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.0:00 – 0:048 turns
Alright, good morning everybody. If we could take our seats. Okay, I will call to order the February 24th, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
Roll call — called by Mayor
Show transcript
One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Our first item of business is the approval of the minutes from the February 10th, 2026 regular meeting. Can I get a motion?
Hartmann moves approval. I'll second.
All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Next item of business is the County Executive Office's report. CEO Miyasato.
Thank you, Chair Nelson. Good morning, board members. I just have one quick announcement, and this is regarding OEM, the Small Business Disaster Relief Assistance. So the U.S. Small Business Administration has announced low-interest disaster loans for California small businesses and private nonprofits impacted by the late December 2025 storms. The declaration was issued following a request from the governor's office allowing eligible organizations to apply for economic injury disaster loans to help cover working capital needs.
So we encourage all small businesses and nonprofits to visit ReadySBC.org for more information and application details to see if you can apply for a low interest disaster loan. And that concludes my report.
Thank you, CEO Miyasato. All right, Madam Clerk, are there any changes to today's agenda?
Chair Nelson, members of the board, I do have a couple announcements this morning. An addendum was posted on Friday, February 20th, 2026, adding administrative item number 24 to today's agenda and amending the closed session agenda. Administrative item 24 is from the Sheriff Coroner's Office regarding a memorandum of understanding between the County of Santa Barbara and the Superior Court of Santa Barbara for the provision of court security services, conference with real property negotiators, Thank you all for joining us today.
Individuals who would like to provide a 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. Additionally, for today's hearing, on Departmental Item No. 1 regarding Sidewalk Vending Ordinance and Pilot Program, we are providing simultaneous Spanish interpretation services in the Santa Barbara Hearing Room.
If you are a member of the public and would like to use these services, either to listen to the meeting in Spanish or to have your public comment interpreted, please see the clerk located in the back of the room. Our team will be happy to assist you. That concludes my announcements for this morning.
Thank you, Madam Clerk. Next item of business is the Administrative Agenda. Would any board members like to pull any items on the Administrative Agenda? Not seeing any from my colleagues here. Any items being pulled from the public?
0:04 – 0:099 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, we previously had a request for administrative item number one that has since been withdrawn. We also have requests for A11, A14 through A23. A14 through
A23, is that a single?
That is a single member of the public,
yes. All right. So what we'll go ahead and do is take a motion to approve the balance of the agenda. So that's all administrative agendas, items except items 11 and 14 through 23. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. That member of the public on 14 through 23 will take those all as a single public comment item at that time. Can I get a motion to approve the balance of the agenda?
So moved.
Second. We have a motion from Supervisor Hartmann and a second from Supervisor Lee. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. At this time we'll go ahead and move to our presentation of the resolutions. Madam Clerk, will you please read item A1 into the record.
Chair Nelson, members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Lee, Supervisor Capps, Supervisor Hartmann, Supervisor Nelson, and Supervisor Lavagnino. It is to adopt a resolution honoring Court Executive Officer and Jury Commissioner Daryl Eugene Parker upon his retirement from the Santa Barbara County Superior Court after nearly four decades of faithful and dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County. Joining us here, we have Tanya Heitman and Daryl Parker. If you'll please join us at the podium, I will read the resolution into the record.
Whereas, Daryl Eugene Parker has devoted nearly four decades of distinguished public service to the California trial courts, culminating in his service as court executive officer, jury commissioner, and has demonstrated unwavering leadership, integrity, and commitment to the fair administration of justice. And whereas, through his exemplary career, Mr. Parker provided steady and effective oversight of court operations, including the successful supervision of the construction of the clerk's office in Santa Maria and the juvenile court. Projects that strengthen the access to justice and improve services for residents of Santa Barbara County. And whereas, Mr. Parker served the judicial branch statewide through his work with the Judicial Council of California, contributing his expertise and sound judgment in multiple roles in helping to shape policy and governance of California's trial courts.
And whereas, after a career defined by dedication, public trust, and lasting impacts on the courts and communities he served, Mr. Parker has earned a well-deserved retirement and looks forward to spending meaningful time with his wife, Jolene, his children, and his new grandson, as well as pursuing a long-anticipated goal of fly fishing along the 500 miles of blue-ribbon trout waters along the Rocky Mountain Fly Highway. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County does hereby honor and commend Court Executive Officer, Jury Commissioner, Daryl E. Parker, for his distinguished service, outstanding leadership, and lasting contributions to the residents of Santa Barbara County, passed and adopted today.
Assistant CEO Heitman.
Good morning, Chair Nelson and Supervisors. I'm Tanya Heitman, Assistant CEO. Presiding Judge Trisha Kelly isn't able to be here this morning, so she invited me to share some comments. The court is very appreciative for this resolution and your board's acknowledgment of Daryl's service to the courts and the citizens of Santa Barbara County. I'm particularly honored to, I'm particularly glad to honor Daryl today. I've had the pleasure of working with him for much of my career. We've participated on many work groups and helped plan for numerous initiatives and statutory changes over the years.
Probably most notably, Daryl has served on both the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and Community Corrections Partnership. He often scheduled around our meetings And Times in order to ensure we had a quorum and could conduct our business. Although he also managed to abstain from more votes than all of the other members combined. You have to admit, that may have been one way of avoiding controversy over the Sheriff's budget.
Seriously though, Daryl has been a true professional. He has helped to contribute to the collaborative relationships that our county is known for and has demonstrated a level of engagement that many other counties don't experience with their courts. He's been engaged and committed leader locally as well as at a statewide level. And that's often been demonstrated through his staff whose time he's freed up to engage with county initiatives.
Daryl and I have navigated many challenges together, including significant personnel changes and the pandemic. He has always been a trusted friend and advisor. And as a grandparent myself, I know he's going to love being able to focus more on his family and achieving his fishing goals rather than focusing on balancing the court's budget. Thank you.
0:09 – 0:134 turns
Okay, I appreciate that you scheduled an hour and a half for me to speak. No, I want to thank the members of the board for this deeply meaningful resolution and thanks to the partnership of my favorite county executive officer, Mona Miyasato. I'm truly honored and humbled by your recognition of my 38 and a half years of service to the courts and the last 28 years in Santa Barbara County. I appreciate the presence of my peers today and co-workers, and I'm especially grateful to be joined by my wife, who has labored through all of these trials, literally and figuratively.
And most notably, my bad jokes at every event that I have to emcee. Serving as the CEO of the Santa Barbara Superior Court has been a privilege of a lifetime. Throughout these decades, I've had the opportunity to work alongside extraordinary justice partners. Our judges, court staff, the District Attorney John is here, public defender, probation, Tanya and I spent a lot of time together in the office. The Sheriff, I'm happy to see we passed a contract today for the court services after a lot of work.
The community-based organizations and county leadership. And what Tanya noted I think is true. What distinguishes Santa Barbara County is the strength of these partnerships and our shared commitment to the community that we serve. Over the years, we've witnessed remarkable change. We've moved from typewriters, paper files, and manual calendars to sophisticated case management systems. Most of the time, it works.
Digital displays, remote hearings, and electronic filings that has expanded transparency and public access to justice. At the same time, the nature of the challenges facing our community has evolved. Issues involving mental health, substance use, housing instability, and family instability require not only legal solutions but collaboration, compassion, and innovation.
Together, we've worked to develop problem-solving approaches that begin to address the root causes of those social woes while upholding the rule of law. The Court does not stand apart from the community. It stands within it. Every improvement we've made has been possible because of the trust and partnership between the Court, the County, and the people we serve.
I'm deeply grateful for the opportunity to have contributed to that work, and I thank you for this recognition and your continued partnership in the court community. Thank you very much.
Daryl, just on behalf of the board, I guess I'll let Sue Resser-Lee jump in here first.
Thank you. So when you do go fly fishing, can you send us pictures of the fish you catch? I look forward to it. Thank you.
And again, Daryl, on behalf of the entire board and as your supervisor, as one of my favorite constituents, thank you for your service to our county. We know it's been a lot of work and a lot of effort, but you know, your collaboration and your skill has been a great benefit to the people that you've served. So thank you. All right, Madam Clerk, if we can go ahead and I think we're gonna move on to departmental item number, or sorry, administrative item number 11.
0:13 – 0:178 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, excuse me, administrative item number 11 is from the Human Resources Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding position transfers to the Human Resources Department.
All right, we have a member of the public that pulled that item.
And we'll begin with our one and only speaker, Karen Hallenstein.
All right Karen, this is item
A11. Karen Hallenstein from North County. All the political glad-handing around here. This item Exemplifies something that we don't want happening in our county. Why are you switching people from the County Executive Office to other departments? To preserve the individuals. Why is that happening? Oh, because Mona's stacked her county executive office with a bunch of liberal progressive operatives who have been ensuring that the nonprofits, NGOs, and even governmental departments continue to wash money to liberal and progressive operatives in our community.
It's all happening right in front of us. We see that. That's the reason why Santa Barbara County took part in the billions and billions of dollars of fraud and waste that happened in California with the homeless funding debacle. And our executive office controls every single thing our county does. And I know because of my personal experience with the lovely Dennis Bozanich, who was a great political operative who actually got ousted because he's also a criminal.
And we want to cover for him because we cover for all of our liberal and progressive friends. Right, Mona? You're being called out for what you actually do, board, because the board approves what's been happening. Yeah. And we don't like it because you waste our money. And then you don't allow Lompoc to have reasonable housing that's owned by citizens and individuals. You want to turn our Lompoc Valley into something that looks like a dystopian, like, catch-all Pen for people with mental illnesses. Is that what we want to do? Make sure that everybody's living in these single apartments.
Yeah, so the county just closed escrow on buying a piece of property on the corner of Burton Mesa Boulevard and Rucker Road. It's supposed to be a secret, but it's not. That isn't the way we do business. We do business out in the open. We're supposed to anyway. Unless of course we have everything all wrapped up and we think we're going to get away with it.
Thank you Karen. So can I get a motion to approve item A or does, I've seen any of my colleagues have any additional comments on that item. Can I get a motion to approve item A11?
I move staff recommendation.
Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. We now have items that was pulled in a list there. Get back to that here for a moment. Items A14 through 23. Madam Clerk will you read all those items in the record and do we have one public commenter for all those?
0:17 – 0:2612 turns
That is correct Chair Nelson.
Okay.
Administrative item number 14 is from the Public Works Department, Board of Directors, Flood Control and Water Conservation District. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Public Works Director's Report on Emergency Response Actions from Impacts on Flooding and Storms and Continuation of Emergency Actions for the Transportation Division and Conclude Emergency Actions for the Flood Control District.
Administrative item number 15 is from the Public Works Department, Board of Directors, Flood Control and Water Conservation District. It is to consider recommendations regarding Lower Mission Creek Flood Control Project Reach 4. Administrative item number 16 is from the Public Works Department, Board of Directors, Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Board of Directors, Water Agency. It is to consider recommendations regarding resolutions adopting records retention policies.
A-17 is from the Public Works Department, Board of Directors, Water Agency. It is to consider recommendations regarding Cuyama Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency appointments. Administrative item number 18 is from the Public Works Department, Board of Directors, Water Agency. It is to consider recommendations regarding the San Ynez River Valley Groundwater Basin Eastern Management Area Groundwater Sustainability Agency request for extension of loan repayment terms and waiver of interest.
Administrative item number 19 is from the Public Works Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding certification of total miles in the county maintained road system. Administrative item number 20 is from the Public Works Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding Measure A five-year program of projects for fiscal years 26 through 27, 26-27 through 30-31.
Administrative item 21 is from the Treasurer Tax Collector Public Administrator. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Treasurer's Investment Pool Report for the quarter ended December 31st, 2025. Administrative item number 22 is to approve, is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson, it is to approve the reappointment of James Hassell of Behavioral Wellness Commission, term ending January 1st, 2029.
Administrative item number 23 is from the Public Works Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 15A of the Santa Barbara County Code relating to floodplain management. And as previously read into the record, administrative item number 24 is from the Sheriff Coroner's Office regarding a memorandum of understanding between the County of Santa Barbara and the Superior Court of Santa Barbara for provisions of court security services.
Just a point of clarification, was it A14-23 or A24?
Oh, forgive me. Yes, it was A14-23, so not administrative item number 24. My
understanding is that we have one speaker on all those items. That's Mr. Strong. That is correct. Okay, Mr. Strong, I'm going to give you up to five minutes for these items, but you need to stay on topic and address the items that have been polled as part of your public comment.
Rennie Strong. Rennie, we can hear you, please proceed.
Okay, thank you. So public works, this is regarding that, correct everybody? It's
one of the items that you pulled,
yes. Okay, so this is Rennie Dean Strong and basically We need to get up to par and up to speed on what's going on with the water. We need to know about primarywater.org. Look it up, please. You also need to know, again, I've spoken many times about the water and what is being generated, what kind of water and climate water is being geoengineered in our skies by our Air Force and our National Guard bases.
Thank you, Vandenberg. My father was in the Air Force. So, we understand about Operation Popeye, Project Popeye, weather modification. And it's also our own military and the DARPA program creating the water instead of what trees do. That's what leaves do, leaves of the trees. They send out a disbursement agent that actually brings in the moisture. And that's why we do not need to have these programs. So, you need to cease and desist.
These programs immediately. So this is for General Peter Pace via Lynn LeGue, who lived there in Santa Barbara, from Lompoc. So these are some things that we need to let sink in. We need to also know that if we plant Like Permaculture Design, like I did with Soil Harmonics and Soil Life Services up in Cayucos, San Luis Obispo County, where I'm currently at and why I can't be with you guys right now.
But we were about growing local food. We were about planting so natural clouds could come in and not be geoengineered by our military complex. We need to be speaking up about all these corrupt aspects of this water. Again, looking up primarywater.org. And when you plant ecosystems, and we need to be doing that with the land that we have of the government, that's ours, taking back our local community and what we do with the land. And so, yeah, with the water that we can actually have, we can actually slow down and sink in on swales and plant ecosystems. So your water's being filtered, moisture's coming in naturally, and we have everything cleared up.
But when you don't want people, when you do not want to actually admit because the TV didn't tell you. So, and these people that are just players playing their part, actors, they want to push these technocratic Depopulation Agenda with the COVID-1984. There's some public works and these institutions need to go down and the players that are playing them because we need to commandeer this ship, folks.
And I hope you really hear me. So Uncle Steve Stabley, Chief of Police of California, head of Department of Justice, my mom's brother-in-law, my mom's a paralegal for John Yamani retired, Levitt, Yamani, and Soldner on Oahu. And again, it helps bring attention to all these crimes against humanity of our weather, of our lives, and people don't want to acknowledge it.
So we need to acknowledge it. That's why we have a First Amendment and why we have forefathers that care for us, to put that. But when we're brainwashed, MKUltra, like my father two years past, sadly, You know, he wasn't in the need to know, but MKUltra, there's blockage, so you can't break through. Anyway, yeah, I think I need to be the next governor or mayor or overseer. We need some new things until we can remove all these individuals that are running our world, our system. And again, get back to the basics. We don't need to keep going, going, going. So James Corbett, CorbettReport.com, thank you. Whitney Webb, again, pedophiles, all that stuff. Yeah, I'm on topic. On topic is covering everything that's related to all of us. So the water, the 70% water in our body, we're on a water planet.
And all the lies that we've been told about water. Yeah, reach out to me. I'm on Stop Geoengineering California Facebook page and the 805 Santa Barbara County Crimes Against Humanity and also San Luis Obispo County. Thank you,
Mr. Strong. That is your time.
Crimes Against Humanity.
0:26 – 0:3312 turns
All right, back to the board on those items. I see my colleagues have comments to make on those items. I would take a motion on items A14 through A23 for approval.
So moved.
Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. That concludes our administrative agenda. At this time, we will move on to general public comment. This is the time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak on general public comment today?
Yes, Chair Nelson, members of the board, we have seven requests to speak. We will begin here with Kayla Peterson to be followed by Reverend Sarah Thomas.
Okay, before you get started with Kayla, public comment will be three minutes with the exception of Ms. Hauenstein who I've allotted five minutes because she deferred a previous public comment earlier in the meeting to general public comment. So thank you Ms. Hauenstein for that consideration and I'll go ahead and start with the first item, Ms. Peterson.
Chair Nelson, members of the board, members of the public, my name is Kayla Peterson-Vorster, and I work for Kingdom Causes, Inc., known as KCI, in Santa Barbara County. I'm our team's local program director, and I've been doing community-based work for over six years, working collaboratively first on the issue of homelessness, with some of you on the board, and then subsequently on anti-human trafficking efforts.
I've been on several teams tackling these complex challenges through collective impact, and I'm grateful for the multiple sectors working in our community to make systemic and ground-level change for the most vulnerable in our community in the ways that many of you have been working on these issues for a long time. As you know, commercial sexual exploitation of children and youth, abbreviated as CSECI, impacts youth across Santa Barbara County every day. This, of course, is not often in plain sight.
It is in grooming and exploitation of children and youth seeking love, purpose, and belonging, as well as basic needs, and is no less violent or egregious because of its hidden nature. CSEC is interconnected with so many other crises in our community, including homelessness and housing insecurity, domestic and intimate partner violence, and immigration enforcement.
When a person or family faces the vulnerability of one of these things and its impact on their work, education, family unit, or neighborhood, they are that much more vulnerable to exploitation. KCI is working with about 30 different individuals representing nearly as many agencies to create a three-year action plan to combat CSEC in Santa Barbara City specifically, recognizing that a system of care must be developed in a local region to shore up existing resources and illuminate potential gaps in services.
We are in the process of reviewing the innovative ideas generated by dozens of team members representing government, nonprofit, business, education, and faith community sectors, and will have a plan solidified by May or June of this year with deliverables, timelines, and project teams. For more consistent partnerships with schools and educators, to creative avenues for engaging families in the business community, we're looking forward to the ways that this action plan will demonstrate impact in the lives of children, youth, and families in Santa Barbara County City. You may be wondering, how does this plan impact me?
And as we implement the plan over the next three years, we will be collecting data and building a trajectory for replication across Santa Barbara County. in partnership with local agencies in each region. We will look to partner with you as we seek to make this a county-wide reality. We've been invited by Supervisor Lee to share briefly in an upcoming meeting for a short presentation and we look forward to our next steps and being able to share a little bit more about the work that we're doing in the community and would like to do in partnership with you. So thank you for your work across the county.
Thank you, Ms. Peterson.
We will now go to Reverend Sarah Thomas to be followed by
Kesa Mosley. Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the Board. It is an honor to speak with you this morning. My name is Reverend Sarah Thomas and I serve as the Associate Rector at Trinity Episcopal Church just a few blocks away. And I'm here this morning because my faith community has decided to support what you just heard from Ms. Peterson, the Kingdom Causes Three-Year Action Plan to end the commercial sexual exploitation of children and youth. In this city with the long range plan of making this countywide.
The church where I serve cares a lot about protecting the most vulnerable. It opens its doors as a warming center and provides several meal ministries to the unhoused. It offers rides to undocumented people and supports many organizations in town. My eyes have recently been more opened to this urgent issue in our city and county, one that is, as Kayla said, invisible, and therefore in great need of your support in educating the public and in amplifying the urgency.
I am particularly concerned about how the current political climate is making children and teens from undocumented families much more vulnerable to sexual exploitation because there is a lack of trust between families and public officials. I hope you will continue to support all services that protect and care for people at high risk, no matter what their immigration status.
I hope you will also consider working with Kingdom Causes to host awareness events in your jurisdictions. I can't think of anything more important than protecting our county's children and youth. And I'm really excited about KCI's action plan because it is something we can do and accomplish and involve systemic change, which is so rewarding. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Reverend Thomas.
Kisa Mosley to be followed by Catherine Hanna.
Good morning Board of Supervisors for Santa Barbara County. My name is Kisa Mosley and I attend Westmont College and I am a part of the fellowship cohort with Kingdom Causes working to end child sexual exploitation of youth in Santa Barbara City. I also serve as the Equity and Diversity Manager of Westmont Student Government, working to amplify and advocate for the voices that do not typically have a seat at the table. While my work with kingdom causes is different, some of the principles are the same.
Advocacy, awareness, and prevention are vital to both of these roles. It grieves my spirit to know that there are youth in our city being viewed as an object and exploited because of factors they have no control over. Youth should be cherished, protected, and valued, and are the pillar of life in the community and the larger Santa Barbara City. We live in a broken, fallen, and sinful world, but we don't have to disengage when things are hard. In fact, this should be our signal to lean in and use the gifts that we have been given to help love others. Board of Supervisors, please use your gifts, voice, and impact to partner with Kingdom Causes and other organizations such as NOAA's Anchorage to End the Child Sexual Exploitation of Youth in Santa Barbara City.
Thank you for your time and attention. I am hopeful that when we make room for those who have been hurt or are hurting, the world gets that much brighter. Be a part of the light, speak up, and take action. Thank you.
0:33 – 0:399 turns
Catherine Hanna to be followed by Adan Kiss, the comedian.
Hi, good morning. I'm Catherine Hanna. I'm a junior at Westmont College, also part of the KCI Fellowship Program. This past summer, I had the opportunity with working at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, and this is where my eyes were opened to the sexual exploitation of individuals, specifically children. This is also during my time there that I realized we face the same issues in Santa Barbara County that San Francisco is facing, that LA County is facing.
And so I've been drawn to also partner with KCI this semester in putting together this three-year action plan. I also have had personal close relationship and an experience with an individual who has had online sexual exploitation at an early age. This has also been a big part of my story in shaping why I care about this advocacy. During my first two months here with KCI, I've already learned so much as we've dug into systems change and what that practically looks like in a tangible way within our county.
Through my experience, I've learned that our county is three times more likely to fall into sexual, a child is three times more likely to fall into sexual exploitation than our state average of 4%. A total of 12.9% of kids in our public schools are experiencing homelessness, placing them at even greater risks for sexual exploitation. And currently, 3 out of 10 children in system care are showing signs of exploitation in our county.
Yesterday, we had the privilege to meet with Aaliyah Azarez, who she herself was in Ventura County, a system, and she experienced exploitation. She shared with us where we are identifying most of our CSECI children at a point where it is already too late. They have already been by probation or their parole officers are identifying these cases. And so our shift is to work more towards early intervention and Thank you so much for your time this morning. If you would like to stay more informed, you've already heard some of the ways you can. You are also welcome to join our monthly meetings as we kind of Work together on an action plan. It's going to be about an hour of your time every month. You're welcome to join. Let us know. Thank you.
Yeah,
thank you.
I just wanted to comment and thank you all to our speakers for being here. Thank you, Chair Nelson. Just thank you for being here, but more importantly, thank you for this work. And in particular, you know, our faith community stands up in so many important ways in Santa Barbara County, people of all different faiths. But on this issue, you really have and you really shone a light. And in particular, students from Westmont, I've just been so impressed by how you've taken hold of this issue of human trafficking and working with kingdom causes. I've been to your events, and we certainly need to do more. I know that Supervisor Hartmann has asked for, I think, an update from our public, from our district attorney, who has also been on this issue.
So thanks for being here today. We're listening very much. Thanks.
Thank you, Supervisor Capps.
We will now move to Adan Kiss, the comedian, to be followed by Karen Hauenstein.
I love everybody. Steve, thank you for your generosity. Thank you for your donation, sir. Mr. Steve was kind enough to donate to my mom's GoFundMe. I haven't seen her. She's in Africa for 20 years. Kiss the comedian. Ms. Laura Capps, I heard you're a very generous woman and you come from a good family. If you want to match Mr. Steve, gofundme.com, kiss the comedian. Thank you guys for everything you do.
Good morning, Supervisors Roy Lee, Laura Capps, Joan Hartmann, Bob Nelson, and of course, my favorite Italian man, Steve Lavagnino. My name is Adan. Some of you guys know me as Kiss the Comedian, but I'm not here as a comedian today, but a victim and a citizen. I was a client at Step Down Program Sober Living Housing here in Santa Barbara, which is owned by non-profit Good Samaritan Shelter, funded by the county taxpayers' money, federal taxpayer money, and donors.
I was wrongfully kicked out after being cursed out and threatened by non-profit Good Samaritan staff members, Ryan and John Denina. I was called every name in the book, a monkey, the N-word, African Trump supporter, and the Good Samaritan staff treating me like a deaf Hitler in genocide in Brooklyn. And they say we don't want our staff to be exposed because I posted a video on YouTube and they say you're homeless. You'll be replaced by five o'clock today by another homeless bomb and Senkai will pay us $5,000.
So I'm begging you from the bottom of my heart, do not let Good Samaritan non-profit get away with this and open an investigation. Key members of staff include Joshua Rodriguez, program manager, Donna Flores, director of the program, Ted Johnson, operations manager, If you don't believe me, ask my lawyer, Russell Brown, at RBX Law, downtown Santa Barbara. He's representing a lot of homeless people unhoused against non-profit Good Samaritan. He gets a lot of complaints about the staff and how unprofessional they are. The video audio is available on my YouTube channel, Kiss the Comedian.
And this morning on my way here, I was served with From Good Samaritan's Lawyer, I was served with a threat or a trespassing. And I guess they don't like me making comments at the board meetings. So now they're trying to shut me up. So I guess, you know, me being here is a threat to them. So I'm asking you guys to please open an investigation. They don't like when you speak up, and that's why I'm speaking up.
Nonprofit Good Samaritan. And now they won't even let me stay at the warmer shelters. And so it's just too, you know, too powerful and they think they're invisible and they can do whatever they want. So I'm begging you to open an investigation against nonprofit Good Samaritan. And Steve, thank you for your generosity. You guys are amazing. I love all of you. Thank you.
Thank you, Don.
0:39 – 0:455 turns
Karen Hallenstein to be followed by our final speaker, Renny Strong via Zoom.
And as previously mentioned, I gave Ms. Hauenstein a couple extra minutes here. So, please.
Thank you. Thank you, Board Chair and Board members. Karen Hauenstein from North County. Yes, somebody needs to investigate legitimately the billing, the Medicare billing and the unauthorized billing that's going on with Good Samaritan just because Good Samaritan is headed by A very well-liked liberal progressive person does not mean that she should be protected from being accountable.
Just like the state of California with all our homeless money that didn't go to help homeless here in Santa Barbara County either. My general comment today is in remembrance of my neighbor, Armando Isabel Perez. My neighbor, Armando Isabel Perez, was a victim of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court system, specifically Judge Staffel, when Judge Staffel was manipulated by some dirty attorneys into issuing a conservatorship against my neighbor, Armando. And let me tell you about Armando. Armando was a quiet man.
He was a loner. He wasn't married. He didn't have any children. But I got to know him very well because he lived right next to me for 30 years. And Mondo had narcolepsy, so he would fall asleep driving his car on our private road. And we would find him sleeping in his car on the side of the road, and at first we thought he was drunk. But Armando never drank, and he never took drugs.
We got to be very close friends to him, basically because he was a loner. And we watched in horror As when he became older in his 80s, his late 80s, some of his distant family members who weren't happy for not getting any of his Chumash money. See, Armando was more Chumash than anybody who exists today. He was like over two thirds Chumash blood because he had Chumash on both his mother and father's side.
In fact, I found out what Armando did for the tribe personally. Armando is one of the elders of the Chumash tribe who stood up and demanded that the Chumash tribe in San Yanez not accept the contracts. of the casino bosses from Vegas that wanted to come in. He said, no, we need to remain autonomous. We need to control our own assets. And he was the outlier and the reason why they're independent today.
But unfortunately, because he was a loner, his distant family members who weren't happy getting none of the money Because they kept on coming and asking him every year. And he would complain about it when they left. When he got dementia, they attacked him. And they enacted a conservatorship with the help of some dirty attorneys, namely an attorney named Jason Dominguez, Christy Michelon-Vazquez.
Those two attorneys knowingly framed a narrative with the court And they stole the last three years of his life. My father, my mother, and I attended him during that time. We watched in horror as he cried because he was a prisoner in his own home, couldn't spend his own money, but had to watch the money he had, $6 million of it, go to pay People he didn't know.
And that is a situation of corruption, but also one that everyone should be aware of. Armando Isabel Perez, case number 21PR00508. Again, that's case number 21 PR00508. Spirit doesn't die. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Hauenstein.
We will now move to our final speaker, Rennie Strong. Rennie?
0:45 – 0:482 turns
Fellow supervisors and human beings, constituents of the 805, This is Renny Dean Strong, born February 15th, 1971, the day after Valentine's Day. I am the son of Richard Lee Strong, two times Vietnam vet, recipient of Agent Orange by our government, and the violent that He raised myself and my two younger brothers in Glendora, California, West Covina by the Santa Barbara or Santa Barbara Mayor, actually, is where I was born in Covina there. But back on topic here, my father passed away two years ago.
And me being his first born, raised with PTSD and it's not past, it's present, it's always. So, you know, forgive some of my tactics or ways of how I come across. And I can stay on topic, but I've chosen to do things a certain way, just winging it, because people don't care enough to actually stop all the corruption. So my dad passed two years ago, not having a connection with his son because of his MKUltra brainwashed of this government that everybody has acquired, and the media and all that, and finding out truths. So yes, I'm a conspiracy theorist, a conspiracy realist, because I like to investigate. I like to look up things. I don't just trust what others tell me.
So I, again, I do this And I'm as a father and a grandfather that I don't get to be with my kids because of being ousted by everybody when I talked about COVID-1984, about the masking up, the eugenics and technocracy pushed AI in our bodies and the depopulation agendas. So, yeah, I'm a little pissed, you know, to say the least, but I have belief in us, we the people.
Again, just want to say about my mom too, Johnny Lou, Perl Slawoski, paralegal to John Yamani on Oahu. She too, you know, someone they're supposed to investigate, paralegals, the top law firm, she was the right hand superwoman. And I don't have a conversation, I don't have a connection with her either. So this, We need to stop all these agendas that are going on. We need to take back in our lives and quit bowing down to these people that do not look for your best interest.
Thank you, Mr. Strong. That is your time. All right. That concludes general public comment. I believe now we'll go to departmental item number one. We don't need to take a break, right? We're still good. All right, so Madam Clerk, will you please read departmental item number one of the record?
0:48 – 0:586 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the County Executive Office, County Health Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding sidewalk vending ordinance and pilot program and I will now invite our interpretation team to make a brief announcement. Good morning, I'm Mr. Jonathan Segal and I'm the Director of the Trustee Group. This
item will be provided for the We have a translator in the back. We have the one providing the
wireless earphones, and you can hear the whole item simultaneously in Spanish.
Thank you. All right, I believe we have Mr. Seifert. Sorry, Mr. Horton, will you go ahead and kick us off?
Good morning, Mr. Chair and Board. Wade Horton with the CEO's Office. I'm joined with Laura Seifert with County Public Health, and I'd like to thank Jason for helping us push the slides this morning as well. I'd like to acknowledge Jessie Steele with the CEO's Office for leading this effort. She couldn't be here today due to unanticipated circumstances, so I'll be presenting on her behalf.
Today's item provides an update on sidewalk vending enforcement efforts, as well as an option to adopt sidewalk vending ordinance and approve a six-month sidewalk vending pilot program, which would establish an interdepartmental enforcement team, provide storage capacity for impounded food and equipment, and implement a public awareness campaign. Since the passage of SB 946 in 2018 and SB 972 in 2022, the county has experienced an increase in sidewalk vending activity.
SB 946 decriminalized sidewalk vending and limited local enforcement authority. Local jurisdictions may adopt time, place, and manner restrictions only through a compliant ordinance, and enforcement is limited primarily to administrative fines. SB 972 created a new category of mobile food facility, Compact Mobile Food Operations, or CMFOs, allowing limited low-risk food prep. In 2025, SB 635 further restricted local authority by prohibiting local governments from collecting or sharing vendors' criminal history.
While these laws were intended to promote entrepreneurship and economic opportunity, they also limited local regulatory tools and led to an increase in unlawful operations. From May 2023 through January 2026, Environmental Health Services issued 223 notices of violation to vendors lacking required health permits and committing other infractions. Many vendors cited may legally refuse to provide identification, which complicates enforcement and fine collection.
Public health and safety concerns include food board illness, unsanitary food handling, roadside vending along highways 154 and 246, creating traffic hazards, open flame cooking in high hazard areas, and illegal dumping of grease and waste. On March 4th, 2025, your board directed staff to convene a task force, draft an ordinance, return with an implementation plan, develop a public awareness campaign, and engage the legislative program committee and state lobbyists.
The county submitted a letter to Senator DeRoza regarding SB 635, and your board's adopted 2026 ledge platform affirms support for effective local licensing and enforcement that protects both vendor livelihoods and customer health and safety. The CEO's office convened a task force including Environmental Health and Safety, County Council, County Fire, the District Attorney of Public Works, and the Sheriff's Office.
The task force met in April and May 2025 and developed the proposed ordinance and pilot framework. We also coordinated with the CHP who agreed to collaborate and enforce vending prohibitions and state freeway rights away. The proposed ordinance regulates sidewalk vending within the unincorporated area. It requires a seller's permit, business license, and if selling food, a health permit.
It limits vending to paved sidewalks and pedestrian paths intended for pedestrian travel. It establishes standards for equipment, location, hours, sanitation, and prohibited sales. It authorizes administrative warnings and fines and allows impoundment and disposal of food and equipment that cannot be safely stored or are perishable. Adopting the ordinance would clarify definitions, locations, hours, and impoundment authority.
If not adopted, the county remains under status quo authority under Health and Safety Code Section 114393, which allows impoundment of unsanitary food and equipment, but does not provide operational capacity for consistent equipment impoundment. And I'll turn it over to Lars to discuss more about the intent of the proposed ordinance.
Good morning. The intent of the proposed sidewalk ordinance before you today is to support lawful vendors and protect public health. It's not to eliminate sidewalk vending. The ordinance does create a clear and accessible pathway for vendors to operate lawfully, for selling low-risk packaged food, for fruit carts or fruteros, Palateros or ice cream carts or other similar compact mobile food carts or stands.
Small push carts and similar non-motorized operations consistent with state size requirements would remain eligible for permitting. However, high-risk operations, including pop-up restaurants using overhead canopies and open flame grills to cook raw meat, would not be permitted by Environmental Health Services. Given recent community concerns, I do want to also emphasize that the county does not collect or share vendors' citizenship status during health permitting or inspections. It's just not considered as part of the process.
Also, to ensure transparency, outreach team members that will be implementing this ordinance will clearly identify themselves as county staff and will not obscure their identity in any way. Next slide. In the recommendations today, staff are also proposing a six-month pilot program to effectively implement the sidewalk vending ordinance. The planned outreach team would include two to four environmental health staff, existing staff that would include typically bilingual members as well, two public work staff, and one deputy sheriff.
Each of the compliance events planned would target three to five vendors, with up to 15 outreach events occurring over six months, mostly in the North County and Santa Ana's locations where violations have been concentrated. Environmental health staff would inspect, take food temperatures, bag and inventory contaminated food, and issue notices of violations.
Public works would transport and store impounded equipment at the Santa Maria road yard, and the deputy sheriff would be present for safety and to prevent or to de-escalate any situations that might arise. The total cost of the pilot program proposed today is $42,022.10 to be funded from the general fund litigation fund balance. And this includes a little over $32,522 in staff overtime for 15 compliance events, $7,500 for two 40-foot storage containers for impounded equipment, and $2,000 for a chest freezer for impounded food storage.
Equipment would be stored for 15 to 30 days and unclaimed equipment would be destroyed pursuant to the ordinance. Without these appropriations, the county would lack the storage capacity and staffing necessary to logistically implement equipment impound. The second component of the proposed pilot program is a public awareness campaign. The campaign will inform the public of health risks associated with unlawful vending and discourage patronage of non-compliant operations.
The county's public information officer will conduct a digital and earned media campaign during the pilot project using existing appropriations where feasible. As there are sidewalk vendors who may be operating outside of the established food safety system, it's helpful for consumers to be able to identify safe local eating options. As a sample, the County Communications Office has developed a public service announcement to help the public understand the risks of buying food at unpermitted food vendors, and I'll play that for you now.
0:58 – 1:055 turns
Before you take a bite, take a look. Some sidewalk food vendors operate without permits, inspections, or basic food safety protections like refrigeration and hand washing. That puts you and your family at risk for foodborne illnesses. Santa Barbara County reminds you to choose food vendors who display a valid health permit.
Also as part of developing this ordinance and pilot project, we did hold a stakeholder meeting in Santa Maria with vendors, non-profits, food facility operators, and city representatives. That was at the end of January, January 30th. Most of the feedback that we received came from permitted business owners in the Santa Maria area who expressed concerns about unlawful vendors and not paying taxes or obtaining permits, creating unfair competition.
They also raise concerns about unintended consequences of the state laws incentivizing continued non-compliance.
So today your board may consider two options. Option one is to adopt the ordinance and approve funding for the pilot program, or option two is to maintain the status quo. Under the status quo, EH, Environmental Health and Safety will continue inspections and impound contaminated food, but without the expanded capacity for equipment impoundment. Here are the options. We recommend actions for option one, proceeding with the ordinance and the pilot. The pilot would run April through October 2026, and would require a budget revision with four-fifths approval.
As a conclusion, staff would evaluate outcomes, consult the task force, and return to your board with any recommended ordinance amendments or program adjustments. And here are the recommended actions for status quo option two. That concludes our presentation, and we are available for questions.
Alright questions from the board, Supervisor
Hartmann. Well first of all I really appreciate the work that the task force did and I gather you were able to do a lot with just a few meetings and so really appreciate that. I guess my main issue in the district that I represent is the pop-up restaurants. And I want to make absolutely clear that those are not permittable. They're not allowed. And so we somehow have to get that messaging out there. The laws were designed for low risk food, not flames, open flames and pop-up restaurants. And yet those are what we're seeing. We primarily see them on state highways and I am so very grateful for the California Highway Patrol and particularly Lieutenant Bronson who has now been promoted and for good reason he identified statutes Thank you very much.
And one of the places where it's all along Highway 154 which we all know SPCAG has a Highway 154 Safety Committee because we see so many accidents there and setting up along that road is very difficult because people are pulling in and out. But even more alarming to me is that they set up across from the Santa Ynez High School and Kids aren't always the most thoughtful, even adults aren't, but it's really an attractive nuisance there. And it's not simply, they're not there so much during school hours, but they're there during athletic events, they're there for plays and musical concerts and, you know, any evening activity, they're right across the street. We had a tragic death of a girl at that intersection.
It was before the pop-up restaurants, but it makes the entire community hypersensitive about the risks associated with putting an attractive nuisance right across the street. So I would like to see our ordinance include a provision that says not by schools. As I understand it, the state law doesn't specifically say that that's an area, but some attorneys from Ventura in a forum did identify certain areas as high risk and that it's appropriate to have time, place, and manner, and that's place restrictions. And so I would like to see that added to the ordinance, and if possible, work on that language And trail the item and come back at the end of the day. Because again, this is one of the issues that our office gets the most calls on. Because again, people are very concerned about the people.
There's another school right behind where they set up. It's an elementary school, but they're also having evening events. And it's just a bad location. So anyway, I'd like to get that out there for you to consider sooner rather than later, and I'll have a lot more comments as we go along. I think if we do adopt the new ordinance, I think it goes a long way to helping us with additional authorities I just want to make it clear from the outset this board, before some of our newer members, has worked really hard to create entrepreneurship opportunities for people who want to become business people.
We have the microenterprise home kitchen, and there was a lot of controversy around that, but we adopted that, and that is an opportunity for people to create restaurants in their homes and be permitted and kind of build up. We've been very supportive of permitted food trucks. But this is not permittable, and to just turn our eyes away from it is, we can't do that.
Then the issue is, what if they move from the state highway, which they do, around the corner on county roads? It's not a paved sidewalk, so they're not allowed to be there, but the question is, who enforces? And so that's a question you may have some ideas about, but I'd like to come back to.
1:05 – 1:1322 turns
Staff.
Mr. Seifert. Thank you, Supervisor Hartmann, through the chair. Just to point out, there is in the ordinance right now, there is a restriction that has been added within 500 feet of any permitted event or any school during school hours and within 30 minutes before or after the school's opening or closing. So just to put that out there, that is in there. I think council may be able to opine or at least consider Other options to that as we go along, but I did want to just point that out that there is that restriction that is included in the ordinance.
And that's terrific, but I think again, it's the football games. They typically don't come until dinnertime, and there's a lot of activities that are happening at the high school, you know, till late evening.
We agree that it is a safety risk and we've been focusing on that one particular, especially during school events, because that is an issue of concern.
Yeah, I'll jump in and I'll concur with Supervisor Hartmann that I see it in there around those requirements of when children are present. With children present at night, but it might be just helpful just to say not within 500 feet of the school if that's, if there's a legality there because you never know what kind of event is potentially going to be there and by the very nature of our school.
I think that might help satisfy if we in fact move forward with the ordinance. That might be a quick fix that satisfies Supervisor Hartmann's concern. My questions, actually, I see some of my colleagues got their lights on, so they'll go ahead to Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Capps, and then I'll have a few questions. Supervisor Lee. Thank
you, Chair. Can you talk about the outreach you had with any cities about this ordinance, or has there been?
Through the process, Supervisor Lee, through the Chair, we've met with individuals and also advocates for sidewalk vending for and against throughout since these laws were developed. And we did a lot of outreach initially with their local environmental health agency for implementing the compact mobile food operations and that permitting process. For this ordinance specifically, we did have a stakeholder meeting that was located in Santa Maria, but it was sent out the notice to all of our permitted businesses and environmental health About 5,000 businesses were notified of that stakeholder meeting. So we we did notify as many people as we could throughout the county to participate in that and that was actually a hybrid meeting so people could join on zoom if they were not located in that vicinity.
Okay. I've also had discussions with the county city managers and we've we've talked about the coordination from this effort and
Got it. The reason why I bring it out is that cities might have different policies from the counties. So that I want to make sure that we're consistent uniform in our approach to sidewalk vending because in my district I see vendors that will jump from state to county to city line and they know how to play the game of how to how to deal with us and enforcement. So I'll make sure that we are on the same page and having outreach and their input will be crucial into the success of these ordinance. Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Leopold. And through the chair, just to follow up on that, there is other cities that we've looked at as part of the development of the ordinance that do have also their local sidewalk vending ordinances. We have Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, and I believe Solvang has a sidewalk vending ordinance as well. So that was looked at for consistency as part of the development of this ordinance.
Thank you. Supervisor Hartmann has an addition.
In answer to your question, we did actually have a presentation made before SB CAG so that we had an opportunity just to share with all the representatives of the cities and Mayor Rouse has been very much involved in this. He's a former restaurant owner and This is an issue that he hears a lot about from his constituents in the City of Santa Barbara, and the same with Mayor Patino in Santa Maria, where we've heard even more directly from businesses. So there has been loose coordination. The task force was mainly internal, but they have a bit coordinated. But there's more work to be done going forward.
All right. Thank you. Supervisor Capps.
Yeah, thank you. I don't have, I actually just have one question because there's been so much work brought forward by Supervisor Hartmann and her team and the staff and this task force, starting with the SB CAG work that was brought forward in that hearing as well as the other hearing that we had on this. And during that hearing, it was mentioned and discussed that Ventura County had some work, had done some work on this. And so as we always try to learn from others that have preceded the work, I just am curious if anything that this task force had gleaned from the work of Ventura County since they started this work ahead of us. Just wondering if we've learned any good lessons from them.
Through the Chair, staff actually, we did attend a full day seminar put on at Ventura County to learn their lessons learned and incorporate as much of the information from their process into our process. So they've actually been very helpful in coordinating with us as we have developed our proposed ordinance.
Great. Good to hear. Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Hartmann.
If I might elaborate because I had exactly that question and Gina Fisher, who's worked heroically on this issue. So I'm just going to read you what she said. Ventura County was ahead of us on this issue. And we've learned a lot from watching their experience. Just as they were getting close to finalizing their pilot program, they ran into some unanticipated issues. First, they were planning to rely on a third party for education and enforcement. That required going through a full procurement process to get contracts in place. That process took substantially longer than they anticipated, and it delayed their rollout. The activity in Ventura's unincorporated areas naturally started to decrease given the national situation, so the urgency of the county's jurisdiction lessened somewhat, which slowed momentum.
And third, and this is important, it took Ventura County longer than it took us to determine that much of the problematic activity that they were seeing explicitly was unlawful on state highways. And so we were able early on with Lieutenant Bronson to learn about the CHP authority. So they've been watching us and trying to work with their CHP to do that. So what we understand is We've leapfrogged and now Ventura is looking to us to see what we are doing with our ordinance and possibly going to follow up.
Wow, that sounds great. I really appreciate
the video. Good
job. My questions have to do with, so what we're talking about these pop-up stands and they're illegal before and they're illegal after ordinance. Is that right? Do I understand that correctly?
Yes, that's correct.
Okay, so I guess I'm trying to understand from a staff perspective What's going to be different, you know, after this ordinance passed? What tools are going to be available that you guys don't have now to go out there and do enforcement on these illegal restaurants?
1:13 – 1:1910 turns
Super Chair Nelson, I think the biggest part of this ordinance is really defining then basically what a sidewalk is, what's not a sidewalk, where they can be. It's the time, place and location restrictions. So this would not necessarily Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Impetus behind it is basically making sure that it's very clear where a sidewalk vendor can operate and what is not considered a sidewalk vendor. That helps in our enforcement and it gives us more impetus for a coordinated response.
But it's been clear. I mean this has been an issue for two years predominantly throughout the county. I'll get back to you Supervisor Hartmann. But it's been clear that this is something that's a pop-up restaurant. We've known it's illegal for the last two years and That doesn't change. It's not more illegal after this. It's just something where we haven't been able to get our arms around enforcement. Is that what I'm kind of understanding here?
We're hoping that something's going to be different after this
hearing. Chair Nelson, what it also does, it creates capacity. So now we have, we can now confiscate equipment and we have a place to store it. And part of it is going after the bad actors, the repeat offenders, and targeting those hotspots. And the ability to confiscate equipment, that is something that's an expanded opportunity with the ordinances. That's a tool that we haven't necessarily had
currently. So we did or did not have the ability to confiscate equipment before this ordinance?
So as I understand it, Lars can correct me, if there's an immediate danger to health and safety, if the equipment is directly tied to food preparation, it can be confiscated, but we don't have a place to store it, confiscated equipment. We didn't have a means to get it there and what this ordinance does and the resources that your board would be allocating was provide a storage location, provide the C-trains in order for us to store that equipment, and then a means to dispose of that equipment if it's not reclaimed.
So it's giving more tools in the toolbox.
Sure. I'm just, I guess I'm frustrated. I offered to pay out of my office funds a year ago to do that exact work. And I'm just trying to figure out, I knew we needed to go through this process here, I guess, but I guess we're at the same spot that we were a year ago. And I guess what's difficult for people out there is that this is a longstanding problem and we've known about it. We have enforcement tools already in place.
We had offers, you know, we have lots of facilities to store this stuff. We've had Laguna Sanitation. We have the yard in Santa Maria. We have lots of places to store this type of stuff. I'm just, again, appreciative of the work to get to here, but I'm also frustrated that it's taken so long for us to get here. You know, this is a problem that continues to persist, and I think it all comes down to enforcement, and so I'm glad that we're going to give some additional funds to staff to do that.
I am frustrated that we've taken so long to get here. I think I've offered a long time ago to bring in a budget adjustment for this. I'm not sure why it's taken us so long to actually do the enforcement that we need to on our actual rules and I don't see a lot changing from this item moving forward. I guess maybe there's a little bit on the radar, but at the end of the day, you know, people will do unlawful activity if we don't Do enforcement. We see it with homelessness, with encampments, and the same thing. It needs a level of enforcement and coordination. And I know that we have that we're siloed out because we have Sheriff's Department and Environmental Health and Public Works and CHP and board offices. But I think that at some point we have to not have to have it come up to this level for enforcement to take place because it's hugely important that this stuff get taken care of early and often because we don't take care of it early and often.
This is where we get to having such issues. throughout our county. So glad that we're going to do something here. I just wish that in the future that we kind of move this along quicker and not have to add so much bureaucracy and conversation about it. And we know it's wrong. It was wrong before. It's going to be wrong in the future. Let's deal with it. So Supervisor Hartmann.
Well, I really appreciate that you feel that this is an important issue, too. And I just wanted to explain, I think, yes, we need the people to go out and actually enforce and we need the places to put the confiscated food and equipment. But I think having a tightened up ordinance is really important to know what is a sidewalk and where on a sidewalk you can be.
In my area, people will move to county roads that are in the right of way that isn't paved. So now we're really clear, you can't be there. And our ordinance supports that. So I think there's been a lot of work done creating this ordinance that's consistent with state law And clarifies what we can and can't do. But these
aren't sidewalk vendors though, right?
Some of them are, Bonsai and...
Okay, but what we're talking about here though is the sidewalk vending and versus the pop-up restaurants. And those pop-up restaurants are illegal whether they're on a sidewalk or on a, say, highway, right?
1:19 – 1:2411 turns
Yes, that's correct, Chair Nelson, and this ordinance would also then reiterate or emphasize that it's not a sidewalk that they're operating and basically you're outside of what the protections that have been afforded by the state laws would provide.
And I, you know, I've been very sympathetic. I mean, it happens in my district as well. I think we've had a little bit more success because we've actually, I think we've had a little bit more enforcement in our area. And I don't know exactly why, but maybe I have some ideas why. But that's led to most of it going away in the 4th District because of the ongoing enforcement. And so that actually leads me to the next question. How many enforcement actions have we done over the last year since we were at the board?
Chair Nelson, we did look back in our enforcement logs and I thank you for your support and also, you know, helping facilitate the additional enforcement efforts that have been taken so far. Since March 4th and the board action to convene a task force and take these actions, There's been about 58 inspection events. These are typically after hours and on weekends. 129 notices of violations have been issued with direction to cease operating, and over 4,200 pounds of meat have been impounded over that period of time, so the last year. And we've really actually With the board support and the support that we've been getting from law enforcement, we've been able to increase the amount of impoundments and seizures and we've seen that to good effect.
We actually have a number of Roadside vendors that have no longer been operating and we see that the activity decline. However, it's a continuing effort and this would, I think, be part of that taking that next step to tackle the ones that have not been cooperative in ceasing operations.
And so I guess that's where 59, you know, enforcement actions or, you know, shifts in the last year is about one a week. And I think really what and I hope that comes out of whatever we do today is that we hit them hard, we hit them early, we hit them often because I really think that if we are front loaded with that and then we just do some maintenance just like again going back to our homeless encampments like the riverbed you know if you actually go out there and deal with the issue with you know shocking off you if necessary I think you're able to you know see the trajectory change the message gets out there this isn't a lot of fun for people who potentially are doing business out there so I really want to hopefully that you know you guys front load some of this expense you know maybe we're going out five days a week maybe we're going out on the weekend But I think the message gets out there when it's no longer fun, when you have all your stuff confiscated.
So really supportive of that and any funds that we can support you with, I'm definitely on board with. Thank you. All right, Supervisor Lavagnino.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to get clarification for people that are watching from home. How does this apply to corporated city folks inside of our cities?
Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair. Environmental Health actually conducts this enforcement throughout the unincorporated county and the cities. We've been spending actually a lot of time cooperating with the city of Santa Maria to conduct enforcement outreach with a city of Santa Maria code enforcement and their police department. And so we actually do those efforts under our current authorities under Environmental Health in the cities as well.
So that's just, is that just food safety though? Because, I mean, in our, inside the ordinance, it says that staff proposed to regulate sidewalk vending within the unincorporated area. So I'm just curious what the difference is. I mean, I know you guys are going and looking at food safety on those, but is that also something that would also fall within our enforcement where we'd be able to go ahead and confiscate inside of a city limits?
Supervisor Lavagnino, so the proposed ordinance is for the unincorporated area of the county. However, Lars and his team does coordinate and enforce in conjunction with the cities, and they would be enforcing their ordinance under the statutes that Lars has under the environmental health safety laws. Got it.
Thank you.
So when you confiscate these meats, do you know how many pounds of meat do you take back with you? Is it 50 pounds, 100 pounds?
Yes, Supervisor Lee through the chair. Over the last year, that's the statistics I gave was about 4,200 pounds over the last year that we've impounded and that basically some of that is voluntary discarded by the operator if they don't ever decide that they want to Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
1:24 – 1:3014 turns
And do you ask them where they got the meats from?
Yes, we do as part of our inspection. Basically, that's one of the determinations, whether it's been obtained from an approved source, and also whether they've kept it in proper temperatures, maintained it where it's been. And most of these roadside vendors, we've determined that it's a potential suspect contamination, and so that gets seized or discarded.
So do you go after people who supply them with the meats? Because it's unusual for somebody to go to a restaurant. I mean, a market asks for 50 pounds of beef, right? So if we can somehow work with the suppliers and not sell to these vendors, they are not going to sell. Some way we can work policy around that. Because all you need is a county health permit to show them that.
We find that many of the meat products are brought in from out of county area, and so it's difficult for us to go back to the source. But where we do identify a source, and if it's not approved through USDA or FDA, then we would follow up appropriately with the state agencies.
At least we can do here in our county. Yeah. So, good.
I've got one more question for you. Have we confiscated any equipment at this time, or has it just been food product?
Chair Nelson, it's been primarily food at this point in time. There's been some utensils and serving containers, but it's primarily food.
And have we had any vendor come back requesting their food or materials?
Chair Nelson, we've had one vendor that has requested a hearing to reclaim their adulterated meats.
Excellent, okay. That's very seldom. It's a rare, it's about 2% of the time. Okay, thank you. All right, I think at this time, any more comments from staff before we head to public comment? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you go ahead and start public comment? Let's go ahead and close public comment for additional speakers at this time.
Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have seven requests to speak. We will begin in Santa Barbara with Lourdes Luna and Joanna Luna.
Ms. Luna.
Good morning Board of Supervisors. My name is Lourdes Luna. I live in Santa Maria. My family has owned a restaurant in Santa Maria for 34 years and while we appreciate the I really think they need to reconsider a lot more before releasing floodgates. This has severely affected many restaurants who are not here, who are too afraid to speak because they're afraid of retaliation, but this has affected our community alone in Santa Maria.
Many restaurants are at the brink of almost wanting to close down because business has gone down significantly. While we respect entrepreneurship, this is just not sustainable. The fact that you're talking about meat, you don't know where it comes from, I'm sorry, that's disgusting. A restaurant, you can trace our receipts. You can trace where we get, who our vendors are.
And last night alone, I watched a video on YouTube because I've been doing a lot of research here. 4,200 restaurants alone in 2025, just in San Diego County, have shut down. It's already hard enough to run a business in this state alone, not just Santa Barbara County, but now we're competing with this. It's almost a slap in the face. Restaurants have employed the community. It's taken my family out of poverty. My family worked in the fields for many years before they opened this restaurant. It brought us out of poverty, it brought out other people.
We have employees that are still like family to us because that's how long we've been in business. So we ask to please really think of what you're doing. I mean, you guys are not really Thank you. And I'm sorry, there's not more representation here because again, our Hispanic community is afraid to speak out out of retaliation of how the community is going to accuse them of horrible things that are taking place right now. But everyone is concerned about their livelihood because everyone's livelihoods are at stake. And again, we are at the point where people are Thinking of closing down businesses which would again take taxes. It would take so many financial resources away from our communities.
Thank you. That's all I have to say right now. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Luna.
1:30 – 1:364 turns
Joanna Luna to be followed by Ernesto Martinez. Hello, my name is Joanna. I am here also speaking. It's our mother's restaurant, and we are against this ordinance that they're trying to place because, as we've said, it is already hard enough to Right now, we understand there's micro kitchens, which they get their permits, which we understand that's okay. They're doing that. But people have gone to the point where they have an entire restaurant in their backyard, and I brought photos from social media because people like to make TikToks about these restaurants, and the way they promote them, they say, we're going to this prohibition-style restaurant. We're going to this speakeasy restaurant.
And you have people selling seafood. They sell alcohol, which obviously is not legal if you don't have a permit. We have to go through permits. We have to pay all our things, which it's not easy to pay. I brought receipts of what we pay just alone in our, you know, our permits and stuff, over $800 of what we have to pay, which it's not easy because business is not necessarily booming.
And it's just, it's very sad to see that they want to make an ordinance where you can sell it of a sidewalk, which also that sidewalk ordinance says that it's allowed in a residential area from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., which also brings safety concerns. If you're selling in a residential area, We already have enough accidents happening. Just this weekend alone in Santa Maria, there was two pedestrian accidents where two people died because they got hit by a car.
And you want to bring in business into a mobile cart where you're going to have People drive up. People can, if you're in a residential area, you're going to have children in, you know, on their bikes or, you know, just enjoying their day. What if somebody drives by? You know, it's just not, it's not a safe way to handle this situation and also it's just, Another problem that's adding to what we already have, the City of Santa Maria, we're very affected by it because there's various amounts of restaurants that are in backyards and they, of course, they set up after 5 o'clock and only on weekends because they know that nobody's going to do anything about it. So maybe instead of adding a budget to the ordinance, maybe they can add to the overtime of maybe working on weekends and after hours.
Thank you.
We remain here with Ernesto Martinez to be followed by Efren Alvarez in Santa Maria. Ernesto?
Good morning. Well, I'm just going to try to be really quick. I'm going to refer to you like the word frustrated. And I want to talk on behalf of all the restaurants in Santa Maria. We've been in business for more than 30 years. There's quite a bit of restaurants that have been in business for more than 30 years. I can name a few of them. So we're frustrated about I get a visit from the Health Department, there's going to be $250 for their visit. I get a visit from the Fire Department, another $250 for the visit of the Fire Department. And I'm asking myself, okay, how many of these restaurants that are like, you can see one on this block, you can see another one on the next block, and they're, instead of, he said, they're decreasing. They're not decreasing, they're increasing.
Why? Because there's no respect in the city no more. City of Santa Maria, they don't respect the health department. They don't respect the police department. I'm sorry if I'm talking like this, but they don't have any respect. People don't have any respect. Why? Because they're allowing everything. If you're my neighbor, you can say, okay, would you like to have a restaurant next to you? Probably not.
You or you, your house. It's a mess over there. Parking spaces, everything. They're taking everything. Why? Because there's no more respect in Santa Maria. I believe, you know, when I, when I used to see a health department inspector come to my place, man, I got to have everything in place. I mean, everything. Or I get a citation. What do they get? All the freedom. They can do everything. They can do anything they want. Basically, at this point of time, they can do anything they want. Because there is no more respect in Santa Maria.
I would like you guys to see if you can do anything. Talk to the health department, talk to the fire department. I just had a fire inspection. Even the firemen, the fire guy that went, he said, go hard on them. Even on us, because we're not doing our job. See, there's people with propane tanks on the streets. Everything. So I would ask you please to really take in consideration all the things that are going in Santa Maria, kind of go through it and see if you can do anything to help us go out of business. Because where we're going, pretty soon Santa Maria, the old restaurants are going to go out of business.
Thank you.
Thank you.
1:36 – 1:4122 turns
Efren Alvarez to be followed by Jason Aguilar and these are both in Santa Maria.
Buenos dias, buenos dias. Soy el dueño de los restaurantes Efren y pues vengo a dar mi opinión acerca de lo It's very expensive right now to open a business. It takes
about two to three years to get all the permits completed.
And that is illegal competition. A lot of our businesses we are planning to close. We have to pay taxes, employees, insurance, workers' comp.
Our bills
are
quite high. All type of insurances.
You probably have seen that a lot of the businesses have been closing and some of us are going to close. Why? Because a lot of permits are being given out. So you're giving licenses to people to sell in their houses. They
can sell cheaper. They don't pay insurance. They don't pay employees.
The health department requires from us inspections, refrigeration, walking coolers.
We'll appreciate if the city
can do something
about it because we, the businesses, are suffering. For four months now, I'm not doing business, doing well in business.
The last business I just opened cost me over a million dollars to open it. We are now online. We appreciate if you can do something for us.
We are the ones
who pay the taxes. We are the ones who follow the laws. We are the ones who follow the rules. Thank
you very much. I'm not against anybody, but that is the situation. Thank you
very
much. Thank you very much.
We will now move to Jason Aguilar to be followed by Angeles de Puebla.
I'm here today as a concerned resident and owner slash operator of my family's restaurant of 30 years in Santa Maria. I'm here to bring to your attention the continued use issue of illegal food vendors operating and also out of private homes in our community abusing the micro home kitchen program. While I support entrepreneurship and community-based incentives, these unregulated operations pose significant threats to our public safety, and Fair Business Practices. I urge the Board to investigate and take appropriate enforcement actions to address this problem.
First and foremost, many of these home-based vendors have been known to be serving alcohol without necessary licenses or oversight. This not only violates state and local alcohol regulations, but it also creates a high risk of unknowingly serving minors. Additionally, these vendors are often set up numerous chairs and tables in confined residential spaces, such as backyards, garages, leaving little to no room for safe egress in case of an emergency.
This overcrowding can lead to tragic outcomes during a fire, if there's a medical problem, This legitimate food businesses have to undergo rigorous inspections by the fire department, health department, just like all of my other business owners have said already. I respectfully request that the board and the county and all the agencies get together and start working together to figure out a way to like get a solution for this.
That's all for today. Thank you. Thank
you.
1:41 – 1:4934 turns
We will go to Ángeles de Puebla, which is Miguel Grisanto in Santa María.
Buenos días. Yo soy de Ángeles de Puebla. Y no vengo a exigir nada, simplemente... Un
momentito, Ángeles. Yo soy tu intérprete. Escuches? Yo soy tu intérprete. Habla, haz una pausa, y yo interpreto para ti. Gracias.
I come from Ángeles de Puebla. I'm not
demanding anything. Like any, like my buddy Fred,
we all have the right to make our business right. I just want to let you know a little bit
of
what I have seen and what I have observed. Like this he said,
they're opening business at home, they're doing ambulatory business.
Right now there are three businesses that are working at home just like it was a restaurant.
Adelante. What are they paying? They don't pay anything. Like Efren says,
we are up to the top
of
our heads
into bills.
The problem that Efren is having is not just Efren, but I have been for four or five months, no business coming up.
The
expenses are very high and strong. I'm working with my wife, my kid, and another worker. I had to lay off
three or four of my
employees right now. I have them
for three or four or five hours during the weekend. They're not going to be able to support their own families
without.
In the meeting we had a while ago, all of us said, hey, it would be better for us to be food vendors in the streets.
The health department is not going to like that. See, personally,
myself, I'm right on the level of doing just that.
I'm not against anybody. I'm in order of a restaurant. I have two lunch trucks.
But I'm not willing to stay the way it is. I'm going to give up on the lunch trucks. I'm going to give up the restaurant and just go to be a street vendor.
I pay taxes on my restaurants. I pay taxes on my lunch trucks. People have lunch trucks they're not even paying. These
meetings take place, something is going to be done, nothing ever is done.
That's what I'm saying.
We have to do something, but we have to do something together. That's
all. In short, this is what I can explain to you. Thank you.
We will now move to our final speaker via Zoom, Tracy Beard. Tracy.
My name is Tracy Beard. I'm the Executive Director for the Solvang Chamber of Commerce. I'm also an advocate to make sure that we have equity for all, but we don't have equity right now with our vendors that are paying taxes. The Health Department needs to do their job correctly. On the 24th of November, the 25th of November, there was a dead animal directly across the street from the high school. They set up shop, people did, to be street vending on The animal was moved across down the path. We have no toilets, no toilet paper. We have no hand washing stations.
And I have the right to say this. Cesar has given me permission. He has paid $22,000, Highway West Tacos, to put up his location. And everybody is right around him. This is started with micro kitchens. They have 30 food a day, 50 a week or 50,000. Where is the oversight there? We see them starting to set up at 630 every evening. They're there till midnight, Wednesday through Sunday, most of the time. If a product is put into a refrigerator, it must be put in correctly, temperatured right. If a meat is put on the wrong shelf and it is dripping, the health department will find our restaurants. We want to have We want to have safety in our restaurants, and we want to have safety out there. There is no safety out there for anyone. For people that think there is and they're eating, we set up festivals, fairs, events.
All nonprofits pull permits. They pull a one-day vendor fee. They pull a three-day vendor fee from the health department. We pay for this correctly. We've had KAYIT out there to show that these things are happening, open flames every weekend. This is a catastrophe happening continuously. Supervisor Nelson and Supervisor Hartmann are correct. This must stop. We don't have sidewalks. We don't have anything in the Valley except in the city areas or the communities. And this is where they are, right outside the casino, a block away that is part of Caltrans parking station. They are on 154. They are on Robar Road. They are three different places on the weekend.
Nobody's even out there looking at it. I am taking pictures consistently. This is something that I really, truly believe. This is equity for your taxpayers that are paying the restaurants that you can follow the chain, the food chain, the supply chain. You cannot do that anywhere. Just confiscate and get rid of these All right, back to the board.
1:49 – 1:5417 turns
Staff, do you have any responses? I definitely have some questions based on their comments, but do you have any responses that you guys like to
provide? Just a response generally to public comment. I want the public to understand that We're somewhat handcuffed what we can do here as far as the county can't just outlaw sidewalk vending. It's state law. We have to permit it. What this ordinance does is it's trying to constrain it. And so I do think this ordinance moves in the direction that the public is advocating for is more control, more regulation over these sidewalk vendors.
Thank you, Mr.
Horton. I have a couple of questions because I think we're getting confused here is sidewalk vending versus what the public's concerned about, which is illegal restaurant activity that we're not doing enforcement on, right? That's that's the problem here.
Chair Nelson, I would actually, just to highlight, we do, Environmental Health does respond to those complaints. We do the enforcement. We actually have, if we're aware of those, we do go out and actually do the enforcement. Microenterprise home kitchen operations do require a permit. They do get inspected. They do have requirements as far as how they prepare and store food. And there's limitations on what they can do. And so if there is instances where that's not occurring, I invite the public to please let us know so that we can follow up and enforce.
Okay, so we will enforce if we're made aware. Is that my understanding?
Yes.
And so I guess one of the questions, especially with this item we have today, is about using overtime. And what I think I'm hearing from the public is a lot of this stuff happens after five o'clock. I guess my question is how big is your enforcement team? Is there thought about maybe actually having some shifts that are evening shifts in the Environmental Health Department to start to actually deal with this issue so we don't have to incur overtime?
That's, Chair Nelson, that's certainly something that we can look into. We have expended a considerable amount of overtime over the last year, probably close to 500 hours of overtime because of these illegal activities occurring after hours and on weekends. And so we regularly do have staff that are out in the evenings and on weekends when we're aware of a situation and we'll follow up with it.
But we just passed some fee ordinances that allow to pay for all this disenforcement activity, right? That's my understanding. Enforcement activity comes out of the fees of the people that are actually following the laws?
A portion of it that is paid for by permits does cover unpermitted activities. However, we also have designation funds and some other funds that we've been using to offset that.
So would we potentially save costs by having a shift that was at in the evening potentially environmental health? Is that something that we could Ask your staff to look into it. It seems like the bigger problem than just the unincorporated area because I think that's what's going to happen here is that everybody that talked here, what we're doing here today actually will have no effect on them, right, because they're in the city, right?
Environmental health regulates, but you're right, our ordinance today is about the unincorporated area and just to let the public know the City of Santa Maria also has an ordinance on street vendors, very similar to ours. So they already have an ordinance and just to remind the City of Santa Maria, just like our planning department, they regulate businesses, illegal businesses, permitting, all of that as well. So that's another avenue.
But City of Santa Maria would need county public health as part of that enforcement activity?
If it's related to the activities that EHS regulates, correct, but I'm just saying there's been a lot of conversation about businesses, illegal businesses, and I just want to remind the public, just like our planning department, we will be regulating that on the zoning, the permitting, whether the building is appropriate, all of those things.
Okay, I hear that, but I mean these are environmental health issues that all these people in City of Santa Maria are talking about. They may need There are law enforcement, city police, probably maybe their public works department, but they would probably need to be accompanied by county public health or environmental health at some point to do actual enforcement.
Chair Nelson, the code enforcement of City of Santa Maria is pretty active and does respond to these complaints and so they don't necessarily need us. However, we typically will coordinate actions when it involves unpermitted food actions. Well, I think that's what we're all talking about. I mean, But they will respond without environmental health where their local municipal codes allow them to.
But you guys have public safety powers, right, because of health and safety issues, right? So you guys have some tools that they don't necessarily have on just pure code enforcement?
1:54 – 2:0927 turns
I'm not as familiar with some of the city code enforcement tools that they have, but they actually have some citation authority as well that we do not currently have. And so they've been able to employ that where they can.
But like the confiscation of meat and equipment, that's something that we have through environmental health.
Yeah, if they were if they were wanting to do that under the health and safety code, then they would bring us in.
So after this meeting, the city of Sandbury reaches out to us and says, hey, we want to do some similar enforcement actions. How does that conversation go?
Chair Nelson, we do work with the City of Santa Maria. It's frequently in the Santa Maria area that we're working with them and then incorporated the same night just because the vendors don't adhere to a jurisdictional line. So, yeah, we interact directly with their code enforcement and or police and as well as a sheriff on those that go between in the general area of Santa Maria.
So we're hearing that we're doing it but we're also hearing from the public and actually I think just the site test is that we're failing at this point. So it sounds like is that because we need more enforcement?
Chair Nelson, it's I think from what we've heard from the public today, there may be some instances in which we were not aware of that and we'd be happy to follow up on it. But as far as other instances, we've been very effective in following up where we've been brought in and there's been a concern about permitting. So it's hard to quantify what is not addressed here, but that is certainly a concern for us. And if we are Contacted and made aware. We'd be more than happy to reach out and we'd be more than happy to coordinate with them to address their issues that they've brought up today.
Okay, so I think they brought this up a year ago when they were before us. They brought it up to us at SPCAG. I think we've been talking about it. If any of our employees drive through the city of Santa Maria, they see it constantly. So I don't think it's a secret.
Supervisors, you're right. Chair Nelson and Supervisor Hartmann have been very active and proactive in trying to resolve the issue through different approaches. I guess I think what would be helpful for the staff is whether you want to consider this ordinance, whether it does enough. I think Mr. Horton explained. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And this is one approach that you have before you, but also in the conversations that we've had and we, like you said, we came back in almost a year ago talking about this. I think it's evident for me in this conversation today, board members have different approaches. And as you know, our system is that how do you How do you kind of bite the elephant one bite at a time? How do you approach this? So I think today is helpful.
You give us a direction. They're asking for funding. The clarity of that would be important. You told us in the last time to go form a task force and bring that back and that's what we're doing. So my request would be in the future if there if you want us to do things and you're right Supervisor Nelson, you've been very proactive in working with staff. But if you want the county to have a coordinated approach, we'd ask you just to bring it here and then give us that direction. We're happy to follow it.
All right. Supervisor Lavagnino.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I probably should have asked this ahead of time, but how many, so micro kitchens have to be, now I'm talking about two different things, and so you might not be prepared for this, but do you have any idea like how many permits we have out in the county for micro kitchens?
Supervisor Lavagnino, through the Chair, we have about 35 to 40 microenterprise home kitchen operations that are under permit, and those are actually countywide, and so a fraction of those are in the City of Santa Maria.
Yeah. Yeah, so I'm not really sure that the permitted microkitchens are the problem. It's everybody that's not getting a permit that's just doing whatever they want, and I agree, whoever said there's no respect But it's not just on this. It's the illegal parking. It's red light running. If you don't, you know, the broken windows theory is if you don't address something immediately and hit it hard, it just gets exponentially worse. I don't go through a red light in Santa Maria anymore without waiting three seconds or four seconds because I know it used to be one car. Now it's two cars.
And illegal parking in front of fire hydrants, in crosswalks. And I know there's a lot that is state law that is, you know, in regards to ADUs, and there's a lot of things the city will tell us that they can't get, that they can't do. But all of these things come down to enforcement. And just like in our planning department, when we had the whole issue regarding I think the idea of trying to get some enforcement that's on weekends.
And at nighttime, this is when the activity takes place. Nine to five is not so much the problem. And it's, again, it's not just restaurants either. The florists that I've been going to for decades, I went for Valentine's Day, they're out of business. If you look across the street, There's three or four flower sales. You can't go a block without somebody trying to sell you flowers, and the guy that I've been going to forever that has a brick and mortar, he's out.
So I really think it comes down to enforcement. I'm happy, and I know this is the wrong year to talk about spending more money on anything, but if we're gonna get serious about this, and we owe it to The people that are actually doing it the right way, we've got to step up enforcement. And it's not so much just during the day. We've got to come up with a solution. Lars and his team, anytime I've called them, they're immediately on it.
The problem is right now, it's whack-a-mole. You can only have so many people doing this and Joan's got huge problems in her district. Everybody's got issues where this is going on. I think Santa Maria to me is the epicenter of it inside the city. But again, you go to the city and it's like they don't have the resources to do what I would like them to do. And so somehow when we talk about a task force, it almost feels like we need to have a joint group Thank you.
We're coming up on budget workshops, but to me this is something that absolutely has got to get our attention in this next go-round.
Let me jump in on that because I think it's not more money, it's prioritization of the staff that they have now is really what I think I'm hoping to see. You know, we're already paying and we already have enforcement staff. It's just how we deploy them. You know, they're often sitting at a desk from 8 to noon. We really hope that from five to nine, they're actually out on the street. So I know it's not very convenient for some of our employees to work night shifts, but I think that's something that I like to see come back from environmental health on what that looks like for enforcement. So we don't have to pay overtime. It's people that we are already employing to do the work that needs to be done. That's not where the need is, you know. So we should be having our regulatory staff meet the regulatory need, not A nine to five job.
So, you know, we can't predict these things and we know where they're at. So I really think that that's where we should be trying to look for. Because today, I think we'll make some meaningful steps forward for within the unincorporated area. But I think that this is going to continue to be a problem right outside of our boundaries. I think we're going to have continued frustrations from our colleagues.
The public that's concerned about this ordinance making it easier, this actually ordinance gives us more tools so that we can do the enforcement. So I want to make sure you guys understand that. Where you think that we might be moving in the wrong direction, I've been assured by our legal team that this actually helps us do our enforcement. So that's why we're trying to move in that direction, not trying to make it easier. We're trying to define things so that we can Really give them the tools that they need to do the enforcement to back you guys up and back up the entire board. So that's what we're trying to do here. It's what we're all trying to tackle. And I think that the message is hopefully loud and clear for staff that we need to be doing more into this effort.
And I'm not saying that we need to be spending more money. I just think we need to prioritize the resources we have now on where the greatest need is, which is where it also protects public health the greatest and it protects our businesses. You know, this county and this area is some of the highest fees in the state, if not the highest fees in the state, to operate a business.
And then, you know, you've heard it from the public speakers here where they're like, hey, why am I following the rules when, you know, other people don't have to? And why am I paying payroll taxes? Why am I trying to get a permit when it's, when it's, you can just, you know, go scot-free? So hopefully we'll get some enforcement out there. Supervisor Lee.
Can I ask the Nuna family, when they come up, I want to ask you some questions. Laura it is, right? Laura it is? Yes, one. So your restaurant, what's the name of your restaurant?
Mariscos Ensenada.
And how long have you been in operation?
34 years.
So I just wanted to know next time I'm in San Maria, I will be patronizing and I'll make sure that I will go to your restaurant.
Thank
you so much.
Much appreciated. Thank you.
So something about me, I do own a restaurant too that's been in operation for over 30 years with my family. So I do understand your frustrations and I'm sitting up here and I don't know what to do. But during my time at the Carver City Council, we have experienced illegal vendors. So what we did, we became a hammer and everything became a nail. So we hammer every illegal street vendor that we saw. And we encourage our community not to patronize those places because with our customers, even they too, Thank you very much.
If everybody's watching today, please go to your business. I think people like you is what makes our community great. So thank you for being here. Your comments do make a difference.
Thank you so much.
And going to what Steve and all of us, I believe, we do need enforcement on the weekends because these vendors do know when and where to bypass our rules and policies. So more funding, more prioritized of those times and dates. Thank you.
Thank you Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Hartmann.
Well, I just want to start by saying I really appreciate the work that environmental health has done and has been doing. I know you have to have people speaking Spanish and you're going out at night and you've really been playing whack-a-mole and with not many authorities because the state law really ties one hand behind your back. And I think what this ordinance does is create, doing the very best we can to limit what a sidewalk is and to give you additional authorities to confiscate equipment.
But it is going to require more than environmental health. You need law enforcement. You need additional support. And I am not sitting up here saying I expect environmental health to do this all on their own. We need a coordinated approach. And I think it's really important to remember this is a problem throughout the state. And nobody has really cracked this nut. Nobody has really solved this.
And we're now in the vanguard trying to figure it out. So it may seem like we've been slow, but actually we've made steady progress by people working closely together. So I'm very supportive of this. It is heart-wrenching to hear that businesses who've been in Thank you very much. Flexibility in this area. And I think they need, the state needs to understand what these implications are here on the ground. But I think this takes us a step forward. And particularly with this pop-up restaurants that are not allowed, I hope we're going to be confiscating not only the food, but the trucks.
And now this will give us a place to store them. It's very, very critical that we have our district attorney willing to work with law enforcement and work with environmental health. And we did actually reach out to him. He's been on vacation, but he verified that he will be helping us, and that is absolutely critical. So I still would like to see and maybe Chair Nelson has a good idea about schools and how we limit vending by schools.
2:09 – 2:1722 turns
So I think there was some language that I was going back and forth with Council on, on the school piece. I think if we maybe said while there is school events going on. I think if you guys can edit that instead of the The 500 feet in the ordinance where it says, I think there's some language there. If we could make it when there's school events, that might.
The problem is that's so hard to enforce. How big an event? What kind of event? I think school events- There are things going on every night at schools.
Perfect. Parent
meetings. Perfect.
That's the school event. So I think that gives us, I mean, that's what I would hope would give us enforcement tools.
How about churches and religious establishments? Are you open to include that with the schools?
I would ban it anywhere, Roy,
if
I could. So I just, whatever we can legally do, I think is what we're concerned about.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, we are significantly restrained by state law, and part of what is before you is coming up with a regulatory scheme that is within the county's authority. You asked about expanding the restrictions on schools. I think we can do that. Every restriction that we make needs to be directly related to an objective health, safety and welfare concern. So that's why we say while students are present or during a school sponsored event, that would be clearly related to our concern about student safety rather than banning it all the time.
But we, if I may, but we have to think about enforcement. And how are you supposed to know? I mean, you have to go check with the school. The school has to let you know what size of an event. I mean, it makes it very, I would like to find some other mechanism.
But this isn't going to even apply to those food vendors that are concerned about setting this, because they're already illegal before. They're still going to be illegal now. So that, I mean, They're already not allowed to have what they have where they have it. So, it's all, you know, that's why I get back to enforcement as being the tool. And, you know, I really compare this a lot to our encampments. We were told forever we can never move people in encampments, right, because we might end up in court someday, somewhere, somehow, because somebody's going to sue us about something.
And then with that, we sat on our hands for years on dealing with encampments. And we saw the Santa Maria Riverbed just get flooded with homeless. Until we finally said, no, we're going to go actually do enforcement. Yes, it's illegal to be out there. No, you don't have the sanitary needs for housing. You don't have your trespassing. And we started enforcing the laws.
And guess what? We have very few homeless now in the Santa Maria Riverbed. I see this as a similar issue. If we do the enforcement. We all have different approaches, but all I care about is the most effective approach. Whatever gets the job done, and we've seen enforcement be a good tool, and so I think that we need to figure a way to amp it up. Are there going to be some risks with enforcement? Of course there's going to be some risks. We can't do anything in the county without risk of being sued, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take bold actions and try to move forward and protect our businesses and our constituents. So again, I'm a broken record up here on this, but Other thoughts or any other thoughts? I'm happy with Supervisor Hartmann's edits that she's looking for.
I don't know if we need to trail that to kind of maybe clean that up a little bit. So can I get consensus maybe on that? Would everybody support Supervisor Hartmann's request to tighten up the school language? I'm seeing nodding heads from all five of us on that. Can we go ahead and take a motion maybe potentially on the pilot program and at this time then we can maybe bring back the ordinance after lunch for potential adoptment. Is that
okay? You want a conceptual motion?
I think
Mr. Chair, members of the board, what I'm understanding that you're wanting is it's section 52-6 E6 within 500 feet of any permitted event or any school during school hours or any school sponsored event. And then it keeps going from there. I think that would work, but we will just make sure that we've hit it in every single area so that we can bring the language back. So that's my understanding that the board is asking for. And then you could take action on the pilot program now or you could just trail the whole thing and take it all at once.
I mean, I think that language is acceptable.
Okay. I think we would like to be overly abundant, especially with those lawsuits. So, so can we, I guess we'll just trail this to do that at that point. I think I'm seeing broad support on the board on moving forward with the recommended actions, including the ordinance with those amended changes. So do you, I guess I'm looking for a little help maybe.
Supervisors, on the ordinance, County Council can't opine, but you can take action and I think you should just take action on, other than the ordinance, it's actions to direct this, the County Public Information Officer to develop public awareness campaign, approve the budget revision. I think
that's it. Okay, give me a second. So I'm going to ask for a motion here in a moment for A, Actually, no, I'm going to bring this all back after we make these corrections so we don't get too upside down on this. So go ahead, I'm going to, as chair's prerogative here, I'm going to go ahead and table this item until after lunch so we can mix the corrections on the language. But I'm seeing broad support, so those of you that are concerned about whether we move forward with this, I think we probably have unanimous support here.
So we'll go ahead and table this item, and we'll go ahead and get started with Do we need to take a five-minute break before we head to D2? Okay so we're gonna go ahead and table this item after lunch. Again I see broad support here so those of you that are concerned about it and want to potentially leave we probably will be adopting that after lunch and we'll go ahead and take a five-minute break.
Sorry Supervisor Hartman before
the break. I just want to thank everybody who came today and testified especially all the way from Santa Maria. We hear you and and I I believe Lars, did you want to say something? I mean, I think, yeah, you go ahead.
I just want to mention that we would be more than happy to visit with you directly at Environmental Health and take your concerns. And, you know, if there are specific instances where you, where you're seeing noncompliance, we definitely would like to know that so we can follow up on it as appropriate.
All right. Thank you, Lars. Okay, we're going to take a five minute break and then we'll come back for item, department item number two. All right welcome back to the February 24th meeting of the Board of Supervisors. We just continued departmental item one for a final decision after our motion decision after lunch but we're moving on to departmental item number two and we have behavioral
2:17 – 2:258 turns
wellness. Good morning Chair Nelson, supervisors and county staff.
Oh sorry I need to have the clerk read into the record. Oh
sorry.
Thank you.
Chair Nelson, members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Behavioral Wellness Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the presentation of the California Department of Health Care Services Behavioral Health Community-Based Organized Networks of Equitable Care and Treatment Initiative.
All right, Director Navarro, please.
There we go. All right, good morning, Chair Nelson, supervisors and county staff. Tony Navarro, Director of B-Well, here with Assistant Director Jamie Husting. She oversees quality care management and compliance. And we're here to present to you on the state's opt-in initiative known as the Behavioral Health Community Organized Networks of Equitable Care and Treatment, also known as BH Connect.
And I want to just really confirm that there is only one N in that acronym, but we do spell it with two N's statewide. Also joining us online is our Chief Financial and Administrative Officer, Chris Ribeiro, who will be available to answer questions at the end of the presentation with us if needed. Before launching into our PowerPoint presentation, I want to give important background and context for this initiative and BWIL's decision-making process in regard to the implementation of it.
BH Connect is one of three major initiatives launched by the state's Department of Healthcare Services in the past four years, all of them aimed at transforming California's Medi-Cal health delivery system. Most particular to be well in this discussion, all these initiatives, California Advancing Innovation in Medi-Cal or CalAIM, Behavioral Health Connect, and the Behavioral Health Services Act, or BHSA, in some way change the fiscal and programmatic operations of the county behavioral health system. which is responsible to provide Medi-Cal members with specialty mental health services and all level of substance use disorder treatment.
All three initiatives are adjacent in their goals and intersect in their implementation, collectively directed at one shared overarching goal, improving the efficiency, equity, and excellence of the behavioral health system of care for California's Medi-Cal healthcare members. CalAIM, implemented in 2022 and lasting through 2027, was the first initiative, and it addresses changes across the entire Medi-Cal health system. But specific for behavioral health, CalAIM has brought new data, performance measure, and documentation requirements, as well as changes to funding methodology and payment methods. Transitioning county behavioral health in 2023 from a cost reimbursement to a fee-for-service payment system for federal funding reimbursement.
BH Connect, the primary focus of today's presentation, launched in January 2025 and is the county behavioral health system-specific companion initiative, if you will, to CalAIM. BH Connect is a five-year opt-in demonstration project that assumes that each county behavioral health system has unique needs and strengths, and based on those, may decide which, if any, programs they want to opt into that will serve to strengthen their system of care and or improve their readiness to successfully achieve the ultimate CalAIM goals.
Finally, there is the Behavioral Health Services Act, Formerly Proposition 1, known as Proposition 1, known as BHSA. This is a voter-decided ballot initiative and it goes live July 2026. BHSA was envisioned and put forth after BH Connect and now makes required and permanent many of the components that are optional in the BH Connect initiative we will present to you today.
Albeit these programs are paid under a different payment system in Behavioral Health Connect versus BHSA. We'll shortly provide more detail on that and clarify the intersection of Behavioral Health Connect and BHSA and its role in the fiscal and programmatic analysis of the various options and B-Well's decision whether to opt in or not and various components.
As Director Navarro mentioned, BH Connect is an opt-in initiative that was designed to provide flexibilities in programming for behavioral health plans with the goal of expanding access to services and ensuring Medi-Cal members receive high quality behavioral health care. BH Connect is part of a Medicaid Section 1115 demonstration. Section 1115 demonstrations approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, allow states additional flexibility to design and improve their Medicaid programs by waiving federal law.
The BH Connect demonstration, as Tony mentioned, began in January of 2025 and goes through December of 2029. There are four main components of BH Connect for counties to opt into. These components allow behavioral health plans flexibility in order to expand the continuum of care and improve access and health outcomes. The four main components are Access Reform and Outcomes Incentive Program, Evidence-Based Practices or EBPs, Community Transition InReach Services, And finally, Mental Health Institutions for Mental Disease Federal Financial Participation Program, or IMD FFP program.
Because each county's behavioral health landscape varies, each behavioral health director is tasked with determining the components of BH Connect that align with their specific county's fiscal and programmatic plans. To date, BWELL has opted into the Access Reform and Outcomes Incentive Program and one of the evidence-based practices, Individual Placement and Supportive Services for Employment, or IPS.
BWELL is continuing to evaluate whether opting into other EBPs or community transition in REACH will be beneficial. After careful evaluation, BWL has decided not to opt into the Mental Health IMD FFP program. It is important to note that all of these components have a rolling opt-in time frame and can be opted into at any time through 2029 when the waiver expires.
In the following slides, we will share more details of each component and BWL's considerations in making each decision. The first component of BH Connect we'll discuss is the Access Reform and Outcomes Incentive Program. BWL has already opted into this component. The program is designed to provide behavioral health plans with incentive funds as they meet certain outcomes and targets determined by the Department of Healthcare Services, DHCS. So DHCS has contracted with the National Committee for Quality Assurance, or NCQA, to provide technical assistance to counties in order to improve access to behavioral health services, as well as improving outcomes and quality of life among Medi-Cal members.
Behavioral health plans also can receive incentive funds by reducing county-specific gaps in quality improvement capabilities and making other targeted behavioral health delivery system reforms, including improving data sharing and outreach and engagement efforts. The 1115 waiver includes $1.9 billion for this incentive program to be split among California counties that are participating.
Over the five-year period of the waiver, Santa Barbara County has the opportunity to receive up to $30.3 million. To date, B-Well has received just under $800,000 for our initial system review, which was 100% of the eligible dollars for that submission. This incentive program is a continuation of the CalAIM Behavioral Health Quality Improvement Program in which BOL was successful in.
Goals for the Access Reform and Outcomes Incentive Program include improving timely access to care, increasing utilization of evidence-based practices, increasing utilization of enhanced care management, a variety of NCQA healthcare effectiveness data and information sets or HEDIS measures, and improving overall health outcomes.
2:25 – 2:341 turns
The next component we'll discuss is community transition in-reach services, or in-reach services for short. These are transitional care management services providing a range of pre- and post-discharge services for persons who are placed in longer-term care facilities for at least a duration of 120 days. Community inReach services may be provided and reimbursed for up to only 180 days prior to a client's discharge.
The goal of the program is to provide care coordination and facilitate transitions to community-based care for persons with the most complex and significant behavioral health needs. Be Well already provides care coordination and institutional transition services to its clients, To date, those services are not billable to Medi-Cal and primarily serve those under Lannerman-Petrashort conservatorship.
However, the InReach Services Program requires much more involved services and operational data collection than those BWELL currently provides. Opting into this component would require an increase in current staffing levels, adding a specific staffing category that BWELL currently does not have in its organizational structure, and includes additional data reporting not currently captured and reported on in our system.
Additionally, while B-Well may decide to opt in, there is a required formal agreements from every facility in which we would provide this service to clients. They must formally agree to allow B-Well to provide these services in their facility and commit to ongoing close collaboration and care coordination with the InReach Transitions Team to ensure that services such as social rehabilitation and occupational therapy services are not duplicated.
InReach Services requires formal Department of Health Care Service approval, and BWELL must submit a detailed readiness assessment plan that includes a demonstration of an adequate care and housing continuum for the target population in our county, as well as the formal agreements discussed earlier. To date, BWELL has not yet surveyed its network of eligible placement facilities as to their willingness to participate with BWELL in this program, nor has BWELL completed its fiscal review to ascertain cost-benefit of this potentially new and time-limited revenue option.
Over the next year, BWELL will further explore and decide whether or not to opt in to the Community Transition and Reach Services Program. The next component we will discuss is the evidence-based practices component. This includes five main services, many of which are now required as of July 1 under the Behavioral Health Services Act to be implemented and remain permanent in our system of care.
The first we're going to discuss are assertive community treatment and actually forensic assertive community treatment jointly. These will be implemented July 1 here in our county. However, if we opt into these services via the BH Connect initiative, payment for these services will be provided in a bundled rate versus the fee-for-service rate. The bundled rate reimburses maximum value for up to six sessions per month per client.
BWELL's current FSP model, the Most Intensive Outcare Patient Treatment, that is equivalent to the fact and act models, and the way staff are trained and directed provides a minimum of two times a week or eight times a month sessions to our clients on a regular basis. These are the highest acuity and highest needs clients in our outpatient system. Programmatic analysis showed that currently B-Well staff in the full service partnership program provides seven or eight services a month to clients 75% of the time.
in the fee-for-service payment model. Providing FACT Act services within the BH Connect initiative is projected to result in an approximate $1 million loss in revenue to the outpatient system of care annually, and therefore, BWell has decided not to opt in to the FACT Act programs under this initiative. The next service, Coordinated Specialty Care for First Episode Psychosis, BWELL has already established a first episode psychosis team under the county's Mental Health Services Act system, and it will continue and be required now under the Behavioral Health Services Act.
Fiscal and programmatic analysis projects a neutral impact, and therefore BWELL will continue with its current program with the fee-for-service model and not opt in under Behavioral Health Connect. This next evidence-based practice, Individual Placement and Support for Supported Employment, is a new Medi-Cal benefit, or IPS for short. This is a new Medi-Cal benefit and service for adults in our system of care.
And like ACT, FACT, and CSC, it will be required starting July 1 under BHSA. IPS will be available for clients in both the mental health and substance use disorder treatment programs. But unlike other EBPs presented thus far, the bundled payment rate provided for services, for IPS services, is significantly higher than billing under the fee-for-service model. And so opting in to IPS under BHC will allow B-Well fiscal stability while we're ramping up and establishing this new program.
Therefore, Be Well has opted in to IPS. The final EBP listed, Clubhouse Services, is a service that is meant to augment the wellness centers that were established across the state under the Mental Health Services Act. In our county, the mental wellness center in the south, and the Transitions Mental Health Association, TEMA, in the north, provide wellness center services currently under MHSA prevention and early intervention.
The clubhouse service model would require additional staffing, significant changes to operation and billing requirements, and in consultation and discussion, Multiple times with both Anne-Marie Cameron, the Executive Director of Mental Wellness Center, and Jill Bolster-White of TEMA, both have decided that opting into the clubhouse services and providing those is not something that they want to pursue, as it would greatly limit the population that they currently serve and provide additional fiscal burdens.
We will continue, of course, to evaluate clubhouse services with them, and this, like the other components of EBP, has a rolling in opt-in date through 2029. The final component we'll discuss here is the Mental Health Institute's Mental Disease Federal Financial Participation Program, IMD-FFP. This waiver exclusion allows behavioral health plans to expand their capacity in institutes of mental disease settings, including psychiatric health facilities and acute care psychiatric hospitals.
Under this opt-in, counties would be able to receive FFP, the Federal Financial Reimbursement, for facilities that are over 16 beds and have residents that stay under 60 days. This is an acute care waiver. Finally, a requirement of opting in to the IMD FFP is that all of the evidence-based practices presented in the prior slide will be required to be opted into under the IMD FFP waiver.
2:34 – 2:445 turns
Specifically for Santa Barbara County, we have two facilities to consider with this component of BH Connect. As Tony shared, an IMD, or Institute for Mental Disease, is a facility with more than 16 beds where individuals with behavioral health concerns can be diagnosed, treated, and cared for. IMDs are excluded from federal financial participation. Santa Barbara County currently only has one IMD.
Crestwood Champion Healing Center. B-Well contracts for 40 beds at this facility with four additional beds funded through Community Corrections Partnership. Crestwood Champion Healing Center is a lower level of care than the Psychiatric Health Facility and stays are expected to be over 60 days. This facility would not support opting into the IMD FFP waiver component as very few stays would be eligible.
The Psychiatric Health Facility is not currently an IMD as it is 16 beds and therefore is not currently excluded from federal financial participation. This waiver would allow us to expand the PUF by two additional beds. In determining whether or not to opt into the IMD FFP program for the PUF, Behavioral Wellness reviewed the opt-in program from three angles. We analyzed the facility changes, the programmatic adjustments, and finally, the fiscal impact.
The current PUF facility can only accommodate an additional two beds based on available space and state and federal regulatory requirements. At this time, there is no plan to expand the PUF beyond the two beds before the demonstration ends in 2029. Adding two beds to our current 16 beds would classify the PUF as an IMD. When this demonstration ends in 2029, the PUF would need to go back to 16 beds in order to continue to receive FFP.
From the programmatic perspective, BWELL would need to put into place community health worker positions prior to being able to draw down FFP. Santa Barbara County does not currently have this job classification specific to behavioral health as required by BH Connect. Additionally, as mentioned, under BH Connect, any stays at the PUF over 60 days would not be covered at all.
For example, if a hospital stay is 61 days, zero days are covered under the BH Connect IMD FFP program. Finally, we reviewed the technical requirements under BH Connect. One requirement under this component of BH Connect is data sharing between any person or organization that provides Medi-Cal reimbursable health and social services to Medi-Cal members. Another requirement is for real-time notifications of admissions, discharges, and transfers from acute care hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, state hospitals, and skilled nursing facilities. While these are all solutions that B-Well is actively working on, we do not yet have them all in place.
To dive into the length of stays a little bit more, the current average length of stay at the PUF is nine days. Since July 1st of 2024, BWELL has been tracking how many stays at the PUF extend beyond 60 days. There have been 17 stays over 60 days, ranging from 63 days to 200 days. Under the BH Connect IMD FFP program, zero days of those stays would be covered, which could result in approximately $1.1 million in lost revenue.
Director Navarro is going to take us through additional fiscal considerations.
Presented here in this slide is the fiscal impact of adding the currently maximum capacity of two beds to the PUF. Adding two new clients to the PUF's capacity each day increases the staff to client ratio needs and will require the addition of two staff members to the treatment team. Being a 24-7 facility, that requires an additional four full-time staff to be hired should we opt into the IMD FFP.
That would result in a staffing budget annual increase of just under $1 million. Certainly, Adding two new beds daily to the PUF would decrease the number of folks that are sent out of county for acute care by two each day and would represent an estimated cost savings of just about $200,000. Overall, this would result between the staffing capacity need and the savings. We're still looking at and projecting a three quarter of a million dollar negative fiscal impact to the PUF just in regards to staffing and Team care capacity alone.
The $776,456 does not include the costs that were identified previously in adopting the EBP of FACT Act, which would be an additional $1 million loss revenue, as well as the potential for stays over 60 days being disqualified. So there's a projected nearly $3 million loss of revenue that could occur annually in the PUF for the life of the waiver. All right.
As a result of this and other considerations, we have decided not to opt in to the IMD FFP. All right. Before we get to the recommended action, I'd like to recap because I know that was a lot of information for everyone. So, Behavioral Health Connect was put forth by the Department of Health Care Services as a behavioral health specific companion initiative to CalAIM. It seeks to incentivize participation in various operational and programmatic ways in order to, excuse me, promote a more accountable and consistently effective statewide county behavioral health system of care.
BH Connect has four main components. BWELL has opted into the Performance Outcomes Incentives component that will, through 2029, provide fiscal payments to the department for demonstrating its commitment and effective execution of various system improvements and outcome measures. The evidence-based component of BH Connect was established ahead of the California Voters Passage of Prop 1, or BHSA, which begins July 1 of this year. BHSA now makes permanent and required many of the optional evidence-based practices, including the ACT-FACT, Coordinated Specialty Care for First Episode Psychosis, and the Individual Placement Support and Supported Employment Program.
Fiscal and operational analysis of each of these EBP options suggests that opting into the IPS will be a financial net gain for the department and B-Well has thus opted into that service. However, based on B-Well's current service delivery performance in its intensive outpatient services and the differing payment pathways for evidence-based practice services implemented under BH Connect versus BHSA, BWELL will not be opting into either the ACT-FACT evidence-based practices nor the coordinated specialty care practice.
In regard to the, and we've already and recently discussed, the FFP, the IMD-FFP component, and we have determined that opting into that component given that is not feasible nor viable given the PUF's expansion limitations, the restrictive length of stay parameters, the increased staffing costs, and the all-in EBP implementation requirements. Finally, BWELL has yet to determine the operational feasibility and fiscal impact of opting into the community in-reach services and may do so at a later date.
I want to share that this presentation was presented to the Behavioral Wellness Commission on Wednesday, February 18th. And while commissioners did express ongoing concern that more acute hospital beds are needed in the county for its residents, commissioners expressed general support for the department's decisions with regard to its opt-in or not choices based on the demonstrated fiscal and operational impacts outlined to you today. There were no questions nor expressed comments to direct them to the board.
That concludes our presentation of Behavioral Health Connect Initiative, the recommended actions listed to receive and file a presentation of our BH Connect Initiative, and of course, determine the above action is not a project that is subject to CEQA. All
right. Thank you, Director Navarro. Questions from my colleagues, Supervisor Capps?
Yeah thank you to you both and this is a very thorough presentation and it merits it because it is somewhat counterintuitive. I know one of the first actions I took as supervisor was to go visit the PUF because I had heard that it was very effective yet only if only we could expand it, if only we could expand it and yet we needed this waiver and if only we could get the waiver. So here you are explaining all of the reasons why we are We're not going to expand it and I appreciated that you took time with me yesterday. So all of my questions have been answered except for one that I thought of.
But I think again, I appreciate the diligence of explaining it because again, it's somewhat counterintuitive why we're not, why we're opting out and you've done so and the finances just don't make sense and As a representative to BWEL, thanks for explaining it there, and I know there's a lot of questions with the BWEL Commission, but I just want to ask you one question about if we do see that other counties and other jurisdictions are opting in, why so, if you could explain that so that we understand why our rationale might not apply elsewhere.
As of December, and I don't think there's been any added to date, the three counties that have opted into the IMD waiver, and it may be four, I can't remember if it's four, but the three that have opted in and actually have, I have discussed and talked to their directors, are San Diego County, Sacramento County, and Riverside County. Those are all very large counties and they have significant numbers of Thank you very much. Thank you.
2:45 – 3:018 turns
What we're opting into will not have any negative impacts on your budget? No. Okay. And the programs that we're choosing to opt out of are programs that would have a negative impact on your budget? Yes. Okay. Yes. Very prudent. Thank you on behalf of the entire board. So with that, I guess I will take a motion to receive and file this presentation. So moved.
Second. All right. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All right. Thank you.
Thank you.
And we'll go ahead and take departmental item three now. Madam Clerk, will you read departmental item three into the record?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the Public Works Department is to consider recommendations regarding an ordinance amending chapter 17 of the county code for mandatory service in Isla Vista. This project is located in the second district.
All right, Public Works team.
All right. Good afternoon, Chair Nelson, members of the board. Thank you so much for your time today. My name is Leslie Robinson. I'm the Collection and Materials Program Manager for the Public Works Department Resource Recovery and Waste Management Division. And today with me, we have Carlisle Johnston, our Resource Center Manager, Mackie Forgey, a Senior Program Specialist, and Ricardo Montelongo, our South County Code Enforcement Officer.
So today we're excited to bring about these proposed changes to County Code Chapter 17 and our current ordinance pertaining to solid waste collection in Isla Vista. Isla Vista is a unique and dynamic community and we think that these changes, proposed changes, will help bring it further up to our county and statewide standards. So I will turn it over to Carlisle who will kick off the presentation.
Afternoon Chair Nelson and members of the Board. As Leslie mentioned, we're here to present the Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 17 of the County Code, which pertains to mandatory solid waste service requirements for the unincorporated community of Isla Vista. First, we'd like to bring some context We'd first like to bring some context and cover the history of the existing ordinance. According to the 2020 Census, Isla Vista RIV is the most population-dense community in the entire county, including unincorporated areas, with an average of 28,000 people per square mile.
The high population density of this region means more waste generated per household and requires additional programs, services, and oversight. IV is a special place in the county that is warranted special attention and waste policy. Due to its population density and proximity to the ocean, special measures have been taken in IV over the years to address solid waste issues.
IV is the only community in the county where Chapter 17 requires all residential properties to subscribe to solid waste services. This is referred to as mandatory service. This requirement for IV was established in 1992 to address chronic litter and illegal dumping due to chronic undersubscription of trash service. The current requirements related to mandatory service have not changed since 1995. The last change to Chapter 17 to address waste and IV was a ban on indoor furniture placed outdoors established in 2006 to reduce arson and illegal disposal of furniture.
The franchise agreement with Marburg Industry provides weekly curbside bulky item pickup occurring throughout the year. Bulky items collected weekly in I.V. include mattresses, furniture, appliances, and large e-waste. The franchise agreement also requires daily curbside bulky item pickups for the two weeks following the end of the academic school year, often referred to as I.V. move out.
By comparison, most county residents are offered four free bulky item collections per year. Even with special rules and special services applied to IV, the waste environment is always changing, and current conditions in IV need an amendment to the existing ordinance to better address the issues we have today. The primary issue continues to be under subscription, which is when a property is not signed up for large enough containers to be able to collect all the waste it generates.
There are a few factors to consider. First, as noted previously, minimum service requirements have not changed in 30 years, even though population density and per capita waste generation levels have significantly increased. Recycling is missing in the current ordinance. Right now, mandatory service for residences does not require recycling containers, just trash, even though recyclables are a significant portion of household waste.
Many property owners and managers have their tenants sign up for trash service. This results in more containers than if waste was consolidated into fewer larger containers. This can also result in only some units on a property subscribing to waste service and other units electing not to. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that we have high turnover of tenants every year. This high turnover makes it difficult to track which units are signed up for service and some may go for a period of time without service before being caught.
This is a graph showing the high turnover I'm talking about, specifically the percentage of accounts that have a stop, start, or restart order put in 2025 for different customer groups. The IV residential is the blue line. Typically, you can see these other lines, less than 5% of neighboring communities experience turnover throughout the year, some even 1%.
with I.V. residential accounts being very different. This graph shows that 25 to 31 and a half percent of all I.V. residential accounts experience turnover during the summer. That large volume of turnover each year makes it difficult to control and monitor mandatory service and undersubscription in I.V. Lastly, the current minimum required service for single unit dwellings does not take into account the large single unit rental homes unique to I.V. that contain anywhere to four to six bedrooms.
An additional issue that remains is litter. Improving undersubscription should help reduce litter, but the other culprit is the existing 32-gallon can containers that mandatory service was based upon back in 1995. These cans are small, often can't fit more than a few regular household trash bags inside, but even more significantly, these small cans have detachable lids that are easily lost.
All other size containers have attached lids. Without lids, these 32-gallon cans are susceptible to wind, small animals. Additionally, in large numbers, these smaller cans take up more real estate on properties than if waste was consolidated into fewer larger containers. Here are some more images from Ivey. Not only do we see instances of undersubscription here, but almost all of the 32-gallon trash can lids are missing and litter is easily escaping.
Our approach to enforcement will remain the same. We've been able to achieve compliance with existing measures that include regular patrols from code enforcement officers, responding to hauler feedback, and residential complaints. First and foremost is education and outreach when approaching property manager or owner without a violation, about a violation. This resolves the vast majority of cases we face in IV. In the rare instance of a bad actor, we have the ability to issue administrative fines and citations similar to other code enforcement actions of other departments such as planning and development.
The only change that is proposed to enforcement is the ability for the Public Works Director or their designee to establish the level of subscription after more than one violation has occurred within a 12-month period. And with that, I'm going to hand over the presentation to my coworker, Mackenzie Forgey.
So before we get into the specific changes proposed, I want to mention stakeholder outreach efforts that were conducted. All outreach included the date of this hearing and a bulleted summary of the ordinance changes proposed. Property owners and managers were reached via UCSB's property manager listserv. All IV residential and commercial customers of Marburg were notified via email or via mail.
Finally, IV CSD, the Isla Vista Community Services District, was notified of every major milestone in developing this ordinance amendment. The next few slides compare requirements under the existing mandatory service ordinance on the left and the proposed ordinance amendments on the right. The first major change proposed relates to who is responsible for subscribing to service.
Currently, a property owner, manager, or other responsible party, including tenants, may subscribe to waste service. The ordinance amendment clarifies that only property owners or managers may subscribe to waste service, not tenants. This ensures each property is evaluated for minimum required service as a whole rather than unit by unit, provides centralized and consolidated waste service for each property rather than multiple sets of containers managed by separate units, eliminates instances of only a portion of units on a property signing up for waste service, and results in a more consistent contact for the property in question as well as one better positioned to respond to property related issues such as vehicles blocking waste containers on service day.
The second change relates to how service requirements are evaluated. Currently, both residential and commercial properties may have multiple waste accounts on file for the same parcel. This makes sense in a commercial context where multiple businesses operate on one commercial parcel. However, this is detrimental in a residential context as multiple waste accounts per residential parcel can lead to confusion, more containers per property than necessary, and under-subscription if only a subset of units on site subscribe.
To address this, the Ordinance Amendment proposes that only one waste account may be on file per residential parcel, with an exception to allow up to two adjacent parcels to share one waste account. The third change clarifies and proposes new definitions. Currently, only two distinctions exist for residential premises, multiple unit dwellings and single unit dwellings.
To address the unique situation posed by larger single unit rental homes, common in particular on Del Playa Drive, where a large number of students reside in one home, The single unit definition is proposed to be split into two new categories. Small single unit dwellings with three or less total bedrooms and large single unit dwellings with four or more total bedrooms, which as you'll note in upcoming slides, will have the same requirements as multiple unit properties.
The fourth change in the Ordinance Amendment are increased minimum service levels. This slide focuses on the current versus proposed minimum service levels for multiple unit and large single unit dwellings. Currently, multiple unit dwellings are required to subscribe to a minimum of one 32-gallon trash can serviced twice per week per bedroom. This minimum required service has remained unchanged for 30 years, does not include recycling service, and relies upon 32-gallon cans, which are problematic for reasons stated previously.
The ordinance amendment increases this to one 35-gallon trash cart serviced twice per week and one 35-gallon recycling cart serviced once per week per bedroom. This is the smallest incremental increase in the required service level possible while still phasing out 32-gallon can containers. This slide discusses the updated minimum service levels proposed for small single-unit dwellings.
Currently, only one 32-gallon trash can serviced twice per week is required per property instead of per bedroom. The ordinance amendment proposes this be slightly increased to one 35-gallon trash cart serviced once per week and one 35-gallon recycling cart serviced once per week per property. This change not only mandates recycling but also better aligns with the typical single-family pickup frequency of once per week.
The fifth change would require consolidation of minimum required service levels for multiple-unit and large single-unit dwellings. Under current ordinance, larger properties often amass numerous 32-gallon can containers when that volume of waste service could instead be consolidated into larger containers. This table depicts what the consolidated minimum required service levels for these properties would be if they contained 3, 7, 9, or 10 to 11 bedrooms, for example.
While the Ordinance Amendment increases minimum service levels, this consolidation requirement reduces the number of containers on a given property. Take, for example, the required service for a seven-bedroom property as shown. Under current ordinance, this property would need to subscribe to at least seven separate trash cans, but under the proposed ordinance, only six total carts for trash and recycling is required, making more efficient use of solid waste storage area on these properties.
Also, per the ordinance amendment, a property with 10 or more bedrooms is required to subscribe to waste service in the form of dumpsters rather than carts. Since many multiple unit properties in I.V. subscribe to 32-gallon cans as required, very specific enclosures have been erected in the past 30 years that can only accommodate these cans, as the pictures on the right show.
In order to give property owners and managers time to adapt to differing required container sizes, the requirements of County Code Chapter 17-8, which requires containers be stored out of view of the public right-of-way, typically achieved by using enclosures, will be waived for residential premises within IV until July 1st, 2028. That allows two summers, of which tenant numbers are typically reduced, for residential properties to adjust waste container storage areas or erect new enclosures as needed.
The sixth and final change is the requirement for all residential premises to have active waste service uninterrupted throughout the calendar year. There are exceptions built in to accommodate situations where property managers or owners renovate units over the summer. There is also an exception that allows for the minimum required service to be reduced based on only occupied bedrooms, should partial renovations occur to at least 25% of units on site.
The IV customer collection rate structure has remained the same since 1999 and is modeled off the 32-gallon can structure of the current mandatory service ordinance. In order to offer customers subscription options for carts instead, the rate structure needs to be modified. A newly structured fee schedule is also necessary to clarify what customer types pay into and receive special IV residential services.
On June 3rd, 2025, the Board of Supervisors directed our division to pursue restructuring of the IV fee schedule for this purpose. Negotiations with the franchise hauler, Marburg Industries, have been completed, and revised IV customer rates will be presented before the Board in June 2026 as part of our annual rates item for all unincorporated areas. Staff recommends the Board take the following actions to approve and adopt the ordinance amendment.
Thank you for your time. We're happy to answer any questions you may have.
3:01 – 3:0611 turns
I actually wondered if it's okay with my colleagues if we could hear from public comment first. I know Isla Vista Community Service District is here and they're definitely closer to this issue than we are, so I'd love to hear from them if possible.
Great.
Unless
anybody else
has
questions. I have just one quick question. And are they speaking in public comment or are they doing a presentation? Public comment. Okay. All right, great. Thank you. My question just is about the waste containers that are shielded from the public view. I'm just curious on maybe some properties now that they're going to go to the larger containers potentially that might not be possible. Are there waivers if there's somehow that starts to feed into parking? I would imagine that could be a challenge.
And I guess is that part of this chapter? Is that actually a land use side with planning development?
That rule, Chair Nelson, that rule is a part of Chapter 17, Solid Waste Systems. And again, Chapter 17-8 requires all containers be stored out of view of the public right of way. Our code enforcement officers respond to complaints often with violations of this specific chapter, folks leaving their containers out past service day, for example. Isla Vista is a is a tricky area for this requirement specifically and we wanted this opportunity where there will be a change in the actual containers on these properties.
We wanted to give them time to figure out where's best to locate these containers on the properties moving forward. Do we need to widen a gate to be able to put them behind a fence or is there an area we can site a new just fenced enclosure to site these containers for the future. So we wanted to waive that requirement for Isla Vista residential premises only until July 1st, 2028 to give them time to figure out where is best to locate those containers moving forward.
Yeah, I think that's really prudent and I really appreciate that. I'm just trying to figure out, you know, this is coastal zone area too, so almost all these structures that you're talking about are going to need permitting, I'm guessing. So I'm just, I guess I'm just anticipating a little bit of a problem there. I don't want that to be the enemy of progress here. So I'm just trying to talk it through to maybe resolve that. Obviously, I think it's great that you guys pushed it to 2028, but I think that might be something you want to look at as it might impact other, you know, needs for permits and therefore could be problematic.
Again, I think this is a good start, but thank you for that. All right, so let's, as Supervisor Capps suggested, let's hear from public comment.
Yes, Chair Nelson, members of the board, we have three requests to speak. We will begin with Jonathan Abood here in Santa Barbara to be followed by Jenna Norton.
Chair Nelson, Board of Supervisors, thank you for hearing us today. This might seem like a small thing, but to us, this is absolutely massive in Isla Vista. So I want to thank Carlisle and McKenzie and the whole Public Works team for working with Ivy Community Services District over, what was it, three years now or two years? We've been on this journey to get this done. So to us, this is massive. I also want to thank our staff person, Jenna, who's our Public Works and Sustainability Director, who initiated this work when she got started on the job back in 2022.
But what I really want to do today is just encapsulate how perfect of a story this is for the, you know, the idea of the Community Services District, which we have done for 10 years now. It's just a great story of us being the eyes and ears on the ground constantly, us bringing the very strong focus to the local issues, hosting interagency meetings with the county and with ourselves and others to get to the root of lots of different issues. And so this Ordinance Amendment is the outcome of all those.
of those meetings, that research and the collaboration. So I think it's a perfect story for how government can work really effectively and together to get something big done. And lastly, it's just another way where the Ivy Community Services District, it shows that our focus is more on the outcome and less on the outputs. You know, we could just be saying, hey, we collected a thousand pounds of trash today and keep saying that over and over and just, you know, be proud about that. But really, we want to collect zero pounds of trash of litter. That's the ideal. It's getting to zero pounds of litter in the street. And so working with the county on this ordinance and, you know, keeping our eyes and ears on the ground and keeping our litter pickup program going is going to be important.
And we would love to collect no litter eventually. And our residents deserve clean streets just like everybody else. We don't get street sweeping in the curb just because of the parking issues. And so this is a perfect story. I really want to thank everybody involved. And I think it's just, it validates the idea of the Community Services District so perfectly. And thank you for, and I encourage a yes vote on this. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Boot.
3:06 – 3:2022 turns
Jenna Norton to be followed by Carrie Toplife.
Good morning, Chair and Supervisors. My name is Jenna. I've lived in Isla Vista for five years. Now I live downtown, but I've worked in Isla Vista for three and a half. So, in total, I've been a community member for about eight years now, and I'm here to express my support for the amendments to Chapter 17 to better manage waste in Isla Vista. Isla Vista residents, like people who live in any other community, deserve to live in a clean neighborhood free of litter.
I've experienced the waste management challenges in this community firsthand as a tenant attempting to fit trash bags into small, already overflowing trash bins, and as a regular user of Isla Vista's public spaces, frequently navigating myself and my dog around scattered litter. At the time as a student, I didn't realize why this litter was occurring, but I did recognize that it was one of the most negative and widely talked about aspects of our community, unfortunately.
Upon being hired by the IVCSD, it became my job to address issues of litter as the program manager of the Isla Vista Beautiful Service. I realize that countless hours have been spent cleaning up litter in our community by hand over and over again. So I thought surely Oh, sorry. I thought surely there must be a structural way to prevent this litter from occurring in the first place.
For years, the prevailing narrative has been that it's the residents simply throwing trash on the ground, possibly due to the lack of public trash cans in residential areas. But before tailoring my approach to this assumption, I decided to study the issue a little bit more closely in order to understand how the system itself might be creating this result instead of the personal actions of our residents.
What I observed is that trash does make it into outdoor trash bins. It's just that oftentimes these bins, as I mentioned, are already at full capacity, making it impossible to secure them with a lid in the first place. Even if a bin is not at full capacity, many bins in Isla Vista don't come with attached lids, as mentioned, causing them to become lost or forgotten about.
In addition, even bins with lids attached, which is a rare case in IV, often overflow, leaving the lids wide open, like you're not able to close them anyways. This creates easy access for animals to tear open bags and scatter debris, and when you add coastal winds to this equation, litter just gets absolutely everywhere. That's why the proposed amendments are so important.
Increased service requirements and the use of containers with attached lids directly addresses the structural causes of litter in Isla Vista. They focus on prevention rather than relying solely on cleanup after the fact, and this is definitely going to save public dollars from continuous litter pickup by stopping it at the source. Jenna,
that is your time.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Jenna.
And for our final speaker, Carrie Topliff.
Good afternoon, Chair Nelson and members of the board. I'm Carrie Topliff. I am your appointee to the Isla Vista Community Services District. And I want to tell you how much I love that job and how much I appreciate being appointed to that job. You probably have never heard anybody quite as passionate about trash as Jenna. And I've obviously been working with her for the last three years.
I love the way she was determined to get the data, figure out structural solutions to the problem. Those many lurid pictures that you saw, all pictures taken by Jenna because she's been out on the street looking this over. All these years and then the partnership that we've had with Public Works has just been exemplary in terms of local governments working together to really make a difference for our citizens. So, thank you so much for doing this.
Thank you, Carrie. All right, back to the board, Supervisor Capps.
Yeah, thank you, Chair Nelson, and thanks to our team. That's an excellent presentation and the work on the ordinance, I'm fully in support. And I wanted to give the floor first to Isla Vista Community Service Director, as well as stated by Mr. Abood. This is a wonderful story about the work of you all on the ground and advocating. And working with the county and partnering, that's the model, that's the goal, that's what I'm committed to doing. And so that's the product that we have here today. And thanks particularly to Jenna, you are so passionate about beautifying Isla Vista and that is, it's contagious.
So I just had really one question that occurred to me as I was preparing for this today because I've known for a long time, thanks to you all, That we need bigger bins when you have a situation that, you know, a four-bedroom place has 12 to 14 people in it. That's not going to be enough to have one bin, whereas it would be in other parts of our county potentially.
And detached, you know, attached lids, that's great. But I'm just curious when I saw, you know, the presentation about The accounts being in the tenant's name and that spike, that turnover, is there anything to be done about, I mean, I know it's a business, so potentially not, but for, or maybe you can speak anecdotally. I'm just curious if there's any way in which the accounts can stay with the property owners as opposed to the tenants.
That's the proposal?
That's the proposal, okay. And that is the proposal, that's the requirement. I just wanted to make sure, to hear that out loud and make sure that that's what we're getting at. Okay.
Yeah, Supervisor Capps, through the Chair, there's six major changes that are going along with this ordinance amendment and that is one of them, that the property owners or managers are the ones on the Waste Service Account, not the tenants. Well that's
major and I apologize, I missed that, but thank you so much because that is, that's what it should be and I That'll make a massive difference given the, you know, quarter by quarter turnover that exists. So, thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Capps. Supervisor Hartmann.
Yes, I have a question about the two-year period. If I remember in Isla Vista, Marburg actually not only empties the trash, but they put it back because the students don't. So, and Marburg, everybody's done great work. Marburg is a great partner and have been very flexible With regard to Isla Vista and that's much appreciated. So what I'm concerned about is that, I mean, where do the cans go and are they just sitting on the street? And that nobody, so can you elaborate? I'm sure you've thought it through and I just want to understand it better.
Supervisor Hartmann through the chair. So those 32-gallon cans with those detachable lids, they don't have wheels. So it's actually Marburg physically has to go on the property, collect those cans or dump them into a larger cart that they then roll out to the to the truck. So one of the big conversations we had when we were discussing restructured rates was that carts that have that attached lid and that have wheels are typically expected to be rolled to the curb for service. We understood that Isla Vista, there's very little curb area to work with anyway, and the rates that we will bring in later in June this year We've negotiated for those multiple unit and large single unit rates.
Even though we're switching from a can rate to a cart rate, those rates will include the cost of Marburg going onto the property to collect that cart, bring it up to the truck, and return it back to the property for service. So the similar service will occur operationally. The requirements of Chapter 17-8 are slightly different in that it just depends on if the container is able to be viewed from the public right-of-way. So let's say that there's three cans on a yard. You can see them from the road.
Technically, those should be shielded by a hedge, a fence, something to block that view from the public right-of-way. But regardless, the rates we will bring for you later in the year do have that cost included, that Marburg will still go onto the property, take it, and return it. The bundled single-unit rates we will bring will have that as an optional charge, because there still may be residents out there who would prefer to roll it to the Thank you, that explains it perfectly.
Supervisor Lee through the Chair, we're actually really hopeful that there will be fewer total containers on properties as a part of this Ordinance Amendment. While we are increasing the minimum required service, we are also requiring consolidation of that service into the largest container possible. So we even could, we have some extra slides I could show you that per bedroom. Yeah, so this is a perfect slide to stick on. So per bedroom, this is the number of containers that would be on the property, both trash and recycling as required under this ordinance amendment. If you take, for example, a seven bedroom property, right now that property has seven separate 32 gallon trash cans.
And that's not even including maybe some extra recycling they have opted in to subscribe to. Under the Ordinance Amendment, the total number of containers required would be six carts rather than seven trash cans plus whatever additional recycling they subscribe to. So our hope is that the total number of containers in Ivey will actually reduce for these multiple unit and large single unit properties that don't subscribe to dumpsters. And so we're hopeful that it actually over time will Thank you very much.
Supervisor Lee through the chair, it is a difficult problem, illegal dumping of folks using other people's containers for their own waste. Marburg does offer locks for carts and dumpsters, although that is sometimes not the best solution for properties where you have multiple tenants now that have to have a key to the lock. That's also one of the main reasons why Chapter 17-8 requires containers be screened from the public right-of-way. either behind a fence in an enclosure because it makes that opportunity less tempting for those bad actors who would want to use someone else's container for their waste.
So there are options to cut down on that, but over time when property managers ideally have the time to re-figure out where they want their waste containers to be sited on the property, they re-erect enclosures that hide those better from public view, and also they have options with Marborg to better protect those containers as well.
And these bins are covered, right?
Dumpsters and carts have attached lids.
Okay, and this is a random question. Is there a raccoon problem in Ivy? Because in my neighborhood, they come and just go through the trash and make a mess.
Supervisor Luther, the Chair, I'm sure maybe our Ivy CSD partners might have more on the in-person experience. When I was a student at UCSB, raccoons were the top pest.
Okay, thank you. All right, thank you. My general philosophy is less is more when it comes to government, but government's necessary when problems can't be solved by the private sector, by businesses, by free markets, and that's what's happening here. We have a problem that's persisted for decades and unfortunately Some of the landlords haven't been able to solve that with their own tenants, so this has now fallen upon the CSD and the county to act, and so I'm supportive of this.
You know, property management for these landlords is more than just collecting the rents. You've got to make sure that you're on top of these types of things for the health of the neighborhood, the health of your investment. And I think that this isn't a problem that's going to get solved without these corrections. So I'm as well supportive of this proposed ordinance and I appreciate Public Works and I appreciate my colleagues who represent and have represented Isla Vista and their perspective on this and I would look for a motion here.
That's really well said, Supervisor Chair Nelson. Yeah, and I really have optimism that this will turn things in the right direction. So thanks for all the work. And again, all the trash cleanups are still going to happen. I know they will because they're such a dedicated team of people, but we need more help and help is on the way. So with that, I'll make the motion.
3:20 – 3:226 turns
I'll second.
A motion from Supervisor Capps, a second from Supervisor Hartmann. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. All right, I think where we're at here, we're going to go ahead and go to closed session. So Madam Council, would you please read the items for closed session into the record? Just for a programming note, we'll be coming back for final deliberations or final action on departmental item one immediately after lunch, and then we'll be dealing with department item four and the appeal immediately after that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. The Board is scheduled to meet in closed session on one item of existing litigation, Abdullah v. the County, which is the United States District Court case in the Central District, and conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers, and executives, and the agency designated representatives are CEO Miyasato and Human Resources Director Christine Schmidt. And the time estimate is 45 minutes.
Thank you. We will be back No earlier than, did you say 45 minutes? So we'll be back no earlier than 1.30. All right, welcome back to the February 24th, 2026 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Returning from closed session, Madam Council, will you please report back from closed session?
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. The Board met in closed session on two items. One, existing litigation, Abdulla v. the County, and conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers, and executives, and the Board took no reportable action.
All right, so just for everybody out there, we're gonna go ahead and go back to departmental item number one for a small change that the board requested, so hopefully we'll take a look at that, and if that's amenable to my colleagues, we'll go ahead and take a vote on that and move that through, and then we'll be getting with departmental item four as scheduled after lunch.
Madam Clerk, will you please read item number one back into the record?
3:22 – 3:2511 turns
Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the County Executive Office, County Health Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the sidewalk vending ordinance and pilot program.
All right, so it looks like we have some changes that were proposed by Supervisor Hartmann and agreedable by our colleagues here. I put up on the screen, I think we have it up here on the dice as well and I believe it's in the back or online for the public. And the substance of it is to have a prohibition on sidewalk vending within 500 feet of a school during school sponsored events. So that would cover not only the operational day, but also when there are games and other, you know, back to school nights and other things that might have students presence for public safety reasons. So, Supervisor Hartmann, does that look appropriate for your?
That does and thank you very much.
All right and again thank you staff for being so amenable to and so quick with these improvements. So with that let's go back and bring up the recommended actions here. Looking for a motion to CEO Miyasato, let me go to CEO Miyasato real quick.
Chair Nelson, thank you. As you make the motion, I heard several things about bringing something back on enforcement, whether prioritization or budget. So if you'd want us to do more, please make that part of your motion, whoever brought that up.
What I'm going to be looking for is asking if our mental health staff are looking at maybe a change of potential work schedule to be able to better respond to that and obviously there's a lot that goes into that because you have staff that has regular hours, you guys are going into the next budget year, so I just think that that's an issue I like to see brought back to us at some point either through the budget discussions or at a future meeting.
So that's going to be a staff recommendation. I've seen some nodding heads on that, so I think there's consensus on that as part of the motion. And then Supervisor Hartmann, would you mind wrapping up the motion of the recommended
actions? Yeah, let me just say that the program goes through October 3rd, so we would expect a report to come back after that. I don't think that has to be in the motion. So I would move staff recommendation A through D as amended, as the ordinance is amended,
And is it, are we doing F at all? Is F the CEQA determination or is that, I guess that's in,
that's in D.
I just want to make sure we have it right.
Yeah, I got A through D. I
Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Joan Hartmann · Seconded by Steve Lavagnino
Show transcript
3:26 – 3:3532 turns
Chair Nelson, members of the board, departmental item number four is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the ARREA and HADOC appeals, case number 25-APL-19 and 25-APL-20 of the Montecito Planning Commission approval of the Promised Land LLC as-built wall, case number 23-CDH-27, Montecito Community Plan Area. This project is located within the First District.
Before we proceed with today's item, I do have a couple of late documents that need...
Before we get to late documents, I'm just curious on, I guess there was a request for continuance. I don't know if that's been pulled or not. And should we take an action on whether we're going to continue this item or not?
Mr. Chair, members of the board, one of the appellants is here, and I think he is going to move forward with the request to continue it.
for a request to continuance. So we're going to hear the continuance, the request for continuance first, and then we end up hearing the potential appeal, whether or the board decides to move forward or not. Is that correct? That's the way that, do we need to do ex parte for that and all the extra items for that? Because if we don't have to move forward the hearing, we should decide the continuance first.
That's my understanding.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, you could hear from both sides regarding just the continuance and you would take public comment on that.
Yeah, let's deal with the continuance first and then we'll go back into ex parte and we'll go then go into added items and the hearing if necessary. So I guess what is the procedure for it's to ask the appellant to come up and for a couple minutes on a request for continuance?
Mr. Chair, members of the board, yes, you'd hear from the appellant, then you'd hear from the applicant, and you'd want to hear from, I mean, staff is saying you have the discretion either way.
Okay, does staff have anything they want to add before we hear from the appellant on the request for continuance?
No, Mr. Chair.
All right, so I guess I'll give three minutes to the appellant, and then I'll give three minutes to the applicant for, on the continuance. Yes sir, welcome. Thank you.
I'm going to apologize first because this is my first hearing and so there's a lot of things that I'm probably doing wrong. I will start with the kind of understanding and even kind of the request on the continuance. So we have a series of sort of scheduling and kind of communications issues. Even in the agenda, the email that is used for the other appellant is wrong to date and so She wasn't, she's not able to be here right now for medical issues that she's taking care of with her family.
But we have had communication issues and if I were more experienced, I would have known to be more proactive about this. So I came in, you know, into this today really kind of from And so, given sort of the issues in communication and difficulty in scheduling, some of which may have been on my own Thank you. I would appreciate that if we can do that. One thing I will say is, you know, I don't want this to sort of fall into kind of a, I think it would be a pity to sort of have this be rushed even if into or compressed kind of from the perspective that, oh, we didn't, we had changes or we couldn't schedule something in two months when this is a kind of, let's say, certification or approval.
that is coming seven years down the road from when these when this project was was actually carried out. So from my perspective, you know, if we had a little bit of more time to structure this appeal a little better, we could we could do it better. But if that's not the case, then we're here and we'll go through the materials that we have with some clarifications from what we learned today. But they will be limited.
Okay, thank you for that request. I have a question. Yes, Supervisor
Lavagnino. Did you also, did you appear at the Montecito Planning Commission as well?
I was not there, no. The other appellant was there, yes. Okay, yeah, thank you. But I couldn't make it.
All right, thank you. I'd like to hear at this time hear from the applicant.
Good afternoon, Chair Nelson, Supervisors. I'm Laurel Perez with SEPS Land Use Consulting, representing the property owner and project applicant. And in response to the request for a continuance, I would like to note that this is a project that has been in the permit review process for an as-built repair to an existing historic sandstone boulder wall that was partially destroyed during the debris flow. Back in 2018, the repair work occurred nearly three, let's see, five years past with no communication. And then a notice of violation was filed on this property in 2023 in response to a neighbor concern. We have been at the permit process since 2023.
It's been three years in the making. It's gone through exhaustive public review. The hearing finally occurred at the Montecito Planning Commission back in September. We have made numerous efforts through the county's voluntary facilitation process to meet with the appellants to address their concerns. We've been trying to do that since October when the appeals were filed.
And so here we are now, five months later. This is a hearing that was originally thought to be scheduled in January. It was pushed to the end of February. We've been at it a long time, and our applicant has spent an exorbitant amount of resources, money, time, experts, and we implore your, respectfully implore your board to move forward today with the hearing. We believe that there is ample information in the record to make a decision today.
And in my recent conversations with the appellants as recently as yesterday and this morning, it's clear to me that the subject of concern isn't necessarily the repair work that was done to this historic wall. It's the presence of this wall in general, which really is not a subject of conversation today. The wall is over 85 years old. It pre-existed FEMA mapping and the repair has been demonstrated not to alter the flood conveyance within the San Ysidro Creek. So I think there's ample information in the record. I don't think a continuance is going to change the outcome of a hearing on this appeal. So I ask that you please move forward today. Thank you
very
much.
Thank you, Ms. Perez. I have a quick question that I'll go to Supervisor Hartmann.
I'd like to hear from staff about the outreach to both parties and what they knew or didn't know.
As well as how the Montecito Planning Commission hearing went as well. And the participation from the appellant. And then one other question while you're guys going to answer here. Did I read correctly though that the appellant was not charged any fee for the appeal because it's in the coastal zone, is that right? So there wasn't at least that bar that we usually have of a few hundred dollars for that?
Mr. Chair, that's correct. Any project in the appeals jurisdiction, we are precluded from charging a fee for an appeal.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you Supervisors. Yes, the item was heard at the Montecino Planning Commission. Duly noticed and staff was, were you online Carlos? I can't remember if Carlos was online, but the other appellant did come, did speak. I think it was a 5-0 vote at the Planning Commission. I have been aware that facilitation attempts were tried by the applicant numerous times.
All
right. And Council, who facilitates those facilitation meetings, tries to organize parties getting
together. Tried, attempted to organize it, but never was held.
Correct, because a date could not be agreed upon by the appellants, is my understanding.
Okay. All right. I need to go ahead and see if Mr. Hartmann then I'm going to ask for public comment on the
continuance. So just was there a heads up about the initial date and this date so that there was everybody said this is a good date? I mean basically that's what I want to hear.
Mr. Chair and members of the Board, all parties did agree to this date, and they were also notified that they need to coordinate directly with the Clerk of the Board for submission, for timelines around submission of any materials for the hearing.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Dargo. Is there any public comment on the continuance, on the appeal itself?
3:35 – 3:4531 turns
Chair Nelson, members of the Board, we have no request to speak.
Okay, thank you. So what's the will of the board? Is it to move forward or let's get a...
Could we hear from
our... Yeah, Supervisor Lee, please. What's, that's your... I would
have to agree with the applicant to not continue it in here today and just pull out the band-aid on this.
Okay, so there's a, that's the desire of the First District Supervisor. Is that, is that actually a motion to, to, to deny the continuance?
I want to hear from the other board members, but that's, that'll be the motion that I'll You're supportive?
Yeah, I think we've seen this a number of times where it's really difficult to get two sides together especially that are disagreeing over a land use issue and you know five months is plenty of time to be able to do whatever you need to do to be here on if it's you know today's the day so. Supervisor Hartmann?
There's a lot of time and resources that go into having this meeting here at this time today with everybody ready to go. So there has to be some really overriding rationale for me to want to vote to change it.
Supervisor Capps.
Yeah I agree and I just know that you've been active on this so I'm sure that you've tried to communicate as much as possible and I also do know that the process is not very clear necessarily to someone who's new to it but the fact that we do have planning commissions that are the first rung of this of this process and and they've already met it tells me that it's time to move forward.
Okay so Supervisor Lee are you good with making a motion to deny continuance? Okay is there a second? Okay, second by Supervisor Lavagnino to deny continuance. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. So we will go ahead and move forward with the hearing today. So with that, my first request actually is to the board members, and then I'll come to the other items, to reporting ex parte on this item. So any other communications? Do you want to start with you, Supervisor Lee?
I did. Yesterday I met with the appellants. I spoke to them on the phone and in person today.
Okay.
No ex parte.
Supervisor Lavagnino, any ex parte? None.
None.
Okay, and I have had no ex parte, so I've had no communication outside of this hearing on this item. So, with that, Madam Clerk, I believe that there's some additional materials to be put on the record, potentially.
Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the Board, we have the following materials. Appellant Materials, Carla Soraya, on February 20th at 12.01 p.m. Appellant Material, Carla Soraya, on February 20th at 12.02 p.m. Appellant Materials, Carla Soraya, February 20th at 12.02 p.m. Appellant Presentation, Carlos Soraya, February 23rd at 2.28 p.m. and Appellant Materials, Carlos Soraya, February 24th, 2026 at 7.53 a.m.
And are these materials or is the presentation, is the presentation in those materials?
There is a presentation within those materials, yes. Okay,
so I guess there's a question to accept those into the record. Just on my position on this is I would be willing to accept the ones that came in on the 20th, but the things that are coming in yesterday and today, I've been saying for quite some time that I'll be voting against those, so I'll be voting against this motion if it does move forward, which is fine. I'm just trying to make a point out there for the public to get your materials in sooner. So I will not be approving this motion personally, but if somebody wants to make the motion to bring it into the record, I'm amenable.
I agree with you. I think we have to set the bar and draw the line and Yeah, so I'm. So there's no motion to bring. There's no motion, I just agree with your statement.
Okay, so there's no motion to bring those into the record. I understand that the presentation will obviously be in the record because it's being read out loud, but the other materials will not be a part of the record, the formal record. All right, so moving along, I think we have a presentation by staff.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. As indicated, we have an appeal before the board today regarding a sandstone wall that had been damaged in the debris flow and rebuilt. And the appellants appealed that. It went to the Montecito Planning Commission and then here to the board. And we have Travis Seawards with us today, Joe Dargle, and Kathleen Volpe.
We also have two representatives from Flood Control, Walter Rubicava and Matt Griffith, and they're able to answer some of the technical questions that may come up. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Volpe for the presentation.
Hi, good afternoon, Chair, members of the Board. My name is Kathleen Volpe, and I will be presenting the proposal for the appeal of the Promised Land LLC as built wall. Here we have an aerial image of the subject parcel. The property is located at 1690 San Leandro Lane. It's within the coastal zone in the Montecito Community Plan area. The four-acre parcel is residentially zoned 2E1 and is highlighted in green on the vicinity map. San Ysidro Creek is shown by the blue line that crosses the northern portion of the parcel.
The area of development is shown by the red circle. The appellants are neighboring parcels shown in orange on the other side of the San Ysidro Creek located at 211 Boski Parkway and 1770 J. Linda Drive. The project is a request for a coastal development permit to legalize an as-built approximately 110-foot crowded sandstone boulder wall within the San Ysidro Creek.
The wall ranges in size from 2 to 12 feet tall and is 7 1⁄2 to 15 feet wide. The subject property was impacted by the Montecito debris flows of January 2018. During March and February of 2018, following the debris flow, major cleanup efforts were completed by County Public Works Flood Control and the Army Corps of Engineers, individual property owners throughout the disaster area within San Ysidro Creek and in the vicinity of the project site. This photo demonstrates work being performed by Flood Control and ACOE in February of 2018.
Like for like repairs to the damaged wall within the San Ysidro Creek occurred at this time by the property owner. The existing wall has been in place since 1954. On September 24th, 2025, the appellants filed a timely appeal of the MPC approval of this project. The appeal issue brought forward is an assertion that changes to the water flow due to repairs to the existing wall within the creek has resulted in flooding on the neighboring properties.
In response, staff has determined the work on the wall does not alter the existing flow conveyance capacity. The project involves the repair of a portion of existing wall that extends along San Ysidro Creek and has been established since at least 1954. Technical analysis prepared by a licensed engineer, including a no rise certification, were submitted by the applicant. They've been reviewed by Public Works Flood Control and the Army Corps. Flood control determined that the project complies with all applicable county floodplain and floodway development standards, including the requirement to maintain preexisting flood flow conveyance capacity.
The Army Corps further determined that the work does not require a Section 404 permit and complies with applicable federal regulations. Based on this review, the project will not adversely affect flood conveyance, water surface elevations, or associated flood hazards. In summary, the repairs to the grouted sandstone boulder wall are consistent with the comprehensive plan, including the Montecito Community Plan. The as-built wall replicates the original in both design and materials.
The project complies with all applicable Article 2 and E1 zone development standards, including those related to native plant community habitats and stream habitat policies. The project is exempt from CEQA under Guideline Section 15302. Board of Supervisors Staff recommends that your board deny the appeals, make the required findings to approve the CDH, determine that the action is exempt from CEQA, and grant de novo approval of the CDH. That concludes my presentation and I'm now available for any questions as well as mentioned we do have flood control to assist with any technical questions. Thank you.
All right any questions of staff from the board at this time?
I think from flood control can come up. Sure. Walter. All right, thanks for coming up. I just want to hear from you and put on the record that in your expertise, it does not affect the neighboring parcels, correct?
Can you repeat the second
part? I just want to hear from you and put on record that this wall does not affect the adjacent parcels.
Yeah, so Chair Nelson, Supervisor Lee, what we're comparing, what we're comparing the situation is a like-to-like condition. So if the conditions didn't change, There's not going to be additional impact. We don't have any information to dispute what's been submitted by the applicant. So when we're doing an analysis of what was there prior to what was there now, if it's a like to like, it's not going to result in more impact.
3:45 – 3:556 turns
Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Rubicalla. Any other questions from the board? All right. Seeing none, this is the time for the appellant. Mr. Arrea. It's your opportunity here. You have 10 minutes. Yeah, I think if your presentation is loaded. Just hold on one second. We'll get you squared away. You can present either presentation that you have available.
Whatever materials you brought that you want to present to us is It comes in record that direction, not through the vote.
Okay, is there a way for me to see? Okay, perfect. Yeah, so I think, so I'm gonna, it's gonna be a show of ignorance, but basically what you're looking at here is kind of an overlay of two of the attachments, and so this is just sort of for context. I think now it's been kind of shown by The board here that basically the wall sustains kind of this sharp bend that throws sort of the creek against the east bank of the creek and towards basically the trail and kind of community sort of property there and the private sort of property lines on that space. That you can maybe see that kind of more clearly here that it sort of throws it towards that east bank and towards these east properties. And if you were actually looking down kind of the sort of the main call it entry point into that bend, there's a video that we've submitted that kind of shows that the creek basically is hitting that wall head on and causing diversion, right?
So really specific data of like what the shape And angle of that wall is really critical for any kind of assessment because to Walter's point, like any like for like here, like we're not going to see a difference, right, in kind of any FEMA modeling. And so, you know, unfortunately like that's, you know, You know, from my side as someone who bought the property after 2018, I don't have kind of, you know, before and after data that I, but I could, you know, given more time spend searching for that, but I don't have that with me right now. And so having spoken to flood control, understood what was done kind of in the analysis, it's become clear that that is the type of data that would be helpful.
Okay, so having seen that, so what do we know? So it hits this wall. That energy and mass needs to go somewhere. And so what you see is like immediately on the other side, you start seeing erosion of the bank right after where that wall is. Okay, and that starts to basically destabilize this area where the kind of the open space or Ennsbruck Preserve is and close to the trail. And if you then kind of just turn down, looking downwards, Now what you see is that you actually have this imbalance in kind of damage on both sides to the creek, right? So on one side, you can see that it's eroding and moving, kind of degrading that bank of the creek. And on the other side, it's just kind of sort of shearing in sort of parallel, right? So the water is actually moving in two different directions once it bounces off the wall.
One is against The east bank, right, and the other is just kind of vertical sort of or sort of parallel along kind of the creek. And so now, you know, as you sort of move down, what that naturally sort of extends to is into kind of this dumping and extension of the river and sort of putting more pressure on that curve such that it destroys essentially this part of the Ennisburg Preserve.
clips the trail, community sort of resource that's important for recreation, and goes into kind of the neighboring properties. In our property, it clipped kind of this, you know, maybe a 10-foot section of the fence. In our neighbor's property, the damage was a lot more extensive. And so now you have a situation where you have private property, and then kind of, you know, with all this water, it's damaging and killing some of the sort of native coastal oaks in there. So this does cause problems, right, if we don't address it properly. And so, you know, my understanding is that in the sort of current modeling, we're limited in seeing, you know, what is the effect, right, and how much did it From my perspective, I don't have an understanding of how much did the structure change, right?
So if we're assuming like for like, we can't see a difference. One thing we can note, however, is that the last section of the wall is actually really steep. And as far as I know, it's steeper than any of the kind of standards for engineering for kind of revetment design that is meant to sort of mitigate kind of the energy and, you know, kind of reduce, yeah, kind of that energy sort of bouncing back into the creek.
And so this particular slide is not particularly important anymore, but what we are left with on our side, right, is a series of questions of, you know, does the wall raise flood levels downstream? We don't see that in kind of the documents. We only see sort of slices, like right where the structure is. There's no information of kind of velocity and shearing, like where does that redirected water and energy go? And was there kind of an engineering standard that gets applied to a wall like this? Or is it because it's, you know, like for like, we don't need to think about like what the design is, right? Does that suddenly not matter, even if we know certain structures are not safe?
These are just questions that, you know, I can only ask as a resident, not a professional engineer. This particular one is about kind of regulatory. You can ignore that first one, like in an email that I received earlier for this case, there was a wrong address that's been sort of The other two points, you know, I would say are points that you guys are in the best position to really evaluate regarding regulatory, so I'm not going to get into that. The only sort of two counterfactuals that I would sort of bring up regarding kind of the materials in the Attachment A finding is that there is a claim that there's no recreation adjacent to property. The wall is directly adjacent. to the Ennisburg Preserve, which is a recreation area, unless I'm misunderstanding what a recreation area is.
And there's also a statement that the as-built wall will not adversely impact recreational facilities. And to Walter's point, we actually don't have evidence of that, right? The sort of the kind of the circumstantial evidence that we have, these photos and sort of images that I just showed you, is perhaps to the contrary, right? But the existing evidence is a like for like, and that's not an evaluation of the effect of the wall.
Right. So we don't, I would, you know, I would say that we don't have evidence that it isn't causing damage. Right. Like what's being evaluated in these is was there a change and does that change have any impact? But we're not modeling an actual change. So where is that going to happen? So, you know, what would we be asking for, right? At a first level, like as from my perspective, we want to have kind of validation that the provided analysis meets the FEMA standards, that there's clarity and documented proof of a section 404 permit that we did receive an email kind of forwarded about two days ago, and I will That's a question I have. Is that a validated proof of an exemption? Is that a 404, an actual 404 permit?
There is a question on my behalf regarding, you know, is this sort of this categorical exemption valid in light of sort of the complexity of the scenario, or is that sort of cause for outstanding circumstances that need to be evaluated? That's also a question. And then kind of on the engineering side, I do, you know, really believe that we don't actually have a full, no-rise, kind of two-dimensional hydraulic analysis that shows the wall's effects on velocity, on depth, on shear across the full channel.
So that's all I can kind of raise sort of as concerns on my side. Similarly, right, I will add kind of on the engineering side, this is that wall slope in compliance or is it, you know, because it's like for like, you know, no matter if we know that that's not a safe structure, as long as we're repairing it, it's like for like, it doesn't matter if we know that's not a safe design.
It's just the question I propose. And then lastly, you know, I would say, obviously, you know, kind of on behalf of, you know, everybody that enjoys the Ennisburg Preserve and the natural environment that it provides and recreational opportunities for people and animals of all ages. And obviously, as an interested property owner, once you pass that area of the preserve, You know, would love to hear like what are kind of the mitigation efforts or plans for adverse effects that may be arising from this wall.
I hope that's clear what my position is. I don't know if I stay here and answer questions or I just kind of step down, but that's.
No, that's great, Mr. Horaya, and you finished with a minute 45 seconds left. I'll add that to your rebuttal later on if you want to. So have six minutes and 45 seconds if necessary on the rebuttal. Are there any questions for Mr. Horaya before we hear from the appellant or the applicant? Supervisor Lavagnino.
So do you have any evidence, any pictures or anything that what they're proposing is not like-for-like or it's just more of your argument that regardless if it's like-for-like, the design is improper?
Yeah, no, I don't have any evidence to that effect, but I wasn't looking for that either. So I haven't spent time looking for that because I had not understood like what the actual underlying analysis was, which is if we don't change anything, do things change? Probably not. So, yeah.
Thank you, Mr. Rea. You have a chance for rebuttal after the appellant speaks and after public comment.
3:55 – 4:1019 turns
Good afternoon again, Supervisors. Laurel Perez on SEP's Land Use Consulting on behalf of the property owner and project applicant. I'm also joined today by our project engineer and project biologist, should you have any specific technical questions. At its core, oh and I think our, we do have a PowerPoint presentation if you, thank you so much, appreciate it. I'll go ahead and get started.
At its core, this case involves, as we've been discussing, a like-for-like disaster repair to a portion, small portion, of an historic sandstone boulder wall. And I'd like to note that this existing wall extends beyond the subject property. It's a wall that was constructed more than likely very soon thereafter the original house, which was constructed in 1920. So we know it's well over 80, 85 years old, probably much older.
And again, it extends across multiple properties, not just the subject property. The repair work did not increase flood risk, it did not alter creek flow conveyance, and it did not harm environmental resources. The repair was completed in early 2018 in direct response to the Montecito debris flow during a period of widespread cleanup within the San Ysidro Creek Channel and surrounding properties.
Per the project historian, this sandstone boulder wall, as I mentioned, dates back, we know, to at least prior to 1940, and that's because in the 1940s, they stopped building this kind of sandstone boulder wall, and they transitioned to a different engineered type wall. So we think that it's probably at least 85 years old and much older than that. Historic aerial imagery shows the wall in place well before modern flood regulations. And the Montecito debris flow, as we all know, caused catastrophic damage throughout the community. Oh, sorry about that. I should be clicking.
There you go. Here's a map that shows in red the damage that occurred to surrounding properties. The subject property is identified there in black. And the impacts were significant to San Ysidro Creek, but also to adjacent properties. And in response, the previous property owner obtained an emergency permit from the county to address damage to the residence and his property. But unfortunately, the permit itself that was issued did not explicitly call out repairs to this wall.
Had it been identified on that permitted plan set, we wouldn't be here today. Okay. The repair work did not expand the wall. It didn't extend it further into the creek, did not alter its footprint or its height. This timeline spans eight years. It starts in 2018 when the prior property owner obtained a county emergency repair permit to repair damage to several of the structures on the subject property and conduct necessary cleanup to the property caused by the debris flow. The work was completed and signed off by the County of Santa Barbara and no further communications occurred until five years later in 2023 when the new property owner received a notice of violation in response to a neighbor complaint for the wall repair work that was completed back in 2018.
Responding to the notice of violation involved a tremendous effort. A team of professionals were needed to address all the requirements of this after-the-fact permit, including a surveyor, civil engineer, biologist, historian, our office, to prepare and assemble as-built plans, technical studies, reports, background information, conduct a biological resources assessment, analyzed the water carrying capacity of the creek and confirmed that no alterations occurred to the creek function as a result of the like-for-like repair work.
We met that test. This has been peer-reviewed by Flood Control, P&D, Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and was ultimately approved by the Montecito Planning Commission unanimously five months ago. The photo on the left here was actually taken by County Flood Control District staff just following the debris flow. And in fact, the photo on the left, you'll see their backflow, or excuse me, backhoe in the creek corridor, you know, getting rid of creek debris.
Working, and the photo on the right is also taken by district staff. And what that demonstrates you is the property owner at the time, his crew out there hand replacing the damaged portion of the wall. You can see that they took very careful measures in order to protect any remaining resources in the creek. They did the repair work. with the backhoe on the other side, the inland side of that wall, to carefully lift and place the same boulders that were, you know, pushed out from the flow into place and use five-gallon cement buckets with cement to hand grout the boulders back in place, using largely the same exact boulders that had been in the original construction of this wall.
This is a photo of the repaired wall today or in 2025. And you can, if you look carefully, you can see the segment of wall that was repaired and how it's different slightly in terms of the color of the grout in contrast to the original wall. And I should note in this photo here, a portion of this wall is on the subject property. But as I mentioned in my opening statement, portions of this wall extend beyond this property.
So, appeal number one, the first appeal issue alleges that the wall causes flooding on neighboring properties. Again, this is a wall that's more than 80 years old and the like-for-like repair work of the wall did not change historic creek conveyance. County Flood Control reviewed the engineering analysis and issued clearance based on a valid no-rise certification that is compliant with county flood control requirements.
A no-rise certification means that the reconstructed wall does not increase the water surface elevation within the FEMA floodway. In other words, the repaired wall does not raise flood levels. Again, the wall was replaced in kind with the same footprint, same configuration, and same height as the historic wall. Again, another photo of the wall today, as it looks.
Appeal issue number two. The second appeal issue suggests that the repaired wall could change how water moves through the creek or increase flood risk to neighboring properties. Again, the engineers specifically analyzed this question, and the results show that water elevations during major storm events match FEMA's existing flood elevations, and this includes 100-year storm events.
The hydraulic performance of the creek remains unchanged from its historic condition. And that's the issue. You know, it isn't whether this wall should be there or not, it's was it repaired in such a way that did not alter the historic function of this creek. In addition to the technical analysis that we provided, the applicant team, as I mentioned earlier, we've made countless efforts through the county's voluntary facilitation effort to try to address the concerns that have been raised today.
That said, I've learned this morning, you know, there's probably some improvements that could occur within the facilitation process, so we'll keep that in mind for future projects. And, you know, after speaking with one of the applicants who's not here today, yesterday and again this morning, it was, it's clear to me that the primary concern, again, is not the repair of this wall. It's the, it's the presence of this wall. And that just really isn't, that isn't up for discussion today.
Our client is, like I said, three years into this permit process with a tremendous amount of resources expended. And we believe that the record fully supports the county's ability to approve This after-the-fact repair permit. The bottom line, we believe this case is straightforward. The repair work did not raise water levels. It did not change historic flow patterns. It did not increase flood risk, even during a 100-year storm event. The repair replaced a small segment of a historic wall in its original location following a declared disaster.
The project has been reviewed by licensed engineers, county flood control, planning staff, and state resource agencies. The technical record consistently supports the same conclusion. The reconstructed wall functions as it historically did and does not create new impacts. Therefore, we ask your board proceed with staff's recommendation to deny the appeals today and uphold the Montecito Planning Commission's approval. And I would like to also add that we empathize with the appellant's concerns for their properties during major flood events. You know, that's a real concern and we understand that.
And we would encourage the appellants and other neighbors up and down the San Ysidro Creek Corridor to continue conversations with the county and other neighbors to work cooperatively on a long-range creek maintenance program or plan and maybe even identify other more immediate measures that could be implemented that don't require an exhaustive permit review process to protect their properties. You know, gravity walls, walls that aren't grouted, things that are located outside of the floodway, of course, but could help to address some of their concerns.
With that said, I thank you for your time and your consideration. All
right. Thank you, Ms. Perez. Right on time. Any questions for Ms. Perez before we go to public comment? Okay, seeing none, Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item?
Chair Nelson, members of the board, we have no request to speak.
OK. So at this point, it's rebuttal. So we'll have the appellant back up if you have any additional information, sir, Mr. Arrea. You have another 6 minutes and 45 seconds if you have any additional.
No, I don't think I have any additional kind of information. The only thing, I think my point is that we don't actually have information about the safety of the wall, like repaired or pre-repairs. We don't have that information and we're seeing damage in the area. If, I would say, like if we had time to search for changes in the structure, that is something that we could do.
I understand, I do take your point that these things cost, you know, good taxpayers money, so.
Thank you, Mr. Arella.
That's it.
All right, further rebuttal from the applicant? Okay, just yeah, we come up and say that there's no further. Mr.
Chair, no further rebuttal, thank you.
All right, now back to staff for any additional feedback from the appellant or the applicant, then I'm sure the board has some questions.
Yes, Mr. Chair, I think we just wanted to note that the other appellant, I think her name is Marty Hayduck, was here this morning and had been noticed for the hearing and was part of conversations with flood control and then departed before the hearing began.
Okay, thank you. Questions for staff? Any further questions for staff? I have a couple, but I'll... All right, so I want to understand the vagueness of the original permit that they had. My understanding is that they thought this was part of the original permit that they had received. And if it would have been more specific, we wouldn't be here by now. So can you guys maybe dive into that a little bit? Because I'm actually concerned about them getting a notice of violation on this.
Mr. Chair and Supervisors, so I don't know the exact year that the original structure on the site was permitted. We can look that up and follow up with you on that, but it was decades ago and it was at a time when details on permits were much fewer and far between. No,
I'm actually, I'm the emergency permit after the storm. There was an emergency permit, right, that they received. I don't think there was one.
I think what Supervisor Nelson, Mr. Chair, is referencing is the permit that the former landowner obtained after the debris flow to make repairs to the property because there was damage to the property. And there was nothing in the application that talked about that, you know, maybe it's six by six square of repair of the wall, and they went ahead and made improvements to the wall without a reference to that in the permit.
And so there was a complaint then filed with the department some years later saying that it was repaired outside the permit process. And so we went and we reviewed it. And indeed, we realized that a repair had been made and that a permit for that had not been granted. And so then we started working with the new landowner to get that corrected.
Again, I'm kind of concerned about how big that permit was. It sounds like it was not specific, but said emergency repairs. I mean, how? I think there might be a reasonable expectation that this was a part of that original permit. And what I'm concerned about is a notice violation that potentially cost the applicants tens of thousands of dollars unnecessarily.
So Mr. Chair, the department relies on the information that's submitted by the applicant in an emergency permit situation. So usually they detail to us what the damage was and what the improvements are that they're going to make. And so I think the staff wasn't aware at the time that there was damage to the wall and the applicant wasn't specific about them making improvements or correcting The damage to that wall and and so that's how it transpired. I wasn't here at the time and I don't think any of us were in the department at the time. Maybe Mr. Dargill.
This is after the Thomas fire?
This is after the yeah, the debris flow in 2018. Okay. Yeah, so
4:10 – 4:1615 turns
All right I just it's just really.
We do try and work with applicants to make sure that their emergency permits are comprehensive and what it is they need to do to repair damage to their structures. I'm
afraid being comprehensive is counterproductive. I think being broad is actually you know more appropriate if they're going like-to-like and you know Truth is that the applicants had to spend tens of thousands of dollars of county fees and then maybe even six figures of experts just because somebody was not specific enough. And that seems really punitive in our system.
Yeah. OK. All right. I guess I'll leave that there. So that's my question about the actual how we got here in the first place. I guess my comments, Dargle.
Mr. Chair, we did look up the parcel, the permit history, and we have some more context for the permits that you were just referring to. So following the debris flow, they did apply for a building permit. It looks like actually maybe Two building permits, one over-the-counter permit and one just a regular building permit. And following the debris flow, the process was mostly any repairs that did not change the footprint of the existing structure. Those repairs were exempt from zoning permits. So there was also a disaster tracking case that the zoning folks had that we used to review those changes for the repairs to the structure under the building permit. And so that would not generally have extended to any repairs in the creek.
Is that not a structure? The structure in the creek is a structure, but it's in the appeals jurisdiction and it would require a zoning permit regardless of whether or not it had already been there. So that is the reason why there was a violation on this case.
So Supervisor Lee, do you want to kick off where you're at with this?
I do. I just want to say Mr. O'Reilly, you did a great job. I thought for a first-timer you made a good argument based on what you have, but you also said there's no evidence that it does not cause damage, but there's no evidence that it does. as well, but I want to believe you and I work with you and I wish we had more time to work on this, but based on all the evidence, I would have to go with the applicant and deny this appeal and agree with the MPC. So that's where I stand.
Other members? All right, well, I'll jump in and I'm with you as well. I don't think we have any evidence in the record that shows that this was anything different. I'm even questionable whether it should have required a permit or have been a notice violation anyway. I mean, these things have real consequences on people's lives and cost real dollars and time and staff. So I just asked staff to be careful in the future as we do these things, because they can go down some pretty deep pathways. And it seems like sometimes you're guilty until proven innocent in our land use process, and that's really unfortunate.
But I do agree with Supervisor Lee, and I would support a motion to Deny the appeal and approve the applicant's permit. Supervisor
Hartmann? I just had a question. So the structure was that they got the permits for was not in the coastal zone, but the wall was?
Mr. Chair and Supervisors, so my understanding, so it's all in the coastal zone, but the appeals jurisdiction is a subset. And so within the creek, that's all within the appeals jurisdiction. And outside the appeals jurisdiction, there are other rules for exemptions.
So it's possible that the previous owner knew that and didn't want to go through that process. Is that another interpretation?
Mr. Chair and Supervisors, that is potentially an interpretation. I don't know if I'd want to get into what their intentions were, but what they did, we do understand, was at the same time as a large amount of repair work all throughout the community after following the debris flow, Army Corps of Engineers, Public Works, they were all in the creek clearing it out.
So that's my comment.
All right so there's at least two votes for a denial of appeal.
So before I say I just want to say that my office will be committed to working with the opponents to find solutions other than what we have before today. We spoke before this meeting happened so I think there's a compromise in this solution there somewhere and we'll find it but I move to deny the appeal and approve staff recommendation A through D.
I'll
second. All right any further comments on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, thank you guys all for your time. All right, and that concludes our agenda for today. We are adjourned to Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026 back here in Santa Barbara. Thank you.
