Board of Supervisors — 2017-08-22

CEO’s Report and Introductions

• CEO Miyasato introduced Dr. Von Do Reynoso as the new Public Health Director and acknowledged Carrie Topliff’s return to the Child Support Services Director role.
• Dr. Russell announced the United Way of Santa Barbara County charitable giving campaign, scheduled to run from September 5 to October 13.

Administrative Agenda

• The board approved honorary resolutions commending Pam Niekau for her service to senior citizens and Angela Villalobos as Employee of the Month.
• Item A-21 regarding an agreement with Imperial Electric was withdrawn at the request of the Public Works Department.
• An addendum was posted to correct a Board appointment on Item A-36, clarifying it was for the Arts Commission rather than the Commission for Women.

Olson Trust Appeal

• The board considered the appeal of the Montecito Planning Commission’s approval for a single-family dwelling and associated structures.
• The hearing was continued to October 17, 2017, at the consent of the appellants' representative.

Child Support Awareness Month

• The Director of Child Support Services presented updates on departmental efficiencies, including electronic filing and a 40% increase in cash collections.
• The board received and filed the report, with a request for regular metrics on outcomes such as families leaving cash aid.

Fiscal Year 2016-17 Financial Status Report

• Staff presented results showing governmental fund revenues grew 4.3% to $889 million, driven by property and sales tax increases.
• The board discussed the Sheriff’s department’s $2.2 million shortfall, overtime costs, and the allocation of the $7 million residual fund balance to pension stabilization.
• The board received and filed the report after addressing questions regarding revenue estimates and year-end savings predictions.

Response to 2016-17 Grand Jury Report on Managing Regional Water Supplies

• The board approved responses to Grand Jury findings, including declining to designate the County Water Agency as the permanent lead agency due to lack of legal authority.
• Staff clarified that the Diablo Canyon Desalination plant is not currently utilizing its permitted capacity and that the Kachuma Operations and Maintenance Board is responsible for pipeline redundancy.
• The board addressed concerns regarding regional coordination and the potential impacts of the "California Water Fix" project on water releases.

Prohibition of Use of Painted Cave Road and San Marcos Road by Certain Vehicles

• Public Works presented a request to restrict oversized vehicles on these two-lane mountainous roads due to severe turns and clearance issues.
• The board approved staff recommendations to restrict trucks over 30 feet in length and vehicles over 12 feet in height on Painted Cave Road.

Goleta Groundwater Basin Fringe Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Formation

• Staff requested approval to form a GSA for the fringe areas of the Goleta groundwater basin to avoid state intervention and associated fees.
• The board approved the formation of the GSA and directed staff to work with the Department of Water Resources to seek state clarification that a full Groundwater Sustainability Plan is not needed for this area.

Adoption of the 2017 Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

• Staff presented the updated FEMA-required hazard mitigation plan, which identifies natural, technological, and human-caused threats.
• The board adopted the plan with instructions for staff to review specific suggestions regarding data corrections and the delineation of the County Executive Office's involvement.

Goleta Beach Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Amendment

• Staff recommended authorizing the submission of an application to amend CDP 414-0687 to retain a 948-foot rock revetment and pier repairs.
• The board discussed alternatives such as managed retreat and cobble berms, noting the high costs of removal and the lack of guaranteed solutions for beach preservation.
• The board passed a motion to accept staff’s recommendation and direct staff to engage easement holders for potential financial participation in project costs.

Closed Session

• The board convened in closed session to consider matters including anticipated litigation, existing litigation, labor negotiations, and personnel matters.
• Staff reported that there were no reportable actions taken during the closed session.

Meeting Start and Roll Call

• The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors convened for its August 22, 2017 meeting. Roll call was taken, and all members were present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Minutes Approval

• Motion: Approve the minutes of July 25, 2017.
• Action: Moved and seconded.
• Vote: Passed (unanimous).

CEO’s Report and Introductions

• Public Health Director Introduction: CEO Miyasato introduced Dr. Von Do Reynoso as the new Public Health Director. Dr. Reynoso addressed the board.
• Acknowledgment: CEO Miyasato acknowledged Carrie Topliff for her service as interim Public Health Director and noted her return to the role of Child Support Services Director.
• United Way Campaign: Dr. Russell announced the United Way of Santa Barbara County charitable giving campaign, scheduled to run from September 5 to October 13. Steve Ortiz, President and CEO of United Way, thanked the county for its historical support.

Administrative Agenda

• Honorary Resolutions (Items A40 and A41):
• Motion: Approve Items A40 and A41.
• Action: Moved and seconded.
• Vote: Passed (unanimous).
• Item A40: A resolution of commendation honoring Pam Niekau for her service to San Ynez Valley senior citizens. Ms. Niekau accepted the commendation.
• Item A41: A resolution of commendation honoring Angela Villalobos, a Building Permit Technician, as the Employee of the Month for August 2017. Ms. Villalobos accepted the commendation.
• Agenda Announcements:
• Withdrawal: Item A-21 (Agreement for services of independent contractor with Imperial Electric) was withdrawn at the request of the Public Works Department.
• Correction: An addendum was posted correcting a Board appointment on Item A-36, clarifying the appointment was to the Arts Commission, not the Commission for Women.
• Administrative Agenda Approval:
• Motion: Approve the administrative agenda, excluding Item A-21.
• Action: Moved and seconded.
• Vote: Passed (unanimous).

Public Comment (Non-Agenda Items)

• Jail Ride Program: Peter Marin commented on the discontinuation of the jail ride program due to the departure of the previous cab company. He reported identifying new vendors and that the Department of Alcohol and Drug Services (DAS) was working with the jail to restore the service. He suggested establishing a second level of supervision. Supervisor Wolf responded that the sheriff’s office had reduced late-night releases. Supervisor Lavagnino thanked Mr. Marin for bringing the issue to the board’s attention.
• Cannabis Regulation Process: Barbara Close commented on the county’s process for developing cannabis regulations. She expressed concern that public meetings were limited to registry discussions and that the ad hoc committee’s meetings were not public. She requested that committee meetings be held in public or that the committee be disbanded, and that all supervisors be included in the process.

Departmental Agenda

Item 1: Planning and Development – Olson Trust Appeal

• Description: Consideration of recommendations regarding the Olson Trust appeal of the Montecito Planning Commission’s April 18, 2017 Conditional De Novo Design Review Approval for a single-family dwelling, detached garage, cabana, and pool.
• Public Comment: Steve Ortiz, representing appellants Tom Sturgis and Mike Hare, consented to the continuation of the hearing.
• Motion: Continue the item to October 17, 2017.
• Action: Moved and seconded.
• Vote: Passed (unanimous).

Item 2: Child Support Services – Child Support Awareness Month

• Description: Hearing to receive and file a presentation from Child Support Services regarding Child Support Awareness Month.
• Presentation: Carrie Topliff, Director of Child Support Services, presented updates on departmental efficiencies, including electronic filing with courts, the elimination of cash handling through kiosks and third-party services, and a 40% increase in cash collections. She noted that over half of customers formerly receiving cash aid no longer needed it. She also highlighted the Compromise of Arrears program and outreach to employers.
• Board Comments: Supervisor Wolf thanked Ms. Topliff for her service as interim Public Health Director and noted the department’s work in helping families leave cash aid. Supervisor Williams requested that the board receive regular metrics on these outcomes, such as the number of families leaving welfare, rather than waiting for annual reports.
• Motion: Receive and file the report.
• Action: Moved and seconded.
• Vote: Passed (unanimous).

Item 3: Auditor-Controller and County Executive Office – Fiscal Year 2016-17 Financial Status Report

• Description: Hearing to consider recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2016-17 financial status report.
• Presentation: Theo Filotti, Auditor-Controller, and Jeff Frapwell, Budget Director, presented the results of operations. Key points included:
• Economic Indicators: Temperate growth, declining unemployment, and positive real estate market.
• Revenues: Governmental fund revenues grew 4.3% to $889 million. General fund revenues were $396 million. Increases were driven by property tax, sales tax (due to the reversal of the "triple flip"), and transient occupancy tax.
• Expenditures: Governmental fund expenditures grew 4.7% to $867 million. Salaries and benefits accounted for 61% of expenditures. Overtime increased by $4.6 million (21.5%), primarily in Sheriff and Fire departments.
• Fund Balances: General fund balance decreased by $2 million to $113 million. Residual fund balance was $7 million. Strategic reserve was $30.9 million.
• Department Variances: A $7 million positive variance across general fund departments. The Sheriff’s department had a negative variance of $2.2 million due to revenue shortfalls and increased jail medical/pharmaceutical costs, covered by a release of unassigned fund balance.
• Outlook: Moody’s upgraded the county’s rating. Pension costs are expected to increase. The county maintained a sufficient cash position to avoid borrowing.
• Board Questions and Discussion:
• Fund Balance Variance: Supervisor Wolf asked about the discrepancy between the third-quarter projected fund balance ($750,000) and the final residual fund balance ($7 million). Mr. Filotti explained that final property tax distributions and delinquent penalties occurred late in the year. Supervisor Wolf requested better revenue estimates for future budgeting.
• Sheriff’s Shortfall: Supervisor Wolf inquired about the Sheriff’s $2.2 million shortfall. Under Sheriff Mielecki explained that the shortfall consisted of a $255,000 Prop 72 shortfall, a $300,000 AB 109 funding issue (possibly due to time card coding), and $291,000 in unexpended grant funds.
• Overtime: Supervisor Williams asked about overtime costs. Under Sheriff Mielecki stated that the Sheriff’s department had taken steps to reduce overtime, including a pilot program to upstaff the Santa Maria station to measure the impact on overtime versus full-time equivalent (FTE) costs. He noted that civilianization recommendations would be presented to the CEO’s office within 60-90 days.
• Pension Stabilization: Supervisor Wolf asked if any of the $7 million residual fund balance should be allocated to the pension stabilization fund. Mr. Frapwell noted that the fund currently has $1.25 million set aside. CEO Miyasato suggested that allocating funds to pension stabilization might be prudent given expected pension increases, but noted that unexpected costs often arise mid-year. Supervisor Adam noted that the $7 million residual balance was consistent with the previous year’s $6.7 million and represented a small percentage of the total budget.
• Year-End Savings: The board discussed the discrepancy between the budgeted amount and the reported year-end savings. Staff explained that year-end savings are typically not budgeted in advance due to auditor restrictions but are held for one-time expenses in the following year’s budget. Staff committed to providing their best prediction of these savings in the first-quarter report.
• Public Comment: A representative from COLAB commented on the report, noting that government has become the largest industry in the county. The commenter raised concerns regarding pension funding, stating that a 7% return target may not cover losses if the fund is not fully funded, and requested information on decreased property taxes from specific entities and the status of the North County jail.
• Board Response: A Supervisor provided context from the UCSB economic forecast project regarding the size of the government sector. Another Supervisor noted that a resolution regarding the North County jail is in progress. A board member asked for clarification on the pension return target versus the assumed rate of return. Staff explained that if the assumed rate of return is met, the unfunded liability is paid off according to the amortization schedule; if not met, the liability increases. Another Supervisor clarified the distinction between "expected rate of return" (used for actuarial calculations) and "target" (a business goal).
• Motion: Receive and file the report.
• Action: Moved and seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Item 4: Response to 2016-17 Grand Jury Report on Managing Regional Water Supplies

• Discussion: Staff presented the board’s required responses to the Grand Jury report, covering findings and recommendations regarding water agency authority, desalination, pipeline redundancy, funding, and capital replacement accounts.
• Finding 1/Recommendation 1: The board recommended not implementing the designation of the County Water Agency as the permanent lead agency with enforcement power, citing lack of legal authority.
• Finding 2/Recommendation 2A: The board agreed with the finding that additional sources like desalination are available but underdeveloped. The response to Recommendation 2A (exploring Diablo Canyon Desalination) was marked as implemented, noting discussions with San Luis Obispo County. Staff clarified that the Diablo Canyon plant has a permitted capacity of 3,000 acre-feet per year but is not currently utilizing it, and PG&E is decommissioning the nuclear facility.
• Finding 5/Recommendation 5: The board agreed that critical pipeline infrastructure lacks redundancy. The response to Recommendation 5 was that it will not be implemented by the County Water Agency, as the Kachuma Operations and Maintenance Board (COMB) is the responsible entity.
• Finding 6/Recommendation 6: The board agreed that funding under specific propositions has not yet been granted for the prioritized list of projects. The response to Recommendation 6 was that it has been implemented, as the county has been actively pursuing funding with the state.
• Finding 9/Recommendation 9: The board partially agreed and partially disagreed with the finding that South Coast purveyors have not established replacement accounts, stating they lack the information to fully agree or disagree as they do not oversee those agencies' accounting. The response to Recommendation 9 was that the County Water Agency lacks the authority to undertake that action.
• Public Comment: A representative from COLAB expressed concern over the board's lack of regional coordination, the "California Water Fix" (Twin Tunnels) project, and potential impacts on water releases from Kachuma.
• Board Discussion: Supervisors discussed the importance of regional cooperation, the cost of the Twin Tunnels project, and the potential for recycled water facilities. Staff noted that the board recently directed negotiations for a new Kachuma contract and emphasized the county's leadership role in water supply issues.
• Motion: Approve the response.
• Action: Moved and seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Item 5: Prohibition of Use of Painted Cave Road and San Marcos Road by Certain Vehicles

• Discussion: Public Works presented a request to approve vehicle restrictions for oversized vehicles on San Marcos Road and Painted Cave Road. The roads are described as two-lane mountainous roads with severe turns, vertical curvature, and clearance issues. The recommendation is to restrict trucks over 30 feet in length and automobiles with trailers over 30 feet on both roads, and to restrict any vehicle over 12 feet in height on Painted Cave Road due to rock clearance. Exceptions would be made for emergency vehicles and those with no other access. Highway 154 is recommended as the alternate route.
• Public Comment: No requests to speak.
• Motion: Approve the staff recommendations.
• Action: Moved and seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Item 6: Goleta Groundwater Basin Fringe Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Formation

• Discussion: Staff requested board approval to form a GSA for the fringe areas of the Goleta groundwater basin, which are not covered by the existing adjudication. The Goleta Water District voted not to form a GSA, and the City of Goleta had not yet taken a position. Staff noted that forming a GSA would avoid state intervention and associated fees/reporting requirements. The fringe area represents a minimal portion of overall basin water use. Staff recommended approving the resolution to form the GSA and determining the action is not a project subject to CEQA.
• Board Discussion: Supervisors discussed the timeline, noting a 90-day period for other entities to join. A Supervisor questioned the necessity of a GSA for such a small area and suggested asking the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for relief. Staff explained that forming the GSA is a step to avoid immediate state intervention and allows the county to lobby for reasonable requirements for fringe areas, without committing to preparing a full Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) immediately.
• Motion: Approve staff recommendations A and B, direct staff to maintain contact with the City of Goleta and notify them of the 90-day decision deadline, and direct staff to work with DWR and other counties to seek state clarification with the intention that a GSP would not be needed for this fringe area.
• Action: Moved and seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Item 7: Adoption of the 2017 Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

• Discussion: Staff presented the update to the FEMA-required hazard mitigation plan, which identifies natural, technological, and human-caused threats and mitigation efforts. The plan is a multi-agency document including all cities in the county. The update process included public outreach, workshops, and review by Cal OES and FEMA. The plan is required for eligibility for certain disaster mitigation grants.
• Board Discussion: A Supervisor asked about the inclusion of schools as critical facilities and the involvement of the County Executive Office (CEO). Staff confirmed schools are included as critical facilities and that the CEO was involved through the Office of Emergency Management. The Supervisor requested that the CEO's involvement be delineated in the plan. The Supervisor also noted that the report did not detail public comments received and requested a copy of the survey results. Staff provided details on the number of survey respondents and workshop attendance. The Supervisor raised several specific corrections and suggestions, including updating unemployment figures, correcting the description of economic divisions, including Kachuma Lake in the San Ynez Valley section, removing a repaired bridge from the hazard list, correcting information regarding fracking/well stimulation, and fixing grammatical errors. Staff agreed to make these adjustments before sending the plan to FEMA.
• Motion: Adopt staff recommendations A through E, with the addition that staff review specific suggestions made by the Supervisor and make appropriate changes.
• Action: Moved and seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Closed Session Report

• Discussion: The Board convened in closed session to consider six matters: one case conference for anticipated litigation, two matters of existing litigation (Veneco bankruptcy action and a Public Employment Relations Board complaint by Service Employees International Union Local 721), a conference of labor negotiators, and two personnel matters (performance evaluation and appointment/reappointment of the County Executive Officer).
• Outcome: Upon reconvening, staff reported that there were no reportable actions taken during the closed session.

Item 8: Goleta Beach Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Amendment

• Discussion: Staff presented a request for Board direction on protective measures for Goleta Beach, with a deadline to submit an application to the California Coastal Commission by September 30. Staff recommended authorizing the submission of an application to amend CDP 414-0687 to retain a 948-foot rock revetment (including 75 feet of pier reinforcement), pier repairs, and additional rock revetment protecting the Goleta Sanitary District’s sewer vault.
• Context: The County has spent approximately $12 million on protective measures since 1995. Recent emergency permits were issued in January and February 2017 to protect park infrastructure and the sewer outfall.
• Alternatives Analyzed: Staff analyzed removing the revetment (estimated immediate cost of $850,000 plus ongoing emergency costs of $500,000–$1 million annually) and installing a cobble berm (deemed experimental, costly, and potentially ineffective, with cobble not being native to the area).
• Managed Retreat: The application includes a managed retreat plan. Phase one would involve removing Parking Lot 7 (57 spaces) to create a beach area; Phase two would involve removing Parking Lot 6 if triggers regarding biological resources or down-coast sand impact are met after 10 years of monitoring.
• Permit Conditions: Staff requested authorization to negotiate amendments to two existing 2015 permit conditions: the requirement to cover exposed revetment with sand (limited to 1,000 cubic yards per incident) and the requirement for access every 100 feet, citing cost and practicality concerns.
• Board Questions: Supervisors inquired about the long-term cost-effectiveness of immediate managed retreat versus retention, the scientific consensus on whether revetments cause active erosion, and the jurisdictional authority for alternative proposals. Staff and consultants (Noble Engineering, AMEC) stated that current research suggests revetments fix the erosion line but do not necessarily cause active erosion, and that recent beach loss is attributed to drought and storm events.
• Public Comment:
• Goleta Councilmember Bennett: Supported staff recommendations, noting the park remains a vital community resource despite current conditions.
• Ken Pally (Surfrider): Urged caution and delay, arguing that rock revetments have historically failed to prevent erosion and recommended studying alternative solutions like sand-covered cobble.
• Michael Rattray (Forensic Leda Beach): Supported staff efforts but advocated for investigating sand accretion reefs and kelp bed restoration as part of a broader strategy.
• Captain David Bacon (Fish Reef Project): Proposed submerged sand accretion reefs as a cost-effective alternative, funded by private donors, and requested the County consider this in the permitting process. He also highlighted the importance of the pier for subsistence fishers.
• Chris Goldblatt (Fish Reef Project): Detailed the feasibility of artificial reef balls, stating the project could be funded by private donors if the County commits to permitting, potentially reducing long-term sand nourishment costs.
• Mark Massara (Goleta Chamber of Commerce): Suggested the reef ball proposal could serve as a mitigation component for the revetment permit, potentially reducing future costs.
• Bob Keats: Argued for immediate implementation of "managed retreat," citing sea-level rise data and the loss of beach width. He stated that removing the revetment now would save the county money on long-term monitoring and maintenance costs compared to retaining the structure.
• Matt Wallace (Surfrider Foundation): Advocated for the removal of the rock revetment, stating it has destroyed the beach and grunion habitat. He proposed installing a cobble berm similar to the project at Surfers Point in Ventura and questioned the accuracy of the 1.5 million annual visitor estimate.
• Mike Thompson: Supported retaining the rock revetment to protect the UCSB sewer line and other utilities from erosion. He argued that removing the rocks risks a sewage spill into Goleta Bay. He suggested replanting kelp forests and creating an offshore barrier reef as long-term solutions.
• Keith Zandona: Criticized the history of "armoring" the beach and the cost of sand replenishment. He recommended relocating parking and infrastructure off-site to create a park with habitat, sand dunes, and a cobbled beach, arguing that building in the tidal zone is unsustainable.
• Robin Cederlof: Supported staff’s recommendation to retain the rocks for now to allow time for studying alternatives. She suggested forming partnerships with agencies like NOAA, the University of California, and the City of Santa Barbara to share costs and explore solutions such as kelp restoration and beach nourishment.
• Staff and Technical Discussion:
• Visitor Count Clarification: Staff clarified that the visitor estimate of approximately 1.5 million is derived from counting vehicles at the gate (600,000–700,000 vehicles) and multiplying by a national average of 2.5 persons per vehicle.
• Revetment Function: Staff explained that the current revetment was engineered to protect the park infrastructure. Removing sections, particularly at the west end, would likely lead to further erosion of the parking lots and park areas.
• Cobble Berm Feasibility: Staff and the engineer discussed the proposed experimental option of replacing a 200-foot section of revetment with a cobble berm near Parking Lot 7. The engineer noted that there is limited scientific data on the long-term performance of cobble berms, citing mixed results from the Surfers Point project. The engineer stated that if this option is pursued, it would be considered a pioneering experiment requiring ongoing monitoring and potential additional resources.
• Infrastructure Protection: Staff confirmed that even if the cobble berm experiment is implemented, the revetment would likely be moved back rather than entirely removed to protect the bike path and sewer lines.
• Property Ownership and Lease: Staff and legal counsel discussed the county’s property interests at Goleta Beach. The county owns some land in fee simple, holds some in trust, and leases other areas (including the bridge, pier, and revetment area) from the State of California. The lease was approved in 2015 for a 20-year term and includes a clause allowing the county to seek early termination, subject to the state’s discretion.
• Utility Responsibilities: Staff noted that the county has engaged with utility companies (including Goleta Sanitary District) regarding potential managed retreat scenarios. Legal counsel stated that the county generally has no duty to maintain or repair infrastructure held by others under easements, which could be a point of negotiation with utility holders.
• Board Discussion:
• Supervisor Wolf expressed support for staff’s recommendation to retain the revetment and proceed with the amended Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application. He cited the high cost of removing the rocks and the risk of infrastructure damage during future storms. He referenced the Noble Report, which indicated that the revetment is not the primary cause of beach loss, and emphasized the need to respond to the Coastal Commission by September 30 to avoid fines. He proposed a five-year review period for the revetment’s status.
• Supervisor Williams opposed the staff recommendation, arguing that it prioritizes protecting parking lots over the beach. He stated that the current approach has failed to preserve the beach and that the "armor or let it go" choice is false. He suggested that removing the revetment in the west end (Parking Lots 6 and 7) and installing a cobble berm would be a reasonable compromise, noting that the cobble berm could serve as a buffer if it works, or simply allow the beach to reclaim the parking area if it does not. He also supported kelp restoration efforts.
• Supervisor Lavagnino expressed uncertainty about the best path forward, acknowledging the high costs incurred over the past 20 years ($17 million) and the lack of a guaranteed solution. He questioned the long-term financial sustainability of the park and the effectiveness of previous engineering solutions like geotextile berms. He was open to the idea of transferring responsibility to other entities or the state but noted the difficulty in finding a viable alternative to either continued spending or total abandonment.
• Supervisor Adams opposed the staff recommendation, citing the county’s financial constraints and the negative cash flow associated with maintaining the park. He proposed offering the property to the state via a quitclaim deed and invoking the termination clause of the lease to force other stakeholders (utilities, Caltrans, UCSB) to engage in cost-sharing or take over maintenance. He argued that the county cannot continue to bear the full cost of a project that is financially unsustainable.
• Supervisor Hartmann stated she was prepared to support staff’s recommendation but emphasized the need for a five-year trigger for review. She expressed interest in exploring "fish balls" (reef balls) as a potential long-term solution and noted concerns about the availability and environmental impact of cobble materials. She agreed that retaining the revetment is currently the least costly option.
• Motions and Votes:
• 1. Motion to Accept Staff Recommendation with Modified Timeline:
• Description: A motion was made to accept the staff recommendation, including the proposed adaptive management plan, but reducing the Phase 1 timeline from 10 years to 5 years. The motion also directed staff to engage with partners (utility companies, City of Santa Barbara, UCSB) regarding Phase 1 and Phase 2 eventualities.
• Seconded: Yes.
• Outcome: Failed.
• 2. Motion to Pursue Utility Participation for Mitigation:
• Description: A motion was made to go to utility users and ask for participation in the mitigation project for the permanent permit of the emergency revetment. The mitigation project would involve Phase 1 implementation as soon as funds are available, with Phase 2 potentially in the future, contingent on financial participation from utility users.
• Seconded: No (The motion was not seconded and was not voted upon).
• 3. Motion for Dual-Track Approach (Staff Recommendation + Divestiture Feasibility):
• Description: A motion was made to follow staff’s recommendations and, simultaneously, direct staff to pursue divestiture options, including quick claiming interests and terminating leases for the parcels at Goleta Beach.
• Seconded: Yes.
• Outcome: Failed.
• 4. Motion for Dual-Track Approach (Staff Recommendation + Title Research/Easement Discussions):
• Description: A motion was made to accept staff’s recommendations, direct staff to begin title research concerning the county’s parcels at Goleta Beach, and direct staff to begin discussions with easement holders towards potential financial contributions towards project costs.
• Seconded: Yes.
• Outcome: Failed.
• 5. Motion to Apply for Permit and Explore Funding/Management Options:
• Description: A motion was made to authorize staff to submit the application to the Coastal Commission to maintain the revetments (including the 948-foot emergency rock revetment and 75-foot pier revetment reinforcement), direct staff to continue working with the Coastal Commission on future conditions, and return to the board for approval. Additionally, staff were directed to explore financial participation by easement holders and management options.
• Seconded: Yes.
• Status: The transcript ends with the chair asking if a previous motion should be withdrawn in favor of this new motion. No final vote outcome is recorded in this section of the transcript.
• 6. Motion to Accept Staff Recommendation and Engage Easement Holders:
• Description: A motion was made to accept staff’s recommendation and direct staff to engage easement holders for potential financial participation in project costs.
• Seconded: Yes.
• Outcome: Passed (4 to 1).

Adjournment

• Action: The meeting was adjourned.
• Next Meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for August 29 in Santa Maria.