Board of Supervisors — 2026-01-27

BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 January 27, 2026

UnGovr Transcript

iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:0615 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role0:31

All right, good morning. I'll call the order. The January 27, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Roll call — called by Mayor · 1 under review
Show transcript
Supervisor Lavagnino. Here. Supervisor Lee. Here. Supervisor Capps. Here. Supervisor Hartmann. Here. And Chair Nelson.
Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand
UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role0:54

At this time, please stand and join the board in pledging allegiance to the flag.

The next order of business is approval of the minutes from the January 13th, 2025, or sorry, 2026 regular meeting. Can I get a motion?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.871:25

Hartmann moves approval.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:27

Second. Okay, so motion from Hartmann, second from Lee. Roll call vote, please.

Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 motion from Hartmann, second from Lee. Roll call
Show transcript
Supervisor Lavagnino? Aye. Supervisor Lee? Aye. Supervisor Capps? Aye. Supervisor Hartmann? Aye. And Chair Nelson? Aye.
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:44

Motion passes unanimously.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:46

The next item of business is the CEO's report. Do we have a report today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:51

Good morning Chair Nelson and board members. I have just two announcements or actually one announcement and we have another edition of our video series this morning. The first announcement is just recognizing our public health department. They recently were recognized by being awarded a 2025 operational site visit badge which recognizes it's their commitment to high quality care, strong operations, and continued service to the community from the Federal Health Center Program. So it's quite an achievement to reach full compliance and get that recognition.

The second is I'm pleased to share another video in our 175th anniversary series which highlights the history of Santa Barbara County. As you know these videos air on channel 20 throughout the week and are featured in our monthly county newsletter on CSB TV YouTube page and across our social media channels in both English and Spanish. This latest video focuses on natural disasters that have impacted our county and is another good reminder to sign up for emergency alerts through the county at ReadySBC.org which is on the screen. So let's take a look.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:03

Welcome to Santa Barbara County, a place with immense natural beauty and rich history. Founded in 1850 as one of California's original counties. Join us as we acknowledge the 175th anniversary of the County of Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara County has always lived at the intersection of beauty and risk. Our landscape defines us, and it also shapes the disasters we face.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:33

Santa Barbara County has experienced many natural disasters in its 175 years. In 1925, Santa Barbara County experienced an estimated 6.8 earthquake, which damaged or destroyed 600 buildings. Additionally, we have had, unfortunately, other significant impacts in our county. I think some of the ones that really sit with the community are some of our largest fires.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:57

So what you see on this map here, I'm pointing to, is just how unique the microclimates of Santa Barbara County are governed in large part by the terrain. And you can see in the brown area here, that's the San Yanez Range. That really determines the microclimates when we talk about sundowner winds. These canyons, the dry downslope winds, is what brings such a dangerous conditions in terms of hotter temperatures, but also for the wildfire threat. The fire

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:24

officials worried about a big one, and the big one is happening right now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:28

From a historical standpoint for Santa Barbara County, in terms of wildfires, a few really come to mind, starting with the legendary Painted Cave Fire in 1990. That's kind of like the benchmark for all major wildfires. And what made that such a unique fire is it was very fast-moving that jumped the 101 Freeway and really impacted very urbanized areas of the South Coast. As we come to more modern times, some notable fires would include the Tea Fire and the Hesed Cedar Fire. Hesed Cedar being a May fire, that was 100 degrees temperature, so very hot.

Whereas the Tea Fire occurred in November, so an example of a fall sun down or wind event. And then even closer in time was the Thomas Fire. When you have the fires, not only do you have that threat, but what happens with the burn scar after the fires. When you lose the vegetation, there's going to be greater runoff. It doesn't take as much rainfall or rain intensity, but every time there's a burn scar, those areas are going to be much more at risk for significant flooding and debris flow.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed5:31

Santa Barbara County has historically been susceptible to debris flows, landslides, flooding. You go back to 1969, one of the most significant events prior to what we're more familiar with more recently, the 1-9 debris flow in Montecito, which took 23 of our community members' lives.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:48

And it's not just rain and fire. The county faces other natural hazards that can cause major damage, including high surf, coastal flooding and erosion, wind events and earthquakes. Every natural disaster leaves lessons behind. By understanding our hazards, we strengthen how we protect our community

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed6:05

in the future. Our hazard mitigation plan, as well as the county's climate vulnerability assessment, looks at what type of disasters we have risk at, and some of those disasters are increasing in their risk and probability. One of the reasons why we come together in the Emergency Operations Center is because we want to bring everyone together, sharing information, making sure we have a consistent message that supports the community, what they need to be doing to stay safe, and how to recover after that disaster. It is so important that community members consider registering for alerts at ReadySVC.org. Go to our website. Check out our new evacuation zones map. Know where you are in the community. Know multiple ways how you can get out of your community.

And the last one that I think is so important, know who around you in your neighborhood might need help in that disaster and make sure you're ready and able to help them if you can.

0:07 – 0:108 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed7:02

And once again if we could thank Kelsey Butita who put that together for us. And I also want to acknowledge the person you saw on there and that's Kelly Hubbard. Thank you Kelly for all your work on that as well.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role7:20

That concludes my report. Thank you CEO Miyasato. All right Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:27

Chair Nelson and members of the board, I do have a few announcements this morning. We received a request from the department to withdraw administrative item number 17. Administrative item number 17 is from fire. It is regarding a local cooperative fire protection agreement number 26-FI11050700002 between the Santa Barbara County Fire Department and the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest, This withdrawal request has been posted online and made available to both the board and the public.

Additionally, please be advised that Chair Nelson has indicated he will be rearranging the order of today's departmental agenda. Departmental items will be heard in the following order. Departmental item number one, regarding the extra help service and retirement waiver for the Sheriff's Office. Departmental item number two, progress update on the One Climate Initiative.

To be followed by Departmental Item Number 5, Ordinance Streamlining and Housing Accommodation Amendments. To be followed by our closed session. Next we will have Departmental Item Number 4, First Quarter Update on Cannabis Taxation Permitting and Licensing. And our final item of the day will be Departmental Item Number 3, The Conclusion of the Enterprise Pilot Program. For those of you listening, we are just switching the order of Departmental Item Number 3 and Number 5.

And lastly, for information on the Board of Supervisors' methods of public participation and instructions on how to provide public comment on items listed on today's agenda or during general public comment, please refer to page 2 of the agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page 2. If you have any questions, please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at 805-568-2240 Again, that number is 805-568-2240. If the board would please include the withdrawal of administrative item number 17 to the balance of the administrative agenda, that concludes my announcements for today. All right.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role9:27

So we'll make sure we do that. The next item of the business is the administrative agenda. Would any board members like to pull any items? I'd like to pull A34, please. All right. And do I have? A20. A20. All right. And do we have any items being pulled by the public?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed9:41

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have item A20 pulled by a few members of our public. Yes.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role9:47

All right, so I'll go ahead and take a motion to pass the balance of the administrative agenda with the withdrawal of item number 17 and items 20 and 34, which will be spread separately. So moved. Second. Motion by Lavagnino, second by Hartmann. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 Motion by Lavagnino, second by Hartmann. Can we get a roll call
Show transcript
Supervisor Lavagnino? Aye. Supervisor Lee? Aye. Supervisor Capps? Aye. Supervisor Hartmann? Aye. And Chair Nelson? Aye.
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed10:15

Motion passes unanimously. All

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role10:17

right, thank you. At this point, we'll now go move on to our board resolutions. And the first one up is Board Administrative Item Number 1. Will you please read that in the record, Madam Clerk?

0:10 – 0:152 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed10:30

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Hartmann. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation, its Board of Directors, and its volunteers for their outstanding service and dedication to the community. And joining us in person today, we have Linda Greco from the Santa Barbara County Animal Foundation Board President.

And a few of the Board of Directors as well. And if you can all make your way to the podium and I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation was established in 2002 to assist and benefit the animals of Santa Barbara County and whereas since its founding the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation has demonstrated steadfast dedication by raising funds and implementing programs that benefit both animals and residents of the county.

And whereas the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation has been operated entirely by committed volunteers who generously contribute their time, expertise, and energy in service of animal welfare. And whereas through its efforts, the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation has raised millions of dollars and positively impact the lives of thousands of animals and people.

And whereas Santa Barbara County is deeply grateful for the support of a non-profit partner whose contributions have been essential to the success of one of the county's key programs, animal services. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors and the County of Santa Barbara does hereby honor and commend the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation, its Board of Directors, and its volunteers for their outstanding service and dedication to the community passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed12:10

Good morning Chair, Supervisors, and friends. On behalf of the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation, thank you for this tremendous honor. Being recognized by our County Board of Supervisors is deeply meaningful. To all of us who believe how a community treats its animals reflects the very best of who we are. We are truly grateful, not only for this recognition, but for your continued support of Animal Welfare across our county. Your leadership, advocacy, commitment makes it possible for life-saving work to happen every single day.

We exist for one simple reason, to support the animals and the people who care for them. We work hand-in-hand with Santa Barbara County Animal Services to provide medical care, enrichment, emergency support, and second chances for animals who have nowhere else to turn. We choose to share this recognition with the dedicated Animal Services staff, who show up day after day with compassion, professionalism, and heart.

Animal welfare is not easy work. It is joyful, heartbreaking, exhausting, and expiring, sometimes all in the same day. It requires patience, collaboration, resources, and above all, a belief that every life has value. The county has demonstrated that belief time and time again and we thank you for that. What makes Santa Barbara County special is the way public service and community support come together. Our foundation is powered by donors, volunteers, rescue partners, veterinarians, and advocates. Quiet heroes who bottle feed kittens at 2 a.m., open their homes to frightened dogs, fund life-saving surgeries, and say yes when it would be easier to say not now.

This recognition tells them their efforts matter. It tells them that the county sees, values, and stands beside them. To our Board of Supervisors, thank you for recognizing that animal care is not a side issue. It's a community issue. It touches public health, safety, education, Your support helps ensure animals are treated humanely, families are supported, and our shelter can continue towards a future where every adoptable animal finds a home.

We want to acknowledge the partnership between the County and the Foundation. Strong partnerships are built on trust, shared goals, and mutual respect, and we are proud of the relationship we have. Together we've increased life-saving outcomes, expanded programs, and strengthened the safety net for animals and people alike. This moment of recognition is not an ending.

It is encouraging us to keep going. There's still work to be done, still animals waiting, still opportunities to do better and reach farther. And with partners like you, we are confident that we can. In closing, thank you for believing in our mission. For honoring this work and for helping make Santa Barbara County a place where compassion is not just spoken, it is practiced.

We accept this recognition with gratitude, humility, and renewed commitment to the animals, the community, and the values we all share. Thank you very much.

0:15 – 0:217 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role15:42

Thank you Linda. Stay here one more moment.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.8715:45

I just wanted to add my personal thanks for the wonderful event that you held this year and underscore millions of dollars that we wouldn't have otherwise and I think between the lines tens of thousands of hours of volunteer effort and so it lifts all of us up and so thank you so much on behalf of the board.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role16:15

Thank you. And Madam Clerk, will you please read Administrative Item Number 2 into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed16:20

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 2 is sponsored by Supervisor Lavagnino. It is to adopt a resolution honoring Lorena Chavez upon her retirement from the County Health Department after over 29 years of faithful and dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, we have Lorena Chavez. If you can please make your way to the podium.

And anyone else you'd like to join with you, I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Lorena has dedicated 29 years of service to the residents of Santa Barbara County, serving in roles such as health service aide and medical assistant at the Santa Maria Health Care Center since 2005. Throughout this tenure, Lorena has contributed to multiple departments, including obstetrics, gynecology, adult medicine, pediatrics, the homeless shelter clinic, and retinal screening services. Lorena has consistently sought opportunities to address challenges and implement solutions, thereby making a meaningful impact on patients' lives.

And whereas at Santa Maria Health Care Center, Lorena worked in multiple departments, which enabled her to deliver high-quality care. She also educated patients, parents, and caregivers to promote better outcomes. At the homeless shelter, she recognized the challenges of homelessness and ensured individuals receive compassionate care. And whereas Lorena trained and served as an electronic health records EPIC super user, assisting clinical teams in optimizing workflows and maintaining accurate documentation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she contributed to large-scale vaccination clinics that serve both the community and patients. Additionally, she managed various assigned projects, trained new employees, and supported prospective medical assistance students.

These experiences demonstrated her ability An initiative and strong commitment to fulfilling both organizational and patient needs. And whereas Lorena's role as a medical assistant has enabled her to apply her comprehensive training. She values contributing to a collaborative team environment, advocating for patients, and sharing insights with physicians, nurse supervisors, and other healthcare professionals. The support and trust of her colleagues have been integral to her effectiveness in this position. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge a resolution recognizing Lorena Chavez for her 29 years of service and commitment to the health and well-being of the residents of Santa Barbara County.

Passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed19:03

I just would like to thank the opportunity for the space. It means a lot for acknowledging me. I also want to thank county for allowing me to be a part of the community and help. It was a great honor. I would have enjoyed to do a little longer, but COVID had other plans for me. I just want to appreciate Dr. Preciado as well. She was one of my big mentors in helping our community in a lot of roles. Thank you so much for everyone.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed19:38

Thank you Board of Supervisors for recognizing Lorena Chavez, Medical Assistant. Today we honor the retirement of an extraordinary medical assistant. After 29 years of dedicated services to the County of Santa Barbara, Health, PCFH Division, Santa Maria Health Center. Throughout her career, she truly embodied the mission of county health, to improve the health of the community. Like many of our outstanding medical assistants across the health centers, she was an essential member of our care teams. But she stood out for her deep connections she built with patients and colleagues alike.

As a long-time member of the Santa Maria community, she knew many of our patients personally. That familiarity, combined with her compassion and professionalism, allowed her to engage patients in a way that made them feel respected, heard, and cared for. Patients often commented on her exceptional bedside manner and the trust she inspired. Every physician at Santa Maria Health Center wanted to work alongside her.

I was lucky. She was the medical assistant that worked with me for over eight years. And I could not have performed my work without Lorna. Where are you, Lorna? I just couldn't. And I depended on her so much, I can't even tell you. She was known for her attention to detail, her strong work ethic, her follow-through with patients after the visit, and her unwavering focus on patient-centered care.

She made our teams better and our care stronger. Her legacy is one of service, excellence, and compassion for the community she served so faithfully. She will be deeply missed, and we are grateful for the lasting impact she leaves behind. Congratulations on a well-earned retirement and thank you for 29 years of service.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role21:45

Thank you, Dr. Bresciato and thank you, Lorena, for your service to our county. We now take up the administrative items in the order that they were pulled. I believe, Madam Clerk, will you please read item number 20 into the record?

0:21 – 0:2728 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed21:59

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 20 is from the Planning and Development Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the California Coastal Commission conditional certification of the local coastal program amendment for rezones for the 2023 through 2031 housing element update and we have three requests to speak from the public on this item.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role22:19

All right, we'll go to public first or Supervisor Lee, you pulled this. Did you want to speak before public or? I do. There's some questions I want to ask Lisa if she's... Yeah, absolutely. We'll go ahead. We'll have the questions from Supervisor Lee and then we'll go to the public. Thank you.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.7922:34

Let me know when you're ready. Yes, good morning. Lisa, so the developer, will they pull their builders remedy project on the Baylor site? I just want to confirm that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed22:43

So, in our conversations with the Housing Authority and Red Tail, they have indicated once the site is rezoned, they will pull the builder's remedy application.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.7922:53

Got it. Just in case, if they don't, then what happens? Is there a scenario

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed22:57

that... I think it's really unlikely that they wouldn't pull it because there's a much longer process in front of them with a builder's remedy application than there would be under the rezone.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.7923:10

Got it. And are any of these re-zones subject to CEQA?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed23:15

So the re-zones that are approved as part of the housing element were covered under the programmatic EIR. And so there will be no additional CEQA done for projects that are built on these re-zoned sites. They're exempt.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.7923:30

They're exempt. Got it. So can you explain this by right thing to me? It's a new term to me. Sounds like

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed23:37

Certainly. So as part of the housing element update, the county was required to identify what our housing need was. And SBK gave us numbers through the state, and so in order to meet our RHNA allocation, we were required to rezone properties. And when a jurisdiction rezones properties to meet its RHNA allocation, The state has a law that says if developers follow a certain set of protocols, that being they develop the site at least 20 units per acre, there's a minimum of 16 units on the property, and they provide a minimum of 20% affordable, they are processed in a buy right process, meaning that it's a ministerial approval.

And so the rezone sites across the county all have that ability for a developer to process a by-right application. But as I said, they have to meet those standards that are outlined in the state law.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.7924:37

So this is a state standard, not a county standard, correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed24:40

It is a state standard and a state mandate. That's correct.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.7924:42

Got it. Just a follow-up. So are there any other discussions, any review, SBAR, any PCs that has to go through?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed24:50

So for multifamily housing, we have objective standards that were developed because this has to be a ministerial process all the way through. So we have the objective design standards that are on our website if the public's interested that set forth what kind of architectural style and guidance on landscaping. So that sort of serves the purpose of the design review that would happen at a Board of Architectural Review.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.7925:19

And would CARP Firesomeland Department have a say in these housing projects?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed25:24

They will. They will review all of them.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.7925:26

Got it. And just a follow-up, are there any other parcels in the county that has by right or all of them have

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed25:31

it? All the sites that were rezoned as part of the housing element, and we have sites in the North County, we have sites in, we have a site in San Yanez, we have sites in Goleta, they all have the by right status provided a developer meets those standards.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role25:47

Got it. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed25:49

You're welcome.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role25:50

All right, thank you Supervisor Lee. Madam Clerk, let's go to the public.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed25:54

We will now go to Zoom with Tristine Raynor to be followed by Betty Jebson and our final speaker is Carl Sonken. And Carl, I do believe you have a video and you just received an email from my office that we have not received that video yet, so if you can please send that to the email address that was sent to you, that would be greatly appreciated. We will now go to Tristine.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed26:25

I am not ready, so could we go to Betty before me?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed26:31

Absolutely. We will now go to Betty Jebsen to be followed by Tristine Rayner, then we will go to Carl Sunken last. Betty?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed26:43

Good morning. I'm speaking today against the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed26:52

Betty, we did hear you and then you just went away. You still are unmuted on our end. Perhaps you got disconnected somehow?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed27:01

Yes, I am.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed27:02

Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please proceed.

0:27 – 0:3313 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed27:09

Let me start again. I'm speaking again to...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed27:17

Betty, are you stopping because you can hear the video? If you could just mute any other streaming on your end to provide your comments.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed27:32

I'm speaking against the project at Baylor. The Baylor project was...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed27:46

Betty, we seem to be having some technical issues. You're cutting out every couple words. Could you by chance switch your microphone?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed28:00

I've stopped one of the, can you hear me now?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed28:06

Yes, we can. Please proceed.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed28:09

I think I've solved it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed28:23

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed28:25

am speaking against the project at Baylord. The Baylord project should not be bundled with the two Van Wingerden parcels in Carpinteria. They are completely different.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed28:49

Betty, if you could just ignore the video and please proceed with your comments, we could still hear you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed28:58

The Van Wingerden parcels are completely differently situated than Baylord. The Van Wingerden parcels have the infrastructure necessary for development. Baylord does not. The City of Carpinteria has a file on its website that completely goes through why this project should be denied. The City of Carpinteria sent its City Administrator and Assistant to Sacramento to speak against this project for the California Coastal Commission.

They submitted a 75-page report why this project should not go forward. There is a death trap for the one exit to all of the parcels, Casitas Village, Villa Del Mar, and the proposed development, and that is Baylor. The fire marshal is against this project. There is no available infrastructure. The developer was denied by the city of Carpinteria, therefore they went to the county. As of the city...

Council meeting last night in Carpinteria. It is assumed that that parcel would be annexed back into the City of Carpinteria. Thus, the developer is trying to make an end run when it was initially denied by going to the county and then back to the City of Carpinteria. The City of Carpinteria does not have the infrastructure to support this development. There is a lack of exits. For a fire, the Thomas Fire being the main example, there is lack of parking. There is lack of community development. It should not be built.

Please don't ignore all of the excellent work done by the City of Carpinteria, analyzing why this project at Baylor should not be built and unbundle it from the Van Wingerden's parcels that can be built. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed31:19

We will now go to Tristine Rayner to be followed by Carl Sunken, who is our final speaker on this item. And Carl, just another announcement. We have yet to receive your video. So if you are intending to play that, please send that video to the clerk of the board's email. Thank you. Tristine.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed31:38

Hi. So I have read the exhibit A9CZO. And the wording of it is so broad and general that we who are residents who live nearby and are very concerned about emergency exits here wonder whether there will be any Review allowed under this language. The language of use by right says, means that the county's review shall not require a conditional use permit, development plan, environmental review under California Environment Quality Act, or other discretionary review, or other discretionary review, or Approval pursuant to government code section.

Well, that's these last words. Other discretionary review shall not require other discretionary review. Sounds like it could be interpreted even to eliminate the fire marshal's review. Now, I would appreciate If somebody could point out what the limits are, because I don't find it in the language that the amendment that you are asked to approve of today. I would request that there be more time to make sure that we will not be exposed to dangers actually to our lives because of the problem of congestion that Carl's, if you could give him the exact place to send his film, can show you how serious this is.

Thank you.

0:33 – 0:4010 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed33:56

And we will now go to our final speaker, Carl Sunken. Carl?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed34:07

Good morning, Supervisors. If my video hasn't arrived at SBCOB, let me just say that what we're trying to show is that the parking in the Casitas Village, Villa Del Mar area, It's absolutely impossible that there are, you know, more than 500 homes here already, and people own two or three vehicles. There are often more than three or four people in each unit.

And with only one exit at this point from the proposed project, it's going to be impossible if there was a repeat of the Thomas fire. People who live here, who've lived here for a long time, remember how difficult it was to get out of the projects during the Thomas Fire, and that was well before any project went in at the Baylor Farm. And I think what's really important here is, as Tristine pointed out, there's not going to be really a lot of oversight from the county, from the state, from other organizations over what gets built there.

And I think that what we're talking about is really getting something back from the Coastal Commission with these baked-in restrictions And I think that the supervisors may want to reconsider approving matters that don't allow the people of Santa Barbara County to have a say in what gets built there or how it gets built there. None of us are against affordable housing. But let's take a look at what the size of the project is, or excuse me, what the size of the project was. I understand from Supervisor Lee's office that you really don't even have a potential project, but that this resolution, this A-20, We'll pave the way for a very dangerous situation. I'm sorry that my video, which was pretty dramatic, by the way, I'm sorry that my video wasn't able to get to SBCOB, but at the email address is a pretty large file.

So, but thank you for hearing us, and I'd really appreciate it if you reconsider approving these resolutions from the Coastal Commission that don't really allow CEQA other organizations to have a view of this project that will go in there. Thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role37:06

Thank you, Mr. Sunken.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed37:07

And that concludes public comment on Administrative Item Number 20.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role37:10

All right, actually I think we have Director Plowman up just to kind of answer one of the questions there about the concerns that exist about whether there would be potential review for fire and other things. My understanding is that life safety issues are something that we still are allowed to have input on, that we don't, we wouldn't be able to sign off on those if those were not addressed and mitigated. Could you speak to that for the comfort of those that were speaking today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed37:37

Yeah, certainly. Thank you, Supervisor Nelson and members of the board. So we still have a review process at the county, and the projects are required to meet objective standards, and that includes fire protection standards. And if there is a public health and safety issue, then the county has the ability to Thank you, Director Plowman.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.7938:33

So during my time on the Carp City Council, I have always voted against these rezones because they conflicted with the needs of the city and the city's building standards. I get it. I have an 18-story housing development right outside my neighborhood, so I understand the frustrations of the speakers. But we do need more housing. We need more affordable housing.

These rezones are about affordability. Raising the percentage of units required to be affordable is important. Is this the best case scenario? No. Do I love this? I hate it. So I've been going back and forth on this, supporting whether or not, but It does set a new standard for affordable housing percentage in our county, and I hope we can get more developers to live up to these percentages, more than just 20%. This is above 30, which is great. A lot of us hope for this, and I want to respect all the hard work that our colleagues and our staff have done in this housing element.

The state is forcing us to do this. I don't like it. My district hates it. But I believe we can work towards better projects. So right now we're working with the city and the developers to address the worst aspects of these developments. So when the Van Riegel projects do come up, I'm hoping we can work with them to come to some common ground and make projects better.

So if we don't do anything, then future Carpentarians won't have a home to live. That's not our goal. We should work towards creating more housing. But it should respect the character of the community, something that we're proud to say in CARB, and many of us who have worked decades to maintain that. So I want to see it happen. So I'm going to vote for this, but I'm worried and hope these developers live up to the promises they make to our community. So I move to support staff recommendation.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role40:23

All right.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.7940:24

Thank you, Supervisor

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role40:25

Lee. Can I get a second on this? I'll second. Is there any additional comment? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you please give us a roll call?

Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 move to support staff recommendation. All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lee. Can I get a second on this? I'll second. Is there any additional
Show transcript
Supervisor Lavagnino? Aye. Supervisor Lee? Aye. Supervisor Capps? Aye. Supervisor Hartmann? Aye. And Chair Nelson? Aye.

0:40 – 0:484 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed40:42

Motion passes unanimously. All

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role40:45

right, that now brings us to our final administrative item. Administrative item number 34.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed40:54

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 34 is sponsored by Supervisor Lavagnino. It is to consider recommendations regarding a Santa Barbara County stand down update.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed41:06

All right, good morning. So you all have, we've passed out a few of these. These are Little thank yous that we handed out to our volunteers this year. I'm going to give just a quick update on our 13th annual stand down, which was held October 25th at Santa Maria Fair Park. Just some of the numbers we'll run through real quick. We serviced 427 total veterans. 69 had declared themselves homeless.

Just to give you an idea, when we first started, that number was closer to 200 homeless veterans. There were over 130 services provided. Everything from health care checks, housing, employment, clothing, new boots and shoes, haircuts, showers, legal services, mental health counseling, dental care, pet resources. Started with a hot breakfast and we had, of course, it's Santa Maria, so we had a big time barbecue to close it out.

All the meat, For over 600 meals provided free of charge by the Santa Barbara County Cattlemen's Association and cooked to perfection by local Elk's Lodge 1538 members. As each veteran entered the fair park, they were greeted by our American Legion riders from Orkut Chapter 534. They were then paired with an active duty Vandenberg Space Force Base escort who ended up carrying their duffel bags and sharing stories throughout the day with their veteran.

We had 576 volunteers manning stations across the ground with 140 of those coming from the base. It was another great day. One of the highlights was provided by some students from Santa Maria High School. We historically open our ceremonies with a bugler. We've had the same bugler for all 13 years, David Rackley. He was unable to attend this year. He usually plays Reveille and closes with a retreat to the colors.

And one of our volunteers, this is what happens at Stand Down, one of our volunteers found out that our bugler wasn't going to be able to make it, so they thought, hey, let's fill the void, and they took some students from Santa Maria High School Band and figured out in a few weeks, I think we can learn how to play this, and they played beautifully on Stand Down.

Stand Down is all about giving, giving our attention, our time, and our resources to our vets. And there are some county employees who have been with me on this since day one, and I would like to recognize them today. I also want to say that so many of our departments participate in Stand Down. Public Health, Mental Health, Social Services, Public Defender's Office. I'm going to leave some out, so just, if you're a department, we appreciate you being there.

I want to start with, first off, our stand-down coordinator, Sandy Agalos. Stand-down does not happen without Sandy. She's recognized now nationally as a go-to person, an expert on stand-downs. We have other stand-downs held throughout the country that are like, how do you guys get all this really cool stuff? And it's because Sandy knows how to go into the system, and I would say manipulate it, but I'm going to say work. to get us the best stuff. She was recognized at this stand down by Congressman Salute Carbajal who presented her with a certificate for all of her hard work.

Frank Mejia from our Social Services Department heads up all 130 service providers. He makes sure everybody knows exactly where they're going to be, at what time, at what table. He's the genius behind the one whole facility that Heather Gardner brings her entire family, her husband, her kids, and they all volunteer providing new shoes and boots for our veterans.

So every year our committee gets together. And we recognize those who went above and beyond that year. And so I'd like to hand out a few certificates today. And if you can just come up to the microphone when I call you out and I'll come down and provide those for you. First is our business of the year was Mission Linen. And Raymond Barron is here from Mission Linen. Mission Linen has provided us towels for our haircuts and our shower areas for all 13 years. But what was really cool this year was we went into our storage unit where we have all these awesome coats that were donated to us, brand new, and we had had a leak in the storage facility and so it was flooded.

And so here we had all these brand new coats that we weren't able to give out. Somebody decided, hey, maybe we could call Mission Linen. They probably have something that could fix this. Showed up, picked up the coats, went and got them laundered, brought them back the next morning for stand down, and they looked like they were brand new. So I really want to appreciate Raymond and his team.

Then we have also Volunteer of the Year is Vince Lopez. Vince, many of you recognize Vince. His company has done amazing work for our county, especially digging out Guadalupe in the last flood. But the reason why, and by the way, Vince, Navy Corpsman, His son is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and is studying to be an F-35 pilot for the United States Marine Corps. But Vince drops off a utility vehicle, drops it off, picks it up, works stand down. His wife works stand down for us. Vince has just been an amazing asset for us.

From our Business of the Year, another Business of the Year was a Starbucks, Hazel McGrady. She is also a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. Starbucks, she's the Orchid Store Manager, and they donated 40 gallons of coffee this year. That's a lot of coffee, kept everybody awake. And finally, one of our own from Santa Barbara County Animal Services, Esme Medina.

Esme has dedicated her life to working with animals and it's such a critical service at Stand Down that many of these veterans, especially the homeless ones, they have a special bond with their pet and they won't attend unless they're able to bring their friends. Esme has had There's been some activity at PetZone that takes us strong individuals. Some people bring some very large animals that might not be completely under control, but she's done amazing work. We provide everything from free food for the pets to microchipping, leashes, grooming, medical care, shots, all kinds of great stuff. So just this is the crew that Steps up every year and just really want to appreciate them and I'll be handing out some certificates and if they'd like to say anything.

I've got to get my county employee crew up here too so I can get a quick picture with them. Sandy.

0:49 – 0:5317 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed49:03

As a veteran, I just want to thank Mr. Lavagnino for all he's done for all these years for us veterans. Hopefully Stand Down keeps moving forward because it does help a lot of veterans out and we appreciate you and everything that you've done. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role49:20

Thank you, Vince.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed49:22

So I'll touch on the future of Stand Down real quick because you brought that up. Kind of at a crossroads. We're not really sure what's going to happen next year. We still have a lot of supplies and thanks to the community, we still have quite a bit of funding available. A lot of our core is either retiring or moving on or doing something else. And so, and we have seen, there are so many different, Hope Village being one of them, Good Samaritan Shelter, the Veterans Collaborative. There's so many people now focusing on veteran homelessness that The numbers have really come down. And so it's kind of victim of its own success that, you know, the more that we provide services and we get people reconnected to the community, the less homeless veterans that we have to deal with.

And so trying to figure out exactly what we're going to do next year, we're looking at possibly maybe doing something like we did during COVID with a drive-thru event, but Committee is still trying to figure out exactly where we're going to be going in the future, but the need is still there for so many veterans, whether or not they're homeless or not. It's just a good time for them to come together and share camaraderie, and we have veterans showing up that are 22 years old and 92 years old, so it's all over the map. Just to give you an idea, 65 haircuts were given out this year, so people come there for some basic needs, you know, showers and haircuts and new clothes and It's an amazing time, so I just want to thank everybody that's been associated with it, and hopefully we'll be back next year.

We'll see. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role50:56

Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. And thank you all, volunteers.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.8751:01

Chair Nelson?

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role51:03

Yes, please, Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.8751:06

I just wanted to weigh in and thank Supervisor Lavagnino. I heard you on the radio yesterday speaking about this and I can just commend you for the years and years of work and the impact that this stand down. I know it takes a village to do this, has had on people's lives. I attended long ago as a commissioner for women, but just your legacy lives on and the fact that you spoke on the radio and today again about how this will continue makes me smile. I'm glad that it will and I know How much it means to you and how much it means to our county. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed51:39

Thank you and one of our favorite stories at Stand Down is about your mom. And I had put a volunteer at the front gate and we really try to keep the political world, it's weird because this starts October 25th, which is also very close to election time. And it's always an important thing for anybody that's running for office, they want to show up at Stand Down. And so we really put a restriction, we said there's no candidates to come in.

At that time, Congresswoman Lois Capps was our representative, so she was more than welcome to attend. But I put a volunteer in charge of the gate, and I said, nobody gets in here. And then I got a crackle over the radio. I was like, yeah, this woman's trying to get in here. And she says she's a Congresswoman. And I was like, That's Congresswoman Capps. Yeah, she's more than welcome to come in.

But she had said at the time she was the Congresswoman and he came back with it. He was the coordinator for the front gate at the time. So at that point, he trumped her at the gate. But yeah, it didn't last long. So I appreciate all your kind words, Supervisor Capps, and especially your mom for being there as well, too.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.8752:54

That's great. I'm surprised she didn't say give her nurse credentials. That's probably would have gotten her in.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed52:59

Yeah, well that way we could have put her to work

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role53:01

right away.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.8753:01

Yeah,

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role53:01

no doubt.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.8753:02

Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role53:04

All right. Thank you. Again, thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. At this point, I think we need a motion for item 20, or sorry, 34. I'll make that motion.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.8753:17

Second.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role53:18

All right, Madam Clerk, would you please do a roll call vote?

Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 motion. Second. All right, Madam Clerk, would you please do a roll call
Show transcript
Supervisor Lavagnino? Aye. Supervisor Lee? Aye. Supervisor Capps? Aye. Supervisor Hartmann? Aye. And Chair Nelson? Aye.

0:53 – 0:5910 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed53:32

Motion passes unanimously.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role53:33

All right, thank you. Now is the time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Before we go to the public, Madam Clerk, I believe that Supervisor Capps is asked to make a public comment at this time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed53:47

Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board, that is correct. We only have one request to speak from the public and first we will go to Santa Barbara Supervisor Capps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.8753:55

Well, thank you. I appreciate that. I wanted to speak during this public comment. So I'd like to speak about the escalating federal immigration enforcement, and I wanted to start by saying that I heard the chair's comments and request to not unnecessarily wade into national issues, but what is happening with ICE is happening here. It's affecting the people we represent on a daily basis. ICE is here any given day, any given neighborhood, any given street.

causing disruption, in some cases violence. Over 350 people are now gone, most without due process, leaving behind loved ones to suffer in trauma. But what I'm talking today is mostly about safety, and that's really our number one job here in the county. Safety for our immigrant community, but also for all of us too. Because when these raids happen, as we've seen, Agents are masked with guns and innocent bystanders are outraged. It's alarming.

They can't believe what they are seeing. So, like Alex Preti, they take out their phones. What's to stop a federal agent from turning on them, turning on us, turning on someone here in Santa Barbara County? When the big raid happened in Carpinteria and 200 people gathered to protest, ICE used smoke bombs and flashbangs on them. It got out of hand. We all know it could have been worse, way worse.

Our local law enforcement has years of experience and training. They received de-escalation training. They are members of our community. I'm proud to be their colleague. I support their courageous work. ICE has more than doubled their ranks in less than one year, from 10,000 agents to 22,000. They do not receive the kind of exceptional training that our local law enforcement receives. By some accounts, they're barely trained.

Like tens of thousands of community members, I've attended so many protests recently, including such a beautiful vigil full of light last night at Stearns Wharf, in solidarity with the people of Minnesota. They've been entirely peaceful, I brought my son last night, not at all even giving a thought to my own safety or his, because this is Santa Barbara. This is America.

But after I left, I thought, will that change? What would I have done if federal agents arrived? I don't know what to do. And yet, it's been up to nonprofits to be leading the Know Your Rights Efforts and trainings. Non-profits to be leading de-escalation sessions with advocates and volunteers. The protests are peaceful because of the work of our community. Volunteers.

I'm grateful that our District Attorney has spoken out to keep the peace and keep the temperature down. So has the Santa Barbara City Chief of Police. I've talked to our Sheriff directly, and I'm publicly asking him now, how can he and his team be part of keeping our community safer against federal agents? What more can our Sheriff's Department be doing? It's an open-ended question, and I'm looking for any kind of constructive answer.

But we do need an answer. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Nelson.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role57:27

Thank you, Supervisor Capps. Madam Clerk, I believe we have an additional speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed57:33

Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board, that is correct. We have a request to speak from the public in Santa Barbara, and we are going to Jonathan Martin in Santa Barbara. Jonathan.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed57:49

Good morning, Chair Nelson and honorable supervisors. Thank you, Supervisor Capps, for shedding light on the incident that happened in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It's a terrible tragedy exercising that First Amendment right. I come to you as a resident of Santa Barbara County and would like to propose an ordinance that would make places of worship Schools and hospitals, ice-free zones, similar cities and municipalities as Alameda County, San Francisco, San Jose, they've all passed ordinances that make ice-free zones for all county properties. I think that's a very lawfully goal, but I think we can start with schools, hospitals, and places of worship because We don't want to see kids being used as bargaining chips to make migrants come out of houses.

We want to make sure that everybody's going to their health screenings. Cancers aren't being caught too late. And we don't want to see our churches being raided by any immigration forces because it seems like they could do just whatever they want now. And there needs to be some type of action taken by the county to protect constituents and return dignity to these populations.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role59:09

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed59:11

And that concludes general public comment for today.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role59:15

Okay, with the conclusion of general public comment, we will now go to the departmental agenda. Madam Clerk, will you please read departmental agenda number one into the record?

0:59 – 1:0313 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed59:24

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the Sheriff Coroner's Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an extra help service and retirement waiver for the Sheriff's Office. And I do believe our presenter is in Santa Barbara.

CommentSusan FarleyProposedself-stated59:41

Good morning, Chair of the Board, or Chair Nelson, members of the Board. My name is Susan Farley. I'm with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role59:48

Office. Ms. Farley, can you just hold on one second? I think we need to get your volume up a little bit here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed59:53

Yes, if CSB TV can hear me, if we can increase the volume for Santa Barbara, that would be greatly appreciated. All

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:00:04

right, Ms. Farley, let's see if we can continue.

CommentSusan FarleyProposedself-stated1:00:07

As I was saying, my name is Susan Farley. I'm the communications manager with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Dispatch Center. I'm here requesting a retirement waiver for Jose Joe Ayala to return to our center in 90 days instead of the 180 days as extra help. Not because I'm short-staffed. I'm doing good there. What I need is his technical expertise at the moment.

Joe spent 17 years as our project supervisor, specifically as a CAT administrator. He did the best job he could to take all the knowledge he had in his brain and transfer it to his replacement, but you can't move over 17 years of experience to a new person. Currently we need to do what's known as a forklift upgrade for our CAD system. CAD is computer-aided dispatching. It's where all calls for service go in and recommend responders go out.

We need to go from version 21.1.11.2 So if you're into computers, you know that's basically four years of upgrades that we have to immediately go up to. And we have to do it because the integrations of the systems no longer work together. Ezri, which is a partner agency that does mapping, no longer works with our CAD system, so we have to upgrade to make sure our maps can be updated. When new neighborhoods go in, we can find them, things of that nature.

I'm requesting Joe come back to assist his replacement. What Joe did traditionally is all the internal testing that ITD is not capable of doing because it's very specific to dispatch, and he did the coordinating between our system engineers and the vendors themselves. I know the biggest question is always funding, and I know that's a hot topic right now, especially at the Sheriff's Office.

For the dispatch budget specifically, we've used 17.33% of our extra help budget. I have three existing extra help employees. Two of those have retirement waivers that will expire this year, and one is someone who works on average 50 hours a year. I do not anticipate Joe using all the hours he's allotted, but even if he did, we would stay under our budget. I also intentionally did not fill two call taker positions because of the importance of getting these projects done.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:02:22

Well, thank you, Ms. Farley, especially for the thorough presentation there. I'm the board member that often pulls these and asks some questions. I think retirement waivers are made specifically for circumstances like this. This is not something where somebody's trying to spike a retirement. This is for somebody that is a subject matter expert. and is essential to be able to dive into his knowledge base for the organization to proceed as most effectively as possible. I also appreciate your sensitivity to the county budget. I think that's well received by myself and my colleagues.

I'm supportive of this and I would be happy to take a motion from a board member or hear any other comments. I'll move approval. Okay, but before, go ahead.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.871:03:06

I'll second.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:03:07

And before I go there, I better make sure with that, Madam Clerk, was there any public comment on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:03:12

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no request to speak from the public on this item.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:03:15

Okay, seeing no further comments on this, would you please give us a roll call?

Roll-call vote Passed 5–0
Show transcript
Supervisor Lavagnino? Aye. Supervisor Lee? Aye. Supervisor Capps? Aye. Supervisor Hartmann? Aye. And Chair Nelson? Aye.
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:03:29

Motion passes unanimously.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:03:32

Okay, moving along to item number two. Madam Clerk, will you please read departmental item number two into the record?

1:03 – 1:164 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:03:41

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Community Services Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a progress update on the One Climate Initiative 2030 Climate Action Plan and Energy Assurance Plan.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:03:55

All right, Ms. Ramos.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:04:00

Thank you, Chair Nelson, members of the Board. Jesus Armas of the Community Services Department, joined by Garrett Wong, our Sustainability Division Manager. The County of Santa Barbara has a long history of focusing on matters related to climate. And indeed, in 2024, the Board adopted the Climate Action Plan, which identifies a variety of objectives, targets, and goals to continue to make progress on our sustainability area.

This morning we'd like to update you on a variety of measures that have taken place and keep you abreast of what we're focusing on and what remains to be done to achieve our goals that have previously been presented to you. So Garrett, if you would, please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:04:47

Good morning. Garrett Wong-Karen, Sustainability Division Manager. Today I will be providing you with a general update on our progress, broadly under what's called the One Climate Initiative, not just our 2030 Climate Action Plan. Last year we marked the anniversary of the launch of our One Climate Initiative. This began in late 2019. Marking the beginning of several long-range planning efforts, all touching on climate change in some respect.

When I first came to the county in late 2019 and early 2020, my charge was to develop the 2030 Climate Action Plan. And seeing all the different climate-related policymaking that was happening, we created the One Climate Initiative to provide an overview, a singular platform for which all of these plans could live within and the means of which we can coordinate our efforts. So we have a central webpage which helps folks to navigate the different plans. We created an Equity Advisory and Outreach Committee to advise the county as Working through these various plans, we hold monthly meetings to coordinate across departments.

We collaborate when it comes to outreach, particularly Spanish and Mixteco, partnering with the Santa Barbara County Promotoras Network. We also created an overarching vision statement for the One Climate Initiative to help align all of the planning efforts. And then we also created an internal tracking sheet that departments can use to track their implementation across all departments, so trying to streamline and simplify the work that our colleagues have to do.

As you can see, we've accomplished a number of plans that have already been adopted or been completed, and there are a number of plans that are underway, and there are still new plans forthcoming. So the current plans that have been adopted are the 2030 Climate Action Plan and the Energy Assurance Plan. So last year in the spring, we began our progress reporting.

We asked for updates on actions from all the different departments and divisions that have actions that have been assigned to them. So you can see here the progress bars indicating what actions are in progress. A few actions have been completed. There are some that are still in the planning stages, and there are quite a few that are still not yet started. Just as a reminder, the Climate Action Plan and both the Energy Assurance Plan were adopted in late 2024.

I'm just going to speak to a few highlights from both plans. This isn't comprehensive, but I just wanted to pull out a few notable highlights. So you heard from our General Services Department last meeting, highlighting the projects to manage our energy portfolio, but also to expand our electric vehicle charging network. General Services has a significant grant to expand charging stations, not only for fleet vehicles, but also for public use as well.

Our Planning and Development Department has streamlined permitting for solar projects, so that helps to accelerate the expansion of solar energy for residential and commercial properties. And Public Works has been Managing the SB 1383 or composting legislation, which also requires procurement of certain renewable and compostable materials, which happens through the Resource Center at Tejico's Landfill.

Some highlights from the Energy Assurance Plan. Sorry, that's mislabeled. The Energy Assurance Plan focuses on achieving reliable, resilient energy systems across the county at different scales. Again, General Services has been focusing a lot on expanding management systems, energy management systems at some of our largest facilities to ensure that we can manage and better optimize energy use and make sure that we're harmonized as much as possible with the utility grid constraints.

We have procured mobile power, sorry, mobile trailers, which can be self-sustained with their own power systems, solar battery systems, as well as one that is powered through hydrogen. And those can be used during emergencies and deployed out in the field and serve as workstations if necessary. Again, you also heard from General Services at a prior meeting regarding the recent progress made starting from last year in approving new solar projects through power purchase agreements, significantly expanding the amount of renewable energy that the county is generating for its own needs.

This update coincides with another update that we're providing. This is for what's called the Greenhouse Gas Inventory. So the Greenhouse Gas Inventory is a one-year snapshot of all of the residential and commercial activity in the county. And then we calculate what are the carbon emissions associated with all of that activity. So we did an inventory for the year 2018, which serves as the baseline year for our Climate Action Plan, and we did an inventory for the year 2023.

Conducting inventories is quite a laborious and data-intensive process, so that's why we only do them every so often, but they do help us understand what the trends are across the community and understand where we need to better focus our efforts. So some things to note in terms of trends across the years and across the sectors, I'll point out. Natural gas use has declined significantly, particularly in non-residential by almost 30% between those two years.

Electricity generation, even though we joined 3CE, Central Coast Community Energy, we have seen emissions increase in the short term, but 3CE plans on expanding renewable energy projects, which should help continue to lower the emissions associated with electricity generation. So we're no longer procuring renewable energy credits, which doesn't materially reduce emissions in the long run, but we're hoping that over time that those renewable energy projects will continue to drive down emissions by 2030.

We saw a decrease in on-road transportation, so passenger vehicle driving increased, but commercial driving decreased. We saw electric vehicles increasing in terms of the share that they occupy for total vehicles, but it still remains a small percentage, but it's growing. A significant change happened between 2023 and 2018, where the county reduced its reliance on imported water, water that would typically come from the state water project, which is very energy and carbon intensive. And so that significantly reduced emissions associated with water consumption.

So, all in all, we see that our emissions between those five years has increased slightly by 1%. It is still at a downward trend from previous years, but currently we're not at a reduction rate that would be sufficient to meet our 50% goal by 2030. We're also providing with you a An update on oil production and emissions associated with oil production because that has been discussed at prior Climate Action Plan meetings.

And so you can see here between 2018 and 2023 again that there has been a decline both in the production volume as well as emissions, reported emissions, I should note, associated with oil production in the county. There have been a lot of changes and a lot of new impacts that we've seen at all levels of government, federal, state, and regional, that affected a local government's ability to do climate action.

The federal government has pulled back many grant programs. They have discontinued incentives and we are going to see tax credits expiring for projects that would be incentivizing renewable energy, energy storage, electric vehicles, even energy efficient homes. So those are no longer available through federal programs. The state of California has also pulled back its advanced clean fleet rule, particularly for commercial private fleets, given that a waiver was necessary from the federal EPA. And so that request was no longer put forth, and so that advanced clean fleet rule is now only applying to government fleets.

But it's a significant impact given that a lot of emission reductions at the local level need to be driven by state policy. Another significant change at the state level was the state legislature adopted essentially a moratorium that put on hold any updates to the building code for residential buildings. So for the next six years, the building code and the energy code will be effectively the same.

This means that even the State Building Standards Commission or the State Energy Commission aren't unable to make changes. So what we have when it comes to housing policy is what we're left with. Thankfully, though, there was a new code update that was adopted earlier than this moratorium and is now in effect as of January 1. So given these changes, we are looking at different ways of pivoting and leveraging the resources that we have, looking more internally, looking at state grant funding and collaborating locally, trying to find business models to help sustain our work so that way there's not this boom and bust cycle of implementation.

But we just wanted to give you an update again on the progress since we've adopted the plan. It's been more than a year since adoption and we're planning on coming back with more regular updates and hopefully bringing better news in future years. But happy to take questions and discussion after this. Thank you.

1:16 – 1:2312 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:16:44

All right, any questions before we go to public comment? Not seeing questions from the board at this moment. Go ahead and go to, I'm sorry, Director Armas.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:16:54

Thank you, Chair Nelson. I just wanted to give us a really in the ground example of how the change in federal policy has impacted us. You'll recall that when General Services came forward to you initially with power purchase agreements, one of the sites intended to be covered in those efforts was Lake Kachuma. Because of the change in the federal administration, it has prohibited any projects of that sort on federal lands, like Kachuma being under the Bureau of Land Management, effectively meant that we could not pursue that project. So we have not come forward with any solar project or power purchase agreement on Lake Kachuma for that reason.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:17:41

Again, thank you Director Ramos. Supervisor Capps, please.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.871:17:45

Thank you and thanks for presenting. I know it's a complex scenario that we have to deal with. Given our initial emergency response video at the beginning, I just wanted to ask about the county microgrid portion and how much How much, sorry, let me just track where my, as we add 4.2 megawatts of solar to these facilities, how much of our core operations would we be able to continue to function during an outage, during some sort of disaster type situation?

Do you have that information?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:18:30

I don't have that specific information. I know not all the projects do not have batteries associated with them. So that question would have to be directed towards general services.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.871:18:44

Okay. And then I know a question comes up a lot. And so I think it bears repeating of just about our charging ports. I know it's, we're adding to them all the time and that's great. Electric people are, the demand for electric vehicles is on the rise. The market forces are at play. People are, are choosing them all the time, even on this board. So what, what about the distribution amongst county parking lots? How can you, can you just speak to that plan a little bit more?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:19:17

Sure, so we regularly coordinate with general services when it comes to planning for infrastructure for both charging for fleets as well as charging made available for public use. Currently, we just mentioned the advanced clean fleet rule, so the county government is subject to ensuring that a certain percentage of fleet vehicles are Thank you. We're able to co-locate a charging station that could be made available to Someone in the public, we're affording a few charging stations for that use.

Our department, the Community Services Department, is focused on exclusively public-facing charging stations, and so we are looking opportunistically at a variety of different locations, and we tend to look at a different matrix of What county facilities are available? Where is the greatest need? And if there aren't any parking lots that are available to be utilized, then we look at other opportunities like on-street parking for charging opportunities.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:21:00

Chair Capps, through the chair, I'll also mention that at your next board meeting, we will be bringing forward to you a grant that our division has successfully secured in partnership with UC Davis, where we're going to look at opportunities for micro-metering charging stations to, again, make it even more available to a larger segment of the population.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.871:21:27

Okay, can you just define that though? What do you mean by micrometering?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:21:33

Apologies, the term is submetering. So

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.871:21:38

I can wait till next hearing if you want, but go ahead.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:21:41

Well, that's only going to be an A item, I believe. So thank you for the opportunity. So when we look at our utility bills, we only get to see essentially one number, and that is how much energy we've used for the whole month and then what's the highest amount that we use at any one time. And so we don't get a lot of information when it comes to what's behind that usage, what's behind that utilization.

And when you start plugging more things in, it becomes more complicated. And when you add electric vehicle charging, it becomes even more complicated because you're adding a whole new load to your building. General Services manages all of our buildings, and a lot of the buildings also have electric vehicle charging tied into the same utility meter. So there's not a lot of insight that we're able to pull when it comes to how much energy is going to buildings use, how much energy is going to electric vehicle charging.

And then to make it more complicated, there are often multiple tenants associated or multiple users associated with either use. So multiple departments occupying one building, paying their own distinct utility bills to general services. There are multiple fleet users and then users of the public who are using charging stations. General Services has the difficult task of trying to understand and disaggregate that information so that way they can appropriately bill the proper amount to each client or customer, basically.

The other complicating factor is the need to optimize electric vehicle charging, not only to make sure that we're offering as much charging throughout the day as possible, but that we're getting the right charging at the right time of the day. When the sun is out, it's a great time to charge. Electricity is a lot cheaper. When the sun is going down, it becomes more expensive and it becomes more carbon intensive. So we can modify our utility rates to incentivize the right kind of charging.

But in order to do so, we need to know more about all the utilization that's happening, and sub-metering helps us to do that.

1:23 – 1:3012 turns

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.871:23:58

Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:23:59

Thank you, Supervisor Capps. Mr. Wong?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:24:04

Supervisor Lavagnino. Not a question, just are we in deliberation or are

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:24:08

we? No, we saw a public comment. Oh, we got public comment. All right, cool. So, Madam Clerk, we have one member of the public looking to speak.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:24:15

Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have one request to speak on this item and we are going to Zoom with Michael Chiakas. Michael?

CommentMichael ChiacosProposedself-stated1:24:25

Hello, can you hear me?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:24:27

Yes, we can. Please proceed.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposedself-stated1:24:31

Good morning. My name is Michael Chiacos, representing Community Environmental Council, and we strongly support the county's Climate Action Plan and the strong work that staff is making on climate and sustainability goals. And we realize the headline number of a 1% increase in emissions seems disappointing, but we wanted to discuss some of the nuances and delays in the data that would show more progress if updated data was available.

To start, we really applaud the progress made in the transportation and natural gas sectors. You saw from the report that a 7% decrease in on-road transportation emissions. This is the largest sector with almost half of total emissions. And a 14% decrease in natural gas, the second largest sector, is substantial. However, we've had an almost doubling of electricity, which is the third largest sector, and these three sectors all together are about 87% of our total emissions.

So we need to understand why electricity GHGs have doubled and thrown off this whole inventory. When the county voted to move forward with joining 3CE, they were providing 100% carbon-free electricity, but from existing large hydro and renewable energy credits. And they believe that this wasn't the strongest strategy for reducing GHGs. They developed a policy, which CEC supported, to secure long-term Power purchase agreements for new renewables targeting 60% by 2025 and 100% by 2030.

There was acknowledgment that this would lead to emissions increase in the near term, but the approach would lead to real, long-lasting emission reductions in the long term. And if you look at the 3CE's 2023 power content label, you'll see they're only at 30% renewables that year, and a huge amount of unspecified fossil-free power because of the pandemic causing delays in their new renewable projects that were scheduled to come online.

Their greenhouse gas emissions intensity for electricity was 725 pounds carbon per megawatt hour, which was almost double the California average. But the very next year, they were getting back on track 50 percent, 56 percent renewables and half the electricity emissions of 2023. So, and they're stated that they're on track to achieve their 60 percent by 2025 and 100 percent by 2030 goals.

So, if they are able to get to 100% renewables by 2030, total countywide emissions would be about 70% lower, and we'll see compounding significant reductions in the transportation and natural gas sectors as more vehicle electrification takes off, as we're getting in more all-electric new homes and apartments and retrofitting. And it's also important to note that the county's Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2024, which is before this 2023 data. So we really encourage the county to continue implementing the Climate Action Plan and also encourage Supervisor Hartmann to advocate with 3CE staff and other policy board members to make sure 3CE stays on track to reach 100% renewables by 2030. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:27:45

Thank you, Mr. Chiacos.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:27:46

And that concludes public comment on this item.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:27:49

All right, now back to the board. Supervisor Lavagnino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:27:53

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I appreciate staff's presentation and Mr. Chiacos. I read the article, his letter. And I mean, I've supported all the things that we've done here on the Board of Supervisors. I think I remember back to when we first passed this and we spent, I think the interesting thing, I think the takeaway for some of us should be that, you know, we spent hours deciding whether it should be 20% below 2030. I mean, 2018 by 2030, or it should be 30%.

And everybody high-fived when we passed, we're going to be 50% lower. I hope in the future we look at that and say, okay, whatever the goal is, let's not concentrate. It's great to set lofty goals, and I remember all the press was all excited we were, you know, going to be 50% lower. The reality is there's kind of a futility of trying to mandate peoples outside who works for us and what we do.

People's actions. Americans are addicted to convenience. That's what we do. So I rented an electric vehicle in Phoenix, and the car was great. Everything was great. Apparently, Phoenix has not bought into the whole electric vehicle craze, so there was no charging available, and I found myself sitting at 11 o'clock at night for an hour and a half trying to get a charge.

So I appreciate everything we're doing. I just think, though, there is a little bit of futility here. If people like to talk about a climate crisis and they like to talk about how they're going to help, you know, move the needle, the reality is we're not doing it. I remember Supervisor Williams telling us that, you know, if we don't see a dramatic move to electric vehicles, we're never going to make our 50% number. I think even if we saw that dramatic move now.

Even in the CEC's own letter, it says that even if we're able to achieve 100% renewables by 2030 and everything else stayed stagnant, we'd only be 17% lower. That's a huge lofty goal at this point, seeing as how over the last eight years we've managed to increase it by 1%. I'm here for making our buildings, you know, more efficient and changing our vehicles over to electric vehicles and implementing all the things that we're doing as far as trying to build the infrastructure out. I think those are great things that we're doing and lofty goals, but just a little warning for us next time that when we're trying to come up with goals that we're trying to influence other people's behavior, we don't really have a lot of Supervisor Hartmann.

1:31 – 1:3615 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.871:31:06

Well let me start by saying I really appreciate the really unanimous board support here for moving towards renewable and I think that the cost, the GHG reductions is what has really motivated some of us on the board but I think the issues of resilience and cost savings have also been important so it's a triple benefit. It's been a very difficult, I do serve on the 3CE board along with CEO Mona Miyasato who works on the operations board and what I've learned in that process is even in California how much of energy costs are not supply and demand but related to a regulatory structure that is dealing with assuring that there's enough energy at the right times in the right places. And that leads to things like resource adequacy and power charge adjustments.

And these things really add a lot to our bills, along with the crises that we've seen in hardening the transmission and then the disasters that we end up paying for. So over the long run I think we must stay on this path because it's cheaper and it's healthier and it's better for us but there's some bumps along the way and it makes it very difficult particularly at the federal level when we're whipsawed and we make certain assumptions but then the rug gets pulled out from under us and so I think most people who are looking at this are looking at China and how it's filling the void and now with the issues between the U.S. and Canada Canada is buying vehicles and setting up agreements with China to bring in cheap EVs. So the U.S. is going to be a real outlier and we're going to pay the cost down the road.

But California and Santa Barbara County I think are staying the course and doing the very best we can and I think in doing so we create a model for elsewhere. So again, there's some ups and downs but I think we have to hold steady and adjust the best we can to a very dynamic external environment.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:33:47

Thank you, Supervisor Hartmann. Supervisor Capps, any

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.871:33:52

additional

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:33:52

comments before?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.871:33:54

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate the comments of both my colleagues who just spoke and to echo what Supervisor Lavagnino said of just keep grinding away because it is a grind and that's what this update shows us. If we hadn't been doing all this work, where would we be? Now, and it is daunting. And it is a grind. And we have so many people committed to a more optimistic future. And it is a very optimistic goal. I hear you on setting those kind of goals. But I also know the reality in working in the nonprofit space, working in the advocacy space, putting goals on paper helps you get grants and helps you get, helps keep everybody moving towards the same goal. And I know that this type of plan that we have has helped us get A lot of money, a lot of grants, and so I'm glad that we have such a solid plan.

Thank you for the team for working on it. Thank you to CEC for weighing in today to help us stay the course, and that's what we have to do. Thanks.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:34:56

Thank you, Supervisor Capps. Supervisor Lee.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1Proposedvoiceprint 0.561:34:59

I just want to say thank you to Chair Nelson for doing his part in getting an electric vehicle. So, thank you. Yeah.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.871:35:09

I think four of us.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1Proposedvoiceprint 0.561:35:11

Yeah.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:35:12

It's Mrs. Nelson that's driving the Tesla. Let's be clear there.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.871:35:16

But we

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:35:17

enjoy it quite a bit.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.871:35:19

But I see Supervisor Lavagnino a lot in the county cars, which are...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:35:24

I am in the hybrid, and if you can make a... So my wife is in the market for a SUV that gets excellent gas mileage that is super cheap. So that's what we're looking for.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:35:34

Super cheap, we're not sure it can help you. That I can afford, yeah. Well, I did want to say a few things before we head out on this item, and my understanding, just to make sure I'm clear, Mr. Armistice, this is a receiving file, right? That's okay. So we're not taking any other action at this point. This is just a check-in for the board. But, you know, Supervisor Capps mentioned You know, the grants that we're able to drive into these programs and that's some of the work we've done here too, but we're also spending general fund dollars as well. You know, I just want to make sure that's part of the discussion as we go into a budget session and we start to look at all the things that we do in our county that are different than other places.

You know, how much, you know, between this and maybe what we're doing with 3C RIN, how much money are we doing annually?

1:36 – 1:408 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:36:21

One of the important messages that you and your colleagues have conveyed to us is to look at opportunities where we might be able to leverage general fund investment to garner additional funds. And in the context of the sustainability division, it receives about $450,000 to $500,000 annually in general fund support. However, that then is leveraged into approximately 1.5 million in C3 REN funds that come through the California Public Utilities Commission. So a pretty substantial leverage that then materializes in the residents' homes by improvements to their various systems that in turn lower their utility charges. So we're making quite a bit of progress in leveraging the county's investment for greater community benefits.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:37:14

All right, thank you, Mr. Ramos for that. And then, you know, there's one other point that I just thought was interesting was that, you know, the state of California has frozen our building code over the next few years. And I think that that's a tacit admission that our building code, and frankly, makes it more expensive to build housing and is a deterrent out there. And so, you know, as much as we want to add, you know, changes, it comes at a cost. And so, you know, as much as we want to do things that might benefit the environment, we are making housing much more expensive in this state than anywhere else in the nation. And that freeze that's happening is a part, is an acknowledgment of that and hopefully a trend where we can take a look at that and see, yes, we might be saving future residents utility costs, but at the end of the day, you know, can't those get those structures up and going?

We don't even have that opportunity to save those costs in the future. So that's something that I, you know, noticed and wanted to point out. Supervisor Hartmann?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.871:38:11

Well I would add that a lot of it has to do with fire and we saw what happened in Altadena and Southern California because those were homes that weren't up to code, current day code. We live in a time with a lot of threats externally and so the building code is what we learn each time. So I think it's really important that we try to keep people as safe as we can, and that's what the building code is primarily designed to do.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:38:42

Yeah, I would think that was a lot more to do with managing vegetation in those areas, as much as it was about the building code. And I think it's even the building code, as you see, we're freezing it. We're not making the building code more strict in those ways. So, I mean, it's a different perspective, and I understand that. Not that that's where that debate is today.

With those comments, the board will take a motion on this item.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.871:39:09

Supervisor Nelson, I move to staff recommendation to receive and file this report. Hartmann seconds.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:39:19

Motion Capps and Hartmann second. Roll call vote, please.

Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 Motion Capps and Hartmann second. Roll call
Show transcript
Supervisor Lavagnino? Aye. Supervisor Lee? Aye. Supervisor Capps? Aye. Supervisor Hartmann? Aye. And Chair Nelson? Aye.
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:39:35

Motion passes unanimously.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:39:38

All right. Do we need to take a couple minute break just for before we head on to the next item? So it's good and take a five minute break here for our interpreter and we'll be back here at 1045 to hear our next item. All right, welcome. Welcome back. As noted earlier this morning, we're going to move to item 5 here. For those who are watching or here in public, we're going from item 3 and 5 are switched today. So 5 will be heard right now and then those that are interested in item 3 will be able to participate in that after our closed session break after lunch.

Madam Clerk, will you please read item 5 into the record?

1:40 – 1:484 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:40:31

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number five is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding ordinance streamlining and housing accommodation amendments.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:40:45

All right, Director Plowman.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:40:47

Good morning Mr. Chair, members of the board. Today we have the second hearing on an ordinance package that is before the Board of Supervisors and I wanted to provide a little bit of background about this package. It was about three to four years ago that the department worked with the board to come up with a program to work on streamlining our permit process and make changes to our ordinances to simplify the processes for people.

So the department went about that effort and we developed three phases for that. The department and the board completed the first phase of that which was looking at our lighting and signs regulations and creating greater conformity across the county so that it was clear what the requirements were and trying to simplify those requirements where possible. This package, which aims to streamline our permit process for specific things, downshift decisions where it makes sense, and then also modernize our residential and commercial zones to accommodate the housing that's identified in the housing element. That's phase two of this effort.

Following this effort, we have a Phase 3 in the pipeline and we've already started working on it with our consultant, Martha Miller, who's with us today. And that is creating a greater number of ministerial permits so that that means it's easier for somebody to do an addition to their commercial building, a small one, or a small addition to a residential A unit or a small home, even, making those truly ministerial would simplify the process and make it less expensive and time-consuming for residents. That'll be something that will be brought before the board. We'll be doing a briefing on it to make sure we're moving in the right direction on it, and then we expect to be here by the end of the year with an adoption package.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to, well, we have Alex Tuttle, the Deputy Director, Martha Miller, our consultant, Ben Singer, who is our planner working on the project. And I'm going to turn over the presentation to Ms. Miller, and she will direct you through some of the things that we have attempted to address based on questions that were received by the board back in December.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:43:18

Thank you. It's good to be back before you for this continued hearing. So staff is proposing some additional refinements to the proposed ordinance amendments in response to kind of the comments and the feedback we received at the December 16th hearing, which really centered around, you know, ensuring the appropriate mix of residential and commercial uses in the commercial zones, retaining that commercial nature of those zones.

Having the appropriate amount of landscaping and open space provided with multi-unit development, and also looking at further ways to streamline the process and get to a decision more quickly. So I'll summarize each one of those in these slides. So first, in the interest in providing flexibility for a variety of projects and processing situations, The amendments originally as drafted said that variances shall be processed concurrently with associated permits and we're recommending that that be modified to be that they may be processed concurrently with associated permits. Again to provide that flexibility and recognize that different situations may warrant kind of a different processing.

Another proposed amendment is to have decisions of the zoning administrator be appealable directly to the Board of Supervisors rather than having that appeal go first to the Planning Commission and then to the Board of Supervisors. So streamlining the process, eliminating that two-step process. And then substantial conformity determinations. These are where there's a change or revision to the project is found within substantial conformity with that original approval.

And there's a set of guidelines that staff goes through in order to make this determination. One of those guidelines relates to change in square footage. And to ensure, in the interest of ensuring that square footage allowance or limitation is appropriate for the range of projects from small to large that may come through, there's a proposed revision to continue to allow for that 10% square footage increase but establish a minimum allowance of 500 square feet and a maximum allowance of 5,000 square feet. So kind of bookending so that small projects aren't too limited and large projects that allowance isn't too generous.

Regarding the housing element related amendments, so one change with the original amendments is really a revised approach to how open space is required and calculated in multifamily development. So in the interest of ensuring that there's an appropriate amount of open space provided that the Common open space provided is usable and functionable and that landscaping and aesthetic concerns are addressed.

Proposed revisions are to increase the amount of required open space in areas where density, allowed density is less than 20 units per acre. We're increasing the amount of required open space from 200 square feet per unit to 300 square feet per unit. And in the higher density zones that allow 20 units per acre or more, increasing the requirement from 60 feet to 150 square feet per unit.

At least one of the common open spaces must be sized a minimum of 50 feet by 50 feet to ensure that usability. Also, that dimension cannot be bisected by walkways. So if it's kind of split by a walkway, those are considered two separate areas and need to meet the Minimum dimensions each on their own. Additionally, all areas, there's a new requirement proposed that all areas of the site not used, not intended for a specific use, must be landscaped and a minimum of 15% of the site must be in landscaping.

In commercial zones, in order to ensure that ongoing commercial nature of the zones and viable commercial space, the revisions proposed are to reduce the maximum allowed residential density. In the C-1 zone, the C-N and the C-M-L-A zones, the proposed allowance is to decrease from 20 units per acre to 10 units per acre. Those are the smaller scale commercial zones, so limited commercial, neighborhood commercial, commercial mixed-use Los Alamos.

And then in the C-2 zone, which is more the community commercial zone, decreasing the allowed density from what was proposed at 30 units per acre, now proposed to be 20 units per acre. Additionally, in the C-1 and C-N zones, including an additional standard to require a minimum depth of commercial space to ensure that the commercial space is viable and can be used. The other zones do have some additional minimum commercial square footage requirements already proposed in that amendment package.

So that's a summary of the revisions.

1:48 – 1:5916 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:48:39

Thank you, Martha, for that summary. We have a few more slides kind of business of adoption of this, but then we'll have time for questions or comments afterward. These ordinance amendments, minus the revisions that were just discussed, were reviewed by both the Montecito Planning Commission and the County Planning Commission. They had some recommendations on them. The Montecito Planning Commission had four recommendations, which were to remove a proposed provision for accessory structures of less than 500 square feet that are located behind another structure or in the back half of a property be exempted from design review. So their recommendation was that all structures should be required to receive design review regardless of size and location if they require design review.

The next one was to allow appeals by applicants of time extensions that are denied by the director. We're changing time extensions a little bit in the ordinance amendments from how they currently work. And this was their recommendation that if the director decides to deny one, that should be appealable. The next recommendation was to allow for an additional time extension to be approved by the Planning Commission in addition to the time extension we're proposing to be approved by the Director, which would be for two years. So they were recommending that there be an additional time extension by the Planning Commission that the Planning Commission would set the time frame on.

And finally, to increase the proposed allowance for director review and approval of development plans from up to 1,000 square feet to up to 2,000 square feet. So again, those were the recommendations that the Montecito Planning Commission made. Those then were heard by the County Planning Commission. And the County Planning Commission did not have the same recommendations. Their only recommendation was to modify a provision in the Coastal Zoning Ordinance basically to come in line with the Land Use and Development Code. This was something that was not, was basically missed in presenting to them that should have been the consistent across them. It was just a minor mistake missed in the Coastal Zoning Ordinance that they recommended that be fixed.

The version you saw did include that fix in it. Your board has the option of choosing to include these recommendations or not. Staff's recommendation is that whatever you decide to do consistently across the three zoning ordinances, but it is up to your board if you wish to do them differently for different areas. For environmental review of these ordinance amendments, the Land Use and Development Code and Montecito Land Use and Development Code amendments can be found exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guideline Sections 15061B3. For the ordinance streamlining sections, that's the common sense exemption. And then 15168C for the housing related amendments, which is reliance on the housing element PEIR. For the coastal zoning ordinance amendments, It can be found exempt pursuant to the same two sections and then section 15265, which is related to preparing a local coastal program.

Finally, our recommended actions for your board this morning are to make the required findings for approval, including CEQA findings, which were attachment A to the board agenda letter that you received in December. Determine that the ordinance amendments are exempt from CEQA. Approve the Ordinance Streamlining Housing Accommodation Ordinance Amendments by adopting those Ordinance Amendments to the LUDC, CZO, and MLUDC as amended in this hearing, however you choose to amend them.

Adopt a resolution authorizing Planning and Development to submit the Coastal Amendments to the California Coastal Commission and then direct Planning and Development to transmit the adopted resolution to the Coastal Commission. And then we are available for any questions that you may have. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:52:33

All right, thank you Mr. Singer. So I want to make sure I understand what we're doing with the Planning Commission recommendations here. So Planning Commission, sorry, Montecito Planning Commission has a set of recommendations and you guys have those prepared if they were to be

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:52:47

incorporated today? Chair Nelson, we have some of them prepared. The most complicated of them being the time extension to the Planning Commission. That is not language that we prepared in advance of this hearing, primarily because the County Planning Commission did not have the same recommendation, so we did not prepare it in advance due to that reason.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:53:08

Okay, so because the County Planning Commission did not concur with Montecito, you were not bringing those forward necessarily today. As far as your recommendation or staff recommendation to us is, hey, if you want to do Montecito, make it across the entire county. Is that what you were saying, that you want to conformity from all three? I don't know if I agree with that, but I want to hear what you guys

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:53:32

Mr. Chair, board members, that is staff's recommendation that just for better functionality of the ordinance and understanding by the public and applicants and county staff, having a consistent set of standards across the board is preferable. It doesn't have to be that way. Currently, we have three different zoning ordinances, and there are, as much as we attempt to be consistent across the three codes, there are some unique differences, including Montecito being somewhat different than the rest of the inland area of the county. So while it's not necessary to have them all uniform in an alignment, it does make it easier to work with on all of them. It's preferable by staff, is what you're saying. Okay,

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:54:17

understood. I just want to make sure where we were landing on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:54:19

that. Now, I just wanted to clarify sort of why we ended up or kind of how we ended up here with differing recommendations and their roles, if it is helpful. So, Montecito Planning Commission for the Montecito Land Use and Development Code makes recommendations straight to your board. For the coastal zoning ordinance, the portion that covers Montecito, they make a recommendation to the County Planning Commission, who then makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

So, in this instance, the Montecito Planning Commission had made a series of recommendations. The County Planning Commission disagreed with those recommendations and so did not carry forward those recommendations. But you now do have a situation where you can choose to accept the recommendations of the Montecito Planning Commission, fold those into the Montecito Land Use and Development Code.

For the inland area, you could ignore them and support what the County Planning Commission had chosen to do. Or you could do some form of a hybrid of that. So it can be an a la carte menu. Thank you. Yeah. Okay.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:55:36

All right. So questions from the board before we go to public? Supervisor Hartmann and then Supervisor Lavagnino.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.871:55:45

So I'm looking at Eva Turnchalk's letter about commercial and I wonder what you would respond because it seems to make sense on its face.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:55:56

Thank you, Supervisor Hartmann, through the Chair. Yes, we did receive that comment this morning, and just for the benefit of those who may have not seen it, the indication was, or the situation was, where you have a commercial property that has a through lot, so it has two street frontages. Actually, in this case, it might have three. And so as we had proposed the ordinance for the mixed-use allowance in the commercial C-1 and C-N zones, there would have to be commercial on the street frontage, which could be interpreted to mean all street frontages, which would not facilitate the type of project that was envisioned for that site where you had commercial along the primary street and then residential behind.

fronting the parallel street. So we do have suggested modification that would facilitate that type of situation, which would be to clarify that the commercial non-residential requirement along the street frontage would be the primary street frontage. So give flexibility for where you have a through lot or corner lot or other situations.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.871:57:15

Great and the other thing I wanted to say was we had a letter, a public comment letter that talked about how difficult it is to conceive of these new open space guidelines and I just wanted to thank Chair Nelson for really driving this home at the last meeting and unpacking it because it is very difficult and so I and you did it so we're all benefiting and my district in particular so thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:57:49

Broken clocks right twice a day. Yeah, going on back to, if I could, before I go to Supervisor Lavagnino, yeah, it's really important, I think, that we have that primary street issue at Los Alamos. That's going to be definitely an issue. We have a lot of lots that have three street frontage. I mean, obviously, Bell Street would probably be the primary road that we'd be looking at and the intention.

and Los Alamos. So I see that this comment letter was specifically to Summerlin, but I guess that's one of our communities that have that issue. So I would be supporting an amendment to reflect that and any motion that we end up making. Supervisor Lavagnino. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:58:27

And I don't want to disregard what we're doing today, but what I'm really interested in is phase three and the ministerial approach to a lot of these permits. And I think this is Today and Phase 3 are really what this board has kind of pushed for and I really appreciate the reception that's coming from your department. Just kind of, I was trying to get a feel for what is the timeline for Phase 3 and when would we see that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:58:58

Mr. Chair, we intend to come back for a briefing spring? Yeah, March, April. And then we intend to come back to you before the end of the year for the adoption package.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:59:13

Great. Okay. Thank you.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.791:59:15

Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. Supervisor Lee. Can you talk about your outreach to the cities and unincorporated communities about this plan?

1:59 – 2:0717 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:59:26

Or have you? Have any outreach? Supervisor Lee, through the Chair, besides our standard noticing, there wasn't any specific separate outreach that was done to the cities or other jurisdictions.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.791:59:41

Okay. I'll go for phase three. Do you plan on doing that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:59:49

Supervisor Lee through the chair. Traditionally when we're changing our own codes about, you know, process and whatnot, we would not reach out to the other jurisdictions because they technically wouldn't have a lot to say about How we process our permits and what kind of permit we have. But if you're interested in having us do some outreach, we can certainly reach out to the planning directors from those communities and let them know what we're doing.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:00:19

In terms of our

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:00:20

streamlining efforts.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:00:21

I would appreciate that. Last night I forwarded this to Nick Barbara from the City of Carpinteria and in his brief time with this document, he has many comments and concerns. So that would be very helpful if you reach out to a lot of different cities to get their input because it impacts them as well. So, thank you. So, a follow-up question. So, how does this affect the look and feel of rural areas like Carp Valley and Cuyama?

From a regular person's standpoint, what can a resident expect from this?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:00:52

Supervisor Leith through the chair. And I think what you're talking about is the changes that we're making with respect to the commercial and residential zones. So the changes that have been included in this package are a follow-up to our housing element. And our housing element committed the county to addressing the sort of out-of-date code requirements that we had, the more suburban code requirements.

And there was a need to ensure that our codes would be modernized to allow for the residential densities that were approved by the Board of Supervisors. So that's what this package looks like. What it does mean is that there are changes in terms of height requirements. There are different height requirements now for the higher densities. The lower densities, the height would remain the same.

There are changes in how we look at open space, but we don't think the way we've structured it, it's not to I'm going to talk a little bit about what we're doing to eliminate usable open space and landscaping, but what it is meant to do is to strike a balance so that we have, we can have habitat protection, we can have landscaping, and we can have common open space and some private open space. So I don't think that's going to be a dramatic change necessarily for the communities that are seeing some of these And then we had for the higher densities, we did adjust the setback requirement so that they could come a little bit closer to the street.

So the proposed setback is 10 feet.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:02:49

Okay, so going back on the input from the cities and other communities, that'll be important into knowing what they support and what they don't. So with that, so have you discussed with the City of Santa Barbara about the ADU program, about any ministerial I have a question on the development because the county is sandwiched between two higher fire danger zones in the area and if we allow more ADUs that could put lives at risk with evacuation and fire danger. So is that something that we considered when doing ADUs in higher fire danger zones?

Specifically in the Mission Canyon area.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:03:27

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, Supervisor Lee, through the Chair. So, the ADU changes came in another package. So it's not part of this package today other than making them, having a coastal development permit that is ministerial because we're required by law to make the ministerial. But what I will tell you is that the fire department is involved in the review of ADUs.

And they are all also subject to objective standards and requirements. And if there are public health and safety issues, we can address them. And is there anything else you would want to add, Mr. Tuttle?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:04:10

Supervisor Lee through the chair. Yeah, I would just note that with regard to ADUs, the location as to where they're allowed and how many are allowed and yeah, that's not part of the current package before you today. And like the City of Santa Barbara and consistent with state law, ADUs are permitted in all residential and multifamily and commercial zones that allow for mixed-use development. So that is how when the ADU provisions were brought to the board a year and a half ago and with the original adoption back in 2020 or so how is structured in terms of where ADUs are permitted.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:05:00

And I think what Supervisor Lee is referring to is the City of Santa Barbara took the Riviera and essentially created an area that they designated where no ADUs were permitted. And they took that step, I don't know, maybe five years ago? Yeah. And so the county has not taken that step. The county has essentially been following what the state law The other thing that requires us to do is certainly if the board is interested in something like that, the board could give us direction. We could look at that in our upcoming work program that will be before the board for the next fiscal year.

So that's really a call by the Board of Supervisors.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:05:49

Good. I just want to say that it's important in my district, it encompasses a lot of high fire danger zones, not just in Santa Barbara, but some landmines, you know, Carpinteria. And we had to be consistent in the policies and making sure that we do build in a consistent way to prevent lives from being lost. So thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:06:05

Yes.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:06:06

All right, thank you, Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Capps, do you have any questions before staff?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 2voiceprint 0.872:06:12

Yeah, real quick. I'm looking forward to phase three. I'm much more focused on the consumer, how people experience the streamlining. I appreciate all the work that goes into the sort of behind the scenes, and I know that's extremely important. But I just encourage the use of AI. I know that's coming later. I have some concerns about why that wouldn't be simultaneous with this work. So I flagged that for you, Director Plowman, but I just want to put a pin in that because I think that we are missing the boat if we're not incorporating, again, the tremendous power of AI to make things much faster for people so that they know when they go into the process, how long this will take, what to expect, and I think we will make our constituents much happier if we can Thank you, Supervisor

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:06:59

Capps. Supervisor Hartmann?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:07:03

You were talking about outreach in response to Supervisor Lee's question. Could you talk about developer outreach?

2:07 – 2:127 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:07:17

Supervisor Hartmann through the chair. So we do have a standing building industry advisory committee or group that we meet with every couple months comprised of primarily land-use agents who work with applicants and developers and we've discussed these streamlining elements with them through those meetings and gotten some feedback that we've incorporated and You know, Eva Turnshalk you mentioned, she's involved in those and so that's been helpful and a lot of the outreach also has sort of happened organically through project review as we work with individual developers and applicants in their particular applications.

With each one, we learn something new in terms of what's working, what's not working, what are the barriers to development. And so we've used sort of that vast knowledge that is gained through those experiences to draw from in terms of crafting these ordinance amendments.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:08:19

And to add to that, Supervisor Hartmann, through the Chair, Travis Sewards, who's our Deputy in Development Review, has a team of applicants that he meets with on a regular basis because the housing laws have gotten so complicated. And so the developers come to this meeting, they're all in the meeting, and we have, staff has discussions with them about what the requirements are, they provide feedback, and so we get information from that process as well.

And that's a new thing the department's been doing.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:08:49

Yeah, that sounds terrific. Have they been enthusiastic about these changes?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:08:57

Supervisor Hartmann, through the chair, I think they're very supportive of the changes that we're making in an effort to modernize our codes. They have lagged behind. A lot of them are from, you know, the 1980s. So, yes.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:09:12

All right, thank you, Supervisor Hartmann. Supervisor Lee. So I see this helps the developers a lot. So how does this help the homeowner and local business owners? Does it make it easier for them to fix a sink, remodel a bathroom, replace a garage door? Does your package...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:09:28

Supervisor Lee through the chair. So that we made a number of changes as we talked about to the commercial zones to make things a little more flexible for the business owners to be able to do things like if they wanted to do a mixed-use project or that type of thing. Also like the substantial conformity changes, those allow for commercial and residential projects to make small changes without having to get an appealable permit. You know, so we are making those changes. I think the things you're looking for are going to lie more in phase three, which we're excited to bring back. But I do I do want to take a minute to emphasize that in our building division, we have created these on-demand permits, and these are for the smaller people like who are doing re-roofs or water heaters or electrical panel changes or those type of things.

The solar, they're all on-demand permits now, so you submit your application. If the computer reads that you have submitted everything, your permit is printed out by your contractor, and all the county interaction is is our inspections. So that's, I think, a big change, and I think we've permitted, I think, around 3,500 projects through that process.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:10:53

Thank you Director Plowman and I you know I think what you're looking for again Supervisor Lee is in the substantial conformity changes here I think that's where we're going to see that opportunity with the changes we're making here today. I do want to piggyback a little bit on Supervisor Lee's concerns about ADUs and high fire zones because I think what it's not so much that's what we're talking about here but what we are doing is streamlining things making it easier to get through a process that includes ADUs And it seems like in these high fire zones, when you get that density, it's not necessarily time and place to have that level of streamlining or making it easier. We want to make sure there's actually a little bit more scrutiny on the high fire zones.

And, you know, I think it puts a lot of burden on the fire department to have to make some calls on that that might be able to be resolved in the future through some planning changes, just to make it really clear that those areas are going to be areas that are going to be looked at. Thank you all for joining us today. I want to start by saying that I think we need to be a little bit more strictly. I know there's some people out there that have wanted to do certain things in some of these areas, and it raises the level of review in some ways, but we're having to kind of piece together a bunch of different ways of doing that, and maybe if we're up front in the code and actually saying, Thank you all for joining us today. I do think it begs more scrutiny.

2:12 – 2:2010 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:12:35

We are currently in the process with the state reviewing our last ordinance package and they're making a number of comments on it. So we are going to have to bring back a package to make some changes to meet more in compliance with the state requirements. But this is an issue we can bring up with HCD and talk to them about and see what we can do to ensure Because I don't think they have an interest in putting people in harm's way. So we'll engage HCD on that issue and see what we can get and then also engage the fire marshal and talk to him about provisions that or at least steps in the process that can be helpful to ensure safety.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:13:18

Yeah to see an inherent conflict here where you know A homeowner can't get ADU through because of the fire department that they're blaming the fire department. Somehow the fire marshal is, you know, discriminating against my project. And I think that that it's a broader issue and it shouldn't be, you know. They do great work and they're not shy about engaging on projects, but at the same time I think it might help back them up a little bit by realizing that there are some findings that we might need to be making at the county level, or sorry, the planning level and land use side that might impact your permit. Maybe up front they understand that a little bit better by us having some of that language in place.

I think that wraps up questions and comments from board members at this time. I believe at least have one request to speak.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:14:05

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have one request to speak from the public on Zoom and we're going to Mary Ellen Brooks. Mary Ellen.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:14:21

Former Planning Commissioner Brooks.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:14:23

Yes, good morning. Yes, good morning. I am here this morning, Mary Ellen Brooks. I live in Lompoc. I am the president of Citizens Planning Association. My comments are going to be very, very general. Citizens Planning Association has spent the last 66 years being very focused and protective of, let's say, policies and processes as they exist. We have not had the time nor the resources to go through your document today. You know, it's very involved, so I'm going to make my comments very general.

We have, CPA has some concerns about streamlining. We do support full transparency and ample opportunity for public participation. So, you know, we looked through the documents and can see, okay, you know, I could see language being changed, everything. We want things to be a little bit more direct, but we don't want streamlining to become something that will decrease public participation.

In some cases, some of the things I'm hearing about this morning, I'm wondering, are we giving, putting too much power for the zoning officer? We have dealt with different projects, which when we've had these over-the-counter decisions made and, you know, it ends up, you know, being a very involved process. And, you know, the public had really been in, what I can think of, is the Sentinel Oil Project. You know, that was a very huge decision that was on the shoulders of one staff member.

And again, it went to appeal, and we feel at this point, I don't know if it was ever resolved, but something that huge that would have impacted a neighborhood, a whole area, and we just don't want the streamlining to, again, keep the public from being able to make adequate public comment. We did read the letter by Linda Honigman, I believe you've all received that. Her concerns are very focused on the Goleta-Noleta area and all the development that's coming down the pike there.

And we do support, you know, many of the suggestions that she made. I'm interested in Supervisor Lee's comment about what was the public outreach As this process is developing, I feel that we could probably use a lot more public outreach on some of the changes that are being made. And again, when we're streamlining, I just want to make sure that we are not eliminating possibilities for public input. That's what CPA is all about. Okay, thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:17:52

And that concludes public comment on this item.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:17:55

All right, thank you, Madam Clerk. Back to the board. Any other additional questions or comments? Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:18:00

Yeah, I had a comment. This has been a huge, huge undertaking. I'm not sure that we all appreciate everything that's gone into this, but it's been at least four years that we've wanted to simplify and make it more user-friendly. And I remember at the last meeting there was a comment about, gee Ventura, we should do it like they do. I think Ventura is asking us how we've gotten so far and looking to us for some advice about how they're going to go about this.

So I tend to think our P&D staff, because it's so controversial, they tend to be the most understated in their presentations. But I think that they really deserve a lot of credit and a lot of praise for taking on this Really difficult, drudgery kind of work going through this code and trying to reconcile things. You can get lost in there with all the cross-references and tearing your hair out trying to figure out what that means. And so this this is Such critical work to make it more that the agents, that the public, that people can understand and know ahead of time. So it's what this board has been asking for. And yes, we have one more phase, but I think we should just take a breath and celebrate and appreciate what's come to this point, because I think it's tremendous.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:19:31

All right. Thank you, Supervisor

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:19:32

Hartmann. Supervisor Lee. So, great job. I'm late to the game, so all this is newer to me. I do support most of this package, but I just want you to concentrate on the height limits and those ADUs and very high fire danger zones. Those are very serious in my district. So going back to the MPC, the Montecito Planning Commission, I do support covering our specific policies for different communities because Orchid is different from Montecito, right? Los Alamos is different from Carpentaria. We want to keep that unique character charm to each of the communities. So let's work with CARB, let's work with Montecito, let's work with all the agencies to make sure that we're able to keep that unique character of each community the best we can and not just turn all us into grita.

I said it but so to me that's my comments. I'm looking forward to the next phase and your plan to help outreach the communities. Thank you.

2:20 – 2:3019 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:20:37

Can we bring up the slide?

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:20:42

Yeah so this is a slide for the Monsanto Planning Commission. So I heard from Supervisor Lee that he's interested in moving that forward in the Montecito section. I personally would rather that just be in Montecito. I don't, I don't, you know, it was only recommended by them. It wasn't recommended by the whole Planning Commission. So I would be in favor of supporting Supervisor Lee's request to accommodate his, that, that area there. It's, it is a distinct code. It does kind of have a little bit of differences. I'm there. I know Supervisor Lee's there. I don't know if there's a third vote for that.

Maybe not,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:21:18

so. I don't mind what you do in Montecito, Roy. Do whatever you want.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1Proposedvoiceprint 0.562:21:25

If

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:21:26

we have different codes, I mean, I understand why our Planning Commission wants to keep it homogenous and everything, but if this is like a major deal for you, I can support it. I appreciate it.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:21:43

Yeah, I can't. Having served on the County Planning Commission and understanding how difficult it is for staff already to deal with two planning commissions and different standards. Yes, that's why we have community plans is because we do have and we want to respect the difference in communities but I don't think we should carve out a lot of unique things for Montecito only. And I think we're trying to get more general concepts that then can be interpreted in light of the vision expressed in the general plans, a community plan. So I just, if we're trying to be more efficient, more equitable, I don't think this is the way to do it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:22:35

We could always go back to one planning commission also.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:22:40

That's another board item for another day. I think there is consensus to move forward with that piece. There was at least three of us that were looking forward to our voting to do that. We might be able to do it in two separate motions that gives Supervisor Hartmann an opportunity to approve the entire package. Supervisor Hartmann, I'm gonna try to do in two different pieces for you.

And the reason I'm talking, Supervisor Capps has had to leave for a personal matter so that's why I'm speaking about the only of the four of us up here at this time to reflect that. So some of those things could be done today. Some of those things probably need to be, like you said on the time extensions, probably can't be done today and maybe you guys will need to do that in some type of other Mr. Chair,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:23:27

members of the board, it might help if we can pull that back up just to provide a little context on their changes. So the first bullet, that's an easy one to do. That was something we had proposed to add in as a new exemption, class of exemptions in design review. For Montecito, if we just want to remove that addition and have Montecito separate from the rest of the Ordinances, that's a very simple change.

The two middle ones I just wanted to provide just a little additional information for context. The changes that were made with regard to time extensions were to make them very administrative because historically time extensions have gone through a lot of process for what is most typically a very defined outcome of granting a time extension. I don't foresee a situation where we'd be denying time extensions that would then warrant a need for those denials to be appealable to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. We've structured it so that a project will have a longer approval life before it expires, so going from The current provisions of one to two years, up to four years for most permits before a time extension would even be necessary.

Additionally, for the larger projects that may involve a development plan or a CUP, as part of the approval process for those, a longer approval period can be granted by the decision makers to obviate the need for a future time extension if it's known that it could take quite some time for the project to kind of move through the process and pull building permits. So I don't anticipate a situation where this would even be an issue.

Similarly, the additional time extension to be granted by the Planning Commission, the Director already has the authority to grant a two-year time extension on top of the four-year shelf life of the permit, so that gets you to six years. Not a lot of projects would need more than six years and if they thought they would, they did, then that could be built in up front with the planning approval. So I think our recommendation for those middle two would be don't do them and there wouldn't really be an impact to the Montecito.

And then as far as the fourth bullet, again, that's a very straightforward change, just increasing from 1,000 square feet to 2,000. That would be under the purview of the director versus the planning commission. So up to your board on that

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:26:15

particular one. So if I'm hearing right, it's the code changes are 1 and 4, really, and it's more procedural in 2 and 3. I do want to, you know, It seems that you're making time extensions automatic if you don't have an appeal process. If there's no circumstance where you would deny one, you know, it does, it seems to be, just trying to understand that because, and if you would deny one, it does sound like part of a due process or at least some opportunity for somebody to challenge that denial.

So, you know, and I'm not against denying them. There might be some circumstances may have changed over the four-year period in that area, and there might be some reasons to deny a time extension that the planning director may realize that, you know, something changed in that four years where it doesn't make sense anymore. That's why you do have that discretion to deny something, and it does seem like that there should be a procedure at some point for somebody to appeal that denial.

Maybe that's something to look at in the future, maybe as we address that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:27:21

So, Supervisor Nelson. The way it's currently structured, it would be a decision that would be made by the director, not appealable, just to kind of keep things simple. You're right, it's possible there may be a point where there's a denial. If the board wanted to provide direction today to say, hey, keep those director decisions appealable, we can do that. Or we can look at that in the future if we think we're having difficulty with them. But typically we don't see I haven't, since I've been here, see extensions that haven't been granted.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:28:00

Understood. And actually now you start to talk about it out loud. I don't want to see people appealing extensions either, right? That's the other side of that. That could get really, really messy. Where a neighbor now gets another bite at the apple. So maybe that, I'm okay with tabling that discussion on extensions because I think that could get really messy.

Thank you very much. What's being proposed by Montecito?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:28:38

Okay, okay, great. So we'll, I think this is a good approach is that we sort of split the baby. We take the things that are really Montecito specific, which are related to accessory structures and direct a review of development plans. Those are the things that the people in Montecito are going to be most concerned about. The process items, I think we should leave consistent across the codes.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:29:02

And I think Supervisor Lee is okay with that right now.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:29:07

Okay.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:29:09

So we're going to land this. What we're going to do is make the, and I don't know if we need to have a separate motion for this or not, but we're going to do one and four Montecito. I think it was understood that we probably should take the modifications that were proposed by the Planning Commission, that final bullet item, a part of the action today. And then there's the additional piece of cleanup from Ms. Turnchock on the multiple street frontages. And I think we were looking at putting a slide up on that potentially too, just so we can all understand what that new language would be. Mr. Singer, did you have something?

Mr. Singer, did you have

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed2:29:44

something? Mr. Singer, did you have something? Mr. Singer, did

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:29:51

you have something? Mr. Singer, did you have something? Mr. Singer, did you have something? Mr. Singer, did you have something? Mr. Singer, did you have something? Mr Supervisor Lavagnino, did you have any additional comments? Yeah, I need to turn my mic off. Okay, granted. Thank

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:30:08

you. Yeah, we're due.

2:30 – 2:3419 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:30:43

For the public's benefit, we're just going to bring up on the screen the changes that we might do here. Small one word change,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:30:52

potentially.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed2:30:53

Beautiful. This is the change to the neighborhood commercial zone standard, just to add that primary in before street frontage. And then for the C1 zone, basically the exact same thing, add that word primary in right there. And then we are pulling up the section numbers for some of those Montecito changes that we can cite those as part of the action. Okay,

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:31:19

so we're going to, this is going to reflect in the C-1 and the C-N zoning at this point.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:31:25

What

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:31:26

about C-2? I know it was mentioned in here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:31:29

C-MLA, just because you had brought that up, there are already standards in the C-MLA zone about where the commercial within the Bell Street corridor needs to occur so we don't feel like any changes for that are necessary.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:31:43

Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:31:44

thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:31:45

So and that's actually a question I had early on is some of the changes we're making are they superseding community plans or are these fitting you know if there's a conflict between a community plan and some of the changes that we made today in the code which one takes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:32:03

Mr. Chair, members of the board, going through this process we did not identify any conflicts. Areas like Los Alamos Community Plan that has pretty prescriptive requirements for like the Bell Street Corridor, the only change there that was proposed was with regard to the residential density. So the new change of going to 10 units an acre versus the right now it's the two bedrooms per thousand That new change will supersede, but not really a conflict per se, just an amendment. All right, thank you, Mr. Tuttle.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:32:38

All right, so seeing the recommended changes under the CN and C1 zoning for primary encompassing the Planning Commission's modifications, their one modification that they suggested, as well as the first and fourth modifications that we're going to, by the Montecito Planning Commission. I think that's the motion I'm looking for.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:33:00

We're just working on getting the code sections for those first and fourth bullets from the Montecito Planning Commission. Thank you. Okay, so is it sufficient to just read it into the record? So section 35.472.070.C.2a That number one would be deleted. That language would be deleted from that code section. Their fourth bullet, section 35.472.080.B, uppercase B, .3, lowercase a, would be changed from 1,000 square feet to 2,000 square feet. That would be the extent of the changes.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:33:53

Thank you, Mr. Tuttle. So that would be incorporated in the motion that we're looking for here.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1Proposedvoiceprint 0.562:34:03

So you're looking for a motion? I am, yes.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:34:05

So I move to recommend approval of staff

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:34:07

recommendation. Along with the changes that have been suggested here. Yeah, Montecito, Turin Shock changes, and the General Planning Commission change. So there's those three different changes that we're looking for. Yes, that's the motion and that's understood by all the board members. Not getting nodded heads. Can I get a second?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:34:26

Hartmann a second.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:34:27

Okay. Since Supervisor Capps has left, can we do a roll call or can we do a voice vote now? Okay. So therefore all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 4-0. All right, so this is going to go ahead and take us to closed session. We will now recess to closed session. Will County Council please read the items for consideration today?

2:35 – 2:374 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed2:35:01

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. In closed session today, the board is scheduled to consider two items of existing litigation. Lazaro v. Santa Barbara County Sheriffs, which is a Santa Barbara County Superior Court case. Emerging Acquisitions LLC v. the County, which is a U.S. District Court Central District case. The Board will also be sitting as the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Directors for County Flood Control and Water Conservation on existing litigation, Whiting v. the County. It's a Superior Court case.

And we have anticipated litigation, deciding whether to initiate civil litigation, two cases. And the time estimate is about an hour.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:35:40

Whatever. So that gets us back here about 1 o'clock. Yeah. We'll reconvene at 1 o'clock. Thank you. Welcome back. We are reconvening the meeting of January 27th, 2026. Will County Council please report out from closed session?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed2:36:20

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. The Board met in closed session on existing litigation, Lazaro versus the Santa Barbara County Sheriff, Emerging Acquisitions LLC versus the County, and sitting as jointly as the Board of Directors for Flood Control, Whiting versus the County of Santa Barbara. In closed session, the Board also considered decisions to initiate litigation as to two cases.

The Board authorized County Council to initiate litigation as to one matter, the details of which will be disclosed once the action is formally convinced to any person upon inquiry. Three supervisors voted in favor of initiating litigation. Supervisor Nelson abstained and Supervisor Capps was absent.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:37:03

All right, thank you. Brings us up to our fourth item. On departmental item, Madam Clerk, will you please read departmental item number four into the record?

2:37 – 2:434 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:37:12

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number four is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the first quarter update fiscal year 2025 through 2026 on cannabis taxation, permitting, and licensing.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:37:27

And Ms. Beck, I believe you're up.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed2:37:31

Good afternoon Chair Nelson and members of the board. I'm Carmela Beck, the Cannabis Program Manager and I'll be presenting today's fiscal year 2025-26 first quarter Cannabis Taxation Permitting and Licensing Report. I'll be touching on the following three topics including tax receipts and compliance, land use permitting and business license activity, plus objectives for the upcoming quarters.

The Treasurer Tax Collector Office collected approximately $1.7 million in cannabis gross tax receipts in Quarter 1. Current Q1 collections were higher than last year's first quarter collections of $1.3 million. The fiscal year 2025-26 adopted budget is $5.1 million. The $1.7 million represents just over 33% of the total adopted budget. The Treasurer Tax Collector Office provided a breakdown of cannabis tax revenue collection by category, with the largest share of revenue from non-outdoor cultivation, which includes operations in buildings, greenhouses, and those who use artificial lighting. In Q1, non-outdoor cultivation generated approximately $794,000.

Outdoor cultivation followed with approximately $500,000. And non-cultivation operators, which include nursery, distribution, manufacturing and retail operations, generated almost $360,000. With regards to tax collection and reporting, in Q1 there were 47 cannabis businesses in operation. 40 out of 47 operators made timely payments and reported their gross receipts. The seven remaining operators reported zero gross receipts because they did not harvest in Q1.

All 47 operations were accounted for and there were no Q1 delinquent payments. Planning and development is continuing with their land use permitting activities. Proposed ordinance amendments to reduce the acreage cap were effective as of September 26, 2025. The Carpentria overlay allowed cultivation acreage cap reduced from 186 acres to 134 acres. There are presently 131.5 reserved acres and 2.5 acres available in the cap.

The unincorporated area allowed cultivation acreage cap reduced from 1,575 acres to 1,417 acres. There are presently 1,018 reserved acres and 399 acres available in the cap. There is one cannabis project on appeal to the Board of Supervisors, which is the G&K Produce and K&G Flower Cannabis Processing Structure Design Review. In addition, there have been several actions taken on existing approved cannabis entitlements.

As a reminder, the county approved six dispensary retail locations through a competitive application process. The Pharmacy Isla Vista, the Pharmacy Santines, and Dr. Green Thumbs in Orcutt are all in operation. The application for the Los Alamos dispensary is currently under planning and development review. The retail storefront is anticipated to open towards the end of 2027.

The Eastern Goleta Valley applicant is awaiting issuance of their Certificate of Occupancy before they pursue local and state license applications. The retail storefront is anticipated to open Q4 of this year. The two top-ranked Toro Canyon-Summerland Community Plan Area Dispensary applicants have withdrawn from the retail application process. There are no further ranked applicants in the Toro Canyon-Summerland Community Plan Area.

Staff requests board direction regarding reopening the application process for this community plan area. Since the Board's adoption of the odor abatement requirements in the Land Use Development Code, Article 2 of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, and in Chapter 50, staff has identified 28 operators impacted by the newly adopted requirements to install multi-technology carbon filtration, otherwise known as MTCF, equipment or its equivalent by March 18, 2026.

10 out of the 28 impacted cannabis operators have already installed MTCF equipment that meets the requirements of the amended ordinances. 18 of the 28 operators need to install the MTCF equipment and 11 out of the 18 operators submitted extension requests for MTCF equipment installation direct to planning and development by the December 18, 2025 deadline. Extension requests are currently being evaluated by Planning and Development staff.

Planning and Development Director recommendations will be presented to the Board of Supervisors during the March 3, 2026 Board hearing. The Cannabis Regulation and Licensing Team is continuing their work on the following three objectives for the upcoming quarters. Proposing ordinance amendments to reorganize and simplify the issuance of administrative cannabis business licenses.

Consider reopening the retail application process for the Toro Canyon-Summerland Community Plan Area. and monitoring and coordinating new odor abatement requirements pertaining to affidavits, extension, and installation deadlines along with planning and development staff. Our recommended actions today are to receive an update on the fiscal year 2025-26 first quarter cannabis status report, provide direction on reopening the retail application process for the Toro Canyon Summerland Community Plant area, and to make a CEQA determination.

That concludes our presentation and staff is available to answer questions.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:43:51

All right, thank you Ms. Beck.

2:43 – 2:5128 turns

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:43:55

Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Lee. So can you talk about the process for the cannabis on March 3rd meeting? Because a lot of the community is concerned and have questions about the process. If we do revoke, does it happen immediately or is there a process that goes through for them to be revoked of the license?

UnidentifiedSupervisor LavagninoProposed · by introduction2:44:24

So Mr. Chair and Supervisor Lee, so on March 3rd, P&D staff is going to bring forward an item that includes each of the time extension requests that we have received. And as you know, there was a, there is a March 18th deadline to install the multi-technology carbon filtration in all the indoor processing and growing areas. And we have eight operators that are going to be requesting extensions.

And so we're currently reviewing those applications. We're formulating our recommendations. And the format is such that the Planning and Development Director is going to be making a recommendation to your board on each of those eight time extension requests. And we do anticipate that we're going to get some questions on what happens next. And we're going to include some of that information in our board letter in an attempt to inform everyone ahead of the hearing.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:45:21

If we can go to, I'll jump in, we can go to slide number eight there for a moment. So I was just curious about the remaining unincorporated area where it has to do with multi-technology carbon filtration that's not stalled. We have three that's not stalled, three with OAP appending and no extension requests there. Can you maybe tease that out a little bit so they're not, they're anticipating installing

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed2:45:52

I think the expectation is that they'll be ready for the deadline. No extension or quick request was submitted and their OAPs are still pending.

UnidentifiedSupervisor LavagninoProposed · by introduction2:46:05

And just to add to that, we did coordinate both P&D and the CEO's office. We sent out numerous reminders of the deadline and the requirements to all operators, including those in the inland area, in an effort to make sure that everybody knew what the deadlines were, what the requirements were, and tried to give them as much time as possible to meet the requirements.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:46:25

Could you enumerate or describe where those three locations are in the unincorporated area? Do you guys have

UnidentifiedSupervisor LavagninoProposed · by introduction2:46:30

that? I'm not sure where the specific locations

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:46:33

are. Maybe we can follow up after the fact. I believe there's one in Los Alamos is one of them that I'm thinking of and I'm not sure the other two are so I'm just I'd like to talk to staff later on and just make sure I understand that.

UnidentifiedSupervisor LavagninoProposed · by introduction2:46:43

And specifically which locations don't have the required technology yet?

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:46:49

I guess I'm just curious on which is the three unincorporated that are not or that are in that covered here. So I see some clarity there. Other Supervisors questions? Supervisor Hartmann?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:47:05

Oh, well, I think we have to discuss retail in the Summerland area and what what direction we want to give.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:47:13

So my thoughts is give me some time for community outreach. I want to work with the SCA, have a community forum to talk about whether they support it or not, and then I'll report back to the board whether I support it or don't. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:47:27

have a question on that too. So if we, let's say Supervisor Lee goes out and they decide it's not a location that they're interested in, which I can understand, and what would we have to do ordinance-wise to figure out If we wanted to cite another one, do we have any, have we done any staff time at all on looking at what a fourth location would be? Because I'm thinking like if we're gonna have four locations and Summerlin is not going to be one of them, if that just happens to be, I think, I don't know if there's another, we did it by, I'm trying to remember what the criteria was at the time. It's

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:48:14

six locations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:48:15

There were six?

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:48:16

Yeah.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:48:16

Okay. So without Summerlin that gives us five?

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:48:22

So Eastern Guida Valley is still pending. Okay, so I'm saying the ones that are open. We only have three open, right? Okay. But two that are in process. Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed2:48:30

Thank you, Chair Nelson, Supervisor Lavagnino, Brittany Oderman, Deputy CEO. So there were six established locations based on community plan areas. And so the Toro Summerland Canyon area is challenged because of the restrictions, zoning restrictions, particularly around locations of schools and how many feet the retail location could be. And so many locations in the Summerland area were And so if we haven't looked at exploring other areas, the board established those, you know, we could have six in those six community plan areas.

What the ordinance says is once we go through this process and once a list is exhausted, we may reopen. We aren't obligated to reopen the process. And so if the board directs us to just, you know, hold and let's just wait it out and we still have two other locations that are in the process, Eastern Gleada Valley and Los Alamos, are both in the process and plan to open.

We'll have a total of five retail locations at that time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:49:44

So those still plan on opening. I know Los Alamos was a struggle for a long time and I don't know if that's been resolved or not. Yeah,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed2:49:52

they're still looking at 2027 for an opening. The Eastern Gleada Valley location is actually the building is there. They're awaiting their certificate of occupancy and then they just they need to get their licensing from the state and from us for retail.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:50:05

That one on Eastern Gleada Valley, where is that actually located?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed2:50:08

It's right at Hollister or Upper State and 154 where the 101, the 154 and State all come together. It's right in that area. Just north of the hotel there, the Hyatt that's there and then it's up the street.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:50:23

Thanks. So I guess it was desired the first district to table a decision on that at this time on what we do with it and that there's nothing Pressing for us to make a decision at this time and we can maybe address that on a future quarterly update.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:50:43

Just to remind your board that the list for Toro Canyon-Summerlin, that ranking list exhausts and expires on April 30th, 2026, so then it'll be expired and I think we could, if you want amendments to Chapter 50, either to look at that side or others, just give us the direction. If you're not ready to make the direction to do that, it's fine.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:51:02

Okay. All right, do we have any public comment on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:51:07

Chair Nelson and members of the board we have no requests to speak from the public on this item.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:51:12

All right what else what else does staff need from the board?

2:51 – 2:537 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed2:51:18

I don't I don't have any other requests at this time.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:51:20

Okay and not to minimize the importance of these cannabis updates but you know I know that we've been doing them quarterly as part of these board direction. Things that we're starting to resolve some of this stuff I don't know is at some point do we maybe start to put this on the agenda moving forward. I know that maybe when we have to resolve the Summerlin thing that might be something that we obviously have to deal with some of these extensions that's definitely worthy of a departmental item but would it be consistent to move future updates to the administrative agenda?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:51:52

We would certainly think that's a great efficient use of your time and any changes to chapter 50 we'd have to come back to the board anyway as a hearing. I think your absent member is the one who wanted us to have these as discussion items so staff could just check in but if you give us a direction to from this day forward until unless we have big discussion items like the retail we can certainly put them on the agenda.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed2:52:16

Thank you, Chair Nelson. I just wanted to point out that Chapter 50 requires that we come to the board annually at a minimum.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:52:22

Great. So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed2:52:23

thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:52:24

And so just as chair, my preference would be to move the administrative agenda unless one of my colleagues asks me to bring it up as a departmental item, I'd be happy to. to do whatever one of my colleagues would like to have but I think it may be as default that we go towards administrative agenda unless it rises to a reason to make a departmental agenda and of course every admin item can be pulled and talked about so okay.

All right well I need a motion to receive and file and since we're not gonna take any other direction we don't need to do D at this B at this point but we also need to make sure it's not a project under CEQA so A and C. I'll move staff recommendation. A and C. We're not going to do B today, so we're going to table B. And second by Lee. So a motion by Lavagnino and a second by Lee. Any further discussion on the motion?

All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. All right, moving right along. Madam Clerk, will you please read departmental item number three into the record.

2:53 – 2:5921 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:53:38

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the Sheriff Coroner's Office as well as the General Services Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the conclusion of the Enterprise Pilot Program.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:53:54

All right, Mr. Workington.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:53:58

Chief Administrative Officer at the Sheriff's Office, and I am here to brief you on the success of our five-year Enterprise Fleet Management Program pilot program. Back in 2021, we started this as a cost-saving initiative to see if we could save some money with about a hundred vehicles in our services fleet, and after five years, I'm pleased to tell you that we have found a savings there.

The weighted average cost per mile was 8.24% lower through Enterprise than it was through General Services for this vehicle set, and the average 60-month total operating costs for a single vehicle across the nine classes that we chose were similarly lower with an average savings of $7,265 per vehicle. We would like to have the board's permission to formally conclude this pilot program and to start using Enterprise as a regular contract going forward, as long as it's the most cost-effective option, and to approve the term extension for a total contract amount of the existing master lease agreement for Enterprise Fleet Management for a total contract amount of $6.9 million, which we have budgeted for. Do

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:55:19

you have any questions? All right, thank you. Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:55:25

Yeah, does the Sheriff's Office use any EVs?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:55:30

We have one right now that we're using. We had another one that was involved in an accident and, well, not our fault. Someone hit us. And we have identified 37 other services vehicles in our fleet that are potential candidates for converting over to EVs as the infrastructure for recharging them and that sort of thing builds out.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:55:54

So what do you need, what does a sheriff need for charging infrastructure and are you working with general services and our CSD department to get what you need?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:56:04

We are, it's just taking a little bit of time. We've identified the needs, locations. I don't want to talk for general services but we're heading in the right direction and like I say it's one of those things that you can't flip the switch overnight.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:56:17

Right, but the City of South Pasadena, they're using all EVs for both patrol and administrative functions and so a lot of law enforcement is moving in that direction. So I'm glad to hear we're starting. I mean is there any way to make any commitment in this contract with Enterprise?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:56:40

No, I don't think we're gonna make a commitment right now because we're still doing the research on that. If we do identify ones that need, that we can replace with EVs, with Enterprise, it's a fairly quick, you know, we tell them, okay, we'd like to swap this vehicle out and they can make that happen just like another vehicle.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:56:58

Can you make a commitment to do a pilot study and and see, compare

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:57:06

What would you see as a pilot study? What would that look like to you? A report or actually getting the vehicles and looking at

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:57:11

them? Getting a number of vehicles for certain purposes and looking at what it costs you to maintain them, to charge them, what the officer's satisfaction is in using them.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:57:25

We are looking at heading in that direction, but I'm not ready to make a commitment on that right now.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.872:57:30

Yeah, we've been asking for four or five years, and I'm glad you've got one, but I think that's moving kind of slowly, so I'd really like to see more.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:57:44

Thank you, Supervisor

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:57:44

Hartmann.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:57:45

Supervisor Lee? So, are your deputies open to EVs, or is this something that they resist or support?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:57:52

I don't want to speak for all the deputies right now. Like I say, it's something that we are exploring right now. There's feelings on all sides right now.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.792:57:59

Okay, thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:58:05

Well, I guess my question is actually for General Services on what does this look like and the information that we're getting from this on the entirety of the organization moving forward, you know. And first of all, Enterprise is not the only company that goes out there and does this. So I know that we've developed a relationship here, but if we decide to move forward in the future, I look forward to a robust RFQ or a process that we might look at to make sure that we find the best deal possible.

I'm involved in a lot of fleet management when it comes to vehicles. I'm on the board directors of CalVans, which is the largest Ride Share Van Pool Program of the Nation and we're looking at these numbers to decide, you know, does it make sense for us to own these things or does it make sense for us to lease them? And it's becoming more and more apparent to me that we should let the people who are pros at this kind of run these things and then they can swap them out as things change and they can sometimes actually replace vehicles quicker because they know what the market is and they hit it at the right time.

Trade them out, you know, sooner. Meanwhile, the county will sometimes, you know, we'll run a vehicle to a pukes, you know, and that sometimes works on the farm, but, you know, running an organization as big as ours and as complex as ours, we need to be doing what, you know, some of the big corporations, I think, are doing because it's, I think, the most efficient use of capital for the resources that we have. So I guess my question for either Kirk or Ted or whoever else you guys have, anything that you guys are deriving from this that might Educate us in the future as maybe cost-saving initiatives as we head into a time in the next few years where we're looking to save costs.

You know, not depending, but I know we do have a fleet services and that could be some challenges there with our staffing, but I think there might be some ways to us to right-size it to the future.

3:00 – 3:0716 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed3:00:00

Thank you for the question. This has been a collaborative effort with the General Services and the Sheriff's Office, and we appreciate them bringing this to our attention and for the duration of the pilot, you know, working hand-in-hand and asked us The Sheriff's Office just reported the pilot's been a success, but I just want to emphasize that it's for these class of vehicles, you know, it's not a one-size-fits-all for all vehicles, for all uses. Different vehicles have different missions, and so, you know, the Sheriff has not used Enterprise for their patrol vehicles, he's used it for their admin vehicles, and for these 118 vehicles, it has proved out to be a savings. That being said, in looking at the larger data set, There's not savings at every vehicle class.

So I think this has been a good learning curve for general services and fleet in seeing where sometimes a lease does bring savings or value to the county and where it doesn't make sense. And so I guess I would just say that we will certainly take that direction and continue this exercise and be open to what vehicles make sense to own, what vehicles make sense to lease through a national company such as this.

But I guess my Simple answer is that it's not a one-size-fits-all, and so they really have to be analyzed on a kind of mission-by-mission or vehicle-by-vehicle basis.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:01:21

So what are we going to do from this? I mean, I guess that's the next action. So what does that look like for us as an organization? So if we approve the recommended actions today, we're going to say, you know, thumbs up, this worked out well, we're going to extend the master lease for the Sheriff's Department, but are we just going to put that on the shelf for the rest of the organization, or will we be, you know, anticipating in future budgets looking at You know, bringing on a few other classes of vehicles are we looking to in the future.

Now moving forward through all departments, so every cargo van full-size that we start pulling in, I mean we save $17,000 a vehicle there. That seems to be, you know, high yielding and maybe pickup size, mid-size pickups that are 4x2s. I mean right there there's some good numbers on there. I don't know what made those ones work.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed3:02:06

Exactly and that's it, that's, excuse me, I speak out of turn, but that's exactly it. It's picking the vehicles that make sense and working with departments to, you know, bring them, bring horse to the water, if you will, and where the There's more meat on the bones. And so I'll say we're in, this is the first department to pilot the enterprise fleet management system, or any lease for that matter. And we're having preliminary discussions with other departments who are interested. The one thing We just want to caution, and it's in the slide deck, but just that there is a staffing component that's required for the department to manage these contracts. I mean, it's not just signing a contract and it runs itself.

So we're making sure that departments are aware of that human capital need. But otherwise, yeah, certainly this is not sitting on a shelf and something that, you know, we're not continuing to learn from. There's other departments that were in preliminary discussions. I mean, I can just add one other thing. There is, the ultimate risk is that the fleet division is ISF, right? So if more and more departments were to pull out of paying into the ISF, it would become more expensive for those who are still using the county's vehicles. So that's another consideration.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:03:20

Is there an opportunity, though, for this to operate within the ISF so that we actually bring down the cost? Council President. Have a certain class of vehicles that we see bigger savings on within the ISF, which would bring our per mile number down and hopefully help the whole entire organization. So maybe that could be something that General Services explores. I mean, again, there's some low-hanging fruit here. Minivans also, we saved a lot on those as well. Maybe we can start to incorporate, you know, a small amount where we see the greatest amount of savings. I think every department would be welcomed to bring down some of our ISFs. I know they continue to be a challenge. So, you know, that might be something we can do within that instead of trying to ask departments whether they want to participate, maybe fold that into the fleet division.

It's just a suggestion, be interested in you guys pursuing that and talking to the board about that in the future. Thank you. Yeah, take them. All right, Supervisor Lavagnino and then Supervisor Hartmann.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:04:25

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I got to hear this at the DAC and I just applaud everybody associated with this. I think it worked out really well. Question about how many patrol vehicles do we have? Kind of give or take. I mean, is it hundreds or? Oh, OK. OK. All right. So half of what we have kind of in this program. And those were not did we look at Sending those into this program or?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:04:56

We didn't want to include that in part of this pilot program for a couple of reasons and the primary reason is we wanted to make sure what we were looking at before we brought that out to an emergency response fleet.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:05:09

But now after you've seen the success of it, is it something you've given second thought

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:05:14

to? It's something we're discussing. I have to talk to the operators actually because I am not a LEO so I don't want to overstate or Overlook any important considerations there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:05:25

Okay. Then I'm just curious, I'd like to get kind of general services take on how they feel, how successful this has been, and how it's affecting your department as well. Because there is something about taking away, as you said, taking away a couple pieces of the pie. Is it freeing people up to do other?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed3:05:47

The impact of Chair Nelson, members of the board. The impact was a .7 FTE, but with the current workload, we were able to keep that FTE busy. Not much of an impact with the vehicles to our department. The biggest would have been to our administrative overhead costs, which is divided out amongst the number of vehicles in the fleet. So if you're not charging them to this sector, the others go up. At the beginning of the program, it was about $19 per vehicle.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:06:16

So how does 118 vehicles translate to 0.7 and that guy's got to be busy. It was like 118 initially calculated. So what I'm curious is how did we get rid of 118 vehicles and the maintenance associated with that and it didn't even translate to one FTE?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed3:06:37

The ratio of vehicles to an FTE is what it calculates into. We look at how many mechanics we have. So currently our fleet's almost 1,500 vehicles and we have 17 mechanics.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed3:06:47

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed3:06:48

Got it. Okay. So they are busy. They are very, very busy. Okay. Thank you. Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.873:06:55

I was wondering, maybe I missed it, did you answer Chair Nelson's question about RFQ or other companies or why we are going with Enterprise?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed3:07:07

They were solicited through Sheriff.

3:07 – 3:1418 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.873:07:11

So how do we know we're getting the best deal, I guess is my question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:07:15

Well, I'll tell you what, this happened well before I got here, but from what I understand in the history of it, there was an RFQ that went out and Enterprise won the bid as the county's choice.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.873:07:30

So how long would this agreement go? Another five years. Enterprise does have EVs with public agencies and I think selecting a small number of EVs for support or low-duty roles Initially, track range performance, charging patterns, unit availability, maintenance and fuel costs, officer satisfaction, and compare that with traditional. I mean, we just had our Climate Action Plan, and I mean, I don't think the Sheriff's Office is pulling their weight in terms of fleet. I think you could do more work with Enterprise, and I would strongly encourage you to do that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:08:19

Thank you. We are looking into it, yes.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:08:26

All right. Yeah.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.873:08:29

Yeah. What authority does the board have here?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:08:37

Supervisors, you're approving the contract as you do with all contracts. You're approving the contract and the existing master lease and extending that with enterprise.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.873:08:46

So if it doesn't have provisions that I'd like to see, then I'm I'm perfectly capable of voting no on the contract.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:08:56

Supervisor Lavagnino. I sense your frustration, right? So, but I think this is a great program, but I'm curious about the hesitancy on just trying a few vehicles, just to kind of give us a baseline of maybe if you came back and said, hey, our officers hate them, here's the five reasons why, and we've, you know, I'm just curious why Do we not have the authority? Do you not have the authority? Or what is exactly, what's stopping us from saying, hey, let's, out of these 118, let's get four or five of them, or three or four of them, just so we can get a baseline. Because in five years from now, if we don't do anything today, we're gonna go do this, and five years from now, you're gonna come back and say, okay, well, we're gonna do a pilot program, and then we're five years behind the curve.

So I'm just, I'm curious what the hesitancy is to move forward, to kind of jump into that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:09:51

Well, like I say, we've actually started the research into that. We've identified the ones. I've actually gotten some information from Enterprise on comparing cost per miles and overall lifetime costs for certain vehicles. Some of them make sense from an economic sense aspect to go EV. Some don't. But we are still researching those and seeing how they would fit into our fleet.

Like I say, I see it happening in the future. I can't give you a timeline on it right now, and I can't give you an exact vehicle type that it's gonna be for.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:10:27

Okay. Well, I would say I would be cool with moving this forward, but I'd want to hear something back within a year or six months to a year of what is Enterprise come back and tell you and what can we do to kind of supercharge this a little bit.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:10:39

Supervisor Lavagnino, how about if you give me the opportunity, I could try to work with the Sheriff's Department either have this as a slide maybe in their budget presentation this next year if they've been able to, if they can do it that quickly, if they can't. They'll let us know, maybe give us an update and we'll get that back. I'd be willing to help facilitate that between the Sheriff's Department.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.873:10:58

Yeah, I'm looking for something that's a commitment and not just lackadaisical and let us know what we can expect.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:11:09

That's fair enough, yeah. This is Tiffany. She's our fleet manager. She's the expert.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:11:17

Welcome, Tiffany.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 28Proposed3:11:18

Hi, thank you. So we have identified, I've been tracking this for quite some time, so I've been the sole person managing the enterprise program for five years and we have been tracking it very closely on what vehicles would be a good option for electric vehicles and I have identified 37 vehicles that I am Very confident would be a good match for EVs, and as soon as they're due to be replaced, my expectation is that they will at least consider an electric vehicle or share with me why they are unable to. Some of the times it's because they might have a law enforcement radio installed, lights, sirens, which may drain the battery, shorten the life. We're still doing that type of research to figure those things out, but we're looking at the infrastructure.

We've been working with Eric Barker from General Services to track down Thank you for joining us today. We've been checking in with Eric to see if we can get fast chargers installed, and so we're definitely considering it. This is definitely not pushed to the side. It's just we have so many more questions. I just found out that our fuel provider, WEX, they have enabled charging through their platform, which will have one platform that does charging as well as gas. So super simple for us to manage through one platform by myself. I'm able to manage all of this. Because Enterprises made it so simple. So I do feel confident that moving forward we will have electric. We have two electric vehicles in service currently.

One was in an accident and the other one we're following very closely to see if she's having trouble with charging and she's going between the north and the south counties. So long-range we can see how that's working out and well I am monitoring it very closely and I do intend to move more vehicles that direction.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.873:13:20

Well, that is great news and thank you. I didn't pick that up from what was said earlier. So, following up on Chair Nelson's, can you report back or give us any sense of progress or how it's happening? I mean, we didn't know until you got up there and told us and we'd like to learn what you're learning from your research, which is very important. I hope you're looking at what other Law enforcement agencies in California and throughout the country are doing.

So when can we learn more?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 28Proposed3:13:56

I would be happy to report back as soon as you felt comfortable. We do need to put more vehicles in service. So we don't just switch out vehicles randomly. They're set on a cycle. So those vehicles, I have them on my spreadsheet highlighted green because I'm hoping to move them that direction. And we're currently in the process of switching out our first batch of cars that were the Special Enforcement Bureau vehicles, detectives. And so those ones are probably not the best fit for starting with. And they were the ones that were delivered year one. So they're currently year three and they're being replaced. The others came along a little bit further down the road. And so they should be coming up in the next year or two. So I would say within a year we can report back on the infrastructure, And those types of questions, and then we should have a few deployed at that point.

I'd be able to report back as often as you felt comfortable.

3:14 – 3:1813 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:14:52

So thank you for that. I appreciate it. You did a great job of the DAC too. So it's the willingness of the department and but it's also the infrastructure and general services has confirmed that the sheriff's location is one of the locations they would put you put in the chargers, but that's like a year and a half out. So just to give some time and framework and then what are the legal parameters?

County Council is looking at the lease that if something doesn't happen, what's the board's authority regarding the lease?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.873:15:22

I guess my only question is then the lease with Enterprise for five years, and we're going to learn more in a year or two, do you have the flexibility under that lease then to go into electric for the functions where it's appropriate?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 28Proposed3:15:43

Yes.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.873:15:44

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 28Proposed3:15:48

Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:15:51

All right, do we have any public comments on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:15:57

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no request to speak from the public on this item.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:16:03

All right, so we have looking for a motion on the recommended actions. I think there's direction from the board that report back in sometime in the next year on progress towards this. So, we can work on, we can work on establishing that and hopefully sooner. I think it's what the desire of the board is to hear back sooner the progress that's being made and sounds like quite a bit of progress is being made. So, C.M. Miyasato, is that accurate?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:16:32

We could do that. I just wanted to clarify, we do not believe that the contract has a typical termination that we typically do. So, this would be a five-year extension.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:16:43

Okay. I'm comfortable with it for myself, but if somebody can make a motion on this to adopt staff recommendations A, 1A through C and 2 and D, sorry, sorry, A through D. I would like to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:17:05

do that, but I think we forgot one thing. We have to, we have to thank CEO Miyasato because this was part of Renew 22, actually, where people thought a department figured out a different way to do something that wasn't going to take any more employees, but that was going to kind of think outside the box. And I appreciate that Sheriff's Department highlighted that in their presentation, at least in their board letter that I read. And so I think, Mona, this is one that actually landed back.

Roll-call vote Moved by Steve Lavagnino
Show transcript
Yeah, I think it was Under Sheriff Saul Lindbergh that was pushing this through at that time as well. But I will make that motion that you All right, so motion by Supervisor Lavagnino through items A through D and get a second from...
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed3:17:48

I'll

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:17:49

second. With the direction to come back within the next year and a second from Supervisor Hartman. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. All right. All right, we are now adjourned till Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026 in Santa Barbara. Thank you.