some jurisdictions, it has not been used recently under his tenure. He noted that rejecting the easement would force the applicant back to the Planning Commission and reopen environmental review, which would be an unfortunate circumstance. He recommended moving forward, emphasizing it is not a precedent-setting action for his administration.
  • Supervisor Carbajal noted that such conditions are typically based on high-probability habitat areas.
  • Supervisor Farr suggested that the board should pull the item for a separate vote given the lack of prior discussion on this specific condition.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino expressed discomfort with voting on a condition that was part of a larger, previously approved process without having heard the full context.
  • Supervisor Adam stated he would vote no, arguing the "habitat easement" is the wrong vehicle for what is essentially a building envelope restriction.
  • Supervisor Wolfe moved to approve the item.
  • Decision: The motion was made and seconded. The item passed with a vote of 3-2.

Agenda Item A13: 2012 Comprehensive Annual Plan Progress Report

  • Subject: Consideration of recommendations regarding the 2012 Comprehensive Annual Plan Progress Report.
  • Discussion: Supervisor Adam asked if the report could be delayed. CEO Waller stated that it is an annual requirement by the Office of Planning and Research and cannot be postponed.
  • Decision: Included in the approval of the remainder of the administrative calendar.

Agenda Item A15: Special Duty Allowance

  • Subject: Adoption of a resolution establishing a 10% annual special duty allowance for one incumbent in the Public Works Department who holds a certified arborist designation.
  • Discussion: Supervisor Adam asked about the cost savings. Staff (Scott) confirmed that the current cost for outside arborist contracts is approximately $20,000 per year, while the internal cost including pensions is approximately $11,000 per year.
  • Decision: Included in the approval of the remainder of the administrative calendar.

Approval of Administrative Calendar

  • Action: A motion to approve the remainder of the administrative calendar agenda (including items A13 and A15) was made and seconded.
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Agenda Item 1: Measure A Program of Projects

  • Subject: Public hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Measure A program of projects for fiscal year 13-14.
  • Discussion:
  • Public Works presented the background on Measure A versus the expired Measure D, noting that Measure A allocates approximately 58% of revenue to local streets and roads, compared to 70% under Measure D.
  • Staff presented data on the deferred maintenance backlog, which has grown from just over $100 million in 2002 to approximately $250 million currently.
  • The backlog includes traffic devices, bridges, pavement, drainage structures, and other components.
  • Supervisor Carbajal asked for clarification on bridge classifications (national highway system, on-system, off-system) and federal funding opportunities under MAP 21.
  • Supervisor Farr asked if Class 1 bike and pedestrian paths are included in the pavement backlog; staff confirmed that all paved surfaces in the county-maintained road system are included.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino asked for clarification on drainage structures, which include culverts, drop inlets, and large box culverts not covered by the highway bridge program.
  • Supervisor Adam asked about federal responsibility for bridge maintenance. Staff clarified that while federal grants (such as the highway bridge program paying 88 cents on the dollar) are available, the ultimate responsibility for maintenance lies with the county. Staff noted that there are no current earmarks in the pipeline for local road needs.
  • Staff presented data regarding the county’s pavement condition index (PCI), noting the current index is 61, below the statewide average of 66. Staff explained that maintaining the current condition requires approximately $12 million annually, while current funding is approximately $3 million from Measure A and other sources, resulting in a $9 million annual deferral. Staff projected that if current spending levels continue, the deferred maintenance backlog will reach $500 million by 2020 and $750 million by 2027. Staff detailed the increasing costs of pavement repair as conditions degrade, moving from low-cost preservation treatments to high-cost reconstruction.
  • Supervisors inquired about funding sources, including STIP and RSTP funds, which are no longer available for local discretionary use. Staff explained that STIP funds are committed for 30 years and RSTP funds were taken by the state during the economic downturn.
  • CEO Waller stated that the department’s request for an additional $9 million for pavement maintenance would not receive the CEO’s support due to limited resources and the need to balance the budget with approximately $11 million in cuts. The CEO noted that while deferred maintenance is a significant issue, there is no opportunity to add funds at this time.
  • Staff presented the Measure A funding breakdown for Fiscal Year 2013-14, estimating $34 million in total revenue, with approximately $6.3 million allocated to the county. This county allocation is split between North County and South Coast programs, with 10% of each set aside for alternative transportation. Staff outlined the five-year program of projects, distinguishing between corrective maintenance (e.g., pothole patching, crack sealing) and deferred maintenance (e.g., surface treatments, paving, bridge deck replacement).
  • Public Comment:
  • A public speaker representing Colab stated that the board has failed to maintain public infrastructure for 20 years, arguing that the revenue shortfall implies abandoning or rebuilding roads, with rebuilding costing five times more than maintenance. The speaker estimated the county’s infrastructure shortfall at $1 billion and pension liabilities at $1–2 billion.
  • Motion and Vote:
  • A motion was made to approve staff’s recommended actions A through E. The motion was seconded.
  • Supervisors discussed the need for long-term actuarial approaches to infrastructure investment, requesting that staff provide data on the costs to reach statewide average PCI levels and national comparisons.
  • The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 2: Hearing on Recommendations Regarding Deferred Maintenance of Roads, Parks, and Buildings

  • Discussion:
  • Supervisor Adam’s Chief of Staff presented a board letter proposing the elimination of the deferred maintenance backlog over 15 years. The proposal suggests increasing spending on deferred maintenance by approximately $20.3 million per year in equal installments, beginning in Fiscal Year 2013-14. The proposal requests that the CEO’s office identify areas for service reductions to fund this plan and that staff prioritize deferred maintenance projects.
  • Staff from Parks and General Services provided context on their respective backlogs. The Parks department reported a backlog of approximately $22 million, citing risks to public safety and accelerated asset deterioration. The General Services department reported a 60% reduction in maintenance and repair funding from 2007-08 to the current year, with deferred maintenance remaining constant at approximately $1.5 million. General Services staff noted that the reported $34 million backlog figure represents known issues only and is not a comprehensive assessment of all facility needs, citing a comparable study by Santa Barbara City College that identified a $300 million backlog for 25–30 buildings, whereas the county owns approximately 400 buildings.
  • CEO Waller explained that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is updated annually and includes funded projects and a "wish list" of deferred maintenance items but is not comprehensive. The CEO stated that a more granular CIP update is planned for approximately one year from now to better prioritize and fund capital improvements.
  • Supervisors discussed the need to accelerate funding for deferred maintenance, noting that the backlog has grown significantly over the past decade. Supervisor Wolfe suggested that departments submit their top five priority projects by May 9 to help identify immediate needs and potential cost savings from delaying repairs. Supervisor Adam argued that discretionary funds are insufficient to cover the estimated $20 million needed and proposed referring the issue to the Debt Advisory Committee (DAC) to explore financing options. Supervisor Adam also addressed pension funding, stating that the Board has been managing pension liabilities responsibly despite decreasing funding sources.
  • Supervisor Adam proposed a motion to direct the CEO to develop a plan to address deferred maintenance within a 15-year timeframe. Supervisor Carbajal expressed agreement with the concept of directing the CEO to provide options but opposed the specific 15-year constraint, arguing that a 140-year backlog cannot be resolved in that period. Supervisor Carbajal stated he would vote against the motion due to the rigid timeframe but supported the underlying goal of obtaining a menu of realistic options.
  • Public Comment:
  • A public speaker representing Colab praised Supervisor Adam for agendizing the issue and called for a discussion on pension reform, noting that pension obligations have increased from $30 million to $120 million annually.
  • Two public speakers representing residents of Campbell Road described the road’s poor condition, including potholes, lack of shoulders, and safety hazards. They requested that the road be prioritized for resurfacing. Staff indicated that the concerns would be entered into the constituent database for field review and potential inclusion in future maintenance plans.
  • Motions and Votes:
  • 1. Motion by Supervisor Adam: To direct the CEO to come back with a plan to address deferred maintenance within 15 years.
  • Outcome: The motion failed.
  • 2. Motion by Supervisor Carbajal: To direct the CEO to return in the fall with a plan providing a menu of options for addressing deferred maintenance and ongoing maintenance more aggressively, including consultation with the DAC and relevant departments.
  • Amendment by Supervisor Lavagnino: To include a report on the county’s buildings and their usage/value.
  • Amendment by Supervisor Adam: To include a comprehensive assessment of all facilities (roads, buildings, and parks) to determine the true value of deferred maintenance.
  • Clarification: Staff indicated that a comprehensive facility assessment would require external consultants and additional funding. The Board agreed to split the process into two phases: first, staff would return with the cost and timeline for conducting the comprehensive assessment; second, based on that data, staff would return with a prioritized maintenance plan and funding options.
  • Final Motion: To direct the CEO to return with a scoping proposal, including costs and timelines, for a comprehensive assessment of all county facilities (roads, buildings, and parks) to determine the true extent of deferred maintenance.
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 3: 2013-14 Long-Range Planning Annual Work Program

  • Discussion:
  • Staff presented the annual work program for the Planning and Development Department, outlining required services, operations, comprehensive plan updates, community plans, and special projects. Staff noted that the department has experienced approximately a 50% reduction in resources over the last five years. The work program includes 15 funded or mandated projects, with additional unfunded projects listed for potential future consideration.
  • Supervisor Wolf raised concerns about the delay of the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan due to staffing reallocations to other projects, such as the Orkut Community Plan. Supervisor Wolf requested that the Hollister Avenue/State Street Improvements project (Project 16) be included in the work plan to support infrastructure development in that area. Supervisor Adam asked for clarification on FTE estimates and CEQA costs, noting that the work program is not a budget document. Supervisor Adam also inquired about the distinctions between the Climate Action Plan, Climate Change Adaptation Plan, and Climate Action Implementation projects. Staff explained that the Climate Action Plan focuses on greenhouse gas reduction, the Adaptation Plan addresses physical impacts like sea-level rise, and Implementation involves the administrative steps to enact the adopted plan.
  • Supervisor Carbajal added several items to the list of unfunded projects for future consideration, including telecommunications ordinance updates, the Montecito tree protection standards, and the special events good neighbor policy.
  • Public comment continued regarding the proposed addition of the "Good Neighbor Ordinance" to the 2014 Work Plan. Speakers expressed varying views on the ordinance’s necessity, cost, and impact on the event industry and residential neighborhoods. Some speakers urged the Board to prioritize the Good Neighbor Ordinance over other projects, arguing it addresses current nuisance issues more effectively than the existing Temporary Event Ordinance. Others expressed concern that the process was moving too quickly without full public input or detailed cost analysis.
  • Staff clarified that the 1.5 FTE estimate for the Good Neighbor Ordinance was a preliminary figure based on the complexity of similar ordinance development projects, noting that an accurate cost estimate would require further analysis. Staff also confirmed that the item was added to the work plan at the request of the Planning Commission.
  • Public Comment:
  • Andy Caldwell: Criticized the lack of dollar figures in the report and argued that non-mandated projects like the Climate Action Plan should be deprioritized in favor of mandated infrastructure repairs. He suggested streamlining the permitting process rather than adding new regulations.
  • Supervisor Wolfe: Clarified that the Los Alamos project was funded by a Caltrans grant, not county funds, and was necessary to address traffic and development conflicts in that area.
  • Bill Georgie (Nahui Falls Ranch): Urged the adoption of the Cattleman’s Good Neighbor Policy and expressed concern that the Gaviota Area Plan (GAVPAC) process was incomplete and that proposed regulations could negatively impact family farmers.
  • Nathan Alley (Environmental Defense Center): Supported continued funding for the GAVPAC and Climate Action Plan, noting that significant work had already been completed. He recommended seeking grant funding for biological habitat mapping.
  • Ken O’Keefe: Advocated for the expedited adoption of the Good Neighbor Ordinance to regulate special events, arguing it would reduce CEQA costs and protect zoning integrity. He clarified that the ordinance sets limits on the number of events based on property type and location.
  • Motions and Votes:
  • 1. Motion to Amend Work Plan for Cost Transparency:
  • Motion: Supervisor Adam moved that staff return with the work plan amended to include monies expended to date on each project and estimates for future expenditures in real dollars, rather than FTEs.
  • Outcome: This motion was not voted on directly in this segment. Instead, the Board proceeded to vote on the approval of Table 2 projects and the identification of potential new projects for budget consideration.
  • 2. Motion to Approve Table 2 Proposed Projects:
  • Motion: Supervisor Wolff moved to approve the Table 2 proposed projects. Initially, the motion included the Hollister Avenue State Street improvement project with a reduced funding amount.
  • Discussion: Staff clarified that Table 2 projects are funded by the proposed budget, whereas any new projects (Table 3) would require additional resources not currently available. Supervisor Wolff withdrew the portion of the motion regarding the Hollister Avenue project, as it would require additional funding beyond the current budget.
  • Revised Motion: Supervisor Wolff moved to approve the Table 2 proposed projects (excluding the Hollister Avenue addition).
  • Second: Seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: Passed (3-2).
  • 3. Motion to Identify Potential New Projects for Budget Consideration:
  • Motion: The Board moved to identify a list of potential new projects to be brought back during the budget deliberations with scoped-out costs for potential funding.
  • List Identified: The following projects were identified for further consideration during the budget process:
  • Good Neighbor Ordinance
  • Hollister Avenue Streetscape
  • Climate Adaptation
  • Montecito Tree Standards
  • Climate Implementation
  • Telecommunications
  • Santa Ynez Transportation
  • Santa Ynez Design Guidelines
  • Second: Seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: Passed (4-1).

Closed Session Report

  • The Board reported on actions taken in closed session:
  • Property Tax Administration Fee Dispute: The Board unanimously approved a settlement agreement with all cities in the county regarding the property tax administration fee dispute (referencing City of Alhambra v. County of Los Angeles). The settlement covers amounts owing from 2006–2007 to the present. Final documents will be executed once each city approves the agreement.
  • Appointment: The Board officially appointed Daniel Nielsen to the vacant position of Director of Social Services, with an expected start date of May 13, 2013.
  • Habitat Easement Agreement (Item A14): The Board approved and executed a habitat easement agreement at 161 Paradise Road in the Santa Ynez area. A motion was made and seconded to authorize the County Administrative Officer to execute the certificate of acceptance necessary to finalize the transaction.
  • Vote Outcome: Passed (4-1).

Agenda Item 5: Special Events Ordinance Amendments

  • Staff Presentation:
  • Staff presented recommendations from the County and Montecito Planning Commissions to amend the County Land Use and Development Code, the Montecito Land Use and Development Code, and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance regarding temporary uses and special events.
  • Scope: The proposed amendments apply only to special events held on residential and agriculturally zoned property. They do not affect events at wineries (regulated under a separate ordinance) or commercial zones.
  • Key Changes:
  • Commercial Events: Events associated with short-term rentals are classified as commercial and require permits. The amendments aim to close a loophole allowing frequent commercial events on private property without permits.
  • Non-Commercial/Charitable Events: Existing permit requirements for charitable and non-commercial events are maintained. A new exemption is proposed for non-commercial events with 75 or fewer attendees.
  • Montecito Area: Allows up to three non-commercial events per year (300 attendees or fewer) without a permit. A new "Special Event Use Permit" is proposed for non-commercial events exceeding 300 attendees.
  • County-Wide (Non-Montecito): For properties under 5 acres, up to five non-commercial events per year (300 attendees or fewer) are permit-exempt. For properties 5 acres or larger, non-commercial events are permit-exempt (capped at 300 attendees without a permit).
  • Commercial Facilities: Require a Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate as event facilities.
  • Purpose: To maintain the character of agricultural and residential zones, ensure commercial events are permitted, and improve enforcement.
  • Cost/Timeline: Staff estimated the average cost of a Minor CUP at $5,000–$10,000, with a turnaround time of 3–6 months. CEQA requirements vary by project impact (exempt, negative declaration, or EIR).
  • Board Questions:
  • Supervisor Lavagnino: Inquired about the cost and turnaround time for a Minor CUP.
  • Supervisor Adam: Asked about CEQA requirements and standards for determining when a CUP is necessary for large events.
  • Supervisor Wolff: Clarified that permit requirements for commercial events are already in the code, and the amendments clarify enforcement and classification of short-term rental events.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino: Asked about the permit process for non-commercial weddings exceeding 300 attendees in Montecito.
  • Public Comment:
  • Public comment was opened with a limit of two minutes per speaker (with an option for one-minute speakers to go first). Speakers included:
  • Mary Harris (St. Inez Valley Visitors Association): Expressed support for collaborative development of a better plan considering impacts.
  • Katie Fleckenstein (Santa Ynez Valley Visitors Association): Stated opposition to the proposed revisions.
  • Patty Zylstra (Resident): Supported closing the short-term rental loophole.
  • Stephanie Armstrong (Santa Barbara Region Chamber of Commerce): Urged the Board not to pass the amendments, citing lack of economic impact study and potential job losses. Recommended delaying consideration until the Good Neighbor Ordinance is studied.
  • Ron Anderson (Builton Chamber of Commerce): Requested adoption of the Good Neighbor Policy.
  • Kathy Vreeland (Builton Chamber of Commerce): Argued the proposed ordinance violates the right to assemble and urged adoption of the Good Neighbor Ordinance.
  • Jeremy (Citizen): Spoke in support of the event industry and workers.
  • Bonnie Hope (DJ Service Owner): Read a petition urging the Board not to pass the amendments and to delay consideration until the Good Neighbor Ordinance is studied.
  • Lauren Kendall (Event Production Owner): Recommended considering the Good Neighbor Ordinance for its clarity and ease of compliance.
  • Public comment was received regarding the proposed amendment to the Special Events Ordinance. Speakers presented arguments both in support of and in opposition to the amendment, focusing on the distinction between commercial and non-commercial events, the impact on residential neighborhoods, and the economic effects on the event industry.
  • Support for the Amendment:
  • Bonnie Freeman (representing a coalition of homeowners in More Mesa Shores) stated that the amendment closes a loophole allowing large commercial events in residentially zoned areas, which have caused noise, traffic, and safety issues. She requested the board pass the amendment to protect residential communities.
  • Kathy Kelly argued that for-profit events in residential neighborhoods are not neighborly and strain community relations. She noted that the amendment targets those using residential homes for short-term rentals to hold events for profit, while exempting charitable and nonprofit events.
  • Ken O’Keefe (representing a coalition of property owners) stated that the current ordinance has a loophole regarding short-term rentals (30 days or less) that allows for-profit events to bypass permit requirements. He argued that closing this loophole restores the ability to enforce existing laws and protects neighbors from impacts such as noise and traffic.
  • Christina O’Keefe (resident of Figueroa Mountain Road) described negative impacts from events at a nearby property, including noise, traffic, trespassing, and littering. She urged the board to pass the amendment without delay.
  • Donald Gallagher stated that the amendment addresses nuisances such as noise, traffic congestion, and public safety issues caused by a few "bad apples" in the industry. He argued that the amendment is a minor revision that will not crush the industry but will protect neighbors.
  • Lisa Bedrogi (Executive Director, Center Coast Wine Growers Association) supported the concepts of the Good Neighbor Ordinance, agreeing that a "no impact, no permit" philosophy is appropriate. She highlighted the economic benefits of tourism and ag-tourism to the county.
  • Opposition to the Amendment / Support for Good Neighbor Ordinance:
  • Riley Schultz (representing Halama Canyon Ranch) supported the Good Neighbor Special Events Ordinance, arguing that the proposed amendment may not be the best solution for the future of the community and could hinder economic development.
  • Andy Caldwell argued that the proposed amendment is a restrictive blanket imposed on the entire county and is unenforceable. He questioned the county's authority to regulate private property without a demonstrated compelling public interest and suggested that the Good Neighbor Ordinance, which focuses on impacts rather than user identity, is a better solution.
  • Judith Dale (Mayor of Buellton) expressed concern about the complexity of the permitting process and suggested that the board should back up and get stakeholders together to develop a simpler plan. She supported permitting but questioned the current process.
  • Lynette Lamour argued that the obsession with short-term rentals is blown out of proportion and that the amendment will create uncertainty and difficulty in regulating events. She stated that stopping events associated with short-term rentals will punish everyone with short-term rentals and impact county revenue and tourism.
  • Reverend Miriam Lindbeck stated that the ordinance amendments are complicated and punitive in nature. She noted that businesses are already moving to San Luis Obispo County and urged the board to consider a "marriage" between ordinances to address private sector concerns while keeping the county prosperous.
  • Melissa Musgrove urged the board to vote down the ordinance and consider the Good Neighbor Ordinance. She argued that the ordinance should be about impact and that there are a few bad apples who abuse their properties, which should be a separate issue.
  • Perry Gibson compared the event industry to the film industry, noting that both bring in high-earning jobs and economic activity without requiring the county to build infrastructure like schools. He urged the board to find a way to say "yes" and support the industry.
  • Bill Georgie (representing Nahui Falls Ranch) argued that the current permit process is cumbersome and inefficient. He supported the Good Neighbor Ordinance, which has low threshold levels for impacts and does not require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if impacts are minimal.
  • Hans Deuce (Solvang City Council) stated that the City of Solvang takes no position but has concerns about the economic impact on tourist towns that rely on weddings and events. He urged the board not to rush into the decision and to ensure that things are right.
  • Sarah Farmer (Montecito homeowner) supported the Good Neighbor Ordinance, stating that when events are run by professional event planners, there are not many issues. She noted that music is turned off by 10 p.m. and parking is handled by professional teams.
  • Diana Andonian (Weddings by Diana) urged the board not to pass the amended ordinance and to study the Good Neighbor Special Event Ordinance. She stated that she has planned hundreds of weddings and events over 34 years without a single complaint from any neighbor.
  • Nico Cervantes (event designer) supported the Good Neighbor Ordinance, arguing that a few bad sites should be closed down but it shouldn't ruin the industry for the rest.
  • Felipe Soto proposed not to pass the amendment and to look at the Good Neighbor Ordinance. He argued that the amendment is not the best solution and that the board should take the time to focus on what they have right now.
  • Ronnie Herron Mellon (Dream Locations) listed the various businesses that may be impacted by the ordinance, including hotels, printers, entertainers, museums, caterers, and others. He stated that the deterioration of the economy has already started.
  • Francis Romero (senior planner with Urban Planning Concepts) addressed the claim that the Figueroa Mountain Farmhouse is breaking the law, noting that the county already ruled that the use of the property by tenants to conduct non-commercial events is not restricted in the number of occurrences per year. He highlighted the cost and uncertainty of the Minor CUP process.
  • Terry Strickland urged the board to explain why they will not address the Good Neighbor Ordinance. He stated that his business has already been impacted, with inquiries shifting to San Luis Obispo County.
  • Angela Solano (ranch manager) argued that the new ordinance attempts to regulate only the user and not the use, which she believes is unconstitutional. She stated that a private gathering on a private property among friends and family is residential and not criminal commercial activity.
  • Shane Stark (owner of the Figueroa Mountain property) stated that he has always tried to reach out to neighbors and find ways to not have people be unhappy. He limited the number of people on his property to 75 and stated that the current economic demand is self-limiting.
  • Randy Fox (attorney) argued that the California Constitution prohibits local governments from adopting the proposed ordinance amendments because they attempt to regulate conduct based on the identity of the participant rather than the character of the conduct itself. He stated that the ordinance will not survive a challenge because it regulates short-term renters differently than long-term renters or owners.
  • Public speakers addressed the board regarding proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance concerning short-term rentals and special events.
  • Richard Goode requested staff provide examples of successful minor conditional use permits, noting none have been issued since 2004. He argued that the proposed amendments would prohibit all rentals in certain areas, such as Montecito, and requested the board table the amendments indefinitely.
  • Bob Field stated that the current ordinance has broken down, allowing unlimited commercial events in non-commercial zones. He supported the staff proposal to control the number of events and criticized cities and chambers of commerce for prohibiting such activities in their jurisdictions while supporting them in the county for economic benefit.
  • Leslie Hovey argued that the proposed amendments would worsen the situation and recommended against passing them. He suggested the board work with the Sheriff, District Attorney, and County Council to adopt a proper nuisance ordinance with significant penalties, rather than relying on zoning enforcement.
  • Hannah Weintraub read a letter from a tenant who rented a property in Los Olivos for a wedding. The letter urged the board not to pass the law, citing the economic impact on local vendors and the personal experience of the renters.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Supervisor Farr asked Riley Schultz if his ranch is under a Williamson Act contract. Schultz responded that he does not believe it is.
  • Supervisor Wolf asked Riley Schultz if he rents out the ranch for weddings. Schultz stated that he has in the past but has stopped since the ordinance discussions began. He mentioned charging $5,000 per event in the past.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino asked Bonnie Freeman about the enforceability of CC&Rs in her neighborhood. Freeman stated that the board does not have the money to handle litigation.
  • Supervisor Adam commented that there is frustration with the level of scrutiny the government wants over people's lives and that people want freedom to pursue their interests and businesses without being molested.
  • Supervisor Wolff responded to Supervisor Adam, stating that zoning is an important tool for orderly development and ensuring that people in residential and agricultural zones have certain expectations.
  • Supervisor Adam further commented that zoning should be interpreted as broadly as possible within that particular zoning and that there are gray areas between all the zonings.
  • Supervisor Farr stated that many of her constituents in Montecito are concerned about the disruption caused by events and that cities do not allow this kind of disruption in their neighborhoods.
  • Supervisor Farr asked Hans Deuce why the City of Solvang does not allow vacation rentals if they are concerned about the economic impact. Deuce stated that he is wondering that himself too.
  • Supervisor Adam asked Randy Fox if the ordinance is constitutional. Fox stated that the ordinance will not survive a challenge.
  • County Counsel (Unidentified Speaker 31) responded to Supervisor Adam, stating that the county has reviewed the ordinance and modeled much of the content along the lines of the Ewing v. Carmel-by-the-Sea Appellate Court decision, which upholds the exclusion of short-term rentals. He stated that the county would vigorously defend any challenge.
  • Supervisor Farr noted that complaints are primarily driven by the frequency of use in short-term rentals. She cited data showing an increase in vacation rentals in the unincorporated area from 96 in 2011 to 207 in 2012. She expressed concern about the impact on property values and agricultural land, noting that current penalties are insufficient to deter violations. She moved to continue the item to June 18, following the budget process, to determine if funding is available for a better enforcement mechanism or a revised "good neighbor" ordinance.
  • Supervisor Wolf opposed the motion to continue, stating that constituents have raised serious concerns for years. She cited examples from other municipalities (Cambria and Encinitas) that restrict short-term rentals for commercial events. She argued that the board has sufficient time and resources to act now and that delaying action is not appropriate.
  • Supervisor Adam asked staff about the ability to impose different nuisance definitions or fines based on zoning. Staff explained that zoning violations are infractions with fines limited by state law, making enforcement difficult for events. Supervisor Adam suggested exploring criminal misdemeanor classifications for heavier fines but acknowledged uncertainty regarding the legal feasibility. He supported the motion to bring the item back after the budget to explore these options.
  • Supervisor Lavinino raised concerns about enforcement logistics, noting that events often occur on weekends when staff may not be available. He suggested focusing on impact-based regulations rather than commercial vs. charitable distinctions. He supported moving the item after the budget to see if funding for the "good neighbor" ordinance could be secured.
  • Supervisor Carbajal (Chair) stated that the issue was prompted by a few specific incidents, including a high-profile wedding. She noted that while the current ordinance has worked for ten years, there are gaps in enforcement and coordination between departments. She indicated she was swayed by the possibility of a better approach with adequate funding but was frustrated by the lack of a clear path forward. She supported tabling the item to allow for further review and potential funding allocation.
  • Staff (CEO Waller) confirmed that a special events committee has been established to improve coordination between departments. He clarified that the referral process for temporary use applications is already in place and the proposed language would merely memorialize existing practice.
  • Motion and Vote:
  • Motion: To continue Item Number 6 (Housing Item) to a future meeting.
  • Second: Seconded.
  • Vote: Passed unanimously.
  • Decision: Item Number 6 is continued to a future meeting. The board then returned to the Special Events Ordinance item.
  • Supervisor Farr moved to continue the item to June 18.
  • Supervisor Wolf seconded the motion.
  • Supervisor Carbajal requested that the motion be amended to "table" the item instead of "continue," noting that "table" allows for the possibility that the item may not return, whereas "continue" automatically brings it back.
  • The motion was amended to table the item.
  • The board voted on the motion to table the item.
  • Outcome: The motion to table the item passed.

Agenda Item: General Services - County Energy Action Plan and Benchmarking Policy

  • Staff Presentation:
  • Jim Laponis presented the General Services Department’s Energy Action Plan (EAP) and Benchmarking Policy. The plan focuses on reducing electrical energy consumption in county buildings, which account for over 45% of the county’s greenhouse gas emissions.
  • The plan aims to achieve a 25% reduction in energy use by 2020 (baseline 2008). The county has already achieved a 15% reduction through solar panel installations and lighting upgrades.
  • The remaining 10% reduction is targeted through HVAC upgrades and further lighting efficiency measures.
  • Estimated upgrade costs are $3.7 million over seven years (2013–2020), primarily funded by state/federal grants, on-bill financing, and public-private partnerships (e.g., Southern California Edison).
  • The Benchmarking Policy will implement energy tracking software to measure usage and compare it to national standards.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Supervisor Wolf asked why solar panels were not explicitly included in the plan despite their success. Staff explained that the plan was funded by Southern California Edison, which did not cover additional solar costs, but the department is exploring further solar projects and will return to the board for approval on major projects.
  • Supervisor Wolf suggested including employee training on energy conservation, similar to programs in Goleta. Staff agreed to pursue this without additional cost.
  • Supervisor Wolf asked about the restriction on space heaters. Staff clarified that the policy is educational and not strictly enforced, aiming to encourage voluntary reduction in energy use.
  • Supervisor Carbajal praised the document but noted it is not a comprehensive sustainability plan. She suggested that when the plan returns, it should include a broader matrix of short-, mid-, and long-term actions covering other operational areas such as vehicle fleet efficiency, conversion technology, and pesticide reduction. She emphasized the need for a refined action plan with diverse funding sources.
  • Public Comment:
  • Andy Caldwell (CoLab): Reminded the board of the APCD building’s history, noting that despite being designated as a green building, it incurred higher energy costs than other county buildings, requiring expensive fixes. He advised caution regarding "green" projections. He suggested evaluating the cost savings of establishing a satellite office in Ventura to reduce employee commutes and lower real estate costs. He emphasized the need to measure "bang for the buck" by calculating savings per dollar invested in both electricity bills and greenhouse gas emissions. He noted that electricity generated from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, nuclear) still results in emissions, and that hybrid vehicle batteries are not entirely green due to their manufacturing process.
  • Nathan Alley (Environmental Defense Center): Stated that the Energy Action Plan is a good start but requires further work, particularly in transportation. He agreed with previous speakers that the plan must focus on verifiable, quantifiable emission reductions rather than "greenwashing." He emphasized the goal of identifying future cost and energy savings and encouraged the county to model best practices for its constituents and other jurisdictions.
  • Supervisor Farr: Agreed with the need to identify high return-on-investment projects and to consider the life cycle of materials. He expressed concern about the APCD building, noting it was experimental and required subsequent fixes, and stated that the county must lead by example to avoid a "do as I say, don't do as I do" dynamic.
  • Discussion and Direction:
  • Chair Carbajal: Directed that the item be returned to the board in a more refined and comprehensive format. He requested that the plan include short-term, mid-term, and long-term measures, as well as a funding plan (including grants and implementation costs) for a comprehensive sustainability plan, not just an energy plan.
  • Supervisor Adam: Added that the returned plan must include performance metrics for upgrades, specifically detailing spending levels and payback terms. He stated that investments should have a reasonable payback period (citing a three-year benchmark).
  • Chair Carbajal: Confirmed that technology to measure consumption is listed in the current plan.
  • Jim Laponis: Acknowledged the board’s direction and thanked staff member Roy Hateman for his contributions to the energy conservation efforts.
  • Motion and Vote:
  • Motion: To pass the item with the additional direction to return with a comprehensive sustainability plan covering short-term, mid-term, and long-term measures, including funding and performance metrics.
  • Second: Seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Adjournment

  • Motion: To adjourn.
  • Vote Outcome: Passed.