UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2014-07-08

Board of Supervisors — 2014-07-08July 8, 2014

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 July 8, 2014

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 Honoring Bill Libin

  • Supervisor Lavagnino introduced Bill Libin, who is retiring from the Boys and Girls Club of Santa Maria Valley after 40 years of service.
  • The resolution highlights his career progression from volunteer to Executive Director and his work with over 35,000 youth.
  • The resolution was read and adopted by the board.

Resolution of Commendation for Rosalie Castillo

  • Supervisor Lavagnino introduced Rosalie Castillo, who retired from the Sheriff’s Office after 33 years of service.
  • Sheriff Bill Brown spoke regarding her role in the Civil Bureau and her professionalism.
  • The resolution notes her career started in the Marshal’s Office in 1980 and continued through the consolidation into the Sheriff’s Office.
  • The resolution was read and adopted by the board.

Resolution Proclaiming Pretrial Probation and Parole Supervision Week

  • Supervisor Lavagnino introduced the resolution to proclaim July 13–19, 2014, as Pretrial Probation and Parole Supervision Week.
  • The resolution cites the Probation Department’s role in supervising approximately 4,500 adult offenders and 670 juvenile offenders.
  • Probation staff members provided brief descriptions of their roles and current programs, including the Odyssey Project at Los Prietos Boys Camp.
  • The resolution was read and adopted by the board.

College School District Bond Election

  • Staff presented an ex-agenda item from the College School District requesting an election to authorize school bonds.
  • The election is to be consolidated with the November 4, 2014, election.
  • Staff requested the board add this to the agenda by a four-fifths vote.
  • The motion to place the item on the agenda passed unanimously.

Fire Department Wildland Firefighting Donation

  • Supervisor Farr requested confirmation that the acceptance of a $300,000 donation would be followed by a budget revision detailing specific uses.
  • The Fire Chief confirmed that a detailed plan and budget revision would be presented in August, including additional state drought funding.
  • The item was approved as part of the balance of the administrative agenda.

Local Vendor Outreach Program Report

  • Supervisor Carbajal requested that staff work with department heads to identify measures to increase local vendor procurement beyond the current 62% goal.
  • Staff responded that they are already working with purchasing teams to leverage buying power and that the software research timeline could be adjusted.
  • Supervisor Carbajal emphasized the need for purchasing agents to consistently ask if items can be bought locally.
  • The item was approved as part of the balance of the administrative agenda.

Coastal Resiliency Project Phase One Agreement

  • Supervisor Adam stated that the board lacks the expertise to deal with sea level rise and climate change impacts and requested a roll call vote.
  • The motion passed 3-2.

Mission Canyon Sewer District Resolution

  • Supervisor Carbajal commended the Probation Department for addressing racial and ethnic disparities.
  • The item is identified as the Mission Canyon Sewer District resolution regarding septic management charges.
  • The item was approved as part of the balance of the administrative agenda.

Sheriff’s Department SB 1022 Funding

  • Sheriff Bill Brown presented a request to accept a conditional award of $38,976,000 from the Board of State and Community Corrections under Senate Bill 1022.
  • The funds are for the construction of a 228-bed "STAR" (Sheriff’s Transition and Reentry) complex as an addition to the Northern Branch Jail.
  • The Sheriff’s Office updated staffing estimates, identifying a need for 26 custody deputies and 4 custody sergeants for the STAR complex.
  • The net increase in operating costs is estimated at $2,092,100 annually.
  • Supervisor Carbajal requested that staff bring back the option for a Public Safety Agreement (PSA) for the SB 1022 facility in a timely manner.
  • CEO Miyasato clarified that the board will revisit the long-term operating plan in the fall to approve the final funding envelope.
  • The motion to approve items A through D passed unanimously.

Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) for Northern Branch Jail (AB 900 Phase 2)

  • CEO Miyasato introduced the item, noting that Public Works Director Scott McGulpin was leading the effort.
  • McGulpin presented the project scope, PSA definition, benefits, criticisms, next steps, and key agreement points for negotiation.
  • The board discussed the PSA, with various supervisors expressing support or opposition based on local hire, union representation, and cost concerns.
  • Supervisor Carbajal moved to direct staff to heed the comments and input outlined by board members, to negotiate a PLA with trade unions, and to incorporate communication with other stakeholders.
  • Supervisor Farr moved to amend the motion to specify developing a framework for a pilot project stabilization agreement for the Northern Branch Jail AB 900 Phase Two project and the STAR project.
  • The motion passed.

Amendments to Uniform Rules for Ag Preserves and Farmland Security Zones; Youngman Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for Olive Oil Processing

  • Dana Eady (Planning and Development) presented three components: LUDC amendments, Uniform Rules amendments, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an olive oil processing facility.
  • The board discussed the project, with various supervisors expressing support based on agricultural benefits and environmental considerations.
  • Supervisor Farr moved to approve staff’s recommended actions (adopt negative declaration, adopt ordinance, adopt resolution, approve CUP).
  • The motion passed unanimously.

Resolution to Implement Indigent Care Program and Terminate Medically Indigent Adult Services Program

  • Dr. Wada (Public Health) presented a resolution to implement a new Indigent Care Program (ICP) and terminate the existing Medically Indigent Adult (MIA) Services Program.
  • The MIA program covered ~1,000 individuals; the new ICP is expected to cover fewer than 50 individuals due to Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansions.
  • Supervisor Wolf commended the 95% retention rate.
  • Supervisor Carbajal commended the department for the successful transition.
  • Supervisor Carbajal moved to approve the resolution.
  • The motion passed unanimously.

CPI Adjustment of Fiscal Year 2014-15 Library Special Tax Rate for County Service Area Number 3 (Greater Goleta)

  • Staff (Community Services) presented the library special tax rate for CSA 3 (Greater Goleta) for FY 2014-15.
  • Voters approved a special tax in 1990 for enhanced services at the Goleta Library.
  • Annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim area.
  • Proposed increase of 1.1% for FY 2014-15.
  • This increase generates $179,800, an increase of $1,870 over the prior year.
  • Staff recommends adopting a resolution to confirm the report, increase the tax rate by 1.1%, determine it is not subject to CEQA, and file a Notice of Exemption.
  • The motion passed unanimously.

FY 2014-15 Special Tax Levy for Community Facilities Districts (Orcutt and Providence Landing)

  • Staff presented the proposed special tax levies for the Orcutt Community Facilities District (CFD) and the Providence Landing CFD.
  • The Orcutt CFD levy funds sheriff protection, fire protection, park maintenance, and flood/storm protection services.
  • The Providence Landing CFD levy funds the maintenance of Providence Landing Park.
  • A supervisor questioned the CPI calculation, and staff clarified that the minimum rate is 2%, with rates increasing if CPI exceeds that threshold.
  • A supervisor expressed concerns regarding the maintenance quality of the park and the fairness of the levy but moved the item.
  • The motion passed unanimously.

FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 Substantial Action Plan Amendments (CDBG)

  • Staff explained that the City of Lompoc made substantial changes to how it awards Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
  • This requires the County to amend its annual action plans submitted to HUD.
  • A public hearing was opened to receive comments.
  • No public comments were received.
  • A representative from the City of Lompoc was present but did not speak.
  • The motion passed unanimously.

Case No. 14-APL11 (Castellan Appeal)

  • Staff reported that the appellants and other parties reached a resolution regarding the single-family dwelling project previously denied by the Montecito Planning Commission.
  • Staff recommended finalizing the agreement.
  • The motion to approve staff recommendations passed unanimously.

Crown Castle Distributed Antenna System Appeals (Montecito Coastal and Inland)

  • Staff presented denial findings prepared for the two appeal cases.
  • The applicant requested an extension of the "shot clock" to allow the Montecito Planning Commission to review revised portions of the project.
  • The applicant agreed to extend the shot clock to August 20, 2014, with the condition that the Board of Supervisors retains appellate jurisdiction and the Planning Commission serves only in an advisory role regarding aesthetic considerations and post-denial revisions.
  • A supervisor emphasized that the Planning Commission’s review should be substantive.
  • The motion to continue the items to August 19, 2014, directing staff to present the revised project to the Montecito Planning Commission as an advisory body for comments on aesthetics, while the Board retains jurisdiction, passed unanimously.

Case No. 13-APL29 (Beach Club Project Appeal)

  • Staff presented the appeal of the Beach Club project, which involves a lot split, construction of a single-family dwelling, and legalization of unpermitted grading and modifications to a habitat restoration plan.
  • Key issues discussed included Community Plan Consistency, Trails and Access, Visual Resources, Zoning Violations, and Environmental Impact.
  • The appellant presented an appeal arguing that the Planning Commission erred by omitting consideration of a trail identified in the Summerlin Community Plan.
  • The applicant presented the applicant’s position, arguing that the project includes a high-quality restoration plan, building envelopes to protect habitat and archaeological resources, and compliance with streambed alteration agreements.
  • Public comment was received from various individuals, with some opposing the appeal and others supporting it.
  • Rebuttal was presented by both the appellant and the applicant.
  • Supervisor Carbajal expressed difficulty in making a decision to uphold or deny the appeal without further analysis.
  • Supervisor Farr expressed disagreement with the applicant’s attorney’s view that there are no physical changes.
  • Supervisor Adam opposed the EIR, stating it is an "outrage" for a single-family dwelling.
  • Supervisor Wolff supported a focused EIR on recreation, citing inconsistencies in the MND regarding trail usage and cultural resources.
  • Chair Lavagnino expressed concern that the scope of the EIR (visual, recreation, biological, cultural) was excessive for one house.
  • The motion to adopt staff’s recommendation (approve the project/deny the appeal) failed (2 to 3).
  • Supervisor Carbajal moved to continue the item to allow staff to conduct a focused EIR on recreational resources.
  • Discussion focused on establishing a realistic timeline for the statutory notice regarding the focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
  • A motion was made and seconded to direct staff to proceed with the focused EIR process, incorporating the grounding regarding policy inconsistencies.
  • The motion passed (4-1).

Drought Proclamation Extension

  • Staff announced that the board must convene prior to August to consider the extension of the drought proclamation resolution.
  • A tentative date of Tuesday, July 29th, was proposed, with the requirement that at least three board members be available to hold the meeting.

Closed Session

  • No closed session items were reported in the provided summary.

Full summary

Meeting Opening and Minutes

  • Roll Call: All supervisors were present.
  • Pledge of Allegiance: Recited.
  • Minutes of July 1st Meeting: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes. The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Agenda

  • General Approval Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve items A1, A2, and A48. The motion passed unanimously.

Item A48: Resolution Honoring Bill Libin

  • Discussion: Supervisor Lavagnino introduced Bill Libin, who is retiring from the Boys and Girls Club of Santa Maria Valley after 40 years of service. The resolution highlights his career progression from volunteer to Executive Director, his work with over 35,000 youth, and his coaching history.
  • Action: The resolution was read and adopted.

Item A1: Resolution of Commendation for Rosalie Castillo

  • Discussion: Supervisor Lavagnino introduced Rosalie Castillo, who retired from the Sheriff’s Office after 33 years of service. Sheriff Bill Brown spoke regarding her role in the Civil Bureau and her professionalism. The resolution notes her career started in the Marshal’s Office in 1980 and continued through the consolidation into the Sheriff’s Office.
  • Action: The resolution was read and adopted.

Item A2: Resolution Proclaiming Pretrial Probation and Parole Supervision Week

  • Discussion: Supervisor Lavagnino introduced the resolution to proclaim July 13–19, 2014, as Pretrial Probation and Parole Supervision Week. The resolution cites the Probation Department’s role in supervising approximately 4,500 adult offenders and 670 juvenile offenders. Probation staff members April Irving, Heidi Hansen, and William Roberts provided brief descriptions of their roles and current programs, including the Odyssey Project at Los Prietos Boys Camp.
  • Action: The resolution was read and adopted.

Ex-Item: College School District Bond Election

  • Discussion: Staff presented an ex-agenda item from the College School District requesting an election to authorize school bonds, to be consolidated with the November 4, 2014, election. Staff requested the board add this to the agenda by a four-fifths vote.
  • Motion: A motion was made and seconded to place the item on the agenda.
  • Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item Selection

  • Discussion: Supervisors selected specific items for detailed discussion: A23, A24, A28, and A31.

Item A23: Fire Department Wildland Firefighting Donation

  • Discussion: Supervisor Farr requested confirmation that the acceptance of a $300,000 donation would be followed by a budget revision detailing specific uses (e.g., helicopter services, staffing). The Fire Chief confirmed that a detailed plan and budget revision would be presented in August, including additional state drought funding.
  • Action: The item was approved as part of the balance of the administrative agenda.

Item A24: Local Vendor Outreach Program Report

  • Public Comment: Hazel Davalos of CAUSE spoke in support of a project labor agreement related to the North County Jail.
  • Discussion: Supervisor Carbajal requested that staff work with department heads to identify measures to increase local vendor procurement beyond the current 62% goal and to accelerate the research on procurement software from Spring 2015 to sooner. Staff responded that they are already working with purchasing teams to leverage buying power and that the software research timeline could be adjusted. Supervisor Carbajal emphasized the need for purchasing agents to consistently ask if items can be bought locally.
  • Action: The item was approved as part of the balance of the administrative agenda.

Item A28: Coastal Resiliency Project Phase One Agreement

  • Discussion: Supervisor Adam stated that the board lacks the expertise to deal with sea level rise and climate change impacts and requested a roll call vote.
  • Vote: The motion passed 3-2.

Item A31: Mission Canyon Sewer District Resolution

  • Discussion: Supervisor Carbajal commended the Probation Department for addressing racial and ethnic disparities (note: The transcript indicates a mix-up in the speaker's remarks, referencing Probation while the item is listed as Public Health/Sewer District; however, the item A31 is identified as the Mission Canyon Sewer District resolution regarding septic management charges).
  • Action: The item was approved as part of the balance of the administrative agenda.

Balance of Administrative Agenda

  • Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda.
  • Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
  • Note: Staff noted that an addendum was included for the appointment to the Guadalupe Cemetery District and the approval of the ex-agenda item.

Departmental Agenda Item 1: Sheriff’s Department SB 1022 Funding

  • Discussion: Sheriff Bill Brown presented a request to accept a conditional award of $38,976,000 from the Board of State and Community Corrections under Senate Bill 1022. The funds are for the construction of a 228-bed "STAR" (Sheriff’s Transition and Reentry) complex as an addition to the Northern Branch Jail.
  • Staffing and Costs: The Sheriff’s Office updated staffing estimates, identifying a need for 26 custody deputies and 4 custody sergeants for the STAR complex. The net increase in operating costs is estimated at $2,092,100 annually. Total net operating costs for both AB 900 and SB 1022 facilities are estimated at $17,955,094.
  • Assumptions: Costs are projected with a 3% annual increase for salaries/benefits and services/supplies, and a 7% annual increase for outside medical/pharmaceutical costs.
  • Corizon Contract: Questions were raised regarding the medical vendor Corizon. Staff confirmed that cost increases for additional beds are built into the model based on current CPI assumptions, but a new contract negotiation will be required.
  • Timeline: The Sheriff’s Office indicated that the AB 900 facility and SB 1022 complex will likely be constructed as separate projects due to funding cycles and cost escalation risks, with the SB 1022 complex added on after the AB 900 facility is nearing completion.
  • PSA Option: Supervisor Carbajal requested that staff bring back the option for a Public Safety Agreement (PSA) for the SB 1022 facility in a timely manner. CEO Miyasato agreed to address this in the next agenda item.
  • Operating Plan: CEO Miyasato clarified that the board will revisit the long-term operating plan in the fall to approve the final funding envelope.
  • Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve items A through D (referring to the sub-items of the Sheriff’s presentation).
  • Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 2: Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) for Northern Branch Jail (AB 900 Phase 2)

  • Staff Presentation: CEO Miyasato introduced the item, noting that Public Works Director Scott McGulpin was leading the effort. McGulpin presented the following:
  • Project Scope: The Northern Branch Jail AB 900 Phase 2 project is the county’s largest capital project, with a current construction cost estimate of $69.4 million.
  • PSA Definition: A PSA is a contractually binding negotiated agreement between the county and building/construction trade unions. It requires contractors to adhere to collective bargaining agreements for specific work classifications.
  • Benefits and Criticisms:
  • Proponents: PSAs may ensure a steady supply of skilled labor, timely resolution of labor disputes, no work stoppages, and community benefits such as apprenticeships and hiring of veterans.
  • Critics: PSAs may place additional administrative burdens on non-union contractors, potentially reducing the number of bids, limiting competition, and raising costs. They may be redundant given existing state statutes and pre-qualification processes.
  • Next Steps: If the board directs staff to proceed, negotiations will commence with the Tri-County Building and Construction Trades Council (TCBT). Board approval of the draft PSA is needed by September 2014 to include it in project specifications. If no agreement is reached, the project will proceed using the Joint Labor Compliance Program approved in 2012.
  • Key Agreement Points for Negotiation:
  • 1. Core Workforce: Staff recommends allowing non-union contractors to utilize their entire core workforce before using union hiring halls, mirroring the San Francisco Airport Commission PSA. 2. Exemptions: Staff recommends exempting off-site fabrication facilities not working exclusively for the project and all professional services (e.g., A&E firms, construction administrators) from the PSA to avoid delays. 3. Apprenticeships: Staff recommends requiring only what is necessary to meet state law (Labor Code section 1777.5), rather than mandating exclusive use of union apprenticeship programs. 4. Union Dues and Benefits: Staff has no recommendation; this is a board policy decision. Examples cited include requirements for non-union contractors to pay union dues or benefits, or to pay equivalent benefits into their own plans. 5. Local Participation: Staff recommends including good faith efforts to encourage local labor participation and potentially exempting certain labor types to encourage small business participation.
  • Board Questions and Clarifications:
  • Supervisor Wolf: Asked why September 2014 is the deadline. Staff explained it is due to scheduling requirements for the pre-qualification package. Wolf expressed concern about the tight timeline and the inadequacy of the Joint Labor Compliance Program as a default.
  • Supervisor Farr: Asked about the construction duration. Staff estimated 3 to 3.5 years for the AB 900 project (June 2015 to early 2018). The SB 1022 project is approximately one year behind.
  • Supervisor Carbajal: Asked for clarification on local hire provisions. Council explained that as a general law county, the county must award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. However, it can use design-friendly approaches, outreach programs, good faith efforts, and apprenticeship programs to encourage local hire. Carbajal emphasized the need to reconcile local participation goals with core workforce provisions to ensure local workers are hired.
  • Supervisor Wolf: Asked if non-union contractors could pay equivalent benefits into their own plans. Council confirmed this is a possibility.
  • Supervisor Carbajal: Clarified that no provision would preclude union or non-union contractors from bidding. Council confirmed that excluding anyone from bidding would not comply with state law.
  • Public Comment:
  • Opposition to PSA:
  • J.W. Bailey (J.W. Bailey Construction): Argued that a PSA effectively creates an all-union contract, eliminating non-union local subcontractors who do not want to join unions.
  • Rodney Utt (Utt Construction): Opposed the PSA as a non-union shop owner, stating it would increase costs and force workers to join unions without vesting benefits.
  • Sharon Fritz (Action Roofing): Opposed the PSA, noting her company adheres to labor laws and building codes. Asked for criteria on which trades might be excluded.
  • Julie Bischoff: Opposed the PSA, arguing it adds unnecessary government regulation and cost to a taxpayer-funded project.
  • Karen Parasinato (Santa Barbara Contractors Association): Opposed the PSA, stating it shuts out non-union contractors (85% of the local workforce), reduces competition, and increases costs.
  • Christine Mollenkopf (Attorney/Contractor Association President): Opposed the PSA, stating that non-union contractors would not bid, reducing local participation and increasing costs.
  • Daniel Stanford (Cal Portland Construction): Opposed the PSA, stating it would disadvantage non-union companies and eliminate their chance to work on the project.
  • Danny Devereux (Cal Portland Construction): Opposed the PSA, stating his non-union company would not be able to participate.
  • David Wilhite (Quintron Systems): Opposed the PSA, arguing negotiations should include non-union representation, core workforce restrictions should not apply to non-union employees, and non-union contractors should not be forced to pay union dues/benefits.
  • Kevin Dayton (Coalition for Fair Employment and Construction): Opposed the PSA, arguing it is about union control, reduces competition, and forces non-union contractors to change business operations.
  • John Hughes (Electrical Workers Representative): Supported the PSA but noted that public works projects without PSAs have recently exceeded engineer's estimates by an average of 28.5%.
  • Support for PSA:
  • Hazel Davalos (CAWS): Supported the PSA, arguing it is the only tool to assure local labor hire and address high unemployment in North County.
  • Tim Bennett (Hancock College Trustee): Supported the PSA, citing college projects where local contractors performed better than out-of-town contractors.
  • Michael Lopez: Supported the PSA, arguing it ensures local hire and that wages are already set by prevailing wage laws.
  • Tony Skinner (Tri-County Building and Construction Trades Council): Supported the PSA, citing benefits such as labor peace, local hiring, economic benefits, training, and quality standards.
  • Chuck Cuddleston (IBEW Local 413): Supported the PSA, citing examples of out-of-town contractors bringing in non-local workers for recent projects.
  • Kevin Asman (Sheet Metal Workers Union): Supported the PSA, emphasizing local hire and the economic benefits of keeping money in the community.
  • Brian Gregory (Joint Electrical Apprenticeship Program): Supported the PSA, emphasizing the value of apprenticeship programs and local training.
  • Additional Public Comment:
  • Joe Hossel (CEO, Hossel Builders; President, Santa Maria Valley Contractors Association): Stated that the pressure to make timely decisions is shared by project owners. Noted that while any contractor can bid, they must sign the union agreement. Argued that the majority of local contractors are non-union and do not wish to bid due to this requirement. Described "good faith efforts" clauses as lacking enforcement mechanisms. Requested that any agreement ensure local workforce participation.
  • Sherry Brunner (Executive Director, National Electrical Contractors Association local chapter): Clarified that local workforces exist to perform the work. Stated that opposition to a PSA that has not yet been agreed upon is premature. Noted that many non-union contractors are small businesses that would not bid on this project regardless. Emphasized the importance of local hiring and suggested that core workforce provisions should ensure workers come from the local area.
  • Brett Jenkins (Representative, Southwest Regional Council Carpenters): Stated that local work has been scarce and that outside contractors often bring in workers from other regions, excluding locals. Expressed support for PSAs as a method to secure local work.
  • Robin Hayhurst (Representative, Santa Maria Valley Contractors Association): Thanked staff for presenting balanced options. Stated that a local hire ordinance would not have affected previous engineering issues. Predicted that a union electrical firm would win the job regardless of a PSA. Noted that the local construction community is largely non-union and views the potential effect of a PSA on their employees as detrimental to business. Requested that the Santa Maria Valley Contractors Association be included as a stakeholder to allow non-union contractors to feel comfortable bidding.
  • David Baldwin (Plasters and Cement Masons local union): Spoke in favor of developing a PSA. Suggested that union dues and benefits issues be covered under standard "core employee" language. Emphasized that the primary goal is local hire. Clarified that union benefits are governed by ERISA law and jointly managed trust funds, not owned by the union. Suggested including language regarding at-risk youth programs in apprenticeships.
  • Joseph Ferino: Stated that the "taxation without representation" argument is invalid under Department of Labor regulations. Characterized the PSA as a "pilot" program to be evaluated after implementation. Stated that the primary goal is saving money for the county.
  • Board Deliberation:
  • Supervisor Carbajal: Expressed support for a pilot program. Stated that the primary goal is local hire and local business participation. Requested that the agreement include "teeth" to balance core workforce provisions with local hiring commitments. Stated that allowing 100% core workforce does not achieve the goal of local participation. Distinguished between union dues (which should not be forced) and representation fees (which may be acceptable if benefits are commensurate). Expressed concern that exemptions for landscaping could allow out-of-region contractors to bypass local participation. Requested that a similar framework be considered for the STAR facility.
  • Supervisor Gazzone: Provided legal context regarding the definition of "core workforce," citing the California Supreme Court’s consideration of the San Francisco Airport Commission’s definition (60 of the preceding 100 days). Noted that staff samples often used 60 days, but some used 120 days.
  • Supervisor Carbajal: Indicated a preference for a 120-day definition for core workforce to prevent contractors from bringing in new workers shortly before the project, but stated 60 days would be acceptable. Clarified the distinction between union dues and representation fees, stating that while union dues should not be forced, representation fees are a separate issue.
  • Supervisor Wolf: Stated that the higher the core workforce allowance, the less opportunity for local labor. Cited examples from other counties (Ventura, Alameda, San Diego) using a 1-to-1 ratio of core to union workers. Recommended a 1-to-1 ratio and a 60-day definition for core workers. Agreed with staff exemptions for off-site fabrication and professional services. Stated that "good faith" local participation efforts are insufficient and that a more stringent local participation plan is needed.
  • Supervisor Adam: Stated that labor market conditions should be resolved between employees/unions and employers, not by government intervention. Declined to participate in the worksheet/spreadsheet discussion.
  • Supervisor Farr: Expressed support for continuing negotiations and bringing a proposal back in September. Emphasized local hire as the overriding mantra. Supported exemptions for off-site fabrication and professional services. Supported using state-qualified apprenticeship programs as a baseline. Suggested looking at Sonoma County’s model regarding union dues and fees. Stated that the agreement should be extended to the STAR complex.
  • Chair Lavagnino: Asked staff about the legal basis for not requiring local hire directly.
  • Staff (Gazzone): Explained that as a general law county, a flat local hire provision is contrary to the Public Contract Code. Stated that outreach and good faith efforts are the permissible approaches.
  • Chair Lavagnino: Asked about grant requirements for set-asides for minority/women-owned businesses.
  • Staff: Stated there are no such provisions in the grant. Noted that this is a state-funded project, not federal, so federal set-aside rules do not apply.
  • Chair Lavagnino: Asked about compliance monitoring and the difference between a PSA and a Joint Labor Compliance Program. Asked if there is an exit route if bids come in substantially higher than anticipated.
  • Staff (Gazzone): Stated that compliance is typically handled by a labor compliance committee. Confirmed that under the Public Contract Code, the board can reject all bids or withdraw from the project, though this may cause scheduling issues and costs for contractors.
  • Motion and Vote:
  • Motion: Supervisor Carbajal moved to direct staff to heed the comments and input outlined by board members, to negotiate a PLA with trade unions, and to incorporate communication with other stakeholders.
  • Second: Supervisor Wolf.
  • Amendment: Supervisor Farr moved to amend the motion to specify developing a framework for a pilot project stabilization agreement for the Northern Branch Jail AB 900 Phase Two project and the STAR project.
  • Clarification: Staff confirmed this is not final action but a direction to negotiate and return in September or earlier.
  • Vote: Passed.

Agenda Item 3: Amendments to Uniform Rules for Ag Preserves and Farmland Security Zones; Youngman Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for Olive Oil Processing

  • Staff Presentation:
  • Dana Eady (Planning and Development): Presented three components:
  • 1. Land Use Development Code (LUDC) amendments to allow small-scale agricultural processing (raw to milled liquid form) on AG-1 and AG-2 zoned parcels in the inland area. 2. Uniform Rules amendments to allow small-scale processing beyond the raw state. 3. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an olive oil processing facility on the Youngman property in San Ynez.
  • Details:
  • Processing limited to simple mechanical processing (solid to liquid) without chemical reactions or temperature changes.
  • No wastewater discharges or hazardous waste; wastewater managed on-site.
  • Off-site product milling limited to 49% of total volume.
  • At least 5% of milled volume must be harvested from the parcel where processing occurs.
  • Ancillary facilities (sales, marketing, parking) limited to one acre.
  • No on-site retail sales.
  • The Youngman property consists of four parcels (~170 acres), with 65 acres planted with olives. The mill will be located in existing horse barns.
  • Processing occurs annually during fall harvest (8-10 weeks).
  • Four permanent employees and four temporary employees during harvest.
  • Negative Declaration adopted for LUDC amendments and CUP. Uniform Rules amendments covered by existing EIR.
  • Staff recommends approval of all components.
  • Public Comment:
  • David Waite (Applicant’s Legal Representative): Thanked staff. Stated the project is a green operation with no hazardous waste, air emissions, or wastewater discharges. Described it as a supportive use for the agricultural community.
  • Board Deliberation:
  • Supervisor Farr: Stated the project has no public controversy. Thanked the applicant and staff. Noted the project benefits the agricultural community by allowing processing of olives and potentially other products. Expressed readiness to move staff’s recommended actions.
  • Ex Parte Report:
  • Supervisor Farr: Site visit with applicant and team.
  • Supervisor Carbajal: Site visit with applicant and team.
  • Supervisor Wolf: Met with applicant and team in office.
  • Supervisor Adam: No contacts.
  • Chair Lavagnino: No contacts.
  • Supervisor Adam: Stated the project is a good step in recognizing that agricultural definitions are too tight. Expressed disappointment at the limitation on chemical reactions (e.g., fermentation) but supported the project.
  • Supervisor Carbajal: Thanked the applicant for showing the facility. Stated support for the project.
  • Motion and Vote:
  • Motion: Supervisor Farr moved to approve staff’s recommended actions (adopt negative declaration, adopt ordinance, adopt resolution, approve CUP).
  • Second: Supervisor Adam.
  • Vote: Passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 4: Resolution to Implement Indigent Care Program and Terminate Medically Indigent Adult Services Program

  • Staff Presentation:
  • Dr. Wada (Public Health): Presented a resolution to implement a new Indigent Care Program (ICP) and terminate the existing Medically Indigent Adult (MIA) Services Program.
  • The MIA program covered ~1,000 individuals; the new ICP is expected to cover fewer than 50 individuals due to Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansions.
  • The ICP is required under the Welfare and Institution Code.
  • Brian Gregory (Public Health):
  • MIA program existed for 25 years; funding withdrawn due to ACA.
  • MIA program covered ages 21-64, citizens/legal residents, income 0-200% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
  • ICP covers the "donut" between 138% and 200% FPL (as Medi-Cal covers up to 138%).
  • ICP aligns cost-sharing with Medi-Cal.
  • Over 93% of former MIA patients have qualified for other healthcare coverage.
  • 95% of those patients have retained care within county health centers.
  • Requested authority to update ICP eligibility regulations as needed for compliance.
  • Board Deliberation:
  • Supervisor Wolf: Commended the 95% retention rate.
  • Supervisor Carbajal: Commended the department for the successful transition.
  • Motion and Vote:
  • Motion: Supervisor Carbajal moved to approve the resolution.
  • Second: (Not explicitly named in transcript, but motion was seconded).
  • Vote: Passed unanimously.

Agenda Item 5: CPI Adjustment of Fiscal Year 2014-15 Library Special Tax Rate for County Service Area Number 3 (Greater Goleta)

  • Staff Presentation:
  • Staff (Community Services): Presented the library special tax rate for CSA 3 (Greater Goleta) for FY 2014-15.
  • Voters approved a special tax in 1990 for enhanced services at the Goleta Library.
  • Annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim area.
  • Proposed increase of 1.1% for FY 2014-15.
  • This increase generates $179,800, an increase of $1,870 over the prior year.
  • Staff recommends adopting a resolution to confirm the report, increase the tax rate by 1.1%, determine it is not subject to CEQA, and file a Notice of Exemption.
  • Board Deliberation:
  • No public speakers.
  • Supervisor Wolf was called to speak but the transcript ends before their comment is recorded.
  • Motion and Vote:
  • Motion: Moved and seconded.
  • Decision: Passed unanimously.

Item 6: FY 2014-15 Special Tax Levy for Community Facilities Districts (Orcutt and Providence Landing)

  • Discussion: Staff presented the proposed special tax levies for the Orcutt Community Facilities District (CFD) and the Providence Landing CFD. The Orcutt CFD levy funds sheriff protection, fire protection, park maintenance, and flood/storm protection services, levied on developed, graded, and undeveloped property. The Providence Landing CFD levy funds the maintenance of Providence Landing Park, levied on 266 parcels. Staff noted that the tax rate for Providence Landing has remained consistent since 2006-07. A supervisor questioned the CPI calculation, and staff clarified that the minimum rate is 2%, with rates increasing if CPI exceeds that threshold. A supervisor expressed concerns regarding the maintenance quality of the park and the fairness of the levy but moved the item.
  • Motion: Moved and seconded.
  • Decision: Passed unanimously.

Item 7: FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 Substantial Action Plan Amendments (CDBG)

  • Discussion: Staff explained that the City of Lompoc made substantial changes to how it awards Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, requiring the County to amend its annual action plans submitted to HUD. A public hearing was opened to receive comments. No public comments were received. A representative from the City of Lompoc was present but did not speak.
  • Motion: Moved and seconded.
  • Decision: Passed unanimously.

Item 8: Case No. 14-APL11 (Castellan Appeal)

  • Discussion: Staff reported that the appellants and other parties reached a resolution regarding the single-family dwelling project previously denied by the Montecito Planning Commission. Staff recommended finalizing the agreement.
  • Motion: Moved to approve staff recommendations.
  • Decision: Passed unanimously.

Items 9 & 10: Crown Castle Distributed Antenna System Appeals (Montecito Coastal and Inland)

  • Discussion: Staff presented denial findings prepared for the two appeal cases. The applicant requested an extension of the "shot clock" to allow the Montecito Planning Commission to review revised portions of the project. The applicant agreed to extend the shot clock to August 20, 2014, with the condition that the Board of Supervisors retains appellate jurisdiction and the Planning Commission serves only in an advisory role regarding aesthetic considerations and post-denial revisions. A supervisor emphasized that the Planning Commission’s review should be substantive.
  • Motion: Moved to continue the items to August 19, 2014, directing staff to present the revised project to the Montecito Planning Commission as an advisory body for comments on aesthetics, while the Board retains jurisdiction.
  • Decision: Passed unanimously.

Item 11: Case No. 13-APL29 (Beach Club Project Appeal)

  • Discussion: Staff presented the appeal of the Beach Club project, which involves a lot split, construction of a single-family dwelling, and legalization of unpermitted grading and modifications to a habitat restoration plan. Key issues discussed included:
  • Community Plan Consistency: Staff stated the project is consistent with the effective Summerland Community Plan, as the draft update is not yet effective.
  • Trails and Access: Staff argued that no trail exaction is required because the project does not place additional burdens on the public trail system. Discussion focused on a gate across Toro Canyon Creek, which was erected in the late 1980s without a permit (deemed legal non-conforming). Staff clarified that only the portion of the gate on the applicant’s property will be removed; the adjacent property owner’s portion is outside the scope of this permit. Staff noted that public access to the beach exists via other routes, including a dedicated easement to the east.
  • Visual Resources: Staff stated the project is consistent with visual resource policies, noting that views are filtered by existing hedges and trees.
  • Zoning Violations: Staff explained that legalizing the unpermitted grading (specifically a gabion wall) was chosen over removal because removal would have negatively impacted an adjacent archaeological site. The gabion wall now provides superior protection to the site.
  • Environmental Impact: Staff concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is adequate and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required, citing a lack of substantial evidence of significant impacts or continued public use of the creek corridor trail.
  • Ex Parte Contacts: Supervisors reported various contacts with appellants, staff, and other parties, including site visits and office meetings.
  • Appellant Presentation:
  • Mark Ciotillo, representing the Summerlin Citizens Association, Reeve Wolpert, and Tom Evans, presented an appeal arguing that the Planning Commission erred by omitting consideration of a trail identified in the Summerlin Community Plan. Key points included:
  • Trail Identification: The appellant cited Figure 15 of the Summerlin Community Plan and the General Plan PRT map, which identify a trail through Toro Creek across the subject property.
  • Access Issues: The appellant argued that existing beach access points (Loon Point and Serena Point) are inaccessible during high tides (70–80% of the time) and that the subject property is the last opportunity to establish vertical access due to cumulative lot splits.
  • Policy Authority: The appellant cited Summerlin Community Plan policies, Local Coastal Plan Policy 7-25, and Coastal Zoning Ordinance Section 3563, which require trail easements as a condition of project approval.
  • Public Use: The appellant submitted 15 declarations of public use and cited the county’s 1991 Coastal Access Implementation Plan, which recommended acquiring vertical access at Toro Creek.
  • CEQA Concerns: The appellant argued that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is inappropriate and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to analyze significant impacts on recreational, visual, and biological/cultural resources, as well as policy inconsistencies.
  • Request: The appellant requested the Board grant the appeal, deny the project, or direct staff to prepare an EIR.
  • Applicant Presentation:
  • Ginger Anderson, agent for the owner, and Benjamin Resnick, attorney for the applicant, presented the applicant’s position:
  • Restoration and Compliance: The applicant stated that the project includes a high-quality restoration plan, building envelopes to protect habitat and archaeological resources, and compliance with streambed alteration agreements. Letters of support were received from Native American constituents and neighbors.
  • Trail Feasibility: The applicant argued that the terrain, privacy, safety, and environmental constraints (erosive soils, floodplain, cultural resources) make a trail infeasible. They noted that the Coastal Commission did not want the creek corridor used for public access and required the removal of certain structures to protect resources.
  • Adequate Access: The applicant contended that existing access via the Loon Point Trailhead is adequate and that the incremental benefit of a new access point is not commensurate with the impacts.
  • Legal Arguments: The applicant’s attorney argued that the Board lacks the authority to impose a trail easement without a nexus and rough proportionality finding linking the project to the impact. They cited the Kuntz case, stating that a project cannot be denied based on an illegal condition. They argued that the MND adequately analyzed impacts and that an EIR is not required because there is no substantial evidence of a significant, unmitigable physical impact caused by the project.
  • Visual Resources: The applicant argued that requiring a view corridor would unfairly burden the owner compared to other properties and that existing viewing opportunities are sufficient.
  • Public Comment:
  • David Ludwig: Opposed the appeal, citing unfunded maintenance costs, safety concerns (graffiti, trash), and the lack of county resources for beach cleanup.
  • Stephen Carlson: Opposed the appeal, noting that previous discussions in the 1990s determined that parking, sanitation, and safety issues could not be adequately addressed. He stated that existing access at Loon Point and the east end of Padero Lane is sufficient.
  • Kevin Snow: Supported the appeal, representing the Montecito Trails Foundation. He urged the Board to uphold the community plan policies and grant access to the coast.
  • John Jorgensen: (Noted as a speaker but no specific comments recorded in this segment).
  • Additional Speaker: (Noted as a speaker but no specific comments recorded in this segment).
  • Rebuttal:
  • Appellant: Reiterated the need for an EIR to analyze physical impacts (fences, gates, security) and policy inconsistencies. Argued that the project creates direct impacts on coastal access and that the EIR is the proper vehicle to resolve these issues.
  • Applicant: Reiterated that an EIR is not required because the MND has mitigated all significant impacts. Argued that the Board cannot impose conditions to fix pre-existing community issues (inadequate beach access) that are not caused by the project.
  • Staff Clarification: Staff clarified that the 1991 Coastal Access Implementation Plan was never adopted by the Board and that the applicant’s development does not occur within sensitive resource areas, but rather involves restoration work in the creek bed.
  • Board Discussion and Motion:
  • Supervisor Carbajal: Expressed difficulty in making a decision to uphold or deny the appeal without further analysis. Proposed continuing the item to allow for a focused EIR on recreational resources to ensure an informed decision.
  • Supervisor Farr: Expressed disagreement with the applicant’s attorney’s view that there are no physical changes. Cited concerns regarding aesthetics/visual resources, biology (red-legged frog), cultural resources (significance for California Register), and recreation (conflict with established recreational use). Supported the need for better analysis.
  • Supervisor Adam: Opposed the EIR, stating it is an "outrage" for a single-family dwelling. Moved to adopt staff’s recommendation (approve the project).
  • Supervisor Wolff: Supported a focused EIR on recreation, citing inconsistencies in the MND regarding trail usage and cultural resources.
  • Chair Lavagnino: Expressed concern that the scope of the EIR (visual, recreation, biological, cultural) was excessive for one house. Stated that if the Board is interested in access, it should consider acquisition rather than exaction. Indicated a vote against the EIR.
  • Vote Outcome:
  • Motion: To adopt staff’s recommendation (approve the project/deny the appeal).
  • Second: Seconded by the Chair.
  • Result: The motion failed (2 to 3).
  • Next Motion:
  • Motion: To continue the item to allow staff to conduct a focused EIR on recreational resources.
  • Status: Supervisor Carbajal moved to continue the item. Staff indicated that a specific date for the EIR completion is not yet known.
  • Focused EIR Timeline and Motion:
  • Discussion: Discussion focused on establishing a realistic timeline for the statutory notice regarding the focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR). One member requested that staff provide a specific "ballpark" timeline to avoid ambiguity for the applicant, suggesting a target of roughly two months but acknowledging potential delays. Another member estimated the timeline would be no sooner than six months. A third member recommended directing staff to proceed as quickly as possible and noted that re-noticing would be required for the hearing. It was suggested that the motion be grounded in policy inconsistencies previously cited.
  • Motion: A motion was made and seconded to direct staff to proceed with the focused EIR process, incorporating the grounding regarding policy inconsistencies.
  • Decision: The motion passed.
  • Vote Outcome: Passed (4-1).

Announcement: Drought Proclamation Extension

  • Discussion: Staff announced that the board must convene prior to August to consider the extension of the drought proclamation resolution. A tentative date of Tuesday, July 29th, was proposed, with the requirement that at least three board members be available to hold the meeting.

Adjournment

  • Decision: The meeting was adjourned.
  • Next Meeting: The next regularly scheduled meeting is set for August 19th in Santa Barbara. An additional meeting regarding the drought proclamation is scheduled for July 29th.