Board of Supervisors — 2014-06-03

Opening Remarks and Moment of Silence

• The Board offered condolences regarding the Isla Vista tragedy and expressed gratitude to first responders.
• Sheriff Bill Brown provided a briefing on the investigation timeline, suspect actions, and emergency response.
• The Sheriff outlined next steps, including finalizing the investigation and requesting an objective critical incident review.
• The Board observed a moment of silence for the victims.

Item A1: Resolution Proclaiming Marine Protected Area Awareness Weekend

• Supervisors Carbajal and Wolfe presented a resolution proclaiming June 7–8, 2014, as Marine Protected Area Awareness Weekend.
• Representatives from Santa Barbara Channel Keeper and the Environmental Defense Center spoke in support of the initiative.
• The resolution was adopted by the Board.

Item A2: Resolution Proclaiming CalFresh Awareness Month

• Supervisors Carbajal and Wolfe presented a resolution proclaiming June 2014 as CalFresh Awareness Month.
• Department of Social Services reported an increase in program reach from fewer than 30% to 40% of eligible individuals.
• The Food Bank of Santa Barbara County discussed collaboration efforts and upcoming summer programs to address food insecurity.
• The resolution was adopted by the Board.

Item A3: Resolution of Commendation for Officer Phillip V. Robasco

• Supervisor Farr presented a resolution commending Officer Phillip V. Robasco for his 25 years of service to the UCSB Police Department.
• Assistant Chief Kathy Farley and Officer Robasco spoke regarding his dedication and specific roles, including firearms training.
• The resolution was adopted by the Board.

Item A4: Resolution of Commendation for Lee Gonzalez

• Chairman Lavagnino presented a resolution recognizing Lee Gonzalez as the Santa Barbara County Employee of the Month for June 2014.
• Daniel Nielsen, Director of the Department of Social Services, and Lee Gonzalez spoke about her 25 years of service and leadership.
• The resolution was adopted by the Board.

Item A11: Children’s Health Initiative Contract Update

• The Board considered recommendations regarding the Children’s Health Initiative Santa Barbara outcome and contract update.
• Supervisor Adam requested a roll-call vote to abstain from the decision.
• The motion passed with three ayes, one abstention, and one no.

Item D2: Law Enforcement Services on Chumash Reservation

• Sheriff Brown presented a proposed contract with the Chumash Band to fund five deputy positions for law enforcement services on the Reservation.
• Public commenters raised concerns regarding the lack of a sovereign immunity waiver and vague definitions of the service area.
• County Counsel confirmed the contract would be unenforceable in court due to the missing waiver but noted the Brown Act did not apply to the Sheriff's negotiation.
• The Board voted 3-2 to send the contract back to the negotiating parties for rewriting to address enforceability and ambiguity concerns.

Agenda Item 3: Transfer of Funds to the Sheriff’s Office Budget for Fiscal Year 2013-14

• The Sheriff requested funds to address a projected $1.3 million deficit caused by unanticipated overtime and increased psychiatric and drug costs.
• The proposal included releasing $327,167 in asset forfeiture funds and requesting contingency funds for remaining deficits.
• Public commenters urged the Board to fully fund public safety and release the necessary contingency funds.
• The motion to approve the recommendations in the staff report passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 4: Solid Waste Tipping Fees, Collection Rates, and Parcel Fees for Fiscal Year 2014-15

• Public Works presented the annual solid waste fee item, proposing no changes to tipping and parcel fees.
• The proposal included a modest 0.55% CPI adjustment to hauler franchise agreements.
• The Board confirmed Lompoc’s control over its rates and approved the item unanimously.

Agenda Item 5: Amendment to Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance

• Planning and Development presented recommendations to approve Case No. 12-Ordinance-14, which amends the Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance.
• The amendments implement new regulations, make clarifications, and restructure sections to align with previously adopted land use development codes.
• The Board approved the item unanimously, noting Supervisor Farr was absent for the vote.

Agenda Item 6: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (Case No. 14 APL 13 / LUP 13 LUP 376)

• Staff recommended denying the appeal, arguing the appellants incorrectly calculated the maximum allowable floor area under the Summerlin Guidelines.
• Appellants argued the plain language of the code allows a 5% addition to the Floor Area Ratio for structures without basements.
• Public commenters and the Summerlin Board of Architectural Review supported the staff interpretation, citing decades of consistent application.
• The Board voted to uphold staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal and grant de novo denial of the project.

Closed Session

• County Counsel reported five items for closed session, including one significant exposure to litigation and three existing litigation matters.
• One labor negotiation item with all bargaining units was also agendized for the session.
• The Board agreed to proceed to a 90-minute closed session, returning at 1:00 PM.

Opening Remarks and Moment of Silence

• The meeting was called to order. The Board offered condolences regarding the Isla Vista tragedy, acknowledging the victims and expressing gratitude to first responders and the community. Supervisor Farr noted plans to bring forward items related to improving Isla Vista safety. Sheriff Bill Brown provided a briefing on the investigation into the May 23, 2014 mass murder, detailing the timeline, the suspect’s actions, and the response by law enforcement and emergency personnel. He outlined next steps, including finalizing the investigation, working with legislators on mental health and gun violence legislation, and requesting an objective critical incident review from the Police Foundation. CEO Mona Miyasato offered condolences on behalf of county employees and commended the response of various county departments. The Board observed a moment of silence for the victims.

Public Comment

• Three public speakers addressed the Board. Beatriz Contreras and Allie Guthy from the Associated Students at UCSB thanked the Board and first responders for their support during the tragedy. Lupe Montano, a worksite organizer for SEIU 721, urged the Board to prioritize child safety and support social workers. Eduardo Oseta, Chapter Board President of SEIU 721, commended the county’s response to the community. Christine Farrow urged the Board to allocate sufficient funds to social services to improve recruitment and retention of social workers, emphasizing the need to prioritize child safety in the budget.

Administrative Agenda Items A1–A4

• A motion was made and seconded to approve items A1 through A4. The motion passed unanimously.

Item A1: Resolution Proclaiming Marine Protected Area Awareness Weekend

• Supervisors Carbajal and Wolfe presented a resolution proclaiming June 7–8, 2014, as Marine Protected Area Awareness Weekend in Santa Barbara County. Ben Pitterly from Santa Barbara Channel Keeper and Christy Burney from the Environmental Defense Center spoke in support, highlighting the biological diversity of the Santa Barbara Channel and the recreational opportunities within the 18 marine protected areas. The resolution was adopted.

Item A2: Resolution Proclaiming CalFresh Awareness Month

• Supervisors Carbajal and Wolfe presented a resolution proclaiming June 2014 as CalFresh Awareness Month. Maria Gardner from the Department of Social Services reported that the county has increased its reach to eligible individuals from fewer than 30% to 40% in recent years. Bonnie Campbell and Amy Lopez from the Food Bank of Santa Barbara County discussed their collaboration with the Department of Social Services and upcoming summer programs to address food insecurity. The resolution was adopted.

Item A3: Resolution of Commendation for Officer Phillip V. Robasco

• Supervisor Farr presented a resolution commending Officer Phillip V. Robasco for his 25 years of service to the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department. Assistant Chief Kathy Farley and Officer Robasco spoke, acknowledging his dedication and specific roles, including firearms training and serving as a memorial service bugler. The resolution was adopted.

Item A4: Resolution of Commendation for Lee Gonzalez

• Chairman Lavagnino presented a resolution recognizing Lee Gonzalez as the Santa Barbara County Employee of the Month for June 2014. Daniel Nielsen, Director of the Department of Social Services, and Lee Gonzalez spoke. Gonzalez, a career employment specialist supervisor, was recognized for her 25 years of service and leadership. The resolution was adopted.

Item A11: Children’s Health Initiative Contract Update

• The Board considered recommendations regarding the Children’s Health Initiative Santa Barbara outcome and contract update. Supervisor Adam requested a roll-call vote to abstain. The motion was moved and seconded. The vote resulted in three ayes, one abstention, and one no. The motion passed.

Balance of Administrative Agenda

• A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda. The motion passed unanimously.

Item D1: Continuance

• A motion was made and seconded to continue Item D1. The motion passed unanimously.

Item D2: Law Enforcement Services on Chumash Reservation

• Sheriff Brown presented a proposed contract with the Chumash Band of Santa Ynez Indians to provide law enforcement services on the Chumash Reservation and for emergency response throughout the Santa Ynez Valley. He explained the history of funding from the state’s Special Distribution Fund, which had previously supported a 24/7 patrol post but was reduced due to funding shortfalls. The tribe offered to fund the position directly. The cost was estimated at approximately $850,000 annually for five deputy sheriffs, plus vehicle costs. The Sheriff noted the loss of other positions due to the recession and the tribe’s offer to restore the patrol unit.
• Public commenters presented varying perspectives on the proposed contract. Several speakers expressed support, noting that the tribe is providing a new funding source for existing services, covering costs that were previously funded by the Special Distribution Fund, and that the service benefits the broader San Ynez Valley. Other speakers raised concerns regarding the contract’s enforceability, specifically the lack of a waiver of sovereign immunity, which County Counsel confirmed would prevent the county from enforcing the contract in court. Additional concerns included vague definitions of the service area (specifically regarding fee simple lands and the 6.9-acre parcel), the potential for the tribe to reduce its payment obligation dollar-for-dollar based on Special Distribution Fund receipts, and questions about the negotiation process and potential Brown Act violations. County Counsel clarified that the Brown Act applies to the legislative body, not the elected Sheriff, and thus the process was compliant.
• The Sheriff presented data indicating approximately 40 unfunded positions in the department, with 8 current vacancies for deputy sheriffs. He stated that the contract would fund five additional deputy positions and that the service would be provided regardless of the contract, but the contract would ensure dedicated funding. He also noted that the tribe would prepay 90 days of the contract, mitigating financial risk.
• Supervisors discussed the enforceability issues, the definition of the service area, and the interaction with the Special Distribution Fund. Some supervisors expressed concern that the contract was unenforceable and that the language regarding the service area was ambiguous. Others argued that the service is already being provided and that rejecting the funding would shift the cost to the general fund.
• A motion was made and seconded to send the contract back to the negotiating parties to rewrite it to address the board’s concerns and then bring it back for further consideration. The motion passed 3-2.

Agenda Item 3: Transfer of Funds to the Sheriff’s Office Budget for Fiscal Year 2013-14

• The Sheriff presented a request to address a projected $1.3 million deficit for fiscal year 2013-14, representing approximately 1% of the adopted budget. The deficit was attributed to unanticipated overtime costs (approximately $900,000) due to vacancies and significant events (Halloween, Deltopia, Isla Vista), increased psychiatric health facility costs (rates doubled by ADMHS), and increased prescription drug costs. The Sheriff proposed two budget revisions: releasing $327,167 in state and federal asset forfeiture funds for eligible frontline law enforcement costs (uniforms, equipment) and requesting the release of contingency funds to cover the remaining deficit, primarily for overtime salaries and benefits.
• Public commenters urged the board to fully fund public safety and release the necessary contingency funds. Supervisors discussed the availability of asset forfeiture funds and the eligibility of the proposed expenditures.
• A motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendations in the staff report. The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 4: Solid Waste Tipping Fees, Collection Rates, and Parcel Fees for Fiscal Year 2014-15

• Public Works presented the annual item for solid waste fees. The proposal included no changes to tipping fees and parcel fees, with a modest 0.55% CPI adjustment to hauler franchise agreements. A question was raised regarding Lompoc’s control over its rates, which was confirmed to be correct.
• A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 5: Amendment to Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance

• Planning and Development presented a hearing to consider recommendations to approve Case No. 12-Ordinance-14. The ordinance amends the Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance to implement new regulations, make clarifications, corrections, and revisions, and restructure certain sections for clarity. The changes align with amendments previously made to the land use development codes, which were not certified by the Coastal Commission.
• A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. The motion passed unanimously. It was noted that Supervisor Farr was absent for the vote.

Closed Session

• County Counsel reported that five items were agendized for closed session: one significant exposure to litigation, three existing litigation matters (Farrell v. County of Santa Barbara, Funkhauser v. County of Santa Barbara, McCaig v. County of Santa Barbara), and one labor negotiation item with all bargaining units. A 90-minute session was recommended. The board agreed to proceed to closed session, returning at 1:00 PM.

Agenda Item 6: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (Case No. 14 APL 13 / LUP 13 LUP 376)

Ex Parte Disclosures

• Supervisors Carbonell, Adam, Wolfe, and Farr (via late disclosure) reported meetings with appellant representatives Gil Garcia and Everett Woody. Supervisor Carbonell also reported a site visit and meetings with Tom Evans and Reeve Walport. Supervisor Adam reported meetings with Gil Garcia, Everett Woody, and Richard Monk. The Chair reported a phone call with Everett Woody.

Staff Presentation

• Jay Ritterbeck, Planner for Planning and Development (P&D), presented the staff recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s de novo denial of the single-family dwelling addition. Key points included:
• Project Scope: The proposal involves converting an attached garage to habitable space and adding approximately 2,200 square feet to an existing 4,435-square-foot home, resulting in a total floor area of approximately 6,674 square feet.
• Core Dispute: The calculation of maximum allowable floor area under the Summerlin Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Guidelines and the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC).
• Staff Position: Staff calculated the maximum allowable floor area at 4,912 square feet. Staff argued that the 5% adjustment referenced in the guidelines for lots over 12,000 square feet is part of a base calculation (2,500 sq. ft. + 5% of net lot area), not a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to which an additional 5% can be added. Staff contended the project does not qualify for a "basement credit" because it is slab-on-grade, but does qualify for a minor "understory credit" (234 sq. ft.) because the finished floor is less than 18 inches above grade.
• Appellant’s Error: Staff stated the appellants incorrectly applied a 5% increase to the FAR, treating the 5% in the large-lot formula as a raw FAR number, and misapplied a non-existent garage credit.
• Procedural Issues: Staff addressed appellant claims regarding the Planning Commission hearing, stating that the appellant had the opportunity to rebut staff, no public testimony required rebuttal, and the hearing process followed the Procedures Manual.
• Recommendation: Deny the appeal, grant de novo denial of LUP 13 LUP 376, and make required CEQA findings (project exempt).

Appellant Presentation

• Gil Garcia and Everett Woody presented a video and oral arguments supporting the appeal. Key points included:
• Interpretation: The appellants argued that the LUDC and Summerlin Guidelines explicitly allow adding 5% to the maximum allowed FAR for structures that do not qualify for a basement credit. They contended that for lots over 12,000 square feet, the 5% in the formula represents the FAR, and the additional 5% credit should be added to this FAR.
• Calculation: Using their method, they calculated a maximum allowable floor area of 6,856 square feet, which is below the 8,000-square-foot cap.
• Understory/Basement: The appellants argued the project has no basement and does not meet the criteria for an "understory" as defined by staff (which they claimed requires a height exceeding four feet). They argued the "understory" adjustment cited by staff is a penalty for excessive height, not a credit, and that the 5% credit is distinct.
• Procedural Complaints: The appellants alleged staff misinformed the Planning Commission regarding the location of the FAR worksheet and that they were denied adequate time for rebuttal.
• Visual Impact: The appellants stated the addition is not visible from neighboring properties or public areas.

Public Comment

• Two members of the public spoke: 1. Tom Evans: A former member of the Summerlin Advisory Committee, Evans supported the staff interpretation. He stated that the guidelines were designed to control mass, bulk, and scale, and that the 5% credit has been consistently interpreted by staff for decades. He noted that the existing home was built to maximize the FAR under the previous interpretation and requested the appeal be denied. 2. Jeffrey O’Neill: Chairman of the Summerlin Board of Architectural Review, O’Neill supported the staff interpretation. He argued that allowing the appellant’s calculation would result in a square footage increase (over 2,000 sq. ft.) that is disproportionate to the maximum basement credit (450 sq. ft.) available for buried structures. He stated that the BAR’s interpretation prioritizes the intent of the guidelines over a literal reading of the ambiguous text.

Rebuttal

• Richard Monk, attorney for the appellants, argued that the staff’s interpretation requires adding words to the guidelines and LUDC that do not exist. He cited California case law (Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City of San Francisco) to argue that courts are not bound by agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. He reiterated that the plain language of the code allows the 5% addition to the FAR for structures without basements. Everett Woody added that the staff’s FAR worksheet is marked "draft" and conflicts with the LUDC.

Staff Clarification

• P&D staff clarified that the "understory credit" and "basement credit" refer to the same provision in the LUDC and Guidelines, which allows a 5% addition to the FAR for structures that do not qualify for a basement credit. Staff maintained that the dispute is solely over the mathematical application of this 5% (whether it is added to the FAR or to the calculated floor area). Staff also addressed the "draft" label on the worksheet, stating it refers to the date of the draft and that the worksheet is the adopted tool for calculation.

Board Deliberation

• Supervisor Carbonell: Acknowledged the ambiguity in the guidelines but emphasized the need for consistency. She noted that staff has consistently applied the current methodology for over two decades, and deviating from this established interpretation would create uncertainty. She moved to uphold staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal.
• Supervisor Farr: Seconded the motion, citing the importance of uniform application of community plan standards and the long-standing interpretation of the guidelines in Summerlin.
• Supervisor Adam: Expressed disagreement with the motion. He argued that the plain language of the code supports the appellant’s interpretation and that "we’ve been doing it that way for 30 years" is not a valid legal justification if the text says otherwise. He stated he believed the appellant’s calculation was correct based on the written words.

Decision

• The Board voted on the motion to uphold staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal.
• Motion: Uphold staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal and grant de novo denial of LUP 13 LUP 376.
• Vote Outcome: The motion passed.

Adjournment

• The meeting concluded with a moment of remembrance for the six victims of the Isla Vista shooting on May 23rd. The board adjourned, scheduling the next meeting for June 9th at 9:00 AM in Santa Barbara for the first budget meeting.