UnGovr Words

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

BOARD OF SUPERVISORSApril 9, 2013

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 April 9, 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

Gaviota Coast Area Plan (GAVPAC) Public Comment

  • Public speakers requested a minimum of 60 days for review and a community meeting before Planning Commission hearings.
  • Supervisor Farr stated that staff changes would be clearly marked for comparison in the plan presented to the Commission.
  • The Board emphasized that the process includes environmental review and further hearings before returning to the Board.

Resolution Proclaiming 2013 the Year of the Child

  • The Board adopted a resolution aligning with a California State Association of Counties challenge to prioritize children’s well-being.
  • Ben Romo of First Five Santa Barbara County highlighted the long-term benefits of investing in early development services.
  • Several community partners and children were recognized during the adoption of the resolution.

Resolution Declaring April 9 as Equal Pay Day

  • The Board adopted a resolution recognizing the date when women’s wages catch up to men’s from the previous year.
  • Speakers cited statistics on the wage gap, particularly for women of color, and the impact on retirement security.
  • The resolution commended local AAUW branches for their advocacy regarding the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Position Allocation Change for Chief of Emergency Management

  • The Board approved changing the position from department head to assistant department head to align with other counties.
  • CEO Waller explained the change was based on a survey of similar positions and intended to ensure organizational equity.
  • Supervisor Wolfe expressed concern that lowering the status could hinder interaction with other department heads during emergencies.
  • The motion passed 4-1, with supporters noting the role operates under board authority during emergencies.

Legislative Advocacy Update

  • Federal lobbyists reported on sequestration cuts, tax code reform, and pending reauthorizations like the Farm Bill.
  • State lobbyists discussed Medi-Cal realignment, CEQA reform, and the status of the state responsibility area fire fee.
  • Supervisor Lavinino inquired about the Board's position on CEQA reform, leading to a separate committee update.

Legislative Platform and CEQA Reform

  • The Ledge Committee reported that CEQA reform did not take sufficient shape in the previous session for specific responses.
  • Staff identified SB 731 as the most likely CEQA bill to move forward, authorizing funds for local government review.
  • The Chair indicated the Committee would provide intermittent updates on legislative tracking rather than waiting for final platform adoption.
  • The Board voted unanimously to receive and file the item.

Property Tax System Implementation

  • Staff presented a plan to replace the legacy mainframe system with a target go-live date of September.
  • The project cost is estimated at $6 million, with a 75% probability of successful cutover by the target date.
  • The Board approved an agreement with Simpler Systems for data conversion and the rehire of two retired employees.
  • The motion to approve the recommendations passed unanimously.

Naples Coalition Appeal of Schulte-Dos Pueblos Lot Line Adjustment

  • Staff recommended approving the lot line adjustment transferring 284 acres between two lots to facilitate ownership transfer.
  • The appellant argued the adjustment facilitates residential development under the Santa Barbara Ranch Project rather than supporting agriculture.
  • The applicant stated the action is independent of the Ranch Project and that the Williamson Act contract remains in effect.
  • The Board voted 3-2 to approve the lot line adjustment and adopt the staff findings.

Hollister Ranch Public Access Easements

  • Staff presented an irrevocable offer to dedicate for public access easements originally required by the Coastal Commission.
  • The Board discussed the high likelihood of litigation and the lack of clear financial support from state agencies.
  • The Board voted 4-1 to decline the offer and disclaim any property interest in the easements.
  • Staff was directed to research the availability of a $290,000 in-lieu fee fund for potential future use.

Agricultural Buffer Ordinance

  • Staff proposed amendments to create agricultural buffer regulations ranging from 100 to 400 feet to minimize land use conflicts.
  • The Board discussed the definition of "existing developed rural neighborhood" and the treatment of agriculture within buffers.
  • Public commenters generally supported deleting the explicit listing of agriculture as an unrestricted use in the buffer.
  • The Board unanimously adopted the ordinance with the deletion of language specifically calling out agriculture in EJ1.

Local Vendor Outreach Program Annual Report

  • The county spent 61% of discretionary revenue with local vendors in 2012, exceeding the 60% goal.
  • Staff attributed the success primarily to outreach efforts rather than the 6% price preference given to local vendors.
  • The Board directed staff to provide a detailed analysis of costs and suggestions for enhancing the program.
  • The motion to accept the report and direct further analysis passed unanimously.

Bedrovia Government Center Administration Building Update

  • Staff reported that the renovation of the hearing room and lobby is over 80% complete and on budget.
  • A full-height glass folding wall was installed to allow the hearing room to expand into the lobby for larger events.
  • The dais was not relocated due to technical constraints and cost, with monitors installed in the lobby for overflow visibility.
  • The Board accepted the presentation unanimously.

Closed Session

  • The Board authorized a $400,000 settlement for all claims in the Martinez v. County of Santa Barbara workers' compensation case.
  • The Board unanimously agreed not to renew the contract for the County Executive Officer, which expires on October 31, 2013.
  • The Board continued the public employee performance evaluations for the Fire Chief and Community Services Director.

Full summary

Call to Order and Roll Call

  • The Board of Supervisors meeting was called to order. Roll call was taken, confirming all members were present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Approval of Minutes

  • A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the April 2, 2013 meeting. There was no discussion. The motion passed unanimously.

Public Comment: Gaviota Coast Area Plan (GAVPAC)

  • Two public speakers addressed the board regarding the GAVPAC update. Willie Chamberlain, representing the Santa Barbara County Cattlemen’s Association and the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC), expressed concern that the plan was moving to Planning Commission hearings without adequate public review time, requesting a minimum of 60 days for review and a public meeting prior to hearings. Bill Georgi, representing community members, agreed with Chamberlain, stating the process had rushed public input after significant taxpayer spending. He requested that staff changes be clearly marked, a community meeting be held, and the AAC be given at least two months to review the plan. Supervisor Farr responded by stating that the plan presented to the Planning Commission would include staff changes indicated separately for comparison. She noted that the Planning Commission would hold as many hearings as necessary and that the process would include environmental review and further hearings before returning to the Board. She emphasized that the AAC’s involvement was valued.

Administrative Calendar

  • Supervisor Wolfe requested to pull Item A19 for separate discussion. A motion was made and seconded to approve the remaining items on the administrative calendar notwithstanding the pulled item. The motion passed unanimously.

Item A1: Resolution Proclaiming 2013 the Year of the Child

  • Supervisor Farr and Supervisor Adam presented a resolution proclaiming 2013 the Year of the Child, aligning with a challenge issued by the California State Association of Counties. The resolution highlighted the importance of prioritizing children’s well-being, school readiness, and early development services. Ben Romo, Executive Director of First Five Santa Barbara County, spoke on behalf of the organization, thanking the board and emphasizing the long-term benefits of investing in children. Several community partners and children were recognized. The resolution was adopted.

Item A2: Resolution Declaring April 9 as Equal Pay Day

  • Supervisor Farr presented a resolution declaring April 9 as Equal Pay Day, recognizing the date when women’s wages catch up to men’s wages from the previous year. The resolution cited statistics on the wage gap, particularly for women of color, and the long-term economic impacts on women’s retirement security. It commended local branches of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) for their advocacy.
  • Diane Owens, Martha Hite, and Carol Hershey (AAUW) spoke in support, highlighting economic losses due to pay inequity and the need for the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  • Jane Gray, EJ Borat, and Gail Teton-Landis spoke in support, commending the board’s recognition and noting the persistent wage gap, especially for Latinas.
  • Supervisor Lavinino commented on the educational value of the item and expressed support for equal pay.
  • The resolution was adopted unanimously.

Item A19: Position Allocation Change for Chief of Emergency Management

  • Supervisor Wolfe pulled this item for separate discussion. The item proposed changing the position of Chief of Emergency Management from a department head to an assistant department head.
  • Supervisor Wolfe expressed concern that lowering the position status could hinder the individual’s ability to interact with other department heads during emergencies, arguing the role is critical despite the small size of the division. She noted the board letter indicated no fiscal impact.
  • CEO Waller explained that the change was based on a survey of other counties, where similar positions were typically classified as assistant department heads, deputies, or managers. She stated that the current pay range was higher than in most other counties and that the change was intended to align with organizational equity and standard practices.
  • Supervisor Farr supported the motion, citing the CEO’s research and the need for consistency with other counties, while noting the board could monitor the situation and reverse the decision if it hampered operations.
  • Supervisor Adam supported the motion, stating that the position operates under the authority granted by the board during emergencies and that the change would not negatively impact public safety operations.
  • Andy Caldwell, representing Colab, spoke in support of the CEO’s decision, arguing that the board should respect the CEO’s authority to manage organizational structure and costs, particularly given the county’s fiscal challenges. He criticized Supervisor Wolfe for publicly challenging the CEO.
  • Supervisor Wolfe responded that her role was to question changes and express concerns, and that the item was an organizational decision, not a salary issue.
  • A motion was made and seconded to approve Item A19 as recommended by staff. The motion passed 4-1.

Departmental Item 1: Legislative Advocacy Update

  • The board took a 15-minute break before reconvening to hear from legislative advocates.
  • Tom Walters, Federal Lobbyist, provided an update on federal issues, including the impact of sequestration cuts, the expiration of the continuing resolution, and emerging policy initiatives such as tax code reform, immigration reform, and the Water Resources Development Act of 2013. He noted that Congress was returning to a more normal legislative process and that the county should monitor pending reauthorizations, including the Farm Bill, Workforce Investment Act, TANF, and Older Americans Act.
  • Monica Miller, State Lobbyist, provided an update on state issues, including:
  • AB 65 to fix a loophole in the penal code regarding rape prosecutions.
  • The potential realignment of Medi-Cal Optionals to counties, which could have significant fiscal impacts.
  • CEQA reform, which had been discussed but was not expected to be a major issue this year.
  • The state responsibility area fire fee, which was subject to a lawsuit by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and a stay by the courts.
  • New tax proposals, noting that the administration was not supportive of additional taxes due to Proposition 30, but that some bills to lower thresholds for local taxes and school bonds were being considered.
  • SB 1 to further implement SB 375 regional planning goals.
  • SB 391 to impose a $75 fee on real estate transactions for affordable housing, which was expected to fail.
  • AB 1290, regarding California Transportation Commission powers.
  • Supervisor Lavinino asked why the board had not taken a position on CEQA reform.

Agenda Item: Legislative Platform and CEQA Reform (Ledge Committee Update)

  • Discussion: The Board discussed the status of CEQA reform and the Ledge Committee’s role in the legislative platform. Staff noted that CEQA reform did not take sufficient shape during the previous legislative session for the Committee to respond to specific proposals, though the Board had adopted principles regarding local control. Supervisor Lavagnino requested that the Ledge Committee formally bring CEQA reform back to the Board for discussion, noting it aligns with the Board’s principles. Supervisor Wolf raised concerns about potential weakening of local control and requested updates on specific bills (AB 380, AB 953, SB 617, AB 543) and fracking-related legislation. Staff identified SB 731 as the most likely CEQA bill to move forward, noting it authorizes $30 million per budget year for local governments to review CEQA from a local perspective. Staff also provided an update on AB 109 implementation, highlighting concerns regarding county jail overcrowding and recidivism, while noting the County’s juvenile justice plan is ranked among the top in the state.
  • Action: The Chair indicated that the Ledge Committee would provide intermittent updates to the Board on legislative tracking, including CEQA and fracking bills, rather than waiting until the final platform adoption.
  • Public Comment:
  • Andy Caldwell (COLAB) urged the Board to meet directly with state and federal representatives to address CEQA, CalPERS/CalSTRS deficits, fracking, and agricultural labor issues, questioning the necessity of hiring lobbyists if direct engagement is possible.
  • Joe Armendariz (Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association) criticized the volume of legislation and suggested the Board take a more proactive stance by establishing a clear vision and engaging directly with elected officials to influence policy, particularly regarding CEQA and tax regimes.
  • Mark Chatillo (Individual) responded to previous comments, emphasizing the importance of legislative committees and arguing that regulatory protections benefit the public, particularly vulnerable populations, and should not be dismissed.
  • Motion and Vote: A motion to receive and file the item was made by Supervisor Adams and seconded by Supervisor Wolf. The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 2: Property Tax System Implementation

  • Discussion: Staff presented an update on the Government Revenue Management (GRM) property tax system implementation, a project to replace the legacy mainframe system. Key points included:
  • The project involves replacing core functions, not enhancing the current system, with a target go-live date of September.
  • Staff identified a 75% probability of successful cutover by September, with a 25% risk of delay requiring the mainframe to run for an additional year.
  • The total project cost is estimated at $6 million (corrected from $5.6 million in exhibits), with $933,000 paid to date.
  • Staff requested approval for an agreement with Simpler Systems for data conversion and report enhancements, and certification of critical need to rehire two retired employees (Mark Hollis and Rick Holly) for temporary, project-specific roles under Government Code section 7522.56 F1.
  • CEO Waller advised that the proposed staffing and contracting measures were prudent and reduced risk.
  • Motion and Vote: Supervisor Lavagnino moved to approve recommendations one through four, and Supervisor Wolf seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 3: Naples Coalition Appeal of Schulte-Dos Pueblos Lot Line Adjustment

  • Discussion: Staff recommended continuing the item to May 21 to analyze additional information received on Friday. Supervisor Farr suggested alternative dates (May 7 or 14) due to calendar conflicts. Supervisor Farr and Supervisor Adams advocated for proceeding with the hearing as scheduled, allowing the Board to decide on a continuance after hearing all parties. The appellant’s attorney, Mark Shatillo, and the applicant’s representative, David Fainer, both stated their preference for proceeding with the hearing immediately rather than continuing.
  • Staff Presentation: Staff presented the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a lot line adjustment transferring 284 acres between two lots, resulting in a 1,693-acre lot and a 360-acre lot. Staff addressed eight issues raised by the appellant, including independence from the Santa Barbara Ranch Project, agricultural viability, CEQA compliance, and consistency with the Subdivision Map Act. Staff recommended denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission’s approval.
  • Appellant Presentation: Mark Chatillo argued that the lot line adjustment is intended to facilitate the sale of land for residential development under the Santa Barbara Ranch Project, rather than to support agriculture. He contended that the 360-acre parcel would not be commercially viable for cattle grazing under the new ownership (a bank subsidiary) and that the required findings regarding the enforceability of Williamson Act boundaries for 10 years are inconsistent with the previously approved subdivision map. He requested the board deny the appeal and uphold the agricultural status of the land.
  • Applicant Presentation: David Fainer and Mark Lloyd stated that the lot line adjustment is independent of the Santa Barbara Ranch Project and is a ministerial action required to transfer ownership to an adjacent landowner (SBRHC). They argued that the Williamson Act contract remains in effect, ensuring agricultural use, and that the board’s discretion is limited by state law. They contended that the appellant’s arguments regarding commercial viability are not required findings under local ordinances, which focus on agricultural suitability and productivity.
  • Public Comment:
  • Andy Caldwell (COLAB) argued the appeal was frivolous and an abuse of the process, stating that the lot line adjustment is a simple map change and that the county should not bind future interests.
  • Nathan Alley (Environmental Defense Center/Surfrider Foundation) expressed confusion regarding the status of Williamson Act Contract 77AP14, noting previous rescissions and replacements, and questioned how the board could make findings on long-term agricultural use given the approved development potential.
  • Phil McKenna (Naples Coalition) stated the action moves stalled development forward and is detrimental to long-term agricultural viability.
  • Deborah Rosenthal (SBRHC) clarified that SBRHC is the proposed transferee, has managed the land for six years, and will assume the Williamson Act contract. She stated the adjustment is about ownership transfer, not a change in use.
  • Supervisor Comments:
  • Supervisor Farr expressed confusion over the conflict between the approved track map for residential development and the requirement to find long-term agricultural viability. She stated she could not make the necessary findings without a change to the previous board action and supported a continuance.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino argued that the applicant met all regulatory hurdles and that further delay was unnecessary. He supported approving the adjustment.
  • Supervisor Adam supported moving forward, stating that staff had completed their work and that the board should adopt the staff findings.
  • Supervisor Wolf stated that based on the findings and testimony confirming agricultural usage and the 10-year Williamson Act commitment, she could not find a reason to deny the adjustment, despite philosophical concerns about the broader development context.
  • Staff Recommendation: Staff reiterated their recommendation to approve the lot line adjustment, stating they had reviewed new information and supported the findings and conditions.
  • Motion and Vote: Supervisor Adam moved to approve the lot line adjustment and adopt the staff findings. The motion was seconded. The motion passed (3-2).

Agenda Item: Closed Session Report

  • Martinez v. County of Santa Barbara (Workers' Compensation): The board authorized a settlement of $400,000 for all claims, including prospective medical claims.
  • Public Employee Performance Evaluation: The board unanimously agreed not to renew the contract for the County Executive Officer, which expires on October 31, 2013.
  • Other Items: The board continued the public employee performance evaluation for the Fire Chief and Community Services Director.

Agenda Item: Hollister Ranch Public Access Easements

  • Discussion and Presentation: Staff presented details regarding the irrevocable offer to dedicate (OTD) for public access easements at Hollister Ranch, originally required by the California Coastal Commission in 1982. Staff clarified that the OTD includes three components: an access road easement, a 3,300-foot beach access easement, and a bluff-top vertical footpath. Staff noted that the OTD contains conditions requiring substantial funding for a transit system and operations, estimated at approximately $150,000 for startup and $118,000 annually. Staff explained that if the County declines to accept the OTD, the California Coastal Conservancy is statutorily required to accept it. Staff recommended the Board either adopt a resolution accepting the OTD or decline to accept it and disclaim any property interest.
  • Funding Discussion: Supervisors and staff discussed potential funding sources, including a $290,000 in-lieu fee fund held by the Coastal Conservancy for Hollister Ranch access and a $1 million payment from Chevron related to the Point Arguello project. Staff indicated that the $290,000 fund has not been drawn down for other projects but its specific applicability to this project requires further legal review.
  • Public Comment:
  • Greg Moore, a former county planner, cited a 1999 letter from the Coastal Commission stating that the Hollister Ranch Owners Association (HROA) failed to challenge the permit conditions in a timely manner. He urged the Board to accept the OTD to protect public interests.
  • Virginia Gardner, representing the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, urged the Board to accept the OTD to preserve future access options.
  • Otis Califf, President of the Santa Barbara County Trails Council, urged the Board to accept the easement to facilitate future coastal trail development.
  • Steve Americana, representing the HROA and individual owners, stated that the HROA intends to litigate the validity of the easements regardless of who accepts the OTD. He expressed a preference for the County to be the implementing agency if the easements are upheld, arguing the County is better suited for local planning than a state agency.
  • Mark Chatillo, representing the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, urged the Board to accept the OTD, citing constitutional and statutory rights to public access. He suggested that the HROA’s interest in a managed access program could be viewed as an opportunity for collaboration.
  • Linda Laughlin, representing the California Coastal Commission, advocated for the acceptance of the OTD, noting that acceptance does not require immediate public opening but preserves the mitigation requirement. She provided a graphic outline of the geography covered by the OTD.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Supervisor Lavagnino expressed concern over the high likelihood of litigation and the associated costs, noting the County’s financial constraints. He questioned why the Coastal Commission or Conservancy would not support the County financially if it accepted the OTD.
  • Supervisor Adams stated that given the County’s operating deficit and deferred maintenance, accepting an item that requires immediate litigation is financially irresponsible.
  • Supervisor Wolf expressed an inclination to move forward with the offer but acknowledged the threat of litigation and the lack of clear financial support from state agencies.
  • Supervisor Carbajal noted the complexity of the situation, the high litigation risk, and the fact that this is the first time the County has had the option to decline an OTD with the Coastal Conservancy acting as a statutory backstop. He expressed concern about the County litigating alone without financial support from the agencies that imposed the requirement.
  • Supervisor Farr indicated that while he supports public access, he is conflicted due to the litigation risk and the lack of assurance of financial support from the Coastal Commission or Conservancy.
  • Motion and Vote: Supervisor Lavagnino moved to decline to accept the irrevocable offer to dedicate and to disclaim any claim of property interest in the easements described in the OTD dated April 28, 1982. The motion also included a request for staff to research the availability of the $290,000 in-lieu fee fund for potential future use. The motion was seconded. The motion passed (4-1).

Agenda Item 5: Agricultural Buffer Ordinance

  • Discussion and Presentation: Staff presented proposed amendments to the County Land Use and Development Code, the Montecito Land Use and Development Code, the Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance, and Chapter 21 Land Division to create agricultural buffer regulations. The ordinance aims to minimize land use conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural uses.
  • Applicability: Triggered when a non-agricultural project site is located within an urban, inner rural, or existing developed rural neighborhood or industrial zone district in a rural area, and the immediately adjacent lot is zoned agriculture or under a Williamson Act contract.
  • Buffer Widths: Ranges from 100 to 400 feet for production agriculture, depending on the type of non-agricultural use (e.g., 100 feet for commercial/industrial, 400 feet for sensitive uses like schools). Rangeland and pastureland have buffers of 100 to 150 feet.
  • Allowable Uses: Distinguishes between unrestricted uses (compatible with agriculture) and restricted uses (less compatible, allowed no closer than half the buffer width).
  • Maintenance: Requires a Landscape Lighting and Irrigation Plan with a five-year performance security and a Maintenance Plan recorded on the property title.
  • Staff noted that the County Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend adoption, with a recommendation to allow agriculture as an unrestricted use within the buffer. The Agricultural Advisory Committee and Agricultural Commissioner recommended revisions to delete agriculture as an outright unrestricted use and instead allow it to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Staff recommended adopting the revisions consistent with the Agricultural Advisory Committee’s recommendation.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Supervisor Adams raised concerns about the term "existing developed rural neighborhood," questioning whether it is a recognized zoning term that provides adequate notice to property owners. Staff confirmed it is an official designation in the comprehensive plan but acknowledged uncertainty regarding whether it appears on property titles.
  • Supervisor Farr asked for clarification on the definition of "minor changes" to previously approved projects and "minor lot line adjustments." Staff explained that minor changes are those that do not result in new or greater impacts to agriculture, and minor lot line adjustments are those that do not exceed a 10% increase or decrease in the area of the smallest existing lot and do not increase the number of developable lots.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino inquired about the status of the recommendation regarding agriculture within the buffer, confirming that staff is recommending the deletion of agriculture as an unrestricted use, consistent with the Agricultural Advisory Committee’s recommendation.
  • Public Comment:
  • David Swank (Urban Planning Concepts / Home Builders Association) stated that the Home Builders Association does not oppose the ordinance and requested its approval with the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission and the Ag Advisory Committee. He noted that the association supports the removal of agriculture as an explicitly listed allowable use in the buffer zone to prevent agricultural uses from being brought closer to urban areas.
  • Hank Blanco (Manager, LNA LC / Legacy Estates) expressed support for the buffer effort but emphasized that existing projects should be grandfathered. He requested that future development be allowed to seek variances and noted the importance of clear notification processes for property owners regarding lot creation and zoning.
  • Claire Weinman (Grower Shipper Association) urged the adoption of the ordinance to protect farmland but recommended deleting "agriculture" as an explicitly listed allowable use in Part EJ1. She argued that listing it explicitly could lead to broad application that undermines the ordinance's intent to separate land uses and mitigate conflicts. She acknowledged that case-by-case review allows for flexibility where agriculture might be appropriate.
  • Susan Petrovich (Environmental Defense Center / OPEN Project) expressed support for the ordinance and agreed with previous speakers that agriculture does not need to be explicitly stated as an allowable use. She noted that the ordinance already allows for the consideration of compatible uses on a case-by-case basis and recommended deleting the phrase added at the last minute.
  • Paul Van Leer (Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau) stated that allowing agriculture in the buffer undermines the ordinance's intent. He requested the approval of the ordinance with amendments to remove agriculture as an allowed use and as a specific consideration in EJ1, arguing that all uses can be considered at the time of determination without explicit listing.
  • Board Discussion (Continued):
  • Supervisor Lavagnino agreed with the recommendation to delete the explicit listing, noting that the ordinance’s "any other use" provision already allows for agricultural uses if determined compatible by the review authority. He expressed a preference for erring on the side of the consensus reached during the public process.
  • Supervisor Adams clarified that landscaping does not fit the definition of agriculture in the ordinance. He expressed concern about precluding flexibility for neighborhoods that might want to use buffer land for low-impact agricultural purposes (e.g., grazing goats for weed control) but acknowledged that the current language allows for case-by-case review.
  • Supervisor Farr expressed concern that allowing agriculture in the buffer could undermine the purpose of the buffer by reverting to case-by-case setback requirements, potentially narrowing the effective buffer width.
  • Supervisor Carbajal raised the initial question about why agriculture was prohibited in the buffer, arguing that ag soils should be usable for agriculture if compatible. He supported the compromise of allowing county review authority to determine compatibility, preventing incompatible uses (e.g., intensive hog farming) while allowing compatible ones.
  • Motion and Vote: Supervisor Farr moved to accept staff’s recommendation A through D, with the deletion of the language specifically calling out "agriculture" in EJ1. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).

Agenda Item 6: Local Vendor Outreach Program Annual Report (2012)

  • Presentation: Mark Masoner, Purchasing Manager, presented the annual report for the Local Vendor Outreach Program.
  • Objective: To increase purchases from local vendors, with a goal of spending a minimum of 60% of discretionary revenue with local vendors.
  • Results: In 2012, the county spent 61% ($107 million) with local vendors. The distribution was 54% via board contracts, 34% via purchasing contracts, and 12% via no-contract departmental transactions.
  • Cost of Preference: Staff indicated that the cost to the county for the 6% price preference given to local vendors was approximately $4,500 for the year.
  • Program Effectiveness: Staff attributed the success primarily to outreach efforts that encourage local vendor participation, rather than the price preference itself.
  • Discussion:
  • Supervisor Adams asked for a breakdown of major contracts and expressed concern that setting a higher goal might require tampering with the bid process.
  • Supervisor Carbajal suggested that the county should set a slightly more aggressive goal (e.g., 63-65%) to encourage departments to explore local purchasing more actively, particularly for smaller, in-house purchases.
  • Supervisor Farr requested that staff provide a detailed analysis of the cost factor of the program and identify which contracts were successful due to the outreach/preference, to help determine if a higher goal is realistic.
  • CEO Waller agreed to provide a report highlighting local vendor contracts, the cost to the county, and suggestions for enhancing the program.
  • Motion and Vote: Supervisor Adams moved to accept the report as presented and direct staff to provide a breakdown of purchasing, cost factors, and suggestions for enhancing the program. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 7: Joseph Centeno Bedrovia Government Center Administration Building Update

  • Presentation: Stephanie Stark and John Green from General Services presented an update on the renovation of the Bedrovia Government Center hearing room and lobby.
  • Project Status: Construction is over 80% complete, on schedule, and on budget. Occupancy is anticipated for July.
  • Scope of Work: The project includes a new lobby, increased hearing room capacity (approx. 20% more seating), improved ADA accessibility, new restrooms, and upgraded audio-visual systems.
  • Design Changes:
  • A full-height glass folding wall system was installed in lieu of a solid wall to allow the hearing room to expand into the lobby for larger events.
  • The dais was not relocated due to constraints from the existing TV production room, ceiling height, and presentation system infrastructure. Staff estimated that moving the dais would cost approximately $250,000 and disrupt the AV system.
  • Two 60-inch monitors were installed in the lobby to allow viewers to see and hear proceedings from the overflow area.
  • Funding: The project utilized funds substituted from other projects.
  • Discussion:
  • Supervisor Wolf asked for clarification on the approval of plans and specifications and inquired about visibility for those seated in the lobby overflow area. Staff confirmed that monitors and speakers in the lobby address this.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino expressed concern about the dais location, noting that it is a logistical challenge for large groups (e.g., Planning Commission meetings) and that the large screen behind the dais is necessary for public visibility. He acknowledged that moving the dais was not feasible due to cost and technical constraints.
  • Supervisor Farr clarified that the glass folding wall was an accepted alternate that increased flexibility and capacity.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino provided additional comments regarding the new building, noting that the painting of the new structure highlighted the condition of the old building. He stated that Mr. Green had informed him that painting the old building was already included in the maintenance plan and had been coordinated with the maintenance department. Lavagnino also commented on the presence of staff at the facility, noting that personnel were present before, after, and on weekends for power shutdowns and work.
  • Motion and Vote: A motion was made and seconded to accept the presentation. The motion passed unanimously.

Adjournment

  • A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously.