Meeting Summary
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
Agenda Changes and Continuations
- The Board continued Departmental Item D1 regarding the Romero Creek bridge replacement to the October 15th hearing.
- No public comment was received on the request for continuance.
- The motion to continue the item passed unanimously.
CEO’s Report
- The County Executive Office announced a grant of over $2 million for law enforcement mental health co-response teams.
- The funding supports two teams, including one in North County, under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.
- Dr. Cheryl Lynn Lee will oversee grant operations, with assistance from the City of Goleta in grant writing.
Supervisor Comments
- Supervisor Hartman honored Staff Sergeant Bindo Grasso, a World War II veteran and D-Day paratrooper from Guadalupe.
- The Board observed a moment of silence to recognize his service and status as the last surviving Pathfinder from his unit.
Honorary Resolutions (Items A1–A5)
- The Board accepted resolutions for National 4-H Week and AIA Architecture Appreciation Week.
- A resolution honored the first year of service for the Sheriff’s Office and Behavioral Wellness Crisis Intervention Team.
- Juan Rueda de Leon was recognized as the October 2019 Employee of the Month for his 20 years of service.
- The bulk motion to accept Items A1 through A5 passed unanimously.
Administrative Agenda Items
- The Board moved Item A9 (Coastal Permit Service Agreement) to a separate vote, which passed 4-1.
- Public comment on Item A15 (KPMG Agreement) requested that future cannabis items be placed on departmental agendas for better notice.
- Item A16 (Cannabis Compliance Update) included discussion on odor mitigation, tax audits, and the status of provisional license holders.
- The Board approved Item A19 (Cannabis EIR Consulting Services) by a vote of 4-1.
- The remaining items on the administrative agenda were approved unanimously.
Public Safety Dispatch Separation / Regional Fire and EMS Dispatch Center
- Staff presented two options for a new facility: expanding the existing EOC in South County or building a new facility at San Ynez Airport.
- The Sheriff’s Office and several fire chiefs expressed preference for the EOC expansion due to lower costs and operational familiarity.
- The Board selected the EOC expansion option by a vote of 3 to 2, citing unresolved land-use and FAA issues at the airport site.
- Staff were directed to pursue funding with regional partners and consider the City of Santa Maria as a potential backup location.
EMS System Review Final Report and Ambulance Agreement Recommendation
- Staff recommended renegotiating the existing contract with AMR rather than initiating a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
- Public comment was divided, with some supporting renegotiation for stability and others advocating for an RFP to drive innovation and cost savings.
- The Board directed the Public Health Department to begin the competitive process to select a new contractor.
- The Board also directed staff to pursue a 36-month extension of the current contract with AMR to ensure service continuity.
Knee Tennis Court Appeal (Case No. 19-APL-25)
- Staff recommended denying the appeal and approving the project, which involves elevating the tennis court and modifying retaining walls.
- The appellant argued the project involved unauthorized changes and negative impacts on neighborhood character and views.
- The applicant stated the changes were necessary for ADA accessibility and that the County was fully informed of the modifications.
- The Board denied the appeal and adopted the staff recommendations by a vote of 4-1.
Closed Session
- Staff reported that the Board convened in closed session to consider litigation, real property, and labor relations matters.
- No reportable actions were taken during the closed session.
Full summary
Meeting Opening and Roll Call
- The Board of Supervisors called the meeting to order for October 1st. A roll call was taken, confirming the presence of all members. The Board observed the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
- A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes from the previous meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
No decision 0–0
Agenda Changes and Continuations
- The Clerk announced a request to continue Departmental Item D1 (Public Works and General Services hearing regarding the Romero Creek bridge replacement and easement acquisition) to the October 15th hearing. No public comment was received on the continuance. A motion was made and seconded to continue Item D1 to October 15. The motion passed unanimously.
CEO’s Report
- The County Executive Office presented a report announcing that the Sheriff’s Office and Department of Behavioral Wellness were awarded a grant of over $2 million through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. The funding will support two law enforcement mental health co-response teams, including one in North County. The report noted that Dr. Cheryl Lynn Lee will oversee the grant operations and that the City of Goleta assisted with grant writing.
Supervisor Comments
- Supervisor Hartman delivered remarks honoring Staff Sergeant Bindo Grasso, a World War II veteran and D-Day paratrooper from Guadalupe, who passed away recently. She noted his service in the Battle of the Bulge and his status as the last surviving Pathfinder from his unit. A moment of silence was observed.
Honorary Resolutions (Items A1–A5)
- A motion was made and seconded to accept Items A1 through A5. The motion passed unanimously.
- Item A1 (National 4-H Week): Sponsored by Supervisor Williams, this resolution proclaimed October 6–12, 2019, as National 4-H Week in Santa Barbara County. The resolution highlighted 4-H’s role in youth development, citing statistics on local participation and curriculum opportunities. Two 4-H members, Emma Bishop and Olivia Berman, spoke in support, describing their personal experiences and the program’s impact on leadership and public speaking skills.
- Item A2 (AIA Architecture Appreciation Week): Sponsored by Supervisor Williams, this resolution designated September 29–October 5, 2019, as AIA Architecture Appreciation Week. It commended the American Institute of Architects and the Architectural Foundation for their work in sustainable design, historic preservation, and education. Michael Holliday from the AIA Santa Barbara chapter spoke, mentioning upcoming architect tours and the organization’s commitment to the community.
- Item A3 (Crisis Intervention Team): Sponsored by Supervisor Hart, this resolution honored the first year of service of the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) operated by the Sheriff’s Office and Department of Behavioral Wellness. The resolution cited statistics including over 130 shifts, 350 calls, and 70 diversion efforts preventing arrests. Dr. Cheryl Lynn Lee (Sheriff’s Office) and Dr. Alice Glykorn (Behavioral Wellness) spoke, detailing the team’s collaborative approach, de-escalation successes, and plans to expand the model with new grants. Sheriff Bill Brown also spoke, thanking the partners and noting the program’s impact on reducing jail populations for individuals with mental illness. Supervisor Hartman added comments regarding the positive feedback received from families.
- Public Comment: One speaker, a private citizen, commended the CIT program and the collaboration between agencies, noting its effectiveness in serving vulnerable populations and preventing incarceration.
- Item A4 (Employee of the Month): Sponsored by Supervisor Lavagnino, this resolution honored Juan Rueda de Leon of the Treasurer Tax Collector’s Office as the October 2019 Employee of the Month. The resolution recognized his 20 years of service in IT support, security, and property tax systems. The Clerk of the Board presented the award, noting his background in the Marine Corps and volunteer work. Mr. Rueda de Leon thanked his colleagues.
- Item A5: Accepted as part of the bulk motion for A1–A5.
Administrative Agenda Items
- Item A9 (Coastal Permit Service Agreement): From Community Services, this item considered an annual coastal permit service agreement with Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions Inc. for the Goleta Beach project. Supervisor Adam requested a separate vote. A motion was made and seconded to move Item A9. The motion passed 4-1.
- Item A15 (KPMG LLP Agreement Amendment): From the County Executive Office, this item considered an amendment to the agreement with KPMG LLP for departmental financial, organizational, and operational reviews, including an assessment of the cannabis permitting process.
- Public Comment: Tracy Farhad, representing the Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, requested that future cannabis-related items be placed on departmental agendas to allow for more notice and public input. She expressed concern that the focus on reducing permitting times might substitute for thorough environmental review and due process.
- Item A16 (Cannabis Compliance Update): From the County Executive Office, this item provided an update on cannabis compliance, enforcement, and taxation for the fourth quarter.
- Public Comment: Tracy Farhad (continued from A15) urged the Board to reiterate directives to staff regarding odor mitigation and planning commission recommendations. Winford Van Winkerdon, representing Carp Growers, spoke in support of the county’s regulation efforts, noting the association’s compliance with odor controls, tax payments, and land use permitting processes.
- Board Discussion: Supervisor Hartman urged Carp Growers to ensure efficacy of odor control systems and asked staff to confirm that operators with expired temporary licenses are not legally selling. Supervisor Hart inquired about the timeline for the cannabis tax compliance audit. Staff explained that the county was the first in the state to develop a fully tax compliance audit system, requiring a custom scope of work and vendor selection, which caused delays. Staff noted that provisional license holders are now entering data into the state track-and-trace system, facilitating the audit. Supervisor Lavagnino stated that future cannabis updates would be placed on departmental agendas to allow for proper notice.
- Item A19 (Cannabis EIR Consulting Services): From Planning and Development, this item considered consulting services for the Cannabis Program Environmental Impact Report with Wood Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions Inc. Supervisor Adam requested a roll call vote. A motion was made and seconded to approve. The motion passed 4-1.
Balance of Administrative Agenda
- A motion was made and seconded to approve the remaining items on the administrative agenda. The motion passed unanimously.
General Public Comment
- Two speakers addressed the Board: 1. Ed Kolaski discussed issues related to a previous Board of Architectural Review meeting, alleging that architectural drawings were not shown to members and that he was ordered out of the meeting. He referenced a 64-page report and specific interactions with staff and members. 2. Viviana Saavedra, representing United Domestic Workers (UDW) and AFSCME, spoke on behalf of in-home care workers regarding ongoing bargaining. She highlighted the need for workplace training, specifically CPR and safe patient handling, and noted that UDW is working with the California Independent Provider Training Center to provide OSHA-stamped adult education classes.
Recess
- The Board took a 10-minute break.
Departmental Agenda
- Item D2 (Public Safety Dispatch Separation / Regional Fire and EMS Dispatch Center): From the County Executive Office, this hearing considered recommendations regarding the separation of public safety dispatch services, specifically the creation of a Regional Fire Communications Facility.
- Staff Presentation: The Clerk presented two options for the new facility location:
- 1. EOC Expansion: Expanding the existing Emergency Operating Center (EOC) in South County. Estimated cost: ~$10.3 million for 6,200 sq. ft. Advantages include proximity to existing IT resources and lower construction costs. Challenges include lack of geographic separation for disaster redundancy and potential disruption to EOC operations. 2. New Facility (San Ynez Airport): Building a new facility at the San Ynez Airport in North County. Estimated cost: ~$12.4 million for 7,177 sq. ft. Advantages include geographic redundancy, central location, and proximity to affordable housing. Challenges include higher cost and pending FAA clearance.
- A third option (building in the parking lot of the existing dispatch center) was discarded due to operational disruption and lack of geographic separation.
- Operational Costs: The new two-facility system would increase total system costs by approximately $2.48 million. The Sheriff’s Office would continue to operate the primary PSAP. Fire Districts and other partners would contribute to the secondary PSAP costs. Staff recommended Option 2 (San Ynez Airport) for its redundancy benefits.
- Board Questions: Supervisor Adam asked about the square footage difference between the two options. Staff explained that the new facility includes all functions under one roof, whereas the EOC expansion relies on adjacent facilities for some functions.
- Fire Department Input: Chief Mark Hartwig expressed a preference for the EOC location based on operational and financial analysis, while acknowledging the contentious nature of the decision.
- Discussion and Public Comment:
- Sheriff’s Office Position: A representative from the Sheriff’s Office argued against separating the dispatch function, citing the historical consolidation of the current system in 1977 and its role in managing major incidents. The speaker noted that national trends favor consolidation, referencing a Delta Works report for Chittenden County, Vermont, which indicated potential response time improvements of up to 71 seconds through consolidation. The speaker highlighted operational benefits such as vertical communication, interoperability, and unified command. Concerns were raised regarding the high costs of separation, potential delays in emergency medical dispatch, and the lack of a supplemental sales tax to offset costs. The speaker suggested that if separation proceeds, only fire dispatch should move, leaving EMS with the Sheriff’s Office, and noted that "borderless dispatching" could be achieved with the current system via a CAD module upgrade without separation.
- Fire and EMS Perspectives:
- Chief Hartwig (Fire): Stated that the current system dispatches fire and EMS on different frequencies and CAD modules. The proposed system would use a determinant code to dispatch the most appropriate resource. He noted that fire agencies rely heavily on mutual aid across jurisdictions, unlike law enforcement.
- Dr. Salvucci (EMS): Emphasized the need for universal countywide emergency medical dispatch (structured caller interrogation, priority dispatch, post-dispatch instructions) and borderless dispatching. He acknowledged small delays in call transfers but cited Ventura County’s experience where efficiencies in a combined center outweighed transfer delays.
- Supervisor Inquiries and Staff Responses:
- Supervisor Williams: Expressed support for consolidation to achieve borderless dispatch, noting that no law enforcement agencies had agreed to consolidate with the Sheriff’s Office after two years, whereas fire agencies had expressed interest.
- Supervisor Hartman: Asked about the impact on EOC operations. Staff explained that the EOC was at 100% capacity during the Thomas Fire and that separation of dispatch and EOC functions is critical to prevent operational interference and logistical conflicts (parking, restrooms).
- Supervisor Adam: Questioned the lack of additional construction costs for the Santa Ynez Airport site, which is adjacent to an abandoned landfill. Staff indicated preliminary evaluations suggest no issues, but further investigation is needed. He also asked about using the City of Santa Maria as a redundant backup location. Staff explained that a full partnership with Santa Maria was previously rejected due to their incompatible CAD system, but placing county consoles in their existing center as a backup is feasible and potentially cheaper than the $2.1 million delta for the airport site.
- Supervisor Hartman: Inquired about the breakdown of the 12 additional FTEs. Staff indicated most would be civilian, with one sworn Sheriff’s commander.
- Supervisor Lavagnino: Asked about financial protections if partners withdraw. Staff noted that contracts or joint powers agreements would be used, but the Fire District would absorb any funding gaps. He also asked for clarification on the "go/no-go" direction regarding partner funding. Staff stated there is a projected $1.1 million gap that the Fire District would need to cover if partners do not contribute as expected, and requested clear direction from the Board to proceed with negotiations.
- Public Comment:
- Andy Caldwell (Taxpayer Representative): Questioned the necessity of new construction given existing maintenance backlogs and proposed cheaper alternatives like mobile command centers or separating functions within the existing building.
- Joe Aiella (Dispatcher): Stated that the existing CAD system can support closest resource dispatch with a module upgrade at a fraction of the cost of a new facility. He noted that EMD is currently limited by staffing and that call transfers involve two call takers to ensure continuity.
- Lisa Matheson (Communications Manager): Argued that consolidation has been the trend for 30 years, improving efficiency and response times. She cited Ventura County’s transfer delays as a negative example and stated that Santa Barbara County’s cardiac arrest survival rates have surpassed national and Ventura County averages in recent years.
- Kevin Taylor (Montecito Fire Chief / Fire Chiefs Association): Recommended the EOC expansion due to its "shovel-ready" status, existing infrastructure, proximity to Fire Headquarters, and availability of adjacent vacant space (Old Station 19) for sleeping and conference areas. They expressed confidence in working with Santa Maria for redundancy.
- Eric Nichol (Santa Barbara Fire Chief): Supported the EOC location, citing fewer barriers to siting compared to a new site (e.g., FAA issues, landfill concerns). He noted that the City of Santa Barbara Fire Department supports regional solutions and has identified budget sources for additional costs.
- Board Deliberation:
- Supervisor Williams: Supported the EOC option, citing the preference of the Fire Chiefs Association, lower cost, and the opportunity to integrate the City of Santa Maria into the network.
- Supervisor Adam: Expressed concern about the lack of geographic redundancy with the EOC option and the unresolved issues with the Santa Ynez Airport site (landfill, FAA). He questioned why the Santa Maria partnership was eliminated initially.
- Supervisor Hartman: Supported the EOC option, noting that the Santa Ynez site has unresolved land-use and FAA issues that would cause delays. She emphasized the need for consolidation of fire and EMS services.
- Supervisor Lavagnino: Expressed disappointment that nearest resource dispatch would not be available in the Santa Maria/Orchid area. He preferred the Santa Ynez location for geographic redundancy but acknowledged the practical barriers (landfill, FAA, public opposition). He stated he would support the EOC option with the caveat that it is not his preferred choice.
- Staff (Miyasato): Requested clear direction from the Board to proceed with negotiations, noting that the Fire District would cover any funding gaps if partners do not contribute.
- Motion and Vote:
- A motion was made and seconded to:
- 1. Receive and file the update (Option A). 2. Authorize staff to enter negotiations with regional partners (Option C). 3. Provide other direction (Option D). 4. Determine that the action is exempt from CEQA (Option E).
- Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
- A motion was made and seconded to select Option B1 (expand the existing emergency operations center to accommodate an RFCF) and to determine that the action is exempt from CEQA (Option E).
- Outcome: The motion passed by a vote of 3 to 2.
- Direction: The Board directed staff to pursue funding with regional partners and selected the EOC as the preferred location. Supervisors emphasized the need for broad regional collaboration, including involvement from the City of Santa Barbara and the City of Santa Maria, and noted the potential for using the City of Santa Maria facility as a backup location for dispatch services.
Agenda Item: Closed Session Report
- Discussion: Staff reported that the Board convened in closed session to consider seven matters: two existing litigation cases (Rancho La Laguna v. County of Santa Barbara and Sobonny Group v. County of Santa Barbara), three real property items (one at 4 East Carrillo Street and two at 325 Chapala Street), and two labor relations items (one with the Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff’s Association and one with United Domestic Workers of America Local 3930).
- Decision: Staff reported that there were no reportable actions taken during the closed session.
Agenda Item: EMS System Review Final Report and Ambulance Agreement Recommendation
- Presentation: Staff presented the findings of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system review conducted by Fitch & Associates. Key points included:
- The system is valued at approximately $20 million per year, primarily funded by user fees.
- Four primary goals for system improvement were identified: improving inter-facility transports, coordinating EMS for mental health patients, ensuring access for at-risk patients, and improving quality metrics.
- Staff recommended renegotiating the existing contract with the current provider, AMR, rather than initiating a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
- An RFP process was estimated to cost approximately $150,000 and take 18 to 24 months (or up to 28 months based on other county experiences), with risks including potential service disruptions and the likelihood of the incumbent provider winning the bid.
- Renegotiation was estimated to take 4 to 7 months and would allow for continued innovation and stability.
- The current contract expires on December 31 of the current year. Staff indicated they are currently negotiating a short-term extension (originally directed for 18 months) to cover the period until a final decision is made.
- Public Comment: Eight members of the public spoke.
- Speakers supporting renegotiation with the current provider (AMR) cited the system’s high clinical outcomes, the risks of service disruption during an RFP, the financial burden of an RFP, and the importance of maintaining the existing workforce and partnerships.
- Speakers supporting an RFP process cited the need for modernization, the potential for cost savings and revenue retention within the county, the desire for a competitive process, and the argument that the current contract has become stale. They noted that fire departments and their labor unions supported the RFP process.
- One speaker, representing a firm that assisted a fire agency in Contra Costa County with an RFP, provided data suggesting that an RFP can lead to improved response times and financial surpluses that are reinvested in the system.
- Board Questions and Deliberation:
- Supervisors asked about the legal requirements for the proposed initiatives, with staff clarifying that most initiatives do not alter the scope and manner of the current ambulance agreement and can be pursued outside of the contract.
- Supervisors inquired about the status of contract negotiations, with staff confirming that a short-term extension is being negotiated.
- A supervisor asked about the fate of existing employees in RFP processes, with a public speaker noting that incumbent providers are often selected as subcontractors or existing employees are retained under industry standards.
- Staff read a letter from 11 emergency medical services physicians recommending renegotiation as the prudent initial approach.
- Discussion: The Board discussed the timeline and regulatory environment for a potential Request for Proposals (RFP) process to select a new emergency ambulance services provider. Staff noted that state regulations previously governing competitive processes for exclusive operating areas were rescinded in April of the current year, meaning there are no current state regulations serving as a "safe harbor," though prior guidelines may inform the process. Staff estimated the RFP process, including implementation, would take approximately two and a half to three years.
- Supervisors discussed the implications of not having conducted a competitive bid in over 40 years. Concerns were raised regarding the high cost of the current system, the need for innovation in service delivery (such as triage at dispatch, lower-cost transport options, and mental health services), and the financial burden on residents who avoid calling ambulances due to cost. It was noted that the current system has high patient outcomes but that the cost structure and lack of recent market testing were significant factors. The Board acknowledged the complexity of the issue and the need to balance innovation, cost, and service quality.
- Motion and Vote:
- A motion was made to:
- 1. Receive and file the report on the EMS system assessment (Phase 2 and 3). 2. Direct the Public Health Department, acting as the Local EMS Agency (LEMSA), to begin the competitive process to select a contractor for emergency ambulance services and to redefine exclusive operating areas as necessary. 3. Determine that the project is not a project under CEQA. 4. Direct the Public Health Department to pursue extending the current contract with AMR for an additional 36 months and return to the Board for final action on that extension.
- The motion was seconded. The Board voted to pass the motion unanimously.
Agenda Item D4: Planning and Development – Hearing to Consider Recommendations Regarding the Knee Tennis Court Appeal (Case No. 19-APL-25)
- Record Acceptance: The Clerk noted the receipt of four documents after the deadline, including letters from neighbors, PowerPoint presentations from the applicant and appellant, and a county permitting document. A motion was made to receive these documents and make them part of the record. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
- Ex Parte Communications: Supervisors reported ex parte communications with Francis Romero (agent for the Nee family/applicant) and Poe Wang (appellant/neighbor), as well as meetings with staff and other neighbors.
- Staff Presentation: Staff presented the appeal of the Planning Commission’s de novo approval of the Knee Tennis Court Project (18-CDP-62) located at 1221 Lomita Lane. The project involves changes to previously approved grading, including elevating the tennis court and accessory structures by approximately 2.5 feet, modifying retaining walls, and moving retention basins. Staff responded to the appellant’s issues regarding unauthorized construction, runoff, and neighborhood character, noting that a stop-work order had been issued previously, erosion controls were installed, and the project meets zoning and CEQA exemptions. Staff recommended denying the appeal and approving the project.
- Appellant Presentation: The appellant, represented by Lisa Matheson, argued that the project represents a pattern of retroactive permitting and unauthorized changes. They cited concerns about increased height (fence and court), excessive grading, runoff issues, and negative impacts on neighborhood character and views. They emphasized the lack of engagement with neighbors and the refusal of mediation.
- Applicant Presentation: The applicant, represented by Frances Romero, stated that the changes were necessary to make the tennis court ADA-accessible and to address site constraints. They provided evidence of communication with the County Grading Inspector, including emails and pre-construction meetings, to demonstrate that the County was aware of the proposed changes. They argued that the project is an accessory use consistent with the zoning, that erosion controls are in place, and that the changes are minimal compared to the original approved project. They requested the appeal be denied.
- Public Comment:
- Michelle Caswell (Neighbor): Expressed concern that the applicant violated the original permit by bringing in excess fill without permission and that the increased height would obstruct views. She cited a history of the applicant disregarding permit conditions.
- Jim Gaskin (Neighbor): Expressed concern about the aesthetics of the large cut into the hillside and the impact on the neighborhood character.
- Yat Chan (Neighbor/Appellant’s Wife): Requested that the Board focus on the current case rather than past disputes. She stated that the neighbors are concerned about the changes to the neighborhood character and the impact on their property.
- Barbara Carlisle (Neighbor): Spoke in support of the appellant, characterizing them as upstanding community members and expressing offense at allegations made against them.
- Rebuttal:
- Appellant (Lisa Matheson): Reiterated concerns about the height of the fence and court, the history of unauthorized work, and the lack of neighbor engagement. She emphasized the support of seven neighbors for the appeal.
- Applicant (Frances Romero): Countered that the project has been approved three times, that the County was fully informed of the changes, and that the project is a permitted accessory use. She argued that the focus should be on the technical merits of the permit rather than personal character or past disputes. She noted that the applicant has incurred significant costs and that the project is designed by licensed professionals.
- Staff Comment: Staff indicated they had no additional comments.
- Board Deliberation:
- Supervisor Hartman raised the issue of mediation, suggesting that a design minimizing the court height while maintaining ADA access would have been an ideal solution. He noted that while no bad faith was evident on either side, the situation undermined public confidence in the permitting system. Supervisor Hartman inquired about the feasibility of lowering the court height, noting that even a 12% slope is steep for wheelchair access. He expressed sympathy for the neighbors regarding the height but opposed county regulation of driveway size and paving materials. He asked staff how to proceed if the appeal were denied, specifically whether the driveway could be approved separately or if conditions could be attached to the project.
- Staff clarified that if the appeal were upheld and the project denied, it would revert to the previous approval, which allowed for a paved driveway extension but not the additional grading for a flat pad. Staff confirmed that denying the appeal while adding conditions to the project is an acceptable approach. Supervisor Hartman asked if further changes to the path configuration would require a permit, with staff indicating it depends on the amount of grading involved (less than three feet or 50 cubic yards).
- Supervisor Adam stated that the case appeared straightforward and that property rights should not be subject to neighbor approval, advocating for the denial of the appeal without conditions. Supervisor Hartman expressed difficulty in finding a middle path, questioning the engineering rationale for the steep slope. Supervisor Adam countered that the slope is dictated by the natural landfall (31 feet over the property) and that achieving a lower slope would require excessive fill, which is not feasible or affordable. Supervisor Hartman noted that the core issue was the process and future expectations, expressing hope that the parties could resolve their differences. Supervisor Lavagnino acknowledged the complexity of neighbor disputes and the role of the board in such cases, noting that the applicant had communicated with the county despite the stop work order.
- Motion and Vote:
- Supervisor Hartman proposed a motion to deny the appeal but condition the project by reducing the tennis court grade by one foot. Supervisor Adam stated that this would make the slope steeper and moved to adopt the staff recommendations (items A, B, C, and D). Supervisor Hartman seconded the motion.
- The roll call vote resulted in the motion passing 4-1.
- Decision: The appeal was denied, and the staff recommendations were adopted. The board adjourned, with the next meeting scheduled for October 8th in Santa Maria.