Board of Supervisors — May 12, 2026

BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 May 12, 2026

UnGovr Transcript

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

0:00 – 0:037 turns

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 40:22 · ≈ 4:07 PM

Alright everybody, good morning. I'll call to order the May 12, 2026 regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Roll call — called by Bob Nelson
Show transcript
Supervisor Lavenino? I'm here. Supervisor Lee? Here. Supervisor Caps? Here. Supervisor Hartman? Here. And Chair Nelson? Here.
Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand
ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 40:40 · ≈ 4:07 PM

At this time, would you please stand and join us and pledge allegiance to our flag.

All right, the next item of business is approval of the minutes from the May 5th, 2026 meeting. Can I get a motion?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 31:16 · ≈ 4:08 PM

Hartman moves approval.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 21:18 · ≈ 4:08 PM

And I second.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:18 · ≈ 4:08 PM

Okay, any comment? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next item of business is the County Executive Officer Report. Mr. Horton, is there anything to get us started with today? No report this morning, Chair. Well, thank you, Mr. Laura for subbing in here for CO Miyasato. And Madam Clerk, are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:42 · ≈ 4:08 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, I do have a couple quick announcements this morning. An addendum was posted on Friday, May 8th, amending Administrative Item Number 42. Administrative Item Number 42 is from the County Executive Office regarding a site hearing to consider recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 recommended budget for the County of Santa Barbara and recommended budget for the County of Santa Barbara as the successor agency to the former County of Santa Barbara Redevelopment Agency. The recommended actions have been revised to reflect that budget hearings are scheduled for a single day on Tuesday, June 16, 2026. This addendum has been posted and made available both online to the board and the public.

And lastly, for information on the Board of Supervisors' methods of public participation and instructions on how to provide public comment on items listed on today's agenda or during general public comment, please refer to page 2 of the agenda. Individuals who wish to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance using the link provided on page 2.

Please note that Zoom is available solely for the purpose of providing verbal public comment and is not intended for viewing the meeting. Alternative viewing options are listed on page 2 of the agenda. If you have any questions, please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at 805-568-2240. Again, that number is 805-568-2240. And that concludes my announcements for today.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:05 · ≈ 4:10 PM

Thank you, Madam Clerk. At this time, the next item of business is the Administrative Agenda. Right now I have a few items pulled by the board and the public. Looks like, just to make sure I have it correctly here, for the board we have a point A2, A31, A40, and A46. Any other items that my colleagues want to have pulled? Okay. And then for the public we have public point A1, A2, A4, and A18.

0:03 – 0:1130 turns

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board3:35 · ≈ 4:10 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, that is correct.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:37 · ≈ 4:10 PM

Okay. So, at this time, I'd take a motion to approve the balance of the agenda. So, those are all items except for A1, 2, 4, 18, 31, 40, and 46. So

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 33:49 · ≈ 4:10 PM

moved.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:51 · ≈ 4:10 PM

Second. Motion by Hartman, a second by Lee. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right. At this time, we'll go ahead and move to a couple items that were pulled as well as our honorary resolutions that we'll be presenting here today. And we'll go ahead and do those in order. And we'll start off with item A1. Would you, Madam Clerk, read that into the record? And then I believe we have somebody from the public that's speaking on A1. So once you read it into the record, I'll have Anne read the resolution. Then I'll have the speaker speak. We'll take a vote on it. And then we'll do the pomp and circumstance.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board4:32 · ≈ 4:11 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of May 3rd, 2026 through May 9th, 2026 as Youth Mental Health Awareness Week in Santa Barbara County. And we have one request to speak from the public on this item. We're going to remain here in Santa Maria and go to Candace Mennegan. Candace?

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:57 · ≈ 4:11 PM

Okay. All right.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board4:59 · ≈ 4:11 PM

All righty. We'll move Candace to A2. Okay,

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 45:01 · ≈ 4:12 PM

great. Thank you.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board5:02 · ≈ 4:12 PM

And we'll proceed with presenting Administrative Item Number 1. And joining us in person today, and if you can

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 45:07 · ≈ 4:12 PM

please... Actually, before we do that, I just need a motion to approve Item A1.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 35:13 · ≈ 4:12 PM

I move that we approve A1.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 45:15 · ≈ 4:12 PM

I'll second. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Wow, tongue-tied this morning, guys. Sorry about this. Motion passes unanimously. So would you go ahead and read the resolution and do the presentation.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board5:34 · ≈ 4:12 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, again, joining us for administrative item number one in person today, we have Ina Liu and Adriana DeFranco. If you can please make your way to the podium. And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas the week of May 3rd through May 9th, 2026 is recognized nationally as Youth Mental Health Awareness Week, a time to increase public understanding of mental health, reduce stigma, and promote access to care for individuals and families.

And whereas many mental health conditions emerge during childhood and adolescence, making early identification, intervention, and support essential to the healthy development and well-being of young people. And whereas children and youth may face increased vulnerability to anxiety, depression, trauma, bullying, and social isolation. And timely access to culturally and linguistically responsive services can improve long-term outcomes. And whereas barriers such as stigma, costs, and limited access to care continue to prevent many youth and families from seeking needed support, underscoring the importance of community awareness and accessible resources.

And whereas the state of California has launched the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, CYBHI, a significant investment to expand access to care and strengthen early intervention for children and youth. And through the California Department of Health Care Services has made available free. confidential behavioral health resources for youth and families regardless of income, insurance, or immigration status, including digital tools such as Bright Life Kids and Saluna to help young people access support, build coping skills, and connect with resources. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby proclaim May 3rd through May 9th, 2026 as Youth Mental Health Awareness Week in Santa Barbara County, passed and adopted today.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 47:28 · ≈ 4:14 PM

Welcome, Ms. Liu, please.

CommentIna Liu7:30 · ≈ 4:14 PM

Thank you Chairman Nelson and members of the board for this resolution and for the care you've shown for young people here in Santa Barbara County. My name is Ina Liu. I'm here representing Saluna and with me is Adrienne DeFranco from our sibling program, Bright Life Kids. Together, we represent the digital front door represented by the State of California's Behavioral Health Youth Initiative. It's an honor to be here today to accept this on behalf of the many partners, educators, families, and community leaders who show up every day to support young people.

As we've grown this work, we focus on two key questions. Are we reaching young people and expanding access to care? And are we helping them feel better? We're seeing meaningful progress and I want to share a few highlights with you today. Bright Life Kids in Saloona have provided more than 500,000 children, youth, and families across California with free behavioral health support.

Young people aren't just signing up, they're coming back. Connecting with coaches, using tools, and finding community. With 98% of coaching participants saying they're satisfied with their experience. And now independent research from Northwestern University shows that within the first month, young people using Saluna are already feeling better. With reductions in anxiety, depression, loneliness, and hopelessness. Decreases in suicidal ideation and overall improvement in quality of life. And that's what this work is all about. Reaching young people, expanding access to care, and helping them feel better.

And while May is a time to raise awareness, we know that this work doesn't begin or end here. It's ongoing and it's rooted in community, sustained by commitment, and made possible by leadership like yours. So thank you, Vice Chair Hartman and Supervisor Lee, for carrying this resolution and to the entire board for ensuring the youth of Santa Barbara County know that they are never alone.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 39:16 · ≈ 4:16 PM

Wonderful.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 49:21 · ≈ 4:16 PM

Don't go yet. Ms. Liu, one second.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 39:22 · ≈ 4:16 PM

Don't go yet,

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 49:23 · ≈ 4:16 PM

please. Supervisor

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 39:23 · ≈ 4:16 PM

Hartman. I just had a question for you. So if we know a young person, could you tell us the age range for which people are eligible and how they would access your services?

CommentIna Liu9:35 · ≈ 4:16 PM

Absolutely. I can say a few words and you can share them. So we cover the whole age span, 0-25. 0-13 is covered by Bryler Kids and Adriana can share a few words about that. Saloona is for 13-25 year olds. Again, both services are absolutely free. Saloona is accessible for any internet enabled device, so web, phone, tablet. Most engage through the app. You can also engage through the web portal SaloonaApp.com or through the Android or Apple app download service. And

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 310:04 · ≈ 4:17 PM

what kind of information do you give when you

CommentIna Liu10:06 · ≈ 4:17 PM

first? Minimal, we really just need three pieces of information, your date of birth just to confirm you are in the age group, an email, and your zip code to make sure you're within the state of California.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 310:16 · ≈ 4:17 PM

And then how long till the person hears back?

CommentIna Liu10:19 · ≈ 4:17 PM

They are signed up right away, they can access any of the content, self-help, we have coaching, there's a peer support community, there's coaching navigation. I'm very proud to say that our drop-in coaching, the wait time is less than five minutes on average, so services immediately, but again, there's a broad array of services from self-help and peer support community.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 310:39 · ≈ 4:17 PM

And then, does it deal with things, I mean, serious things like schizophrenia and serious depression and then help guide people?

CommentIna Liu10:47 · ≈ 4:17 PM

Yep, yep. We have content available for various needs and can connect back into the local community. Do you want to share a few words around accessing

CommentAdrienne DeFranco10:55 · ≈ 4:17 PM

Bright Life? Thank you for the opportunity. So Bright Life Kids, very similar to Soluna, but we're serving the parents. with children with 0 to 12. So parents are the ones signing up for our services, and parents are the ones receiving the coaching sessions. Just reiterating, we're free. We don't ask for personal information. We don't ask the immigration status of the family. We don't need income verification. We don't need insurance verification. So it's really an open door to every family in California. And very easy to sign up, very quick access, availability is very fast, so we're there to support the families really where they are. And the services being virtual, the family doesn't have to go anywhere, right? The youth doesn't have to be anywhere, making it even simpler, easier for them to access the services.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 311:40 · ≈ 4:18 PM

Well, thank you. Those are extraordinary opportunities for people who really need it. Thank you. We

CommentAdrienne DeFranco11:46 · ≈ 4:18 PM

appreciate it. Thank you.

0:11 – 0:1712 turns

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 411:53 · ≈ 4:18 PM

All right, Madam Clerk, will you please read Administrative Item Number 2 into the record.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board11:59 · ≈ 4:18 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 2 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution recognizing the importance of biodiversity. And joining us in person today, we have Steve Winginger and Helene Schneider.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 412:12 · ≈ 4:19 PM

Before we get there, I do have, yeah, so this one was polled by the public as well as by myself. And I just wanted to ask a quick question of council, just kind of understand, I know it's a little odd on the resolutions, but when I was reading over our agenda today, I saw this resolution and, you know, I support it, everything in there, I mostly agree with.

It was a little bit different than most resolutions that we get. You know, I've read probably over a thousand resolutions since I've been at the board. This one looks more like a policy statement than a resolution. I know Supervisor Hartman, I've reached out to her and she explained to me that what this was for, but it just looks a little bit differently than other resolutions. And I just want to make sure, you know, it kind of reads like a policy statement more than a resolution. Usually we do resolutions for organizations or to commemorate some special week.

Madam Council, would you just tell me, like, what is the, like, binding obligation of a board when we adopt these honorary resolutions? Are these, are they policy of the board, or is it more of a, you know, aspirational goal-setting type of opportunity for us? I just want to kind of understand that a little bit better, because I don't want to come back and hear this later on that said, hey, your board adopted this, so you need to do, you know, X, so you need to do Y in the future. Because I think that that's a really bad precedent for us because I think when we have policy discussions, we should, you know, roll up our sleeves and have policy discussions. You know, I think resolutions are times to just celebrate organizations and what's great in our county.

And this is something that we can all celebrate, but I just want to make sure it's in context so it doesn't get used later on in some way that wasn't initially intended by the board. So would you mind just, is it, what is the binding obligation of a resolution like this to the board?

GovRachel Van MullemCounty Counsel13:58 · ≈ 4:20 PM

Mr. Chair and members of the board, so generally resolutions, there's kind of two different kinds. Sometimes you do a resolution related to a grant, and that is binding on the board, although it can be replaced by a future resolution. So it's not as if it's ongoing. Typically, these types of resolutions are more celebratory or in recognition of something. This one does appear to be a little bit different, but I think it's lawful for the board to adopt the resolution.

But it does not appear, usually when the board adopts a policy, it says it's a policy.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 414:34 · ≈ 4:21 PM

A policy, right. So I just wanted to clarify that on behalf of Supervisor Hartman. And I had asked Supervisor Hartman, because I wanted clarification, but I wanted to clarify for the public too. Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 314:43 · ≈ 4:21 PM

I just wanted to raise one other issue of the impact of resolutions. Sometimes for public works, when we've passed a resolution, then that gives them an opportunity for for allowing flags or things on public spaces to acknowledge what we're pinpointing as valuable.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 415:04 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Right. And so again, I'm not opposed to this resolution. I just want some clarification. I just read a little bit differently and I didn't know if anybody in the public read it a little bit differently as well. So I just want to ask that question and get that clarification. So thank you for indulging me on that. And so I do believe we have a couple of public commenters on this item. So I want to give public comment on the item before we adopt the resolution. So Madam Clerk, can you please Bring up the first public commenter, and I'm going to ask the public commenters to try to keep it to two minutes. We have a lot of public commenters here today in general public comment. So on the A items, if you try to keep the two minutes, some of you may have prepared for three.

Let's try to keep it down so that we can get to everybody today. So.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board15:41 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Chair Nelson, members of the board, we will begin here in Santa Maria with Candace Mennegan to be followed by Stephanie Diaz. Candace.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 415:59 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Welcome.

PresenterCandace MenneganCoastal Ranchers ConservancyProposed16:00 · ≈ 4:23 PM

Hi there. Good morning Chair Nelson and Supervisors. My name is Candace Mennegan and I'm the Executive Director of Coastal Ranchers Conservancy. And Coastal Ranchers Conservancy is a local non-profit that has a mission to support nature conservation, restoration, education along the 76 miles of the Gaviota Coast. We've joined together with over 40 organizations from the region as part of the Biodiversity Working Group to adopt the community vision and policy platform to support biodiversity along the central coast of California.

As a member of this biodiversity group, we jointly understand that biodiversity must be woven into thinking and planning and a way of life for equitable communities. that are dynamic and sustainable economies for Santa Barbara County. Coastal Ranches Conservancy recently adopted a new strategic plan with a key focus on biodiversity conservation. Our programs are focused on connecting lands, rivers, and communities to the landscape.

And for that reason, we're very heartened that Vice Chair Hartman has brought this resolution before you today. The County of Santa Barbara, you know, is going to recognize and celebrate our irreplaceable biodiversity. And that really brings alignment with all these over 40 organizations regionally with the county and the county agencies. And we just are grateful for the recognition of that biodiversity and are in support of the resolution and grateful for that recognition today. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 417:39 · ≈ 4:24 PM

Thank you, Ms. Minnichan.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board17:42 · ≈ 4:24 PM

We will now go to Stephanie Diaz to be followed by Scott Cooper. Stephanie.

0:17 – 0:239 turns

PresenterStephanie DiazLand Trust for Santa Barbara CountyProposedself-stated17:53 · ≈ 4:24 PM

Good morning, Chair Nelson and Supervisors. I'm Stephanie Diaz, representing the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County. And the Land Trust is very excited about the preparation of this resolution by the county. We understand the importance of protecting and enhancing biodiversity because it supports long-term sustainability for the county. The land trust's work also is very in, what do I want to say, support of biodiversity. We, over the past 40 years, have conserved Over 58,000 acres of land, including canyons, watersheds, coastal properties, ranches, agricultural land. And these different lands come together to present very strong biodiversity within the county.

We're also a part of the Biodiversity Working Group that Candace just mentioned. There's 40 nonprofits that work together in support of biodiversity. As you may know, Santa Barbara County is in a really unique biological area where the biology of Northern California and Southern California come together and make a really diverse, strong, abundant, outstanding biologic area.

I don't want to run out of time here.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 419:34 · ≈ 4:26 PM

You're fine.

PresenterStephanie DiazLand Trust for Santa Barbara CountyProposedself-stated19:35 · ≈ 4:26 PM

Okay. What happens when you have these very strong and abundant diverse biodiversity areas? You get clean air and water, climate regulation, wildfire protection, and agricultural productivity. These diverse ecosystems do face increasing pressure from climate change. Habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and development. So protecting these significant lands, it requires sustained local action, land stewardship, and thoughtful public policy.

This biodiversity is also reflected in the existing county policies through your comprehensive plan and its elements such as the conservation element and the open space element. And we urge the Board of Supervisors and thank you for supporting this biodiversity resolution that's going to be serving current and future residents and The growth within the county. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 420:50 · ≈ 4:27 PM

Thank you, Miss Diaz.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board20:53 · ≈ 4:27 PM

And we will now go to Scott Cooper, and we will go to Zoom with Bill Woodbridge. Scott?

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 420:58 · ≈ 4:27 PM

And I'm going to go ahead and close, but put a comment on this item at this time.

CommentScott CooperProposedself-stated21:01 · ≈ 4:28 PM

Scott? I thank the chair and the board for this opportunity to talk to you. My name is Scott Cooper, and I am the chair of the county's, that is your, Fish and Wildlife Commission. The Commission has discussed this resolution at its last two meetings, and we unanimously support it because we feel it's totally congruent with the Commission's mandates and goals, which are to conserve and restore fish and wildlife populations in the county.

The county's high biodiversity provides a lot of amenities for our communities. They provide clean air and water, but they also support numerous recreational, commercial, and educational endeavors. The value of biodiversity can't be told short, and I think that this resolution on behalf of the Commission allows the Board to recognize the importance of biodiversity and its conservation to the County, but also can be integrated into the County's decision and policymaking.

Also, the commission would like to support the suggestion that you ask county staff to develop a report on the steps and funding to support biodiversity initiatives. Toward this end, I might point out that you periodically consider proposals and applications to the county's Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund that support a variety of conservation projects, including educational research and habitat enhancement and wildlife rescue projects.

I would like to thank Supervisor Hartman for introducing this resolution, and we request that the Board approve it. Thank you for your time and consideration.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 423:27 · ≈ 4:30 PM

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board23:29 · ≈ 4:30 PM

We will now go to Zoom with Bill Woodbridge, who is our final speaker on this item. Bill?

0:23 – 0:3314 turns

CommentBill WoodbridgeProposedself-stated23:38 · ≈ 4:30 PM

Hi, Chairman and Supervisors. I'm in Goleta. My name is Bill Woodbridge. I really appreciate Supervisor Hartman's initiative on getting this resolution to the board. Without biodiversity and wildlife, we're doomed. There are so many places that are being, biodiversity and wildlife are being suppressed. Endangered species are being just really destroyed by the Trump administration.

We really need to save everything we can in order for our survival and the Earth's survival. We need the biodiversity. We need the wildlife to maintain everything in nature's natural order. If we destroy those things, we're doomed. We're just gone. And we're in the process of doing it now. The drilling companies don't care what they do. Manufacturing companies don't care what they do.

AI companies don't care what they do. So we really need to pass this resolution. And I fully support Commissioner Hartman's efforts and the board's efforts. And I hope you will pass this resolution. We desperately need it. Thank you very much.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board25:08 · ≈ 4:32 PM

And that concludes public comment on this item.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 425:10 · ≈ 4:32 PM

All right, so back to the board on this. We need to adopt this, so I'll take a motion to adopt this resolution.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 325:20 · ≈ 4:32 PM

So moved. Second.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 425:22 · ≈ 4:32 PM

Okay, so a motion from Supervisor Hartman, a second from Supervisor Lee. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion passed unanimously. All right, now would you go ahead and read the resolution to the record.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board25:40 · ≈ 4:32 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, as noted previously, joining us in person today, we have Steve Wienhanger and Helene Schneider. Now go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas the state of California has identified the protection and restoration of biodiversity as a critical priority, including a statewide goal of conserving at least 30% of lands and coastal waters by 2030, recognizing that healthy natural and working landscapes are essential to climate resilience, food security, and human well-being. And whereas protecting and enhancing biodiversity is vital to the long-term sustainability of Santa Barbara County because diverse ecosystems and ecological connectivity help reduce wildfire risk, safeguard water quality, and provide natural carbon storage.

And whereas Santa Barbara County is located along California's central coast, a unique Excuse me, biogeographic region where northern and southern ecosystems converge, creating exceptional biological richness across oak, woodlands, coastal sage shrub, chaparral, agricultural lands, wetlands, and riparian corridors that support native, rare, threatened, and endemic species.

And whereas the county's marine and coastal environments, including kelp forests, rocky intertidal zones, and offshore waters are among the most productive ecosystems in the world and support marine biodiversity and economic species such as whales, sea otters, and seabirds. And whereas these natural systems provide essential benefits to local communities, including clean air and water, climate regulation, wildfire and erosion protection, agricultural productivity, recreation, and cultural and educational opportunities, reflecting the county's long-standing commitment to environmental stewardship through its plans, policies, and partnerships. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby recognize and celebrate the extraordinary biodiversity of the region and affirms the importance of continued stewardship of the county's natural and working lands and coastal waters for the benefit of current and future generations, past and adopted today.

PresenterHelene SchneiderChair of the Board of Directors for the Santa Barbara Botanic GardenProposedself-stated27:44 · ≈ 4:34 PM

Thank you, Chair Nelson, and thank you, Supervisor Hartman, for bringing this forward. My name's Helene Schneider. I serve as Chair of the Board of Directors for the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, and with me is Steve Winhanger, our Executive Director. I also want to thank you. We were with you just a few weeks ago to acknowledge our 100th anniversary of the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. I want to thank Supervisor Lee for bringing that forward, and all of you for supporting that. I'll be really brief because you heard a lot of the components here, but what I really want To emphasize with this resolution is just as the Botanic Garden for 100 years have been promoting native plants and biodiversity, you can't have the right plant and the right insect and the right bird interact with each other if they're not around, not just in Mission Canyon, but throughout the region.

We need the partnerships of both nonprofits, our community, everyday people, and local governments and state and federal governments to come together to promote biodiversity in a variety of ways. And so I want to get to Chair Nelson, your point that yes, this is a little different than maybe some other resolutions, but I think what it does is bring hope and ideas and where people can come together on a regional basis to really make an impact beyond your own front or backyard, but into the grander region itself. So you're a very important part of that as the county. Quiama is a great example of a remote area that we are restoring an area into to bring native plants back into an area that's been degraded and we're already seeing some amazing results.

Closer to home piece up in Elings Park or even the 1200 block of State Street. You could see that and we want to expand in other areas throughout the county of where we can do those restoration pieces. I want to acknowledge the 45 plus organizations throughout the region who have come together here and you heard a bunch of them here today. And we really could not do it without those kind of partnerships, and we want to include the county and cities all across the county as part of that connection together. So thank you very much for passing this unanimously today. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 429:44 · ≈ 4:36 PM

Thank you, Ms. Schneider. Supervisor Kaps and then Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 229:50 · ≈ 4:36 PM

Well, thank you. I really appreciate this resolution and biodiversity. It's, you know, so many issues that we deal with up here are kind of Massive issues that confront us in our face and just to stop and think about biodiversity, to think about that seed bank at the garden. I'm just grateful that there are scientists, that there are advocates, that there are people working in these 30 organizations that are Frankly, thinking about things that I don't think about all the time, seeds and nature and the different types of insects that we really depend on as a society, as a planet. So I'm just grateful to stop and think. And I think that is a purpose of resolutions, is to acknowledge the work that goes on often unseen.

So I'm grateful. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 430:36 · ≈ 4:37 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Capps. Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 330:38 · ≈ 4:37 PM

Thank you very much to all the organizations who brought this forward. I just wanted to emphasize that Santa Barbara County really is a hotspot for biodiversity and we're in the midst right now of the sixth great extinction. And it's being caused by human activities. And so we are in a really precious place. Not only where North and South meet, but the transverse mountains and the extreme wet and dry means that the species here have adapted to live in very extreme conditions. And they teach us a lot about about how to survive and there's lots of lots of things we can learn but we can talk about utilitarian what do they benefit us but I think ultimately our job is to care for creation our job is to recognize that We want to keep a healthy ecosystem.

So I was intrigued when I heard that a report on biodiversity would be a good thing. I wonder if the Biodiversity Working Group, if we could work. What we're ultimately looking for, we're involved now in our open space element, which is to look at our county and public properties. But then we're leading up into our conservation element, and that's where we will embed principles into policies that are enforceable. So we need to prepare for that, and I think the report would be a good strategy. And I wrote my PhD dissertation on the Endangered Species Act. My interest in biodiversity goes back many decades.

So, I'm here to help and I'm grateful for all the work that you're doing because we live in a very precious place and we're the trustees. Thank you.

PresenterHelene SchneiderChair of the Board of Directors for the Santa Barbara Botanic GardenProposedself-stated32:26 · ≈ 4:39 PM

Thank you. Chair Nelson, Supervisor Hartman, that's the whole point of the Biodiversity Group. Not, of course, to have celebratory items such as this, but to be partners with you when you have these issues come up and bring the expertise together so it work with your staff and with you in creating policies that can work in a regional way. So, thank you for bringing that up.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 332:44 · ≈ 4:39 PM

Thank you. And I would note that in all the advisory committees and things the county has, we don't really have one on biodiversity. So I would welcome whatever input we can get. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 432:56 · ≈ 4:39 PM

you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Madam Clerk, our third and final honorary resolution today. Would you please go ahead and read that into record? We've already adopted this one, so we can go ahead and read that fully.

0:33 – 0:386 turns

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board33:10 · ≈ 4:40 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution celebrating the centennial anniversary of the Santa Maria Philharmonic Society. And joining us in person today, we have Dr. Desiree Redis, Fran Savariano, and Cliff Solomon. If you can please make your way to the podium. And I will go ahead and read the resolution.

Whereas the Santa Maria Philharmonic Society marks a momentous milestone in 2026, celebrating 100 years of providing world-class symphonic music to the residents of Santa Maria Valley. And whereas since its inception, the Philharmonic has served as the city's professional community orchestra, elevating the cultural landscape and fostering a deep appreciation for the performing arts through its dedication to musical excellence.

And whereas the Santa Maria Philharmonic Society has remained steadfast in its mission to enrich the community, not only through its majestic concert season, but also through vital educational outreach programs that inspire the next generation of local musicians and music lovers. And whereas for a century, this vulnerable institution has acted as a cornerstone of our county's identity, bringing together diverse audiences to experience the transformative power of live orchestral performances. And whereas the success of the Philharmonic is a testament to the tireless dedication of its musicians, board of directors, staff, and the generous patrons who have ensured that the sound of Santa Maria continues to resonate. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors the Santa Maria Philharmonic Society's centennial anniversary, celebrating 100 years of artistic achievement and cultural enrichment, passed and adopted today.

CommentDesiree K. ReedusProposedself-stated35:01 · ≈ 4:42 PM

My name is Desiree K. Reedus. I am one of the Santa Maria Philharmonic Society Symphony board members. And behind me are the other distinguished members of the board, Phil, Christian, and Fran. And I'll have them say a few words afterwards. On behalf of the Santa Maria Philharmonic Society Symphony, we graciously thank you and feel honored for this acknowledgement. The Santa Maria Philharmonic Society has provided the gift of music through community engagement and outreach for the last 100 years.

It took the time, effort, and sacrifice of many, a village, to keep this organization going and relevant for the last 100 years. We thank all those people who have helped fulfill Harmonic, including those that have passed on. We want to thank all of our donors, community advocates, board members, volunteers, staff, and supporters for their time and effort dedicated to the Santa Maria Philharmonic.

We thank our wonderful musicians for their great musical talents gift, as well as providing musical education and their expertise further perpetuating the local legacy and history of great musical entertainment in this community. We want to thank all of our wonderful conductors, past and present, including our wonderful current maestro, Michael Nowak. Last but not least, we want to thank the Santa Barbara County of Supervisors for your leadership, your foresight, and vision for recognizing the importance of supporting the arts in this community. With your continued support and interest, we hope to go on for another hundred years. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 437:11 · ≈ 4:44 PM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed37:17 · ≈ 4:44 PM

I'll just add to that that the power of music to unify our community and heal is irrefutable. And I thank you so much for supporting our mission. Nothing brings me greater joy than to make this music accessible to as many in our community as humanly possible. So thank you very much.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 437:38 · ≈ 4:44 PM

Thank you.

CommentDr Lee Heller37:43 · ≈ 4:44 PM

I would just like to invite everybody to come to our concerts. We have them throughout the year. We are at the library. We had a wonderful meeting last night talking about some of the Thank you, Mr. Solomon. Thank you. Everything's been said. By the way, kids come free to all our concerts and thank you very much. We really appreciate the recognition. Thank you.

0:38 – 0:4110 turns

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 438:33 · ≈ 4:45 PM

All right, we're going to go to item A4. That was inadvertently pulled, so we just need to read that in record and adopt that.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board38:42 · ≈ 4:45 PM

Thank you, Chair Nelson and members of the board. Administrative item number four is an honorary resolution sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of May 17, 2026 through May 23, 2026 as National Public Works Week in Santa Barbara County. And again, as Chair Nelson indicated, this item was pulled inadvertently, so we just need a motion to adopt this resolution.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 439:03 · ≈ 4:46 PM

So since it's my motion, I'll make a motion that we approve this resolution. Second by Supervisor Lavanino. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passed unanimously. Okay, the next item of business, we'll go in order here, will be item A18. And that's been pulled by the public. Clerk, will you please read that into the record?

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board39:29 · ≈ 4:46 PM

Yes, thank you, Chair Nelson and members of the board. Administrative item number 18 is from the County Health Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding acceptance of donations to Santa Barbara County Animal Services, SBCAS, from the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation, SBCACF, in the amount of $118,920. And there is a forfeits vote required on this item, and we do have one member from the public requesting to speak on this item. We are going to Zoom with Dr. Lee Heller. Lee?

CommentDr. Lee Heller40:00 · ≈ 4:47 PM

Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. Thank you for taking this item up. I wanted to thank Dr. Hamami and the health department staff for their assistance last year when we put on Tales of Hope, which enabled us to raise the kind of money that is gonna really help animal services at this difficult budget moment. And I also want to let you know that the Animal Care Foundation is stepping up and we're doing it again. So September 20th, 2026 at Rancho La Patera Stow House, we will again have John Corbett and Bo Derrick. And this time we'll also have Shorty Rossi, who is an animal advocate who's been on Animal Planet. The goal is to help the animals and the people of Santa Barbara County. And there's information online that we're happy to share.

So thank you for your support and for helping us to help you to close these budget gaps. Take care.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 440:49 · ≈ 4:47 PM

Thank you, Dr. Hiller.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board40:51 · ≈ 4:47 PM

And that concludes public comment on this

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 440:52 · ≈ 4:47 PM

item. All right, I'll go ahead and get a motion on this item to approve it.

CommentDesiree K. ReedusProposedself-stated40:56 · ≈ 4:47 PM

So moved.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 440:56 · ≈ 4:47 PM

Second. Okay, motion by Hartman, second by Lee. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, so the next item of business is actually going to be 829. We actually already adopted 829, but We had a public speaker who wanted to speak on this item, and so we're going to go ahead and allow the public to comment on 829. And I believe we have one speaker, and I've allocated two minutes for them to speak on this.

0:41 – 0:459 turns

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board41:24 · ≈ 4:48 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, that is correct. 829 is from the Public Works Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding an ordinance amending speed limits specified in County Code Sections 23-15.4, 23-15.5, 23-15.6, and 23-15.9. And this is in the 1st and 4th districts. And we have one request to speak from the public on this item. We're going to Zoom with Phyllis Noble. Phyllis?

CommentPhyllis Noble41:59 · ≈ 4:48 PM

Good morning Chair Nielsen and members of the board. I am the current president of the Sarmalen Community Foundation and served as the president of the Sarmalen Citizens Association from 2022 to 2025. I would like to address item 4 on the departmental agenda and also item 829 on the administrative agenda. Regarding item 4, I strongly urge the board to ensure that Summerland is included in the proposed ministerial streamlining and reduced parking requirements.

Our commercial district was initially formed on 25 by 50 foot tent lots. While some have merged, they remain small and are largely occupied by historic homes from the 1920s and were converted into commercial retail. This unique architecture is a charm and draw of Summerland. However, when these small legacy lots are required to provide modern on-site parking for a change of use, it's both physically and financially prohibitive. I have two clients right now who are facing the heart-wrenching decision to demolish these 1920s buildings because the cost of meeting parking requirements simply doesn't pencil out.

If we want to preserve the unique character of Summerlin, we need to downgrade the downshifted parking requirements and ministerial pathways. Secondly, regarding item 829, while I support the speed amendments today, Summerlin must be prioritized for reduction. We become a primary vehicular shortcut between the 101 Montecito and Santa Barbara. Public Works traffic engineer, Gary Smart, has acknowledged the excessive speeds through these three main roads surrounding our town. During my time with the SCA, we held multiple public meetings with Public Works regarding this. I urge the board to direct staff to please include Sarmaland in this phase of speed reductions to protect our residents and our pedestrians. I will volunteer any data or recommendations to support staff in any of these processes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 443:58 · ≈ 4:50 PM

All right, thank you, Ms. Noble. We've already adopted this item, although I know Supervisor Hartman had a question for Director Sneddon. Director Sneddon, would you please come on up?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 344:08 · ≈ 4:51 PM

Thank you. And as you're coming up, I just had a quick question. Maybe you could explain how state law has changed and then how your review process of different roads throughout the county in light of that law is taking place.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 444:27 · ≈ 4:51 PM

Supervisor Hart went

GovChris SneddonDirector of the Public Works Department44:30 · ≈ 4:51 PM

through the chair. Thank you for that question. Yes, as you recall, as Gary Smart presented at the departmental item on this, the state laws have changed to allow some more flexibility for local agencies in implementing changes to speed limits. And we are programmatically going throughout the county and implementing the new changes on kind of a priority basis and working our way across the county.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 344:59 · ≈ 4:51 PM

And I'd just like to add, you're very receptive to neighbors and people who ask you to review areas. Sometimes it's not possible, but I really appreciate your department, and especially Mr. Smart, being so open to people's ideas.

GovChris SneddonDirector of the Public Works Department45:14 · ≈ 4:52 PM

Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 445:15 · ≈ 4:52 PM

Okay, thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Thank you, Director Sneddon. Again, this item has already been adopted by the board, so there's no additional action that needs to be done here. So we're going to go ahead and carry on to item A31, and I believe, Supervisor Hartman, will you go ahead and read that record? And I think Supervisor Hartman needs to make an announcement before we vote on it.

0:45 – 0:5421 turns

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board45:34 · ≈ 4:52 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 31 is from the Public Works Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding final map of track number 14,786, SACA preserve LLC 12 TRM 1 and accept various dedication of easements for public utilities per said map, set monument deposit amount, and this is in the third district.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 445:54 · ≈ 4:52 PM

All right, Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 345:56 · ≈ 4:52 PM

And this property is directly adjacent to mine, so in abundance of caution, I will recuse.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 446:02 · ≈ 4:53 PM

Excellent. All right, so we'll wait for a moment for Supervisor Hartman to exit the room. And then I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve item A31.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 146:13 · ≈ 4:53 PM

I'll second that.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 446:14 · ≈ 4:53 PM

Seconded by Supervisor Lee. Is there any further discussion on A31? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes with four affirmative votes of the balance of the board, and with Supervisor Hartman abstaining, no, or accusing herself, so 4-0-1 there. Okay, with that, we'll go ahead and ask Supervisor Hartman to come back in, and we will go ahead and move to item A-40, which has been pulled by Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Lee.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board46:56 · ≈ 4:53 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 40 is sponsored by Supervisor Lee. It is to consider recommendations regarding an informational presentation from the Santa Barbara Bowl Foundation.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 447:07 · ≈ 4:54 PM

All right, Supervisor Lee.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 147:09 · ≈ 4:54 PM

I would like to invite the Santa Barbara Bowl Foundation representatives to come up and give us a presentation about what they have been doing in our community.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 447:16 · ≈ 4:54 PM

Okay. All right. Thank you.

PresenterRick BowlerSanta Barbara Bowl FoundationProposedself-stated47:39 · ≈ 4:54 PM

Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. My name is Rick Bowler. I'm the CEO of the Santa Barbara Bowl Foundation. I want to thank you all for giving us the opportunity to come and present today and share more about the Santa Barbara Bowl and our impact within the county of Santa Barbara. As you may know, the Santa Barbara Bowl is a 5,000-seat outdoor amphitheater located in downtown Santa Barbara.

And we focus on presenting up to an average of 37, I'm sorry, an average of 35 performances up to 37 performances per year based on our lease with the county. We also have several priorities. The main priorities being renovation and restoration of the facility, sustainability, and then outreach, which is support of youth performing arts through the county. Here with me today is our Outreach Program Manager. Her name is Lindsey Cook, and she's going to share in greater detail some of the programs that we've been implementing in the last several months. Thank you.

CommentLindsey CookSanta Barbara Bowl Foundation48:42 · ≈ 4:55 PM

Good morning. Thank you so much for your time today. I'm very excited and proud to share about our outreach work and introduce you to our newest initiative, the High School Band Fund. So the creation of the High School Band Fund was really born out of this idea that we weren't receiving enough applicants from North County, particularly the North County High School music programs.

They lack the capacity to apply and we decided because of that we were going to give them a very directed source of funding with hands-on guidance and encouragement to apply so that way they could access the resources they needed. So I'd like to note that the theater programs were applying. So we were receiving applicants, applications from these schools, but the music program specifically. Being a music venue, music education is really integral to our mission at the Bowl.

And I'm pleased to share that in our inaugural cycle, which was launched in February, $150,000 was awarded to nine programs and four school districts. reaching almost 900 students in the next school year. Six of these nine recipients were North County schools. Lompoc High School, Orchid Academy, San Maria, Pioneer Valley, Cabrillo, and Ernest Regetti all applied and were funded.

The grants range from $10,000 to $20,000 supporting competition, travel, instructors, uniforms, and necessary equipment. Next slide, please. Oh, thank you. Got it. This map shows the geographic reach of the high school band fund with the majority of funding concentrated in North County. Lompoc High School received the largest grant of $20,000. And together with the other five North County schools represented, it was $102,000 being funneled into North County schools.

Nearly all of these high school music programs, with the exception of Cabrillo High School, had never applied or been funded before. So brand new applicants. And the High School Band Fund was really meant to be this direct invitation and a clear pathway for these schools to apply and be funded. We continue to remain invested in the three high schools in South County, Santa Barbara Unified, Dos Pueblos, San Marcos, and Santa Barbara High, where our long-term partnership over several decades has had great impact.

And then although Carpinteria and San Ynez Union did not apply this year, it's definitely my goal moving into the future to encourage those schools to apply. And then this spring, This thing. We have one more slide, but it's not coming up. That's OK. I'll keep going. This spring, in addition to the high school band fund, we've also completed our annual spring grant cycle, awarding $200,000 across 51 programs anticipated to reach over 15,000 students. 70% of these funded programs are free to the participants. So our grant support is really making these programs accessible for students of all financial backgrounds.

And then there was a map, but I was showing the geographic impact of the two programs, the High School Ban Fund and the 2026 Spring Cycle combined, where North County has received $84,000 in the San Maria area and $53,500 in the Lompoc area. It's our mission to serve the entire county of Santa Barbara, and the High School Ban Fund has expanded not only who we serve, but has helped me to establish new relationships at those schools.

What you see today is the result of a deliberate decision to expand our reach and really prioritize those North County schools. The high school ban fund was our way to make that happen. Combined with our spring cycle just this year alone, so since January, we've now distributed $350,000. in grants reaching well over 16,000 students countywide. And this is just the beginning. We'll have another grant cycle in the fall. We have instrument funding, flash grants that happen throughout the year, as well as event sponsorships, scholarships, and ticket subsidies.

So our goal is to ensure that every student in Santa Barbara County has access to high quality performing arts education. And thankfully, with the High School Band Fund, we're closer to that goal than ever before.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 453:27 · ≈ 5:00 PM

Thank you. Supervisor Lee, do you want to?

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 153:30 · ≈ 5:00 PM

Yeah, I just want to say thank you. Thank you for what you have done for our music programs, which are so important to our whole county and community. So it kind of leads up to the question, is there going to be like a band contest eventually down the road? Battle

CommentLindsey CookSanta Barbara Bowl Foundation53:43 · ≈ 5:00 PM

of the bands.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 153:44 · ≈ 5:00 PM

Yeah, battle of the

CommentLindsey CookSanta Barbara Bowl Foundation53:45 · ≈ 5:00 PM

bands. Nothing on the agenda right now, yeah. Because

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 153:49 · ≈ 5:00 PM

that would be cool.

CommentLindsey CookSanta Barbara Bowl Foundation53:50 · ≈ 5:00 PM

Idea for the future for sure.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 453:52 · ≈ 5:00 PM

Thank you. All right, thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Lavinino.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 353:58 · ≈ 5:00 PM

Well, thank you so much. It's very exciting to see your countywide. The bowl is really a jewel in our crown for the entire county and this outreach is terrific. I did have one question. I think we forwarded to you a letter that we received from Alan Hancock, President Kevin Walther, about the box office advantage that you don't have to pay the ticket fees, add-ons. if you can go to the box office in Santa Barbara. But for people in the Valley or Santa Maria, that's a 90 to 150 mile round trip.

And so I just wondered if there's some opportunity, if not a box office up here, then phone or something so that that's more widely distributed.

0:54 – 0:5910 turns

PresenterRick BowlerSanta Barbara Bowl FoundationProposedself-stated54:49 · ≈ 5:01 PM

Thanks for the question. It's a good question. I did have the opportunity actually to schedule a tour and meet with the individual that wrote to the Board of Supervisors and we spent a good few hours in Santa Barbara at the bowl touring around talking about our business model and how it all works. You know, we are always open to having discussions with the community and their ideas and especially the feedback around something like that. And we're constantly tailing tailoring our our box office sales to try to reach more people through local pre sales that that provide a So, again, that discussion has not ended at this point, but I feel like we have an open relationship with that individual.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 355:39 · ≈ 5:02 PM

I mean, it's not just the individual, but he raised the issue, but you're working on it.

PresenterRick BowlerSanta Barbara Bowl FoundationProposedself-stated55:43 · ≈ 5:02 PM

Yeah, well, and I think the good answer, too, is what we do as an organization is we prioritize having a box office, and that box office is open Monday through Friday, and we have a staff that most buildings, most venues don't have that any longer. The fees when you buy in person, keeping in mind, of course, drive and people's valuable time is important to us, too.

But that's the focus of why we have that box office open on site, for sure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed56:12 · ≈ 5:03 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Lavinino? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I just want to say thanks. I mean, it is a, what you said, a deliberate decision. I don't know what the impetus for that was at this present time, but I appreciate it. We have seen, I'd say over the last seven to ten years, so many more South County-based organizations that are really investing a lot more into the North County.

And it's not just the population, it's the need, it's looking at all of us as one county, one future. It's looking at a broad scope. And when that happens, it needs to be applauded. Outstanding job, really appreciate it. And now when I'm buying a ticket, I'll feel even better, right? Exactly.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 457:03 · ≈ 5:04 PM

No, that's that's perfect. Thank you for that. Thank you. Supervisor Levin, you know, and I would just I would just say that, you know, these assets are county countywide assets. And I think it's, you know, some of these historic. Inequities that have taken place in our county, you know, it's great that we're starting to try to make up for that. And, you know, this is a good first step in those directions, so we appreciate that. I know, Supervisor Caput, I just saw your light, but I wanted to just one other comment was don't forget the junior high bands. That's a big thing in the North County as well. And that's the feeder program to our high school program. So if we don't catch them in junior high, sometimes they won't participate in high school.

So I don't know if there's a way for you guys to work them into that process. But I know that that's a very active program in the northern Santa Barbara County is our junior high band programs. And so especially junior hires, they're always looking for a way to belong. And I think that's one of those populations that's often underserved is our junior hires.

So just keep that in mind as your future development of programs. Supervisor Caps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 258:01 · ≈ 5:05 PM

I appreciate Supervisor Lee that you asked for this to be on here because the bowl is really a magical place and also music in our schools is and it's not you know something we can't take we shouldn't take for granted because it's schools are so strapped and as a mom of a band kid I mean it's for them to even go to the bowl and see sort of the potential and what they potentially could experience even just as patrons. It's such a wonderful connection and the fact that you're really making an emphasis on North County as you're hearing from us is just a wonderful thing. So, thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 458:35 · ≈ 5:05 PM

All right. Thank you, Supervisor

PresenterRick BowlerSanta Barbara Bowl FoundationProposedself-stated58:37 · ≈ 5:05 PM

Kaps. All right. I think we just want to say thank you for the partnership with the county that allows us to continue these programs and exploring growth into North County too. So, thank you. Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 358:49 · ≈ 5:05 PM

And you being up here in person in Santa Maria says a lot.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 458:55 · ≈ 5:05 PM

Thank you again. All right. Thank you, Mr. Ballard. So we actually need to go ahead and get a motion to adopt this item. So it's item A40. Supervisor Lee, do you want to make a motion here? I do. I move staff A40. Okay. And I'll second. Second by Supervisor Labadino. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passed unanimously. Thank you.

All right. We got one more. I know there's some of you guys public commenters that want to get to public comment, and we'll get there here in a moment. But Madam Clerk, will you read the last administrative item that's been pulled? Item A46 that's been pulled by Supervisor Caps.

0:59 – 1:048 turns

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board59:31 · ≈ 5:06 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 46 is From the Sheriff Coroner's Office, it is to set a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Annual Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds Truth Act Report and Community Forum. And this is a set hearing for June 23rd, 2026. Supervisor Caps? Yeah, thank

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 259:51 · ≈ 5:06 PM

you. First of all, I just want to acknowledge that you all are bringing this forward earlier than has happened in the past. Usually it's been towards the end of the year, kind of, and that was somewhat deemed a little late for the immigrant community and the advocates, so appreciate that it's coming in June. So that's a good thing. I just wanted to request and it is just a request that we augment what's been what's being required to be reported with some additional information.

The Santa Barbara News Press had a report that in addition to the official transfers of between the jail and ICE there are eight times more arrests that happen on jail premises and so if possible if you could speak to those when you do your report that would be very much appreciated by myself again that's a request also too we've gotten some questions about so I'm not asking for that now because we're just agendized for the set hearing also if Second request I have is to speak to sort of some Information that's been put forward by constituents about the SCRAM technology and what happens with inmates when they're released and some potential protocol issues there.

Third, a request has been made to the chair through me, I don't know if they requested it to you directly, to have a set time so that advocates who work can participate more easily. I think that's a reasonable request. And also, too, when I was board chair, I officially invited ICE to participate or just be a part of, at some point, be present in our community, not the way they are in raids, absolutely, but actually speak.

As an official, that request was official and was completely ignored. And so I'm just, again, extending through the potential of the Truth Act if ICE representative could be a part and so we could actually have more comprehensive information because, again, you all have what's required by California state law. But in my estimation, as was definitely highlighted by that report, we're only getting a very narrow slice of the information and I believe the public deserves the full information of what actually is happening at the jail in terms of the arrests. So that's my request when we do bring this back at the hearing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:02:30 · ≈ 5:09 PM

Good morning Supervisor Capps, Chair Nelson, members of the Board, thank you for having us. We do want to be clear that on the 23rd the Sheriff will be present. Great. And he is not only going to provide the Board and the community what he's legally required to provide, but also is going to offer a little additional information on how us as an organization are working to conform to Senate Bill 54.

So, we will have that additional information for you, and we look forward to seeing this team on the 23rd. All

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:03:03 · ≈ 5:10 PM

right. Thank you, Under-Sheriff. And as Chair, I'm sure the CABS brought this up to me this morning, and I'm open to trying to find a way to accommodate as many people as possible in this public and transparent process that is both required by law, but also, I think, something we all want to do as part of our values on this board. So, I'll be amenable to finding an appropriate time to set a hearing for.

All right, so let's go ahead and take a motion to set the hearing for the, what's that date there? For June 23rd, can I get that motion?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 21:03:37 · ≈ 5:10 PM

So moved. And I just wanted to clarify, not as part of the motion, but I'm going to put those requests in writing so that my words are clear. All

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:03:44 · ≈ 5:10 PM

right.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 21:03:44 · ≈ 5:10 PM

But I will move to set the hearing for June 23rd.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:03:47 · ≈ 5:10 PM

All right. We've got a motion from Supervisor Caps. Second. Second by Supervisor Hartman. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, so that's the conclusion of our administrative agenda. We're gonna at this time move on to general public comment. General public comment is for items that are not on today's agenda. I know that we have many of our employees that are here today that want to speak to some of the issues that we're dealing with our budget, so we want to hear from you. And so, Madam Clerk, how many general public commenters do we have at this time?

1:04 – 1:097 turns

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:04:25 · ≈ 5:11 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we currently have 24 requests to speak from the public on general public comment today.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:04:30 · ≈ 5:11 PM

All right, and I think we've been, there was a request made that we try to keep it to two minutes if possible, but we will try to show some grace there too. I know many of you are passionate about this topic and want to make sure that we hear from you. And so I think we'll go ahead and start with public comment. Madam Clerk, I think we heard that we wanted to maybe start in Santa Barbara today. Okay, go ahead.

And we'll go ahead and close general public comment this time.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:04:59 · ≈ 5:11 PM

Chair Nelson, members of the board, we will begin in Santa Barbara with Audrey Nguyen to be followed by Leticia Clay. Audrey. And we can't hear or see Santa Barbara. If we could have Santa Barbara up. Alrighty, now we can see you. Please proceed, Audrey. Thank you.

CommentDr. Audrey NguyenProposedself-stated1:05:28 · ≈ 5:12 PM

Good morning, Chair and members of the Board. My name is Dr. Audrey Nguyen. I'm the pharmacist in charge at the County Pharmacy in Santa Barbara for 21 years. Our pharmacy provides low-cost and often free medication to qualified patients, but it's more than dispensing pills. We provide in-depth pharmaceutical care, education, and support to people who often have nowhere else to go.

Many of our patients face language barriers transportation challenges, and severe financial limitation. We are their safety net. The proposed closure of the pharmacy would have a negative impact on these community members. Without our services, many patients will not take their medication correctly or regularly. For someone with diabetes, hypertension, or other cardiovascular health conditions, missing medication is not an inconvenience. It can lead to hospitalizations, long-term complications, or even life-threatening outcomes.

These are preventable consequences. I also want to share a personal impact and would like the board to understand why I chose this line of work. I was raised in Santa Barbara, attended local school, and my family once relied on county health services ourselves. I know firsthand the struggles our neighbors face. This work is not just a job for me. It is a commitment to the people who depend on us.

This is why I return, to give back to the community that shaped me. I ask you to consider the real human cost of this layoff, on patients, on families, and on the very fabric of our community. Thank you for your time.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:07:28 · ≈ 5:14 PM

Thank you. I just want to make an announcement to those that are here in the room or in the public. I know there's going to be a lot of things that you guys agree with and maybe even things that the board agree with. We prefer that you guys do the kind of the jazz hands for applause. That way we see that you're affirmative approval, but at the same time, we kind of keep things in order and keep things moving along instead of having a period of time of clapping and also just helps balance out the public comments. So, Madam Clerk, we can go to item number two.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:08:00 · ≈ 5:15 PM

We will remain in Santa Barbara with Leticia Clay to be followed by Rachel Trujillo. Leticia.

CommentLeticia ClayProposedself-stated1:08:10 · ≈ 5:15 PM

Good morning, Chair and members of the Board. My name is Leticia Clay. I'm a pharmacy technician at the Santa Barbara Public Health Pharmacy. I have proudly served this community for 22 years. I'm here today because the proposal of layoffs will have a devastating consequence, not just for employees, but for patients who rely on us. Our pharmacy is often the last resort for uninsured, low-income residents who cannot afford life-saving medications anywhere else.

If we close or reduce services, these patients will suffer first and suffer most. On a personal level, I currently commute from Ventura. If our pharmacy closed and I am forced to relocate to another site, my commute time will increase to four hours a day. Adding significant fuel costs, taking precious time away from my family. I am helping my daughter, support my daughter and my grandchild while she attends college full time. These changes would place an enormous strain on us.

The truth is simple. Patients, employees, and our families will suffer tremendously if these layoffs move forward. I urge you to consider the real human impact behind these decisions and protect essential services our community depends on. Thank you for your time.

1:09 – 1:1613 turns

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:09:36 · ≈ 5:16 PM

And we will remain in Santa Barbara with Rachel Trujillo to be followed by Andrew Hawkins. Rachel?

CommentRachel TrujilloProposedself-stated1:09:50 · ≈ 5:16 PM

Chair and members of the board, my name is Rachel Trujillo, and I have proudly served the County of Santa Barbara Pharmacy for 24 years. In this time, I have seen firsthand how essential our public health pharmacies are to the people in our community. Our work is simple to describe, but profound impact. We save lives. Because we are a 340B pharmacies, Our patients can afford to buy their medications.

Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to go to outside retail pharmacies to buy them. Sorry. I'm going to stop reading. I became a pharmacy technician because I wanted to serve the people, help people that needed help.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:10:49 · ≈ 5:17 PM

Sorry, I'm just going to stop your time. Would you mind looking into the microphone? You went out just a little bit. Thank you.

CommentRachel TrujilloProposedself-stated1:10:58 · ≈ 5:17 PM

I'm so sorry.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:11:01 · ≈ 5:18 PM

All good. You're doing fine. You are. You're doing great. Please

CommentRachel TrujilloProposedself-stated1:11:03 · ≈ 5:18 PM

proceed. You know, when you see a patient come to the pharmacy and they say, I can't afford this medicine. I went to somewhere else. And you tell them, you know what? I can give it to you for free. The look on their face is just beautiful. You know you've done something, you've helped someone. And that's what we're here to do. We're here to do that. We're just, I'm passionate.

Forgive me, I am. I know I have 29 seconds, but closing the pharmacy will be devastating. Not just to the people that work there, but the community, the community you serve, the ones that voted for you. Our mission statement, we are not following our mission statement whatsoever. If we close the pharmacy, we're not promoting wellness and care. We're making it worse because these people will not take their medications. They will end up in the hospital.

Wait times will be days to get into the emergency room because patients will go there. They're not going to take their medications. Please consider keeping the pharmacies open for these people. Yes, it will be devastating for me personally also, but I'm in a better situation than these people are. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:12:40 · ≈ 5:19 PM

Thank you.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:12:41 · ≈ 5:19 PM

We will now go to Andrew Hawkins, then we will return to Santa Maria with Leo DeCasas. Andrew?

CommentAndrew HawkinsProposedself-stated1:12:50 · ≈ 5:19 PM

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Andrew Hawkins. I am an administrative office professional for the behavioral wellness department working in outpatient services. I'm here today because the cuts being proposed for county health and social services are the start of a death spiral for public services in this county. As I stated the last time I was standing here, behavioral wellness clients heavily rely on county health for primary care and social services for benefits, and any disruption to those departments is going to adversely affect them. This will lead to more crisis calls, more hospitalizations, and more strain on direct services staff who are already shorthanded and lacking in resources.

And it will all lead to the further admiseration of the county's most vulnerable residents. I implore you to use the county's strategic reserves to avoid any layoffs at county health or social services and to pursue any possible funding to maintain ample public services, no matter how politically unpalatable. Be those parcel taxes, user fees, sales taxes, going to the state or federal governments, whatever. We cannot cut our way to prosperity, and county employees and residents alike are depending on you to make the right decisions with the next fiscal year's budget. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:14:00 · ≈ 5:21 PM

Thank you.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:14:01 · ≈ 5:21 PM

We will now return to Santa Maria with Leo DeCasas to be followed by Paola Monino. Leo.

CommentLeo Decasaus1:14:23 · ≈ 5:21 PM

Good morning. Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Leo Decasaus, and I'm here today representing SCIU Local 620 and our rank-and-file membership here at the County of Santa Barbara. Over the course of this year's budget workshops, the county has made meaningful progress in limiting the reductions in force and reducing service cuts within the Departments of Social Services and the Department of Public Health.

The county has also made significant general fund investments in the past. And for these efforts, we are genuinely grateful. However, we view these actions as an important first step, not a final outcome. Today, we are here to publicly reject a budget proposal that still allows for dozens of layoffs across multiple departments and eliminates a wide range of classifications and roles.

Beginning tomorrow, county employees will start receiving layoff notices. A notice telling them that they will no longer be able to come back to work after June 30th. A notice that represents a service no longer provided to this community. A service loss that would be felt directly by your constituents. Our members are here today to speak for themselves. They bring first-hand experience, professional expertise, and deep knowledge of the work that they do day in and day out.

They are here to explain what these layoffs truly mean and why additional general fund investment is necessary to protect these critical public services. We respectfully ask the board to listen closely to the employees and to the community that depends on their work. We urge the board to direct staff to amend the current proposed budget to reflect zero layoffs.

Thank you. Thank you, Leo.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:16:24 · ≈ 5:23 PM

We will now go to Paola Monino to be followed by Kelly Beecham. Paola?

1:16 – 1:2413 turns

PresenterPaola Morenomost vulnerable peoProposedself-stated1:16:33 · ≈ 5:23 PM

Good morning Chairwoman and members of the board. My name is Paola Moreno. I have served the Santa Barbara County for 17 years as a pharmacy technician in Lompoc. Every day my coworkers and I help someone With the most vulnerable people in our community, we have provided these kind of medications and we guide our patients through assistance programs that often allow them to receive their prescriptions completely for free.

Many of our patients rely on us because they simply cannot afford their medications anywhere else, especially like life-saving medications. including insulin, which can cost hundreds of dollars at retail pharmacies. If our pharmacies close, these patients will not have nowhere else to turn. No other pharmacy will offer the support that we offer them, the pricing or advocacy that we provide. For many of our self-paid patients, we are their last resort.

Without us, they will delay care, skip medications, and end up in hospital, costing the county far more money than save through layoffs. This decision doesn't affect just our patients. It affects families like mine. I help support my husband, including with our mortgage and basic life expenses. If I lose my job, my husband cannot carry those costs alone. Financial impact on us and many of other long-time employees would be devastating.

I'm here today because the impact of our patients is even greater. We know their stories. We know their struggles. We know how hard they fight to stay healthy, and we know that without our pharmacists, many of them simply won't get medications they need to survive. I urge you to consider the real human cost in these closures. We're not just numbers on a budget line. We're a lifeline for our people, for this county.

Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:18:23 · ≈ 5:25 PM

Thank you, Ms. Moreno.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:18:25 · ≈ 5:25 PM

We will now go to Kelly Beecham to be followed by Sebastian Arredondo. Kelly?

CommentKelly BeechamProposedself-stated1:18:32 · ≈ 5:25 PM

Good morning. My name is Kelly Beecham and I'm a lab assistant at the Lompoc Health Care Center. I have served Santa Barbara County for 24 years. I'm here today because my position is being eliminated. And with it, easily accessible phlebotomy services we provide to our patients. These are not optional services. Lab testing is how providers diagnose illness, monitor treatment, and make timely medical decisions.

Without easy access, care doesn't stop. It becomes harder to reach. There's an assumption that patients can just go across the street to access services. I work with these patients. I look them in the eye. That assumption does not reflect their reality. It reflects a decision made far removed from what our patients face every day. I see first-hand patients who struggle to make it to a single appointment.

Many don't have reliable transportation. Eliminating lab draws at the clinics means forcing them to travel farther to get basic testing. For some, that's the difference between getting care and going without. Eliminating my position doesn't eliminate the need. It shifts the burden onto the patients. It will delay care in ways that will have real consequences.

When patients can't get what they need at the county health clinics, they don't just struggle, they leave. They will find a new provider somewhere else. You won't just be cutting a service, you'll be cutting your patient base. I respectfully ask the Board of Supervisors to vote no on eliminating the lab assistant positions. Preserve these services for people who depend on them. Thank you.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:20:19 · ≈ 5:27 PM

We will now go to Sebastian Arredondo to be followed by Francisco Hernandez. Sebastian?

CommentSebastian Arredondo1:20:33 · ≈ 5:27 PM

Good morning, Mr. Chair and the board. You may have heard these numbers before, but I'll tell you them again in case you haven't. 16 administrative office professionals, 1 epidemiologist, 2 financial office professionals, 1 health care program coordinator, 3 health education assistants, 1 health service aide, 4 laboratory assistants, 2 medical assistants, 2 pharmacists in charge, 5 pharmacy technicians, 9 staff nurses, and one supervising staff nurse.

These are not just numbers. They're not just positions. They're people that have served this county, just like my own mother. She's been with the county for 12 years. For nine of those years, she's left here in Santa Maria to travel to Santa Barbara. She hasn't gotten home till 6, even 7 in the afternoon. I spend a lot of that time missing her, wondering why she didn't Why she wasn't here?

And it's because that she believed that her hard work would pay off. And she's not the only one. Every single employee here has had their designation tested time and time again. And after all of that determination, their means of support could potentially be revoked. Well, on the other hand, none of the executive team has had any cuts. No pay cuts, no position cuts.

Only the lower level employees. People are going to struggle. There's going to be sleepless nights. There's going to be anxiety about how food is going to be put on the table. There's going to be fear within our community. This impact is going to be felt by the patients too. Administrative office professionals are the largest group facing cuts, but they are also the first point of contact with the patient and are responsible for not only supporting medical providers, but also with connecting patients with whatever program they may need, whether it's HIV, family planning, STI treatment assistance, TB treatments, and Covered California enrollment.

The strain that this will put on the remaining employees will not go unnoticed. Furthermore, removing the on-site lab and pharmacy is going to be devastating, as you've heard by the previous speakers.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:22:57 · ≈ 5:29 PM

Francisco, that is your time. Thank you. Thank you.

CommentSebastian Arredondo1:23:01 · ≈ 5:30 PM

All of our eyes are going to be on all of you, no matter what decision you make. All of our eyes. We're all watching. Thank you.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:23:10 · ≈ 5:30 PM

We will now go to Francisco Hernandez to be followed by Lourdes Navarro. Francisco?

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:23:16 · ≈ 5:30 PM

Thank you, Sebastian. Sorry about that.

CommentFrancisco HernandezProposedself-stated1:23:20 · ≈ 5:30 PM

Good morning, Chair and Board of Supervisors. I'm sure you remember me from last week, but I'm Francisco Hernandez. I work at IT at the Department of Social Services. I want to speak not only about the immediate impact of these proposed cuts, but about the long-term consequences that they have on the county. I've been thinking a lot about, after last week, what the term long-term, when the term long-term was brought up.

The people being affected are not temporary workers just passing through. Many of us relocated here, bought homes, started families here, and committed ourselves to public service because we believe that the county valued stability, experience, and investment in its own workforce. When skilled employees leave, the damage does not end in one budget cycle. Years of institutional knowledge disappear. Critical systems become harder to maintain.

Projects that improve efficiency and reduce costs slow down and stop entirely. The county then spends even more time and money trying to rebuild what was lost. I do not know what the solution is to this deficit. That's not my job, but I'm sure there is a solution that would result in us keeping our jobs in the county coming out of this successfully. I ask that you consider not only the short-term numbers, but the long-term costs of losing dedicated public servants who have built their lives around serving this community and county. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:24:44 · ≈ 5:31 PM

Thank you, Mr. Hernandez.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:24:46 · ≈ 5:31 PM

We will now go to Lourdes Navarro to be followed by Jonathan Castillo. Lourdes.

1:25 – 1:316 turns

CommentLourdes Navarro1:25:00 · ≈ 5:32 PM

Good morning, members of the board. My name is Lourdes Navarro. I'm an administrative office professional with the Department of Social Services at the WRC campus and a local 620 member for the past 27 years. I'm here to talk about the budget proposal that doesn't just trim our services, it effectively dismantles them. Before we even discuss these new layoffs, we need to address the reality on the ground. We're already at a breaking point.

For months, we've been doing the work of two, three, and three people just to keep our heads above water. We're already running on fumes. To suggest laying off just in the Department of Social Services alone, 11 administrative office professionals, 12 case aides, and five other various positions on top of existing vacancies isn't just a budget cut. It's a recipe for systemic collapse.

These 28 positions are the backbone of our mandated services. Case aides ensure that we meet state required timelines for vulnerable families. Administrative office professionals ensure that the public can actually access the help that they pay for with their tax dollars. When you leave vacancies open, you create a backlog. When you add layoffs to those vacancies, you create a failure to provide services. You're opening the county up for massive liability, and more importantly, you're failing the residents who have nowhere else to turn. You can't carve out a department that's already starved for staff. If these cuts go through, the board must be prepared to tell the public. which mandated services will no longer be provided and which residents will no longer be served.

We urge you to reject these layoffs and instead focus on filling the vacancies we already have. Protect the frontline so we can protect the community. Thank you for your time.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:27:01 · ≈ 5:34 PM

We will now go to Jonathan Castillo to be followed by Leticia Salas. Jonathan.

CommentJonathan CastilloProposedself-stated1:27:13 · ≈ 5:34 PM

Can you hear me? Good? Okay. Good morning, Chair and members of the Board. My name is Jonathan Castillo, and I proudly work for Santa Barbara County now for the past three years as an administrative office professional. Many people do not see the work happening behind the scenes, but AOPs, clinical staff, nurses, lab techs, medical assistants, and countless other county health employees help keep this system operating every single day.

We help patients access care, coordinate communication between departments and providers, we respond to the urgent patient needs, and we help ensure patients can successfully navigate a healthcare system that is already stretched thin. We are often the bridge between patients, providers, and services. Our work directly impacts whether people receive timely care and support.

My wife also works for Santa Barbara County in social services alongside employees who help families access critical support, stability, and resources during difficult times. Together we are part of the workforce serving this community every day and this is where we call home. Last year when thousands of patients were potentially going to lose access to county health services due to changes affecting medical eligibility, the county discussed building systems and support structures to make sure that patients would not be abandoned. There was planning, there was communication, and there was a clear understanding that these people mattered.

And that's why this process feels so difficult right now for many of us. For months, employees heard rumors about layoffs without clear communication, and now workers are being told that they may receive notices as little as tomorrow, with very little time to prepare. This is very well driving fear and anxiety to the employees and families. And the impact will not just stop there with just the employees.

The layoffs are going to continue with an exorbitant amount of delay in care, increased burnout, overwhelm the remaining staff, and negatively affect the very people that county health and social services are supposed to support. I understand the county faces difficult financial decisions, but I respectfully ask this board that you would exhaust every possible alternative before moving forward with layoffs.

Please invest in the people who continue investing in your community every day. Thank you. Thank you.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:29:41 · ≈ 5:36 PM

We'll now go to Leticia Salas to be followed by Linda Elman. Leticia.

CommentLeticia Alvarez-Salas1:29:54 · ≈ 5:36 PM

Good morning. My name is Leticia Alvarez-Salas and I'm here representing the many dedicated social services employees who have served the community for more than 15 years. We are the social workers on the front lines helping families in crisis every single day. Right now, we're already struggling with on-field positions. We are short-staffed, stretched thin, and doing everything we can help. We can do everything we can help with families that need to be fed, housed, and safe. If more layoffs happen, we simply will not have the manpower to process the benefits on time. That means real people in our community, children, seniors, working parents, will go without food, without shelter, without the support they need to survive.

The workload we carry is already overwhelming. When there's not enough of us, stress rises, sick days increase, and the burden falls on fewer and fewer employees. And we cannot ignore the more staff applying to retire this year, meaning there's going to be more unfilled positions. We are the essential ones. We are the ones who showed up with families in need, yet we're always the first ones to get hit.

I'm asking you to understand the real impact this layoffs will have in both workers and communities we serve. Please protect the people to protect the community. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:31:14 · ≈ 5:38 PM

Thank you.

1:31 – 1:367 turns

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:31:17 · ≈ 5:38 PM

We will now go to Linda Allman to be followed by Meg Baird. Linda.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:31:27 · ≈ 5:38 PM

Good morning, Chairman and Board of Supervisors. My name is Linda. I work for the Public Health Lab as a lab assistant for over five years and over 13 years overall in the county. My work is essential in the lab to help and assist the microbiologists to speed up their jobs and protect the well-being of our community. Public Health Lab has been working with the skeleton crew for the past years.

I have assisted not only as a lab assistant but also as a receptionist, you know, department business associate, and I've learned microbiology skills. I have never questioned why, why we were understaffed. I have always supported and I have never complained. My devotion for serving the vulnerable community has been a way for me to give back to the community.

Your decisions as Board of Supervisors make a great impact on those who you have the obligation to serve. That is your mission. It has been our mission. If you decide to eliminate services in our community, it will suffer. Our community members have already many barriers, such as transportation, mobility barriers, financial hardship, mental disabilities. They're limited on money, etc.

You will also be making their lives more difficult to achieve a better quality of healthcare life. You will also take away our salaries that we use to support our families. Please find ways to minimize the negative impact on our community and preserve our jobs. Together we can make, we can keep making a difference. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:33:30 · ≈ 5:40 PM

Thank you.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:33:31 · ≈ 5:40 PM

We will now go to Meg Baird to be followed by Pierre Calvo. Meg.

CommentMeg BeardProposedself-stated1:33:38 · ≈ 5:40 PM

Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. My name is Meg Beard. I'm a dietitian, a lactation consultant. I work for WIC. I'm the breastfeeding coordinator. I'm a supervisor and a union steward. I listened to almost all three days of your budget hearing. I saw each department try to do their part and the Board of Supervisors working together. Thank you for keeping us funded. I appreciate County Health Administration. I see how difficult their decisions have been.

I understand the Board of Supervisors will have to bail out the sheriffs again to the tune of $10 to $13 million for overtime costs. There goes your set-asides for next year. If County Health Director did this, he would be fired. Vital money is needed for social services and county health, and it's going to go to the Sheriff's Department again. When will this stop?

I know the Sheriff's Department is important, so is county health. We are the safety net department, right? I understand it's a legal requirement to have a balanced budget. We must live within our means. I guess that does not apply to every department. Is the Sheriff's Department exempt? We are mandated by law to be the safety net for the uninsured. It's part of being the county. So show county health the money. The most vulnerable should be the most protected, as Steve Lavinino said in March.

Can we look at the classifications of AOPs regarding bumping? Why are they in the health education series? They should not be in there. I have a breastfeeding WIC paracounselor that may be bumped. State requires this position to be someone that is successfully breastfed, so if a guy is bumped into that position, that's not following our state rules, or someone that didn't breastfeed.

Civil service rules, page 60, this position should be listed for specific skills, to be exempt from layoffs. County Health is the best place for our patients to receive health care. A few years ago, I was told, we do not want to see your people. They speak Spanish and don't show up for appointments. In regards to County Health OB, cutting Dr. Bynes was a mistake. Last year, we gave away all our OB patients in Santa Maria and I feel they're not getting the same care. One agency up here does not have a dietician.

County Health can be a moneymaker. In 2007, we started billing for lactation services. We, for anybody with Medi-Cal, it's a program of pride in the public health department. In July, we understand that our emergency medical UIS will continue to get the high FQHC rate. Besides the doctor and CPSP and OB, other groups receive this high rate. It's the dietician, the lactation consultant, the health educator, the B-Well specialist, the ultrasound tech that provides education and some medical assistant work. We all get that high rate.

We speak Spanish and have Mosteco staff. During the last bargaining session, we got trilingual pay started. In Wiccan County Health, we have patients that sign their name with an X. They cannot read or write. Imagine how difficult and creative we have to be to educate. Lastly, please don't cut one single one of our county health care centers. We are here for a reason. We provide critical services. I thought we were the safety net. Please increase funding for county health, the safety net department. County health needs safety net dollars. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:36:43 · ≈ 5:43 PM

Thanks, Meg.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:36:44 · ≈ 5:43 PM

We will now go to Pierre Calvo to be followed by Laura Robinson. Pierre?

1:36 – 1:428 turns

CommentPierre Calvo1:36:57 · ≈ 5:43 PM

Good morning, supervisors. My name is Pierre Calvo. I am the DSS IT supervisor. I was here last October to speak on behalf of some of my colleagues and all my colleagues. I'm here again to speak on their behalf. I know we are considering layoffs, but I've been thinking long and hard about how to avoid this, and I have two proposals. One is furloughs, to seriously consider furloughs, and I know that may not be enough, but the second one is to consider temporary reassignment.

Back in the 2009 crisis, a lot of counties did use temporary work assignments, basically assigning employees from one department to another department to to address shortcomings. Right now, we are looking at lots of administrative staff in county and social services department. We're talking fiscal, HR, and IT that can be utilized in other departments, such as ITD, HR, the CEO's office, and possibly the sheriff's. And we do know that there Based on previous budget workshops from April, that other departments do have their challenges, that they have their staffing shortages, and they do need help if we go by what they were saying on their budget workshops. I know that the ERP project, is behind schedule, has been behind schedule, yet we've got staff waiting that are going to be laid off that can definitely help with this that have the expertise.

ITD is expanding its AI and GIS initiatives and also does overtime to do updates. I'm sure that they could use some of our technical staff to help with those efforts. There are other departments in need of people, and instead of laying people off, let's do what other counties did back in 2009. Reassign these employees temporarily. We will now go to Laura Robinson to be followed by Jenny Sparks. Laura?

PresenterLaura RobinsonSEIU Local 620Proposedself-stated1:39:23 · ≈ 5:46 PM

Good morning, Chair Nelson, members of the board. My name is Laura Robinson, Executive Director of SEIU Local 620, and I'm here today with the workers who deliver the services this county depends on. The budget decisions you have to make next month are not abstract. They are not numbers on a spreadsheet. They are choices that will determine whether families get help, whether seniors are protected, whether people in crisis get care, and whether this community has a functioning safety net at all.

When you cut positions in social services, you are cutting the person who helps a mother keep food on the table. When you cut positions at public health, you are cutting the nurses who keep outbreaks from spreading. When you cut the jail support, you are cutting the staff who keep both inmates and the public safe. And when you lay off the workers who provide these services, you are not just eliminating a job, you are eliminating the services itself.

The people standing behind me today are facing the possibility of losing their livelihoods. They are wondering how they will pay rent, how will they support their family, how they will explain to their children that the work they dedicated their lives to was suddenly deemed expendable. These are workers who showed up through fires, floods, pandemics, and every crisis this county has faced. They have earned stability, they have earned respect, and they have earned better than this.

Service reductions do not fall evenly. They fall hardest on the most vulnerable. The elderly, the poor, the disabled, the sick, the isolated. And they fall on the workers who are already stretched to their limits trying to hold the safety net together. These layoffs are not inevitable, they are a choice, and choosing layoffs means choosing to reduce services at the exact moment the community needs them the most.

You have options, you can protect these workers, you can protect these services, and you can choose stability and continuity of care. And to my members, you are not alone and you are not powerless. Your work matters, your voice matters, and your solidarity matters. We stand here together because we believe in each other and the community we serve. Supervisors, we urge you to choose to protect the people and protect this county. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:41:29 · ≈ 5:48 PM

Thank you, Ms. Robinson.

PresenterLaura RobinsonSEIU Local 620Proposedself-stated1:41:30 · ≈ 5:48 PM

We will now go to Jeannie

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:41:30 · ≈ 5:48 PM

Sparks to be followed by Ken Westall. Jeannie?

PresenterJeannie SparksSanta Barbara County Action NetworkProposedself-stated1:41:35 · ≈ 5:48 PM

Good morning, Supervisors. I'm Jeannie Sparks, Co-Executive Director of Santa Barbara County Action Network. The County of Santa Barbara, as it states on your board right behind you, delivers exceptional services so all can enjoy a safe, healthy, and prosperous life. You recently approved millions of dollars to expand the jail, part of which wouldn't be needed if health and human services were adequately funded so county employees could support families and help them from being so stressed. If you can find the money to expand the jail, you can find it to provide the services that will reduce the need for jail beds in the future and fulfill the mission of providing a safe, healthy, and prosperous life. Don't lay off essential workers who provide a safety net in our county to the most vulnerable.

Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:42:23 · ≈ 5:49 PM

Thank you, Ms. Parks.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:42:25 · ≈ 5:49 PM

We will now go to Ken Westall to be followed by Eric Ramirez Zabata. Ken?

1:42 – 1:4710 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:42:34 · ≈ 5:49 PM

Very quickly, I won't take much time. The people that come into public health have nowhere else to go. So please fund public health for their sake. The Salcedo family used to always tell me, they said this is the most important department in the county for that reason. Because in Guadalupe, those people just, they just have nowhere else to go. I don't know how you do this, but the state of California really needs to help you guys out on this one. They have wasted a lot of money on a lot of projects, and a letter needs to go to Sacramento. As I sit here today and see this, it's just, it's terrible.

And it's not your fault, but it's the state of California's fault. They need to step up to the plate. And all I'm going to say is, please help the people out. who can speak for themselves. Thanks.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:43:33 · ≈ 5:50 PM

Thank you, Ken.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:43:34 · ≈ 5:50 PM

We will now go to Eric Ramirez Zabada to be followed by Erica Diaz Cervantes. Eric.

PresenterEric Ramirez ZabadaCAWS and Arianza CampesinaProposedself-stated1:43:49 · ≈ 5:50 PM

Hello, everyone. My name is Eric Ramirez Zabada. I'm a policy advocate here with CAWS and Arianza Campesina, where I work directly with our immigrant farmworker community. I stand here today standing in solidarity with our partners, allies, and workers in Santa Barbara County at large, and more specifically as well, with our immigrant communities and our farm worker communities. And above all, your constituents are in front of you right now.

Farm workers and immigrant people are valued members of our communities and fundamental to the stability and prosperity of Santa Barbara County. Farm workers perform the arduous labor, while decision makers love to boast about their mere contributions, the words of value are not reflected in the limited policies implemented. So that families can truly live dignified lives in the very places that they work in.

If anything, they are the ones who have been constantly targeted on every scale. From federal and local levels, all the way to housing and healthcare, our most vulnerable community members are constantly treated as expendable. The county has the opportunity today to not exacerbate the already existing conditions our immigrant farm working families face. Farm workers already struggle to access health care and life-saving services, and by slashing staff and facilities, making Lompoc the only public pharmaceutical provider would only worsen the situation and contribute to the increasing negative health outcomes for our communities.

According to the most recent statewide report on farmworker health by Health and Partnership, Beyond the Cycle of Survival, in the Central Coast, 40% of farmworkers report their health as not good, compared to just 17% of the entire population in Santa Barbara County, your constituents. In the Central Coast, 34% of farmworkers report visiting a doctor in the last year, compared to 71% of the rest of Santa Barbara County, your constituents.

Slashing healthcare personnel, facilities, divesting from county funds, divesting county funds from lifesaving care will only worsen the existing conditions farm workers endure when accessing care in their communities. I urge you all to vote with the lives of your most vulnerable constituents in mind and remember that your duty is to serve the people and not bureaucracy. Thank you for your time.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:46:05 · ≈ 5:53 PM

Thank you.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:46:06 · ≈ 5:53 PM

We will now go to Erika Diaz-Cervantes to be followed by Lindsey Rodriguez. Erika?

CommentErika Diaz-CervantesProposedself-stated1:46:16 · ≈ 5:53 PM

Hi, good morning County Board of Supervisors. My name is Erika Diaz-Cervantes. I am the Associate Policy Director at CAWS, a member of Alianza Campesina, a farmworker coalition of Santa Barbara County farmworkers, and I'm also a member and community member of Wampoag. I'm here today in solidarity of all workers in the county and of all immigrant families and people.

We have all witnessed harmful policies that have been inflicted on our communities, impacting immigrant families and workers with low wages. We need local representatives to protect and uplift the most vulnerable people at this time, not exacerbate the conditions imposed. I'd like to touch on the topic of public health and lack of accessibility in our county for many families, especially farmworker families.

Lompoc is a small community with a significant population of immigrant families and farmworker families. I've seen long lines at pharmacies and referrals to laboratories. It will be extremely difficult for Lompoc to hold an entire region of folks seeking care for their health, especially when there are so many people in need of care. In addition to that, immigrant families already struggle to access the most basic health care.

In the most recent statewide report on farmworker health beyond the cycle of survival, the report discloses farmworkers are disproportionately impacted in Santa Barbara County with 40% of farmworkers having reported poor health compared to the 17% of the county's entire population. I hope the board considers initiatives to improve our community's well-being, not take action that worsen it. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:47:46 · ≈ 5:54 PM

Thank you.

CommentErika Diaz-CervantesProposedself-stated1:47:47 · ≈ 5:54 PM

We will

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:47:48 · ≈ 5:54 PM

now go to Lindsay Rodriguez, then we will go to Zoom with Trang Nguyen.

1:47 – 1:545 turns

PresenterLindsay Rodriguezour Policy DirectorProposedself-stated1:47:57 · ≈ 5:54 PM

Good morning Chair and Supervisors. My name is Lindsay Rodriguez and I am the Health Policy Advocate with MyCOP. I live in Lompoc and I work here in Santa Maria. I am speaking today on behalf of our Policy Director. We are here in solidarity with SEIU Local S20 to respectfully oppose the remaining proposed cuts to county staff and the associated service reductions that would directly impact our community, particularly our most vulnerable immigrant residents. Last fall, we learned through the Santa Barbara Independent that the county was considering compliance with federal directives from the Trump administration that have transitioned individuals with unsatisfactory immigration status out of county clinics. In response, our organization joined community partners and legal advocates, including National Health Law Program and the California Immigrant Policy Center, to provide information and analysis demonstrating the significant harm and actions that could be caused to residents and families.

We urge you to continue on a path that prioritizes health equity and justice by avoiding additional decisions that could further burden patients and families. Specifically, we are concerned about the proposal to eliminate the pharmacies and laboratories in Santa Barbara and San Maria, leaving only Lompoc to serve the entire region. According to the 2020 Census, our county is home to 41,787 uninsured residents. That number represents tens of thousands of individuals and families who already face significant barriers in accessing care.

At the same time, changes to Medi-Cal eligibility verification under H.R. 1 will substantially increase the workload for county agencies and community-based organizations like ours that assist residents with enrollment and retention. As these changes take effect, maintaining accessible local services will be more important than ever to ensure that no one loses health care coverage. We respectfully ask the board to prevent layoffs, avoid service deductions, and prioritize investments that address immediate community needs. We also urge you to continue investing in housing and health care rather than expanding incarceration infrastructure. Thank you.

CommentDr Lee Heller1:50:00 · ≈ 5:57 PM

Thank you.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:50:01 · ≈ 5:57 PM

We will now go to Zoom with Tran Ngo to be followed by Connie Alexander. Tran? Hello? Hello, we can hear you.

CommentDr. Trang NgoProposedself-stated1:50:17 · ≈ 5:57 PM

Good morning, Chair Nelson and Supervisors. My name is Dr. Trang Ngo. I am the Pharmacy Director for our county pharmacies. I'm here to speak for our seven staff and two pharmacies, Santa Maria and Santa Barbara Pharmacy that are proposed to be used on April 13th's meeting. And I wanted to raise three critical concerns regarding the proposed closure. First, I am concerned about the accuracy of the business planning behind this proposal. We are talking about cutting a program that is actively generating revenue.

Beyond that, the reduction process does not appear to be applied fairly or consistently across departments. So our department is getting cut two-thirds of us. We only have three pharmacy totals and two of our pharmacy is proposed to close. When a program is performing well, eliminating it without a balanced review raises serious questions about the planning assumptions being used.

Second, the stated $8.5 million saving from closing two pharmacies are not true savings. The only actual reduction is staff, which is nine position. We have two unfilled that we're not planning to fill. And we have seven staff that fill Santa Maria and Santa Barbara Pharmacy. So the seven staff cut will save about $1.4 million. Meanwhile, the pharmacy alone, revenue alone exceeds $8.5 million annually.

So with the pharmacy, we have to spend money to generate revenues. That's why our expenditure is high, but we also build the insurance and get the money revenues back. So the pharmacy does generate revenues for the county. In other words, the proposal removes more revenue than it saves. That is not a sustainable or fiscally responsible approach. And my third point is I'm asking for a full review of the $24.3 million proposal cut.

When we conduct our own analysis of the pharmacy department, we found multiple inaccuracy of the data and had to make correction ourselves. If the foundation of the proposal contain errors, then the conclusion and the decision based on them cannot be relied upon. And I also agree with the previous speaker where he was talking about how we are one county. So all of our departments should work together. So we have county pharmacy that we are shutting down, but yet we're contracting out the jail medicine to a private company to provide medication for the jail while we have county pharmacy that can provide that service.

And then also in closing, These issues are not small details. They directly affect the accuracy, fairness, and the financial integrity of the proposal. I respectfully request that these concerns be addressed before any final decisions are made. And that's all I have. Thank you for your time.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:53:59 · ≈ 6:00 PM

We will now go to Connie Alexander to be followed by Larry Barrett, who is our final speaker and general public comment today.

1:54 – 1:587 turns

CommentConnie Alexander1:54:09 · ≈ 6:01 PM

Good morning. At this time, when black voting rights and economic opportunities and disparities on the federal level impact our communities in such a way and social programs, as the president of the Santa Barbara NAACP, I've come to say that we strongly support the unions. We support local 620 who is sitting there in your face today fighting for their jobs. The blatant disproportionality in this cuts is disturbing.

Even your own economic dashboard shows who these workers are. and that they have now become the working poor. Not unemployed, but the working poor. The NAACP is concerned that anticipated job cuts will also disproportionately affect non-safety union workers. As a result, these deep impacts will again cut communities of color and particularly black workers. The NAACP is concerned with your recent votes that clearly do not align with supporting communities of color.

Instead, you are on a treacherous path that has enabled mass incarceration and the destabilizing of programs that provide essential support. That $127 million you spent on a jail could have been spent to save these jobs. That $15 million in sheriff's overtime could have been spent to save these jobs. These are working people who have devoted their time, energy, and lives to this county. Hearing this level of cuts, especially to public health, Knowing how much communities of color, how many black community members depend on public health, depend on that public health clinics, depend on the pharmacies, and the real, real impact that this is going to have.

Finally, I'll say that everyday working communities of color need your real support. Thank you.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:56:14 · ≈ 6:03 PM

And we will now go to our final speaker and general public comment, Larry Barrett. Larry?

PresenterLarry BarrettIndivisible Santa BarbaraProposedself-stated1:56:23 · ≈ 6:03 PM

Can you hear me?

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:56:25 · ≈ 6:03 PM

Yes, we can. Please proceed.

PresenterLarry BarrettIndivisible Santa BarbaraProposedself-stated1:56:26 · ≈ 6:03 PM

Okay. Chair Nelson, members of the board, I'm Larry Barrett, representing Indivisible Santa Barbara. We stand in solidarity with our friends at SEIU 620 and with those who depend on essential county services. We are one county, one future, one diverse and interconnected community. We are horrified by the layoffs and budget cuts proposed for the upcoming fiscal year.

These cuts will not only affect county workers and the safety net programs on which so many depend. These cuts will shake our entire region to its foundations, making it more difficult for us to raise families, run businesses, age with dignity, and maintain a quality of life. These impacts will be long-remembered, long-lasting, in many cases irreversible, unless you change course now.

The cuts you're considering are not solely the result of decisions made in Washington, D.C. and Sacramento. These are your decisions, too, and they're not inevitable. Earlier this year, you rejected proposals to raise additional revenue. Just weeks ago, you turned down reasonable proposals to save money by scaling down county jail expansion. It's not too late to delay this expansion, to slow it down, to balance the need for a new jail with the larger need to keep essential services in place.

Perhaps the pain of our budget shortfall is inevitable, but it should not fall disproportionately on the backs of county workers and our most vulnerable. Thank you.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:58:06 · ≈ 6:05 PM

And that concludes general public comment for today.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:58:09 · ≈ 6:05 PM

All right, thank you, Madam Clerk. I just want to thank our county employees and advocates. Please know that we hear you and that we are taking these issues very seriously as we move forward over the next weeks and months. Thank you. All right, we'll go ahead and take a short break and then we'll be coming back from department item number one. To the May 12, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in Santa Maria, we've completed our general public comment as well as our administrative items and we'll start off with department item number one. Madam Clerk, will you please read that into the record?

1:58 – 2:019 turns

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board1:58:39 · ≈ 6:05 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the Information Technology Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding extra help services and retirement waiver for the Information Technology Department.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 41:58:52 · ≈ 6:05 PM

All right. Take it away. Ms. Miller.

CommentAmy MillerProposed1:58:57 · ≈ 6:05 PM

Good morning, Chair Nelson and the Board. I am Amy Miller. I'm the Enterprise Applications Manager in the Information Technology Department. And we request the Board's consideration and approval of hiring retired EDP Systems and Programming Analyst Senior, Chris Rosino, as an extra help employee. Mr. Rizzino retired on March 28th after 35 years of service with the county.

Mr. Rizzino developed several systems that are integral to multiple critical internal billing processes. During this work, Mr. Rizzino gained an immense amount of institutional knowledge, not only on the systems he developed, but also of the business processes supported by these systems. We have been actively searching for a backfill for Mr. Rizzino since he announced his retirement in March.

We are planning on having that backfill in place just as soon as possible. Bringing Mr. Rizzino back will allow him to transfer his vast knowledge to this person as soon as possible.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:00:01 · ≈ 6:07 PM

All right. Thank you, Ms. Miller. Madam Clerk, are there any public comment on this item?

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board2:00:07 · ≈ 6:07 PM

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

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:00:10 · ≈ 6:07 PM

All right, and I don't see any lights from my colleagues. That is for my part. I appreciate the minimal length of this that says that the important letter that says be completed by December. And I think this is the purpose of these extra help assignments is to really bring somebody back to make that transfer. And so I appreciate your department's efforts towards this. And so I will be supporting it, this one. So thank you guys for Including most of the information that I need in your board letter. And again, I'll be willing to support this. So if I can get a motion from one of my colleagues, Supervisor Lee. I move staff's recommendations A, B, and C.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:00:49 · ≈ 6:07 PM

Second.

Roll-call vote Moved by Roy Lee · Seconded by Joan Hartmann
Show transcript
Okay, so we have a motion by Supervisor Lee and a second by Supervisor Hartman. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.
GovChris SneddonDirector of the Public Works Department2:00:57 · ≈ 6:07 PM

Aye.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:00:59 · ≈ 6:07 PM

Opposed? The motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Miller. All right, quickly through item number one, and we're going to go to item number two. And depending on how long item number two goes, we may or may not hit item number three before we take a break for closed session. So we'll kind of play that by ear. So we'll go ahead and start with item number two.

2:01 – 2:253 turns

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board2:01:26 · ≈ 6:08 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Behavioral Wellness Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a Santa Barbara County Psychiatric Health Facility PUF report for fiscal year 2024 through 2025 and fiscal year 2025 through 2026, and this is the first and second quarter.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:01:44 · ≈ 6:08 PM

All right, Director Navarro, please.

GovAntonette “Toni” Navarro2:01:48 · ≈ 6:08 PM

Hello Chair Nelson, Supervisors, County Staff. Tony Navarro, Director of Behavioral Wellness, joined on the phone today by my Chief Financial Administrative Officer Chris Ribeiro and Assistant Director Laura Zietz. So for any questions later on, they are here to help with the presentation. All right. Okay. So I'm here to present to you today on the required annual report of our psychiatric health facility.

Santa Barbara County has its own operated acute care hospital, also known as the PUF, here in Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara has operated this facility for decades and Under the Welfare and Institution Code, which establishes and maintains community behavioral health, county behavioral health plans are required to provide for the provision of acute care psychiatric services for folks who are in acute crisis and inpatient setting.

It is not required that we have a hospital. We are fortunate to have one. Actually, less than half of the counties in California, just about 25, have their own psychiatric health facility located within their county. We actually have the unique title of what is called a Super Puff in California. There are two, Santa Barbara County and Humboldt. And what that requires is not only the Department of Health Care Services licensure as a psychiatric health facility, but more importantly, the federal licensure by the Center for Medicaid Services.

That requires us to have more robust staffing and more enriched programming, and that allows us to bill both Medi-Cal and Medicare. Again, our PUF, it's a 16-bed facility and this is where we place persons who are put on 72-hour holds or what is known as the Lanterman-Petras short 5150 hold. So again, as a SuperPUF, we have a robust higher staff to client ratio, as well as more robust programming for the persons who are in our 24-7 facility. So this slide just provides you an overview of what a day at the PUF looks like with the many types of activities and interventions that happen, not only for staff, but with the clients themselves.

In our designation as a SuperPUF, B. Wells PUF maintains a very diverse range of staff providing these services and that includes psychiatrists, medical doctor internists, a pharmacist, nurses, both registered nurses and licensed psychiatric technicians. We also have A clinical director, and she's a licensed clinical social worker, as well as two supervising nurses. There's a director of social services to oversee all the programming and client care. There's also a certified recreational therapist, as well as non-licensed and what we call recovery assistants who provide that peer support and care to clients daily. We have a pharmacist, as well as licensed marriage family therapists on the unit.

Here in per regulation is the PUF governing board structure, and as you can see, again, why we bring this to you on an annual basis, the Board of Supervisors is the main governing board body of the psychiatric health facility. That authority is then designated to what is the psychiatric health facility governing board, which I'll show a slide that outlines those members in just a second.

There's also a psychiatric medical health facility, the Medical Practice Committee, that is overseen by B-Well's Medical Director, Dr. Oli Berenson. and the Quality Assessment Improvements and Performance Plan, what we lovingly call the QAPI. The QAPI really provides for patient care safety, quality care programming, quality assurance, and establishes improvement projects as required each year to make sure that we're constantly thinking about best practice and effective care for our clients.

And here's a list of our PUF governing board members. ACO Tonya Heitman has been the governing board chair for the last few years. Recently, Dr. Hamami from County Health has become our vice chair. Supervisors Capps and Lee. Supervisor Capps is actually our appointed board representative with Supervisor Lee as our alternate. We have the Sheriff's Department representative by Chief Sullivan.

Tracy Makuga, the Public Defender's Office is there. Of course, Public Services Office of the Public Guardian. And we have the Chief Medical Officer from County Health also rounding out our board. So you can see that our board consists of members whose departments are Intimately involved with the work that we do and often have their own clients or persons that they serve in their county services within our system.

So the PUF Governing Board, which is a Brown Act meeting, it meets the fourth Wednesday of every month at 3 p.m. We meet in person at the San Antonio site, formerly the Child and Family Services Unit at the top of San Antonio Road, but you can also find our agenda and link to the meeting on the Be Well website. At the PUF Governing Board, we spend a couple of hours once a month meeting and discussing generally the agenda items here. We report on a number of quality indicators and get feedback from our board.

We talk about policies and procedures and update those regularly. There's also medical staff bylaws that need to be reviewed annually, and we're looking at those. Medical staff and credentialing happens as needed. And we go over a lot of survey results with the board. The cooperative committee is probably the most robust part of the meeting, and it really is about what establishes us not only in preparation for audits and making sure that we can maintain our licensure by both the Center for Medicaid Services and DHCS, but more importantly, it's about quality improvement, and it really does give the governing board, as well as the public, a view into the practice of the psych hospital. As we know that historically psych hospitals have been one of those places that often in the media, when it's in the media, is usually when things are going wrong.

And so I think it's really great every month that we have the performance review and we can see where we're doing well and better and our commitment to improvement for the clients that we serve. So I think some of the key highlights that are important to understand is that as the inpatient hospital, we hear a lot, of course, as a county, our size, that 16 beds of an acute care hospital for involuntary holds seems like not enough for our county. And certainly, we do have a number of admissions every year.

Over the past couple years, as you've heard in our budget hearings earlier this year, the Behavioral Wellness Department has really focused on looking at more efficient staff utilization and programmatic operations, as well as effective leveraging of the resources within our county and at the federal level. What we, in regards to the PUF, what that really is about is translating into more efficiency within the inpatient hospitalizations, making sure that we can serve the maximum number possible in an effective way.

In 24-25, in 23-24 and 24-25, we served just, again, we saw about a 10% increase from 23-24 to 24-25. But as you can see this year already, we are on track to have about a 30% increase in the number of hospitalizations this year and folks who've been able to utilize this very acute specialty care with the county. What we ascribe that to is again, in the past year, the staff has really looked at and has developed their capacity to partner with outside partners in terms of discharge and step down. And more importantly, we've seen some capacity added.

in the local county to programs such as skilled nursing facilities, and of course, increased efficiency and utilization of our crisis residential units. We really look forward to the crisis residential units that will also be coming online in the next two years, as it will really help with the flow and the step down from our PUF. All right. The average length of stay is also a key indicator and something that needs to be managed when you're looking at a hospital. Again, folks on a 5150 are on a three-day hold.

If somebody needs to be on an acute care status and their danger to self or others or grave disability remains past three days, there are patient's rights teams from Be Well are there and there are hearings that are provided. to the clients there to ensure that their safety is met, and sometimes those things can extend past the three days. But overall, many folks resolve within that first three days, and the length of stay is really related to that discharge and that step down, making sure that we're discharging people to the right level of care at the right time, and not just creating a scenario where it'll be a revolving door. So from 24, 25, again, we saw a slight reduction from 23 to 25. But again, on track this year at about, what is that, almost a 28% reduction, I think, in the number of clients.

So again, it creates flow and ensures that we have more people able to access this acute level of care when needed at the right time. Here's an overview of the utilization by region of clients in our PUF. And again, just about half are residents of South County accessing the South County unit. We do have about 9% out of county and those are folks who may be visiting or passing through that end up in crisis and need a place to go get care.

So one of the key indicators that we've been tracking a lot for the last couple of years, of course, in the psychiatric health facility is the acute versus administrative days. The acute versus administrative days, and you'll see a slide in just a minute, is not only related to flow at the hospital and making sure that this level of care is always available as much as possible for people who need it at the right time, but it's also about funding and Medi-Cal reimbursement to maximize the utilization of this service. So as you can see, again, we've been working really hard on it and starting in the spring of last year, we really started to look at and put in place some key changes in regard to how our psychiatrists are looking at admin versus acute days.

So an acute day is a day in which a person is meeting the criteria of a 5150. An admin day is a day in where that crisis has resolved and the person is no longer a danger to themselves or others or gravely disabled, but we don't yet have the right level of care step down and we don't want to put them into another crisis by disrupting and dismissing them too soon.

So really actively focusing on that. The things that we put in place included our medical director, Dr. Oli, working directly with the psychiatry staff and actually codifying and operationalizing what it means to make sure that we are assessing people accurately if they need acute versus admin, and then also our discharge teams and all manner of disciplines that we talked about. really effectively stepping down people and making sure that we have relationships with other facilities for people to go to post-hospitalization. So, we're just at about 50-50 right now for acute admin, and that has been a significant boon to our revenue this year in 25-26, and we'll talk more about that.

But again, the most important part of that is that you're getting people out, as that translates to the lower length of stay, and the more people seen in the PUF, and those are all connected. The next slide here is our revenue and funding for the last full fiscal year of 24-25. So you can see again, we had the build services breakdown. And currently, we bill 98% of our services are Medi-Cal with about 2% Medicare. Of course, with the growing aging population of the behavioral wellness population in our county.

We do anticipate that Medicare number to grow over the years. So we're fortunate to have that SuperPUF status. These next two slides, the budget funding stream and then the breakdown of what it costs for a bed day, they kind of go hand in hand. I wish I had a split screen I could show you here. What this slide shows here is that about 75% of our billing in the Medi-Cal patient revenue, just about $12 million, that's our acute days, and that's Medi-Cal reimbursement revenue. So the overmatch that is talked about in realignment, general fund, and Medicare coverage, You know, on any given day, you're going to have some people in the psychiatric health facility that don't have insurance or that don't have Medi-Cal. They may have private insurance and they end up in our, so we can't bill Medi-Cal for that.

You're going to have persons that are, you know, as folks in our county are on conservatorship, if there is a challenge that someone is having and they're really decompensating in their setting, the puff is where they come to get stabilized, even if they're not on an acute level of care. And it's our charge to help stabilize them and make sure that we step them down to the right in conjunction with our public guardian partners to step them down. So these are also conserved folks. And then, of course, the admin days, which you'll see on the next slide, are billed out at a much lower rate.

When you step someone down, for instance, to home or to a family setting versus another licensed treatment setting, you don't always get credit for your admin days, even though sending someone home to a loving, supportive family, we think, is a win and a great discharge. It doesn't mean that in the revenue world. All right, so the PUF revenue acute versus admin days. I just think this is a good qualifier for the previous slide. So as you can see here under acute days, a bed day rate that the Department of Health Care Services rate means how much the county is paid for that day.

And then the physician average services rate, which is billed separately, so the time that someone meets with the psychiatrist is billed separately from the bed day. And that total estimated gross patient revenue is approximately $29.53. But of course, we have to provide a local match, which is just over 30% that we provide as the local match to leverage and draw down the federal dollars, which means that we get a net Medi-Cal patient revenue, and with the state general fund of just about $1,900. An estimated net Medi-Cal patient revenue from an acute bed day, though, overall, with all the different formulas, and again, Chris Ribeiro is on the line if there's more questions. I'm not fluent in fiscal apologies, is about $1,198 a day. As you can see, the admin days are significantly lower.

So as we have, and as the good news is that I'd like to say, is that as you saw that our revenue is about 50-50 acute admin versus admin days. We are on track this year in fiscal year 25-26 to have the highest producing Medi-Cal revenue that the PUF has seen in at least the 20 years that Christa Barrow has been with the department. So every year, we get an auto. We get a nice surprise visit from the state. They'll call. Every few years, the Center for Medicaid Services also comes out. But these are the Department of Health Care Services on-site reviews. And they'll call. And sometimes it's a few hours ahead of time. And they'll say, hi, we're in town. And we'll see you in a few hours. And we collectively come together.

In 24-25 was the first year that we heard from the department. I think was it 24-25? Yes, okay, it was. That we had what the two auditors collectively who had over 25 years of experience at the state doing audits of psychiatric health facilities were Astonished and pleased to say that this was the first time in both of their careers they had audited a PUF that had no clinical findings, that demonstrated expert team collaboration and coordination of care of patients, and there were no concerns within the clinical chart review.

We did have a couple of deficiencies related to a thermometer in the refrigerator that wasn't quite registering correctly and a couple of different things here and there in terms of logins regarding Thank you. It's very very exciting. The audits also do is there's always room for improvement in everything. So even if you don't have deficiencies or if they're minor, we're always looking at quality care improvement and what's coming down the line. And so each year we do have quality improvement plans.

So the point of the outlined interventions at the bottom were for the deficiencies that were noted in the two audits. All right. One of our favorite parts, of course, of the QAPI meeting every month is to share out the patient results. So, patient survey results. Every patient is offered a survey result during their time at the PUF so that we can see how folks are doing and what they like.

And while they are a captured audience and they are involuntarily there, and so, you know, you can look at the through whatever lens you'd like, but we think it's pretty good that people are being held against their will and have their rights kind of taken away for three days, and that 83% of them are saying that they like the services that they receive there.

And that over three-quarters of folks are saying that their symptoms are not bothering me as much as when they came in. And the one that gets like the highest ratings is always the food, just want to say. It's like, I don't have a slide for that, but I tell you, it's always in the 90s. People really like the food at the Puff. So thanks to our contractors, Val Verde, for the food, the nutritious food they provide. And we have a dietician who makes sure that monitors and everybody's food is well balanced. So finally here, I just want to share with you some of the new initiatives that we're focused on this year in the PUF.

We are hiring an additional psychiatric nurse supervisor position to really help us with the documentation review, the staffing and compliance. As you're aware, of course, under Senate Bill 43, which has expanded the definition of gravely disabled to include severe and substance use only disorders, we have some extra training that we're doing. And there will be some extra programming that begins specifically related to substance use disorder groups and treatment.

We have an onsite infection prevention assessment and accreditation readiness assessment that is being conducted by our outside consultant, Chartus. So we learned some new things. And so that's been really good. Yeah, so if you were at our PUF meeting, we learned about, like, what happens when you take tape off something and, like, you don't take all the sticky off the wall. Like, that is a place where infection can grow. So, yeah, who knew that? Something that we hadn't thought about before and making sure that we're paying attention to all those little details. So, that's just an indication of the level of detail that the audits go into and that our consultants help us be prepared for. And then, of course, we are working on implementation of an electronic patient transfer health record transfer.

We initiated that this year. We have our partners in Marion are fully on board as well as Lompoc Valley Medical and what this does. Cottage is reviewing and working through some things so that they too can jump on board. But what this does is it puts all the packets for people to be placed on a 5150 through an electronic system and in real time very quickly. We get the packet within 30 minutes. We're responding to an average of 30 minutes, responding to the hospital to let them know if we have a bed and what the ETA will be opening for that. So that really helps us to manage more I want to start by saying thank you to all of our partners.

for joining us in that. And we got some new furniture. We had a staff safety survey that went out and we actually were able to put in some new furniture this year. It looks very kind of like space age and modern, but what it allows for is making sure that People can't pick up chairs and desks and throw them and use them as weapons. So that's it for my annual PUF report. Open to questions if there are any.

And at this time, we request that the board receive and file this report and determine CEQA regulations.

2:25 – 2:3427 turns

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:25:09 · ≈ 6:32 PM

All right. Thank you, Director Navarro. And just before I go to Supervisor Kapsch, there's no public comment on this item, is there?

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board2:25:15 · ≈ 6:32 PM

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

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:25:19 · ≈ 6:32 PM

All right, then I'll kick it off to Supervisor Capps, who's our board's representative to the PUF.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 22:25:24 · ≈ 6:32 PM

Yeah, thank you so much, Chair Nelson, and thank you, Director Navarro. I've enjoyed being representative on the PUF board. I mean, it's such a challenging place to be. It's a challenging work, but the results are stunning. I mean, just looking through the survey, I don't know what other entity gets 86% or whatever it is. I mean, hotels don't get that. I mean, it's just, it's pretty remarkable. So kudos to the staff and just to acknowledge the kind of commitment that it takes for a professional to work in such a challenging environment.

I've heard Supervisor Lavenino say that before and in his time on this board. So I just had one question about the length of stay because there has been a drop as you noted and I just was hoping you can elaborate as to why, what the reasons would be in terms of time of stay. I think the first two quarters of the year there's been a drop since then so if you could elaborate as to some reasons as perhaps why.

GovAntonette “Toni” Navarro2:26:26 · ≈ 6:33 PM

I think there's a number of factors including the fact that this past year we actually expanded our beds at the Champion Center by eight in our regular contract in addition to the four that we also have. So we went from 36 beds to, let me add six, we now have 44 beds total. At the Puff. So we added eight new beds in our contract there that helps with the flow because a lot of these folks are needing that still higher level of care once they've once they've the acute crisis has resolved. We've also had some increase in skilled nursing facility beds and some local agencies here in the county both in the north and in the south. So that's been been really helpful and I think those types of increases to capacity are what helps us keep the length of stay down.

It's really about a flow in capacity. more than anything. It's also just really great diligent work on behalf of our workers, our social workers, and our discharge planners that are at the, and therapists at the PUF, who create relationships. So, I mean, I think that it's important to know that there's lots of psych hospitals, and there's lots of people looking to step down their patients. And it's really about who has the relationship, who really sends over a complete packet, and is able to maintain those good professional relationships to put our folks at the top of the list.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 22:27:52 · ≈ 6:34 PM

Again, we don't often hear directly from those who receive these types of services, so just reading through the survey and seeing the comments that people wrote was just so satisfying as a board member to see. Folks writing, like, the staff gave me the kind of care I needed, and this was the exact place I needed to be. I'm not quoting verbatim, but just very heartfelt reactions. A few complained about the food, the breakfast, but the coffee.

But, you know, just really acknowledging that this is the type of care that these individuals needed in a locked facility. And again, I'm new to this board and I learned a lot from this survey. So it was very enlightening. Thank you. Thank you.

GovAntonette “Toni” Navarro2:28:47 · ≈ 6:35 PM

And I think for anybody who's visited the PUF, even in light of the fact it's not the newest and the shiniest and the brightest that people feel cared for and comfortable in that setting is really important and a testament is really a testament to the staff and the work and the care they provide. So congratulations to the staff.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:29:03 · ≈ 6:36 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Kaps. Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:29:06 · ≈ 6:36 PM

Yes, I had four questions, but first with a preface. The audit twice in a row wasn't just a one-off, an anomaly. That's extraordinary. And I do hear that people want to work at the PUF, that there's a camaraderie there, and I think that that's extraordinary. My first question has to do with what is it that makes for a super PUF? I mean, you can build Medi-Cal, but what is it?

in the structure of the services.

GovAntonette “Toni” Navarro2:29:38 · ≈ 6:36 PM

Okay, so Laura Zeitz should be on the call and she's going to give you exactly the checklist right off the top of her head.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:29:46 · ≈ 6:36 PM

Okay, just in general.

CommentLaura RobinsonProposed · by introduction2:29:49 · ≈ 6:36 PM

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. It's the ability to bill Medicare is one of the biggest things. But we have to abide by those CMS regulations. So it impacts the kind of staffing that we do. It does impact the kind of program we provide. Our program at our PUF is significantly more robust as far as daily treatment programming than what they call a regular PUF. So fundamentally, it's the ability to bill Medicare and the robustness of the treatment program that we have.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:30:22 · ≈ 6:37 PM

Because we have a lot more services there that we offer. Okay, thank you, that helps. My second question, at one point we were looking for a waiver to try to expand the number of beds from the federal government. I think that came with lots of additional requirements and we now have more flow, as you say, more options. But I just, what is, do we have enough beds at the PUF? Where are we?

In terms of that waiver discussion, yeah,

GovAntonette “Toni” Navarro2:30:55 · ≈ 6:37 PM

as we presented to your board earlier this year under the behavioral health connect presentation, that is something that will continue to evaluate as we move through this fiscal year. I think, again, we have been really working hard on the length of stay and the flow within the puff. But again, it does come with extra considerations. There will be more staffing and those costs staffing to reimbursement ratios will be key in determining the BH Connect Puff and expansion. It's only two beds that we can expand in that limited space, but we have up until mid 2027 to pull the lever on adding two more beds in order to to maximize the funding available. It would also require us to add a new staffing designation within our system that we haven't yet gotten around to community health workers.

So we are continuing to evaluate that and we'll look at it more fully at the end of this fiscal year when you have a full picture of the performance of this full fiscal year.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:31:59 · ≈ 6:38 PM

So at the end of June you'll start?

GovAntonette “Toni” Navarro2:32:01 · ≈ 6:39 PM

Yeah, so by the fall when everything's been reconciled, we'll be able to really look at it more clearly regarding this is how much it will cost to add the staffing that's needed to add the two beds, these will be the extra costs, and this would be the potential revenue.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:32:17 · ≈ 6:39 PM

Okay. And you mentioned the CSUs. I mean those are one strategy to keep people out of the puff if we can meet their needs there. How well are they working?

GovAntonette “Toni” Navarro2:32:32 · ≈ 6:39 PM

I think it's having some impact. It's having some impact. We definitely are focused this next year on continuing to promote the crisis stabilization services unit that Crestwood runs for us and make sure that we're maximizing, that folks are going there first as needed versus coming into the puff if need not be. Our hospital partners continue to use that in an effective way and we have commitment from our law enforcement partners to continue to revisit that with us.

If I might also just want to step back on the BH Connect and the addition of beds, one huge consideration, of course, that we will have to look at is the impact of HR 1, because the more that folks maybe do not have Medi-Cal and end up in crisis, that will affect our bottom line.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:33:20 · ≈ 6:40 PM

Yeah, thank you for that. Final question. How many repeat people do we have? Do you track that as a success measure? I mean, is it a revolving door or are we really able to help people stabilize and stay

GovAntonette “Toni” Navarro2:33:37 · ≈ 6:40 PM

stable over the long run? Thank you for that question. I do not think that I have that data point at my fingerprints, but we do track unique individuals served over the year, so I can get back to you on that on that answer. All

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:33:53 · ≈ 6:40 PM

right. Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Any other comments or questions from the board? I've got a chance to serve on the Puff County Board previously and I learned a lot and know that there's a lot of hard work and a lot of history to get to where we are today, but I think it's really important that we continue to keep that level of attention on this really important asset that we have in San Barbara County. So thank you for your work.

GovAntonette “Toni” Navarro2:34:17 · ≈ 6:41 PM

Yeah. So thanks to Laura Zeit's leadership along with Jen Hidrobo and Ozzy, who's the nursing supervisor. They really have good morale there and a lot of good things going on. So thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:34:27 · ≈ 6:41 PM

Thank you for the

GovAntonette “Toni” Navarro2:34:27 · ≈ 6:41 PM

opportunity. Thank

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:34:28 · ≈ 6:41 PM

you, Director Navarro. If I can get a motion to approve staff recommendations A and B.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:34:34 · ≈ 6:41 PM

So moved. I'll second.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:34:36 · ≈ 6:41 PM

Okay, any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay, we're getting close to the lunch hour, but I think we want to try to squeeze in the next item. So if we have all the staff here, we don't want to waste their time. I'm gonna let them get back to work here. So we'll go ahead and read department item number three into the record.

2:34 – 2:487 turns

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board2:34:58 · ≈ 6:41 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the probation department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding fiscal year 2026 through 2028 public safety realignment plan.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:35:10 · ≈ 6:42 PM

All right. Chief Benton, take it away.

CommentHolly BentonProposedself-stated2:35:17 · ≈ 6:42 PM

Still good morning, Chair Nelson and Supervisors. I'm Holly Benton, the Chief Probation Officer and the Chair of the County's Community Corrections Partnership, which is also known as the CCP, as well as its Executive Committee. With me today are Deputy Chief Spencer Cross and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer Damon Fletcher, who will be presenting the Fiscal Year 2026 through 2028 Public Safety Realignment Plan and the Realignment Spending Plan.

The CCP is an independent partnership created by statute with the passage of SB 678 in 2009 and it's chaired in each county by the Chief Probation Officer. Its role is to serve as a local community corrections advisory body and in 2011, AB 109 created an executive committee of the CCP for the purpose of developing and approving the county's realignment spending plan and presenting it to your board.

Statutory members of that committee are the Chief Probation Officer, the District Attorney, the Sheriff, the Public Defender, the Director of Behavioral Wellness, a local Chief of Police, and our Superior Court Executive Officer. And representatives from our county departments are here with us today, as well as County Health. The funded programs and services the CCP is presenting to your board today represent a balanced approach to public safety, which includes evidence-based treatment and case management for justice-involved individuals.

Realignment funding supports programs and staffing within multiple county organizations, services through community-based organizations, and evaluation of our local practices, which is a hallmark of what we do. In addition, each year the CCP seeks innovations to move the local justice system forward, and these responses are designed to provide a continuum of services and supports for a population with very complex needs and challenges in order to reduce recidivism. As always, the plan reinforces the strong collaborations between our county agencies and the partnerships that we continue to build across our justice system.

Last year, the CCP and its work group began the process of deeper scrutiny of budgeted programs and has continued that approach this year. We emphasize the production of data and the need for positive outcomes so that we can avoid overuse of one-time funds and expansions and concentrate our funding on those programs which best serve the county's strategic goals.

As with last year's plans, many of the county's criminal justice initiatives continue to converge in the pretrial, diversion, and reentry spaces. So on behalf of the CCP and its executive committee, I would like to thank your board and CEO Miyasato for the commitment to the collaborative efforts of this group, and thank and recognize Supervisor Capps, who currently represents your board on that group. With that, I'll turn it over to Spencer and to Damon for their presentation.

GovSpencer Cross2:37:56 · ≈ 6:44 PM

Thank you, Chief Benton, Chair Nelson, Supervisors. I'm Spencer Cross, and I'm a Deputy Chief for the Probation Department's Adult Division. I'm currently the Community Corrections Partnership Workgroup Chair. On behalf of the CCP, I will be presenting the Fiscal Year 2026-2028 Public Safety Realignment Plan. Before I move on to the first slide, I do want to take a moment to reflect on the cover art of our plan. We chose a sunrise photo this year for the theme. This is symbolic of new beginnings, which represent hope, second chances, and transformation. These are common goals when working with the justice-involved population, and they're woven into the fabric of this very plan.

The Public Safety Realignment Plan Act celebrates its 15th year of collaboration through the CCP. Since October of 2011, we've been bringing this before your board for approval and adoption. This plan represents more than just statistics, colorful graphs, charts, and figures. This plan represents a commitment from all of our local partners to provide effective, data-informed services to meet the needs of those who enter the criminal justice system.

The components included in this realignment plan have been reviewed and approved, as the Chief said, by the CCP and the Executive Committee. In 2011, realignment transferred the responsibility of specific inmates from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to our local county. With this change, two additional populations were added to the responsibility of local county jurisdictions.

The post-release community supervision clients, or as we refer to as PRCS clients, are individuals who are released from prison after serving a commitment for a non-violent, non-serious felony and those who are deemed not to be high-risk sex offenders. Those meeting this criteria are supervised by the Department of Parole. The second population is known locally as the Post-Sentence Supervision or PSS.

These clients are non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders who serve their prison sentences locally in the county jail and are subject to a mandatory period of supervision as ordered by the Superior Court. The number of PRCS and PSS clients has seen an increase over the past two years, as seen on the table you're looking at at the slideshow. The blue bars and red line represent snapshots taken from each year on June 30th.

You can see there are over 100 more individuals under supervision this year as compared to 2023, and there's a slight bump from 2024. On average, 429 realigned individuals are supervised monthly by the Probation Department. The realigned population makes up 16% of the overall supervised population in the county. This remains a relatively small portion in comparison to the numbers of clients on standard supervision, which is closer to 2,000.

A total of 524 unique individuals were supervised during the last fiscal year. As demonstrated on this slide, the majority of those supervised are Hispanic males between the ages of 25 and 44. The CCP has set five overarching goals to govern our work with the criminal justice population. Reduce recidivism, enhance the use of alternatives to detention, ensure successful reentry into the community, coordinate efforts across systems, and reduce systemic disparities.

Each year, the CCP funds programs and activities that are aligned with these goals. We set new objectives to move our goals forward, and I'd like to highlight a few of these for your board. Under Goal 1, the CCP focuses efforts to reduce recidivism. The CCP continues to fund promising programs which assist behavior change, and one such program in the jail is called Freedom to Choose.

Because this program has been funded with one-time funds for several years, the Sheriff's Office has committed to measurable metrics to monitor improvements in pro-social behavior and decision-making. If this program is successful, the results could lead to measurable reduction into rebookings in the jail and may act as a lever to reduce the overall jail population.

Under Goal 2, the CCP is committed to the use of alternatives to detention, both pre- and post-sentence, where individuals can be safely released back into the community. The objectives under this goal are designed to maximize jail capacity for the highest-risk clients, identify those who can be released safely, and also to expand diversion efforts. One of the new objectives in this area involves the Sheriff's Office reporting out to the CCP on their jail reduction measures.

This will allow the CCP to continue to refine and coordinate our collaborative work on diversion efforts. Another outcome I'd like to highlight is the expansion of the REDI program to the south part of the county. Providing representation for clients at the earliest stage possible after an arrest has proven to be a successful strategy to avoid extended jail stays.

And lastly, Goal 5 supports a systemic approach to studying and addressing racial and ethnic disparities. For this goal, the CCP will be exploring partnerships with local indigenous serving organizations to educate stakeholders and define effective management strategies for our Mixteco population. This community is often underserved due to language and cultural barriers.

Every year, the CCP requires departments to submit documentation that supports any request for funding through the Realignment Programmatic Restricted Fund Balance. This year, the CCP approved six requests. I will briefly highlight these for your board. You see four on this slide, but I will add the other two. The Public Defender's Office was approved for $1.6 million over a three-year period to continue the REDI program in the northern part of the county.

The District Attorney's Office was approved for one full-time Victim Witness Program Assistant for three years. The Probation Department received funding for two probation officers to monitor clients who are able to benefit from the new legislation under Proposition 36. And lastly, two smaller amounts were approved. One was for media costs related to the Neighborhood Restorative Justice Panel recruitment and a consultant related to the ongoing work of the Main Name Index used to support the County Data Sharing Committee.

One requested program was not moved forward. This was the grid solar program within the North Branch Jail. While supported in concept, this initiative did not result in post-release employment for its graduates, and therefore the CCP funding will sunset at the end of this fiscal year. The CCP approved several expansions to the ongoing budget for fiscal year 26-27, all of which were previously funded as one-time allocations.

Specifically, the Public Defender's Office was approved for funding for two mental health diversion paralegals and one holistic defense program manager. The CCP also approved continued funding for four reserved treatment beds at the Champion Center in Lompoc, which Director Navarro spoke about a few minutes before us. These beds are for justice-involved behavioral health clients who are conserved under the Lanterm-Petrash Short Act or qualify for temporary conservatorship.

These beds were part of a program that was approved for a two-and-a-half-year pilot, and these beds are being monitored by behavioral wellness. Due to competing resources and lack of substantial growth in the annual allocation, the CCP encourages departments to look within their previously allocated budgets, to look to repurpose or propose reductions to prior funding before they ask for funding expansions.

The Sheriff's Department, led by example this year, and reallocated funding within the STP program to add reentry care managers within the Department of Social Services. This action is in alignment with the push for more integrated release planning led by County Health. During budget review this year, the CCP focused special attention on the CCP-funded co-response team.

While there's no debate that these teams do outstanding work in the field, the data submitted to the CCP did not establish overwhelming evidence that this particular team was productive during the days and times they were scheduled. After further discussion, the team was funded, but the CCP requested the Sheriff's Office and BWELL work together to come up with additional responsibilities to increase the team's productivity between calls and during downtime.

An initial presentation on additional duties was received in March, and we requested additional information that will be reported on this month on May 22nd. This item will be taken to the CCP in June. In addition, the Sheriff's Office has submitted a request seeking CCP funding for a fourth co-response deputy that, as you heard during the co-response board presentation, has not been funded yet for the next fiscal year.

At this time, I'll pass the presentation to Damon Fletcher to present the summary of our spending plan for the 26-27 realignment plan.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:46:57 · ≈ 6:53 PM

Spencer, before you go further, can you restate that about the co-response piece?

GovSpencer Cross2:47:03 · ≈ 6:54 PM

Chair Nelson, for the co-response, the team has been, has funded through this plan for the next fiscal year, 26-27. However, the CCP has asked them to come up with additional responsibilities, and so they have, they've come up with five additional responsibilities that our behavioral wellness partner can speak about. It includes going to the jail, doing proactive release, you know, Transportation's going there if there's a crisis upon booking to try and help make sure that the client either gets within the jail or taken to another facility. And so they have a five-prong plan that has not yet gone to the CCP. That presentation will go in June, on June 4th.

And so the co-response, the additional piece of that is the Sheriff's Office has indicated they will be doing a presentation next Wednesday, May 20th, to ask for funding for the fourth deputy for our team. We have yet to receive the presentation on where that person will be assigned, what duties they'll have, or what statistics will come, but we're going to get more information on May 20th.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:48:06 · ≈ 6:55 PM

Okay, thank you, Mr. Kress.

2:48 – 2:5611 turns

GovDamon Fletcher2:48:11 · ≈ 6:55 PM

The CCP approved budget totals $21.8 million. This budget reflects a $1.3 million increase over the current year, primarily related to the three expansion requests that Spencer just addressed. The plan continues the county's commitment to a broad spectrum of treatment, supervision, and jail population management programs to ensure supervised clients receive necessary support while ensuring accountability.

The financing includes $19.8 million in anticipated realignment allocation and $2 million in restricted fund balance consisting of $129,000 in growth funds and $1.9 million of unspent prior years funds necessary to balance this year's program. And back to Spencer to wrap us up.

GovSpencer Cross2:49:06 · ≈ 6:56 PM

In closing, the CCP, alongside our collaborative partners, county departments, and the community, remain engaged and committed to improvements and expansions aimed at addressing the needs of clients across the county. The plan represents a balanced approach to allocate state funding, which includes jail management, community supervision, diversion efforts, treatment programs, victim services, restorative justice, and innovations.

I'd like to end our presentation by sharing a success story of a client who was engaged by our system of care. This client, at the age of 16, was awarded a court and remained in and out of the justice system into adulthood. Diagnosed with bipolar disorder and depression, the individual lived a transient lifestyle beginning at 18 years old. While unhoused, methamphetamine became a coping mechanism.

All of their personal belongings fit into a small backpack. Posture was that of defeat, slumped over, always walking with their head down. Everyday life was a struggle. Facing barriers every step of the way. The question we often ask is, why with all these resources I just talked about, does one remain in this situation? Fear? Resentment, previous failures, distrust, the answer is often D, all of the above.

Enter the familiar faces team. Probation, the Public Defender's Office, and the Department of Behavioral Wellness working together create what we think is a secret sauce. They start with the simple things, breaking down distrust. Their engagement with this client started at the age of 29. They offered support, starting with the basic necessities of life. They got things such as a cell phone, they reinstated the client's Medi-Cal benefits, they obtained the person eyeglasses, the person began therapy, and they secured housing at La Posada.

This stability and connection led to completion of a program at Sanctuary Centers. Ultimately, being stable cleared a path for the client to enroll and attend classes at the Santa Barbara City College through the Rising Scholars Program. This client gained sobriety and now wishes to pursue a career as a drug and alcohol counselor while continuing to work on their long-term housing goals.

While this is just one example of hundreds and perhaps even thousands of individuals that the CCP funding programs and services have assisted on a path to a better future, we know that progress is not always a straight line, but sometimes we're rewarded with small victories. And over time, these small victories can make lasting change. I do want to thank the workgroup members, our partner agencies, probation staff, and our community partners who contributed to the development of this plan over the last several months.

I would also like to acknowledge our talented and hardworking research and special projects and fiscal teams who prepared the final realignment plan that we have presented to your board today. Lastly, we have our recommended actions for today. As you see, A through D. And we do, are we happy to take questions from you? And I did bring all of the representatives from all the departments to answer all the difficult questions that I may not have the answers to. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:52:19 · ≈ 6:59 PM

All right, questions from the board. Let's kick it off with Supervisor Capson. She's a member there.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 22:52:24 · ≈ 6:59 PM

Well, I'm just I'm very proud of all of the work and it's been a real learning experience for me to be part of the CCP and just to see all that's in motion. It's really in motion. That's how I feel about it all. And it's a challenge just to track all of the different moving parts and I know that's really the challenge for you all because everybody is rowing in the right direction but trying to just keep that is a daily challenge and so the fact that there's now better data is promising and I know that's a recent development and I know that you know we're about to get the diversion strategic plan and that's also an accomplishment to to cheer on.

So I guess my only question is What's the next step or how do you even know what to bring forward to track and to present data, to present progress? Because again, there's so many different moving parts. I think we're going to get into the co-response a little bit later, but what's the next step in terms of presenting public data?

GovSpencer Cross2:53:35 · ≈ 7:00 PM

Thank you for the question. Supervisor Capps to the Chair. One of the things that we do have going is called the Valuing Voices Project. So one of the things that we wanted to look for is what the clients actually need versus what we think they need. And so that project did some focus groups within the community. They sent out surveys. And so one of the things that came up just preliminarily, we haven't got the final report, it's going to go to the CCP in June, is transportation.

Transportation seems to be a major barrier, and so that's one thing that the CCP has not focused on, particularly on transportation. We do offer bus tokens. We offer transportation, obviously, by the Familiar Faces team, probation officers. We do transportation, but one of the things that we often see is barriers. One of the reasons during COVID, We have people here to talk about the warrants.

When you're able to not have to go to court and they can be online, warrants may go down. So transportation is something that we haven't really looked at, but that Valuing Our Voices report is really going to kind of steer us towards what the people want that we're serving. And so that's one of the areas that we'll be focusing on for next direction.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 22:54:40 · ≈ 7:01 PM

Great, thank you. And thanks for that powerful ending, that real-life example. The undersheriff just attended a meeting with me and my staff yesterday about some neighborhood concerns about La Posada. And so it just hit home for me to just think about all of the success and life-changing work that's happening there. And so to hear that story was particularly powerful. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:55:06 · ≈ 7:02 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Capps, Supervisor Lee, and Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 12:55:08 · ≈ 7:02 PM

Got it. Thank you, Chair Nielsen. So how does the CCP interact with the JJCC? A lot of acronyms in there. Yeah.

CommentHolly BentonProposedself-stated2:55:22 · ≈ 7:02 PM

Supervisor, through the chair, the short answer is it really doesn't. They really serve two completely different functions in our system. The JJCC 100% works with juveniles and is about the continuum of youth services all the way from, you know, doing prevention and intervention at the elementary school level in our schools all the way through reentry for some of our young adults who are coming out of our Juvenile Justice Center. So that system has very little overlap with what the CCP is doing. We do have some young adults who may avail themselves at times of services that are funded through the CCP, which is permissible under the law, but it's a very small portion of that population.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:56:01 · ≈ 7:03 PM

Thank you. All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:56:06 · ≈ 7:03 PM

I just have two points. The first is, could you expand about the freedom to choose? This is the first time I'm learning about it. I, of course, know about REDI and other programs, but this one catches my imagination.

2:56 – 3:0626 turns

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:56:22 · ≈ 7:03 PM

Supervisor Hartman through the Chair, Chief Deputy Ryan Sullivan on behalf of the Sheriff's Office. The Freedom to Choose project initially started as a correspondence course that was offered to individuals in the jail through, you know, doing assigned paperwork and coursework that they would mail back to Freedom to choose volunteers that would be able to correspond with them and provide them input on changing their lives, you know, getting on the right path as they get out of custody.

But now they're doing in-person cohorts within the jail in which they'll come in. Many of them have lived experience. They've been incarcerated in the past or they've been involved in the justice system and they're able to connect with the clients in jail and provide them with their perspective and guidance on, you know, reforming their lives and getting out of jail.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:57:09 · ≈ 7:04 PM

So about how many people are involved, how long has it been going, how will you evaluate its success?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:57:18 · ≈ 7:04 PM

I don't actually have the data on how many people are involved, how long it's been going, tip my fingers, but we are evaluating the success through surveys, both pre and post surveys of the clients that are participating in that program.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:57:31 · ≈ 7:04 PM

But in a sense then it's people with lived experience who've been in that position And now they're coming back to counsel people and saying you really can make a change. Is that a correct understanding?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:57:48 · ≈ 7:04 PM

That's a correct kind of assumption on what the program operates off of. But are you referring more to the success metrics of that?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:57:56 · ≈ 7:04 PM

No, just to understand who the people are who are working with the jail residents and what their motivation is and why the jail residents might be responsive to them.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:58:12 · ≈ 7:05 PM

Yeah, some of the individuals have lived experience. Some of them are just volunteers, people that are very passionate about this, that want to help their fellow man and woman. And they're willing to donate their time and come in and provide these instructional courses and collaborate with these individuals.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:58:27 · ≈ 7:05 PM

And so the courses are a whole range of things?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:58:31 · ≈ 7:05 PM

Yeah, I don't know the exact curriculum, but I know that they visit with the clients for a period of time, they discuss certain things with the individuals, and they try to encourage them to move forward in their lives.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:58:42 · ≈ 7:05 PM

So is it more GED kinds of things, or is it more life skill?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:58:48 · ≈ 7:05 PM

It's more life skills. It's not curriculum based like an educational system.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 32:58:53 · ≈ 7:05 PM

Okay. Thank you. So my next. It's really just a comment. The CCP, I've never served on it, I've only attended one meeting, but it really is structurally able to bring together our criminal justice partners, put money on the table, and then evaluate the programs in a way that we really rely on. And what you did with the jail study was really appreciated. What you're determining about co-response and how to be more productive.

We're getting information from you that is extremely valuable to us and it's not easy for departments with different missions to really come together and find what's common and even to be responsive to the direction that the board and the county wants to go. So I just think well done and thank you.

GovSpencer Cross2:59:56 · ≈ 7:06 PM

Thank

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 42:59:58 · ≈ 7:06 PM

you. All right, thank you Supervisor Hartman. I just had a couple questions just kind of on the funding and what our Purview is on this. You know, I understand it's a it's a group supervisor caps. It's on there. You know what this board didn't agree with the funding priorities. What what are our what's our recourse to I mean, does it need approval from the board to move forward on your budget?

I know, you know, it's obviously a working group. Post-budget, you guys kind of do this in a collaborative manner, but there's also board priorities too. And I know you guys are kind of looking up at what we care about and trying to figure out how to fund these things and keep us happy and then also the working group happy. Can you speak to that? I want to make sure I understand it a little bit better.

GovDamon Fletcher3:00:44 · ≈ 7:07 PM

Absolutely, Chair Nelson. The oversight of the CCP funding and how the plan and the budget are adopted are all laid out in the code sections that enabled the CCP and public safety realignment. The process by which this goes through is that the full CCP has to make a recommendation on the expenditures, which are then approved by the Executive Committee of the CCP. This is where, for your board, this is where your board comes in. Once they have done that, the plan is considered adopted or the budget is considered adopted.

unless four-fifths of your board says no to send it back to us. And so for anyone that was around in 2012 when we brought our first plan to the board, that was a particular sticking point for then Supervisor Carbajal because it took four-fifths vote to approve the budget revision we brought at the time. But it took four-fifths vote of the board to say no to the plan. And so on that first plan, it was, we spent four more time discussing that than we actually did the plan. But that's really the way that it is laid out in law.

Functionally, the CCP will take suggestions from the board and we try to meet the board priorities and work that into the budget that we have. And we've also in the last few years really come up with what I think is a good method by when departments come with new initiatives that they want to test, we're now funding them with one-time money for two or three years so that we can get the data to support that it is an effective area before we start talking about bringing it into the full-time budget. But under the rules recommended by the CCP, we add a work group, a Brown Act work group, that is a subgroup of the full CCP to do the actual work and have those hard discussions approved by the executive committee and then we bring it to you and it is considered funded unless four-fifths of the board says no.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:02:58 · ≈ 7:09 PM

Okay well thank you for that explanation. I think that's helpful for all of us because you know there's the initiatives that you guys are trying to move forward to get data on and then there's things that we need to do especially in a tightening budget time where you guys are looking at it go hey maybe that's something we can pay for that the board still has a priority or other departments have priorities on and I want to thank you guys for stepping up on that co-response piece for that third team.

Help me where you guys are at with that fourth team. I know Spencer you kind of went over that a little bit. Is there funding potentially to fund it in this budget year for that fourth team if things align and you guys get the data you need and there's some political will within the committee?

GovSpencer Cross3:03:41 · ≈ 7:10 PM

Chair Nelson, through the board, yes, that's correct. It'll be brought to the CCP work group. We'll have initial discussion. The Sheriff's Department will present their request and then we will move that. We'll vote to move that to the main CCP on June 4th. And then the main CCP will have an opportunity to hear the same presentation with any information that's been added through the CCP work group request. And then the CCP will vote on whether or not they want to add that fourth co-response deputy. And then that will likely be used one time funding. And so, as Damon mentioned there, we have a reserve restricted fund programmatic balance that we could use for one year, two year or three year, depending on their request, and then get data on that and then later figure out if it was there was room in the ongoing budget.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:04:24 · ≈ 7:11 PM

Okay thank you for that and I just want to highlight for that committee is that this third team is either going to be north or south and so one of those communities is going to get left out if their fourth team isn't funded. You know it's been a priority of mine whether we fund it with CCP dollars or general fund dollars. I think it's something that should be funded. I think that we need to have parity and equity and I know that's one of your guys' priorities on that list is equity and so maybe that's a plug for that to be a good one-time use for this next year's budget. So thank you.

Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 33:04:52 · ≈ 7:11 PM

And I just want to add, I really appreciate your oversight and productivity and the analysis because I think that that's really important and we don't have that ability. We depend on you and that you develop a consensus around this among the criminal justice partners. That's invaluable. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:05:11 · ≈ 7:12 PM

Okay, thank you, Sarah Hartman. I failed to ask, is there any public comment on this item?

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board3:05:16 · ≈ 7:12 PM

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

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:05:19 · ≈ 7:12 PM

Okay, any further? I know we're getting lunch here, but I have all these partners here. Are there any of the departments that wanted to just speak briefly? Right, not just Supervisor Capps. Just

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 23:05:32 · ≈ 7:12 PM

one more acknowledgement of the working group and how hard the working group works because you hear that title and sometimes I just have been so impressed with what I hear from my representative, Eleanor Gartner, of my team and just the cohesiveness and how much they really roll up their sleeves and get a lot done. So thanks to them.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:05:53 · ≈ 7:12 PM

Again, thank you, Supervisor Capps, for you and your district serving a significant role on behalf of the five of us on that commission. So with that, I'll take a motion to adopt A through D, which is accepting a presentation as well as signing off with hopefully at least two of us voting on it, because it's approved, I think, at that point, but hopefully all five. So I'll take a motion.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 33:06:18 · ≈ 7:13 PM

I will move to approve. Second.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:06:21 · ≈ 7:13 PM

All right. So, uh, any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. So, congratulations. And thank you guys all for being here. All right. At this time, we'll go ahead and recess for closed session. Um, Madam County Council, could you please, uh, tell us what we'll be discussing today?

3:06 – 3:102 turns

GovRachel Van MullemCounty Counsel3:06:48 · ≈ 7:13 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. In closed session today, the board is scheduled to consider anticipated litigation. It's significant exposure to litigation. One case based on the facts and circumstances listed in the agenda. Conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers, and executives, and the agency designated representatives is HR Director Christine Schmidt.

Public Employee Performance Evaluation for County Council and Public Employee Reappointment for County Council. And the time estimate is an hour and a half.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:07:18 · ≈ 7:14 PM

Okay, so hour and a half. So we expect to be back here at 2 o'clock for our fourth and final item on the departmental agenda, the permit streamlining. So thank you. We'll be back. Okay, welcome back to the May 12, 2026 meeting, regularly scheduled meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We're in Santa Maria and we're returning from closed session. Madam County Council, can you please report out from closed session?

3:10 – 3:347 turns

GovRachel Van MullemCounty Counsel3:10:21 · ≈ 7:17 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. The board met on one item of anticipated litigation based on facts and circumstances listed in the agenda. Conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, underrepresented employees, managers, and executives, public performance evaluation for county council, and public employee reappointment for county council. And I'll turn it over to the clerk for one reportable action.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board3:10:44 · ≈ 7:17 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, in closed session the board considered public employee reappointment for County Council. The board voted unanimously to reappoint Rachel Van Molen as County Council for a four-year term.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:10:57 · ≈ 7:17 PM

Excellent, thank you. All right, and that brings us to our fourth and final item today, departmental item number four. Madam Clerk, will you please read that into the record?

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board3:11:09 · ≈ 7:18 PM

Chair Nutsen and members of the board, departmental item number four is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a zoning ordinance ministerial streamlining briefing. All

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:11:22 · ≈ 7:18 PM

right, Director Plowman, take it away.

GovLisa Plowman3:11:24 · ≈ 7:18 PM

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Today we have a presentation where we're going to be asking some feedback from the board. About four years ago, we embarked on a streamlining effort, and it was a three-phase effort, and this is our third and final phase of that. And today, we have Ben Singer, who's the project manager. We have Martha Miller, who's our consultant, who's been working with us on all phases of these packages, and Alex Tuttle.

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Singer to guide us through sort of the history of our process and then The questions that we want to ask the board to get direction on, general direction on, so that we can then bring a package back later this year. Thank you, Mr. Singer.

GuestBen Singer3:12:12 · ≈ 7:19 PM

Great, thank you and good afternoon Chair Nelson and board. Just to go over a quick overview of what we're doing today, we're going to talk a little bit about the background about this project, as well as some background on the county's permitting and design review process. So a summary of that, talk about residential development, streamlining options, commercial development, streamlining options, some potential thresholds, as well as review level options. And then we have some policy direction questions for your board.

As Director Plowman mentioned, this is the culmination of a number of years worth of projects. So Phase 1 was kind of the first part of this that was focused on technical updates. So that included the Shopping Center District Rezone and the Outdoor Lighting and Sign Amendments. Both of those happened in 2023, 2025, respectively. Phase 2 began the streamlining updates as well as implemented housing element programs.

The board approved those amendments just a little while ago this year, and those were a lot of cleaning up redundancies in the codes, doing some minor process streamlining, and some of the housing element things like revamping our open space standards and things like that. And then today is focused on phase three, and that's to get further into streamlining permit processes and largely trying to make some permits and uses more ministerial.

For a quick background on the county's current permit process and kind of levels of permitting, we have those listed here, starting on the left side with exemptions. Those are generally the simplest. They apply to pretty few select uses, some things like walls less than six feet in height, buildings less than 120 square feet that don't have utilities, interior remodels, minor grading, et cetera, things like that.

Exemptions do not require an actual issued, stamped, signed permit, and they are not appealable, and there's no notice of them that's done. Moving up from there is zoning clearances. These are also pretty limited in their applicability. A few uses are permitted with zoning clearances, things like some agricultural structures, as well as certain qualifying housing projects, and then Some recent of the additions from the Ag Enterprise uses are permitted with zoning clearances.

More commonly we see them as follow-ups to discretionary permits where we check that all of the conditions required for the permit or the use to get started are met before that stage. These do get an actual permit issued by planning staff, but similarly there is no appeal of them and they are not noticed. Moving up from there, we have land use permits. These are really the bulk of the permits that the planning department goes through and issues.

They apply to a wide range of different things, single family dwellings, residential accessory uses, a lot of commercial uses, many others. These are permits reviewed by planning development staff. They can be appealed, and there are notices both mailed out to neighboring properties, and then there's a placard notice that someone has to put up in the yard before that permit is approved.

After that is coastal development permits. These really take the place of land use permits in the coastal zone. So there's similar uses, single family dwellings, accessory development, commercial uses. Planning staff is usually the one who approves these, but if they're in the Coastal Commission geographic appeals jurisdictions, they do go to the zoning administrator. That hearing can be waived sometimes.

And then similarly, they are appealable and they have mailed and posted notices before approval. And then kind of the final level here is discretionary permits. So development plans and conditional use permits. Development plans are based on the amount of total development rather than a certain use. So some of the thresholds for that are like the Ag 1 zone, anything over 20,000 square feet of development, or in some of the commercial zones, like retail commercial, it's anything over 5,000 square feet require a development plan. Or some zones like the Resource Management Zone require development and plan for any development period.

And then conditional use permits are for uses that have more potential to impact surrounding areas and kind of just need more review. So some of those things are drive-throughs, institutional uses, schools and hospitals, and many industrial uses. These go to county decision makers, so the director or zoning administrator or planning commissions. They are appealable and they get notices multiple times throughout the process.

We also have design review, which is a parallel process to the permit process. So these are projects that go to the Board of Architectural Review applicable by area, so south, Montecito, central, or north. And then they vary for residential depending on community area. We'll touch on that briefly. And then things like Ridgeline Hillside development are required. And then almost all discretionary projects and all commercial development also has to go to the Board of Architectural Review for design review.

This is a list of our various community plan areas and their design review requirements. So you'll see a lot of them, some development is required to go to design review. A lot of them, all development is required to go to design review. Some of them have design guidelines for residential, some have commercial, some have both, some have neither. So that's kind of the quick overview of the county's process. Now we're going to get into kind of what we're here to discuss and propose and get feedback on, starting with proposed streamlining for residential development.

So currently, single family dwellings and accessory structures, those first two require either a land use permit or coastal development permit. Many require that design review, BAR review, and then what we're Proposing and bringing forward for discussion are options to make most of those ministerial, so not noticed, not appealable. We'll talk about thresholds as well as options for BAR or not having BAR.

One of the other types of development here is pools. It's a common residential development, obviously. Currently, that also requires a noticed and appealable land use permit or coastal development permit. We're talking about making that exempt. And then small structures, sheds, pergolas, they're exempt if they're less than 120 square feet. More than that, they still need those permits, and we're looking at increasing those, which we'll touch on a little bit later.

So the first up is single-family dwellings and residential accessory development, kind of calling that SFD plus because they're usually permitted together, kind of treated similarly. The option one that we're showing today is for a hybrid approach. So that would establish thresholds to determine ministerial permits. So something that isn't not noticed and appealable versus an appealable LUP and CDP.

Some of the example thresholds that these could have are based on grading or site disturbance. So if someone's proposing a house that has more than 250 cubic yards of grading, we could say that requires an LUP or more than 10,000 square feet of site disturbance. But if it's less than that, It's ministerial. Similar with slopes, if they're on greater than 10%, maybe that could be the threshold to determine.

Or site resources, if they have environmentally sensitive habitat, that could kick it into that appealable noticed category. Notably, ministerial projects still have to comply with all county policies, things like environmental protection, but that should be inherent in the compliance by fitting them into that ministerial category. So the goal is to establish thresholds that would provide reasonable assurance their project would be consistent with county policies without requiring extensive review.

The second option we have for discussion is a ministerial review only, so that would make all single-family dwelling accessory structures non-appealable. Again, obviously, they still have to comply with county policies, including resource protection. We could still have thresholds for this that would separate them into simple and complex review. So something like a simple review would be almost akin to the old over-the-counter permits where it's very quick, very easy kind of checklist, make sure it's ticking these boxes to verify it and then you're on.

Complex would be more like our current process when there are possible site constraints or more review is needed just without that notice and appeal that we currently have. And then there's the option that we can still require an LUP CDP for some of these in the event that they could have environmental impacts. So if they're not CEQA exempt, we could keep some review for that.

So on this topic, the Planning Department's kind of policy direction question to the board is should we explore amendments to establish criteria, thresholds to distinguish between ministerial projects and projects that require an LEP, CDP, or should we explore amendments to make all single family residential, accessory residential, development, ministerial, and non-appealable, and then look at thresholds for simple versus complex projects.

And we will be returning to all of these at the end to kind of go over the policy direction and discuss more at that time. So I'm just going to keep moving through to try to keep this going. Moving into design review. Again, this is the other side of kind of that ministerial permitting. Design review is kind of inherently discretionary process. You know, you're having it looked at more and kind of more opinions in it.

So option one, is to create exemption criteria for that SFD plus kind of category. So establishing thresholds or other objective standards to exempt more projects. This is to focus review on projects that have the most potential to raise issues. So issues like neighbor compatibility, privacy, visual impacts, kind of focusing more on that. Some more example criteria here are if you exceed a certain floor area ratio, which is the ratio of the amount of development to the size of the parcel, that could kick you into requiring design review.

Or if you're exceeding a certain height or a number of stories, or if you're developing on a ridgeline or a hillside, those are all options to keep the requirement for design review. And we have a couple of slides of visuals here just to show what some of these options look like. So if we're talking about an FAR, if we want to consider that as a threshold, what does that look like?

These are very basic diagrams just to give you a sense of mass bulk scale. So on the this slide it's single story. On the left hand you have 0.2 FAR. On the right side a 0.35 FAR. So you can see about how big that is. This is on a simulated 10,000 square foot lot. Here you have the same 0.2, 0.35, but for two-story development to kind of get a sense of what that looks like.

This slide is some visual examples of what one, two, and three stories looks like and kind of how they relate to each other if they were on adjoining lots. Most of the homes in the county are one and two stories. Three stories is really pretty uncommon. We see it maybe on some larger estate lots, but in general it's very rare. These examples are also taken from some design guidelines that we have currently in the county. So these are kind of meant to show generally good compatible design for these levels, which kind of in contrast some examples of what a maximum build out on a property could look like if you were talking about building setback to setback, one, two, or three stories and what those FARs look like.

So these are, again, most jurisdictions have some guidelines, some thresholds to restrict development like this, and that's something that the board may want to consider as we're talking about these to avoid projects like this being permanent ministerial without design review. Back into the options. Option 2 for design review is a tiered system, which could involve creating a staff or administrative design review tier that would be more ministerial in nature, so not noticed, not appealable, but still involve some oversight.

So that could exist between an exempt from design review status and going to the full BAR review. And then so considering floor area ratio, for example, projects below a certain size could be exempt. And then there could be an allowance for a certain amount that would then go to administrative design review. And then if you're over that, you might go to a full BAR. Similar thought could be taken to height or something like that.

For both options, a key consideration is also whether to apply these standards uniformly countywide or to maintain community differences. So on that big table on a slide a few ago, you know, a lot of different communities have residential design guidelines that call for different design in different communities. So that's something we can either look at keeping or we can say, Just as an example, you know, if you're one story or below, you're exempt from design review, and we're going to apply that everywhere.

So on this residential design review, our policy direction questions are should staff explore amendments to exempt single-family residential and accessory development from design review using certain criteria? Should we have amendments that establish the tiered approach with an administrative design review category? And should we have uniformity, uniform applicability of these amendments or maintain differences for different community planning areas?

So that's the kind of end of the residential part of this. We're going to move straight into some of the commercial development streamlining options. Changes of use are the first thing we're going to talk about. Currently, they're exempt if you're doing the exact same use. So if you're going from a cafe to a restaurant or the opposite, those are exempt. Otherwise, a land use permit, coastal development permit is required. So if you're going cafe to retail, you have to get a permit.

And then we're looking at possibly exempting those in all cases, so cafe to retail would then be also exempt and have some discussion on parking and what is required for parking for changing use. And then new structural development currently all requires an appealable LUP CDP. And again, much of it requires a development plan based on the thresholds and all that requires design review BAR.

And we're proposing to explore some ministerial levels of that below thresholds and a potential for BAR exemption. So change of use, again, appealable land use permit, coastal development permit, unless it's the exact same use type. And then proposal is to make those exempt. So you could, for example, have a parking or excuse me, have a cafe that turns into retail or retail that turns into something like a gym for parking.

It depends on what that use is and it can often be an impediment to these changes because you may change to a use that requires more parking on site and you might not have the space for that. So. We're looking to consider allowing changes of use and even potentially minor expansions without requiring additional on-site parking. So that'd be something like, again, your retail, you change to a restaurant, that would say you need two more parking spaces on-site.

You don't have space for that. Is that something that you would like us to consider not requiring? for some streamlining of limited commercial development. This is to look at establishing a limited amount of commercial development that could be approved ministerially. Some options for these thresholds is it might be 500 to 1,000 square feet that you can do ministerially, or we can look at any amount of commercial development that's permissible normally with a land use permit. CDP currently could be approved ministerially if it's under that development plan review. So if it's under 5,000 square feet, maybe it can be ministerial.

And then for design review, again, currently all commercial development has to go to design review. We want to discuss establishing a threshold to exempt some projects from design review. Generally, Small projects, minor additions, things that are not incredibly visually prominent. And then similar to residential, the question is there of should this be applied uniformly across the county or do we want to retain community differences?

For example, the Bell Street Corridor in Los Alamos and the Commercial Corridor in Summerland have commercial design guidelines and we may want to retain design review for those areas while exempting it for some other areas. So on this, our policy direction questions are, should we explore amendments to exempt changes of use and minor expansions without requiring additional on-site parking?

Should we explore amendments to establish a threshold for ministerial approval of commercial development to some degree? And should we explore amendments to exempt limited commercial development from design review? If so, uniform applicability of that or community plan area differences? The final topic of discussion is for permit reviews, permit review thresholds. The first part of this is general downshifting.

So the county has a lot of different uses. We have more than 250 uses described in the zoning codes. We've begun the process of reviewing these to identify which could be potentially downshifted, but also just to update them to make them more consistent and kind of intelligently organized. Some uses are certified farmers markets are currently a minor conditional use permit just about everywhere. We can look at making that a land use permit, coastal development permit, or even a zoning clearance and make it not appealable, not noticed. And then fences and walls, if they exceed an exempt height, so usually if they're more than six feet or eight feet, depending on which side it's on, are also a minor conditional use permit. Looking at could that be a land use permit?

Does that really need that extra level of review? And then kind of the final bit on exemptions. So some uses in development are exempt from permits and fences and walls below a certain height and structures less than 120 square feet interior alterations. some of the other ones we listed earlier. Our proposal is to study our current list and then expand and update it. Some things that are examples are we could increase the size of exempt structures from 120 square feet to 250 square feet. We could exempt pools, like mentioned earlier, and then things like HVAC equipment and backup generators could also be on that list of exemptions.

So our policy direction questions for these are should we explore amendments to downshift certain permit requirements? And if so, any particular areas, uses, thoughts that your board has on those? And then should we explore amendments to expand the range of projects that would be exempt from permit requirements? Just to touch really quickly on our actions for the day before we get back into the many topics and questions that I've just thrown at you.

Today it's just receive and file the staff report and then provide the direction that we're about to ask for again on these proposed amendments and to determine that these actions are not a project subject to CEQA. And then we have a few slides that relist all of these policy direction questions, residential, commercial, and permit review thresholds that maybe we can get into a little bit, but don't need to recap right now.

3:34 – 3:3911 turns

GovLisa Plowman3:34:12 · ≈ 7:41 PM

I think, Mr. Chair, members of the board, it would be helpful if you had some questions. If you wanted to ask those now, we can answer them. Or if you want to go to public comment first, then we can sort of try and Make this a manageable set of questions and give you some guidance on how we can do that.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:34:31 · ≈ 7:41 PM

All right, thank you. I think that's probably a good idea to go to public comment, get that here from the public on this, and then we'll kind of go back to the board and ask some questions before you walk us through it. Go ahead.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board3:34:44 · ≈ 7:41 PM

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we do have one request to speak from the public on this item. We are going to Zoom with Frances Romero. Frances?

CommentFrances RomeroProposedself-stated3:34:54 · ≈ 7:41 PM

Well, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Nelson, supervisors, staff, and members of the public. My name is Frances Romero, and I'm commenting as a county resident who has worked in the land use field for 25 years. I generally don't comment except for clients, but I am compelled to support option two for the phase three ministerial streamlining amendment described by Ben. Phase three is long overdue. It's an opportunity to reduce the cost and timing of permits for your neighbors in Santa Barbara County.

The proposed permit and design review requirements located on page four of the board letter for residential projects are all improvements. Appeals have gotten out of hand and are eroding neighborly relations. As an example, why should installing a pool in someone's yard be appealable? And why should taxpayers fund appeals for issues between neighbors? Commercial zoning codes allow for multiple permitted uses. Why is it necessary to go through a change of use planning permit to go from one permitted use to another permitted use? No other jurisdiction does this. The current process contributes to buildings that are vacant and unproductive for months or years.

Staff's research shows that Santa Barbara County is an outlier when compared to multiple counties. There is no reason for this to be the case. The ability to appeal adds time, expense, and scrutiny and does not produce better projects. It actually discourages them. Neighbors do not need to weigh in on everything that happens near them. This is how you erode community. Consultants may be the only winners because of the complexity that does not need to exist. Yes, I am advocating to have less of this type of work.

I recently talked with a woman who wanted to permit a farmer's market in Los Alamos. She had experience producing farmer's markets in Los Angeles. I outlined the Santa Barbara County process and costs for her, and she opted to pass, and the community lost out. She said there is very little profit in organizing a farmer's market. The cost of permits were equal to the profit for six months of market, and the season would be over by the time the permit could even be issued. Honestly, how hard should it be to permit a temporary farmer's market that happens once a week for a few hours in an existing parking lot? This should be a one-page checklist that allows a farmer's market to be there for a stated number of hours using a certain percentage of the existing parking lot that doesn't impede existing ADA access and doesn't block driveways.

This use should be a zoning clearance. In closing, the common sense improvements suggested by staff today have to happen, and it should be uniform whenever possible. I'd encourage you to select the most liberal option and not select the path of micromanagement, complicated formulas, and diagrams to describe what can and cannot be done. Please promote less complexity and downshift the planning process. And I say this even though it means less work for consultants, it has to happen for this county to ever thrive and be vibrant. Thank you.

ClerkJacquelyne AlexanderChief Deputy Clerk of the Board3:38:19 · ≈ 7:45 PM

And that concludes public comment on this

GovLisa Plowman3:38:21 · ≈ 7:45 PM

item.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:38:22 · ≈ 7:45 PM

All right, thank you very much. Mr. Chair,

GovLisa Plowman3:38:24 · ≈ 7:45 PM

there's one thing that we forgot to mention in the presentation that I wanted Mr. Tuttle to just let the board know, and it's about comparison with other jurisdictions.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Board, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Yeah, as Ms. Romero did indicate, and as we discussed in our board letter, we did do an assessment of other jurisdictions, particularly counties, to see kind of where we fit. looked at most of our neighboring counties and have found that we are fairly unique in that we require that appealable level of permit for essentially all development and design review for a considerable amount of our development as well.

So, yeah, I just wanted to emphasize that most other jurisdictions are more streamlined in their permit process. It's not to say they don't have a process in place, but The appealability is something particularly unique in our jurisdiction.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:39:27 · ≈ 7:46 PM

All right. Thank you. Questions from the board? I know I have quite a few. So Supervisor Lee.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 13:39:32 · ≈ 7:46 PM

Okay, I'll start it. So if someone gets a land use permit, can it be something that's outside of the zoning requirements?

3:39 – 3:5120 turns

GovLisa Plowman3:39:46 · ≈ 7:46 PM

Supervisor Lee through the chair. So when somebody applies for a land use permit, they have to follow the zoning code requirements. So there are setbacks, there are parking requirements, there are height requirements. So even if they came in as a ministerial permit and we downshifted, they would still have to follow all those code requirements.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 13:40:07 · ≈ 7:47 PM

Good. Okay, good. So moving on. So what's the purpose? Does a land use permit appeal serve? I mean, why?

GovLisa Plowman3:40:18 · ≈ 7:47 PM

Well, it's a good question. Historically, the department did not provide notice, and this is 25 years ago, did not provide notice. People didn't know there was an appeal. And so most of our permits sort of went through and there wasn't a lot of It has, I think, spiraled to a place where maybe it is not as productive as one would have hoped at the first, when it was first implemented.

There are a number of frivolous appeals that we can not reject and it's costly for applicants and for the county.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 13:41:19 · ≈ 7:48 PM

Okay, good, good, great answer. So, so why are you proposing, especially number two, how would these changes apply in communities like Mission Canyon, in Montecito, in Summerland, where the design review is part of the community's expectations, where it is very important about that review? How would that impact those communities?

GovLisa Plowman3:41:39 · ≈ 7:48 PM

So the question, and we'll come back to this when we look at sort of how we want to apply design review. There's a question about whether or not should some level of project be exempt from design review, something that's It's a house that's similar size of what's happening in the rest of the neighborhood. It's not sort of what some people fear is the mansionization of a lot. Then that could be ministerial, but that with no notice and no appeal.

I'm sorry, no design review. But something that exceeds that FAR and so it's quite large would require design review. So we could set it up like that for the different communities.

Okay. Good. Supervisor Lee through the chair. I think we'd have to acknowledge that depending on what option the board provides guidance on or the direction we want to take this, there would have to be some letting go of some architectural sort of standards. If we particularly those standards that really dig into the details of architectural like the style and like the So I think there would have to just be some letting go of that, depending, again, depending on what option your board takes with this. But I did just want to put that out there.

I appreciate

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 13:43:28 · ≈ 7:50 PM

you saying that. So moving forward, so if we exempt more commercial changes of use from parking requirements, what protections do we have for residential areas that have existing parking issues?

GovLisa Plowman3:43:44 · ≈ 7:50 PM

Supervisor Lee through the chair, that's another good question. And similar to what we're talking about with design review, it means letting go a little bit and allowing these changes of uses without requiring additional parking. And there is the potential for there to be a reduction in available parking. There would be a reduction in available parking for those uses. So it's a policy call, right, whether we want to I'm going to talk a little bit about how we can facilitate the transition of businesses in the current space.

To a greater degree than we currently are like a lot of these things might be like if we were in the Magnolia shopping center, the turnpike shopping center. There's a lot of parking and so the transition from one use to another may not materially change things. It's a little bit different on And it really is a policy call for the board whether you're willing to accept that.

That there might be less parking on site and shorter supply or lesser supply of parking in the community.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 13:44:53 · ≈ 7:51 PM

So are we going to consider parking at all or are we just going to throw out the window?

GovLisa Plowman3:44:57 · ≈ 7:51 PM

No, this would be really focused on when an existing building has built. They already have their parking requirements. They met them. If that building now changes from a restaurant to a home goods store, If that home goods store would have required one or two more spaces, we're not going to force them to provide it. We're going to let them transition to that new use, but the existing parking that they already have on site will remain.

So it's just for it's for small things like these changes of use. If a new project develops, they're going to have to provide their parking per the code.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 13:45:39 · ≈ 7:52 PM

Okay. Good. I saw that you mentioned FAR. Correct. So I don't like it as a general rule, but I want to explore FAR as a criteria for design review. So can you explain more about what that could look like?

GovLisa Plowman3:45:54 · ≈ 7:52 PM

Sure. If we could go back to one of the slides that shows that. So Supervisor Lee, through the chair. So this gives you, and let's go to the other ones where they're quite large, maybe the next, yeah, there you go. So this gives you an example of like where you might want to, under one of those scenarios, require design review. So if you exceed one or let's say .75 FAR, you move into design review. But if you're below .75, then you don't need to go to design review.

That's how we would use it. So for the larger, more impactful development, you would get design review. And it's just figuring out what that threshold is. But you don't have to decide what that threshold is today. It's just, is that a good tool for us to use when we come back with our program?

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 13:46:49 · ≈ 7:53 PM

Good. And my last question, I just want to be clear. Option two is for design review for single family residential. Would that have a trigger? Or something like FAR, then move it into a more traditional review

GovLisa Plowman3:47:03 · ≈ 7:54 PM

process? So that's another question. So in this scenario, I think what we're saying is you have a couple of options, but we could use that threshold to determine whether a larger project is design review. We can also use a threshold to determine whether or not It's a more complex ministerial review versus a similar ministerial review, or it could be a threshold that says you're below this FAR, you're ministerial, you're above it, you get a land use permit, which is appealable.

So hopefully that's clear. It is.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 13:47:42 · ≈ 7:54 PM

Thank

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:47:43 · ≈ 7:54 PM

you. That's my question.

GovLisa Plowman3:47:44 · ≈ 7:54 PM

Okay. All

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:47:44 · ≈ 7:54 PM

right. Thank you, Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Okaps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 23:47:48 · ≈ 7:54 PM

Yeah, thank you. I mean, I welcome a lot of these changes. I know you've been working on this, and I know you get these comments too, but just out and about, people say, oh, you know, I tried to do this, and it cost me so much money, and it took me 15 months and and I know you share those frustrations so I just look at things like making it so that people can just do pools and not have to go through this arduous process or even better yet HVAC systems or small structures so this is music to my ears to just know that this will be much faster and to that point I'm Laura been asking I'm just wondering if you track like a shot clock sort of do you have a sense of when a project starts how long it takes and if is there an awareness among staff of This is taking a really long time.

I need to elevate this. I'm just wondering if there's, I know every project is different, but is there sort of a sense of an average length for an ADU, an average length for, yeah, an ADU as an example, an average cost. I don't see that here. I've been asking and I just am curious because I think, you know, if it's way above, does that trigger some sort of, you know, supervisor to say, hey, this is way out of line or we really need to what's going on here kind of thing to make sure that that it's kind of you know it's not taking up because it's hourly and I just want to make sure that along with these reforms we also are making sure that people aren't being charged too much because maybe they're asking the wrong questions or what kind of guardrails are in place I guess that's my question.

GovLisa Plowman3:49:33 · ≈ 7:56 PM

Excellent question Supervisor Caps through the chair. I'll start with ADUs. ADUs have sort of been on this evolving path, right? And state laws have been getting passed. But for ADUs, Once there's a complete application, it's 60 days. That's what you have to get it approved. And that's state law. So we are following that. We do that. But like, let's say a single family home that might be complicated, it could take several months for something like that to get approved. And so these kinds of changes will shorten that time frame.

What I'm picturing is that when we make these truly ministerial, we're going to move to a fixed fee for these things so that it's clear what you're going to be spending on it and it's not going to be hourly for some of these things. Something more complex, it probably would be hourly because we can't afford to lose money on these cases. So, but in terms of the process, like our deputies and Alex worked in development review and Ben worked in development review, our deputies and our supervisors do monitor sort of how much time is being spent on cases and will So the goal here, just to state it plainly, is to make things go faster and to make things be less expensive.

3:51 – 4:0333 turns

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 23:51:23 · ≈ 7:58 PM

Okay, to that end, and you can say no, do you ever foresee getting to the point where you say an ADU permit will cost you approximately X and take you approximately, well I guess you just said it, 60 days? Once

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:51:44 · ≈ 7:58 PM

the application is complete, that could take months.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 23:51:47 · ≈ 7:58 PM

Right. I'm just, again, I've asked this before, I just, and again, if it's no, it's no, but I just, I just think that setting expectations would be incredible. If it's impossible, I can accept

GovLisa Plowman3:52:00 · ≈ 7:59 PM

that. Yeah. I think it's possible for us to set ranges. I think we could do that to give people an idea of what it would cost, but a lot of them vary quite significantly. With our pre-approved ADUs, that's going to be a lot easier if people use those. And I hope they do, because it will save them a lot of time and money. But I think we could do that for an ADU, because it's a pretty set process.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 23:52:31 · ≈ 7:59 PM

Yeah, I just encourage that because, again, the stories that I hear, and I just was at a, I just heard this the other night, you know, they got into the project and then it just, the cost escalated. And, again, I'm not casting any aspersions. And then they're in, and then it's one of those dilemmas. Do you pull out, but you've already, you've spent $90,000, do you just keep going even though that is not at all what you budgeted for? So, if possible, and I'm repeating my request, If a range of cost could be presented to the public, I think it would be incredibly helpful.

GovLisa Plowman3:53:13 · ≈ 8:00 PM

Sure. And just for information for the board, for projects, our planners do cost estimates for those projects initially. They don't always end within that estimated time. But we do attempt to give them an idea of what something is going to cost. Okay. But I think moving to fixed fees where we can for these truly ministerial permits, that's it. That's a fixed fee. That's all you're paying. You're done. Like you want to put in a pool. It's going to cost you X. It's going to cost you 500 bucks or whatever the amount is. Great. Okay.

Let's move there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:53:58 · ≈ 8:00 PM

Thanks, Supervisor Kaps. I'm on for 500 bucks right now. I think that might be a little

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:54:04 · ≈ 8:01 PM

low. Fantasyland. I have some questions about design review. So what's it cost to do design review?

Mr. Chair, members of the board, I believe a design review application is roughly about $2,000. Okay. No, no, it's a it's a fixed fee and it covers the full number of however many times you have to go back.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:54:35 · ≈ 8:01 PM

But you still pay your planner, though, each time to prepare.

That's just the design review fee that's on top of any planning

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:54:42 · ≈ 8:01 PM

fees. Your planner showing up to that, he's getting charged $300 an hour. be there at that hearing to present your project?

Yes, we do try to minimize planner going to the BAR hearings when they're not necessary for when it's a design, really a design issue and not like a planning issue per se. Our planners often do not attend those hearings.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:55:04 · ≈ 8:02 PM

There's quite a few hours that go into preparing for your project to go to design review, right?

It depends. I mean, a project will go often to design review before it's even submitted a planning application. for concept review. Yeah,

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:55:22 · ≈ 8:02 PM

but we're paying a planner

during

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:55:23 · ≈ 8:02 PM

that

time. No, not at the concept level. If you're just submitting for design review before you've submitted for your planning application, you're just the property owner or architect taking your project to design review. You're not paying for any planning staff time at that point.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:55:40 · ≈ 8:02 PM

Okay, so you can submit stuff without having to pay? I mean, we're charging $10,000 to $20,000 for a planner consult at this point. So I'm trying to understand.

There's a process where you can go up to, it used to be once, now we've said you can do up to two rounds of conceptual BAR review before you submit for your planning application. So it gives an applicant or a property owner an opportunity to kind of get some initial feedback on their design before kind of taking the next step of submitting a full planning application. And so that would just be the design review fee and no planning time at that point.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:56:19 · ≈ 8:03 PM

Okay. One of the things you brought up here was simple zoning clearances versus complex zoning clearances. And so, you know, we were trying to get a simple zoning clearance during the Ag Enterprise Ordinance, right? And I don't think anything of that has been simple. Is this new category, I mean, would that eventually apply to other things as well that you guys are trying to create? Because, I mean, that was the direction the board gave you, was that it really wanted to be truly over-the-counter.

Is there anything you guys can be able to do to actually create an over-the-counter zoning permit? Or is this fantasy as well?

GovLisa Plowman3:56:53 · ≈ 8:03 PM

So Mr. Chair, I think, well, nothing is over-the-counter anymore now that we have electronic permitting, right? So everything gets submitted into our system, and then we accept the application, we'll accept the fees, and then it has a review. So it will not be like the olden days when I was a 25-year-old planner where I took something in and looked at it, stamped it, and We want to try and get to a streamlined a point as we possibly can with those kind of simple projects. So when we were we were describing a split between sort of simple zoning clearance and more complex and clearance was like if they were on slopes or if they had extensive grading or if they were trying to encroach into a But if you're meeting all the setbacks and you're meeting all the standards that are in the code, you're simple.

You're through.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:57:49 · ≈ 8:04 PM

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I guess I'm just really suspicious of this just because I mean, hopefully, but I mean, we just. We've given direction like this before on other things and then it turns into, you know, doctoral level work. I mean, there's no, even our simple stuff now that you guys already have the simple, you guys spend months, I mean, sometimes even a year just for a permit for a house.

You know, I've got something right now that's already $70,000 deep just on an 1800 square foot house. You know, so, And that's what's the problem, right? I mean that we're just over processing these things, we're over spending time. I applaud you on trying to reduce these things and I hope. I don't I don't think I mean I think still the culture within the organization is going to over process these things even under exemptions. The fact that you guys can't do over-the-counter through just a simple process submitting it that way you know is another proof of that that it's really you know you're going to take it take two or three weeks to actually receive it Another week to maybe figure out your fees. Again, it's a broken system. I hope this somehow makes it a little bit easier.

I will try to give you guys some constructive comments, but I'm really not overly hopeful. I've been doing this for too long, and I've seen it. At some point, when are you going to, like, you know?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:59:28 · ≈ 8:06 PM

Honestly, since I've been here, I don't think I've ever seen a package come that was this aggressive as far as, I mean, let's just put it on this scale. Francis Romero called in. And wanted us to move this and thought it was a great thing. She's probably the last person that's ever going to come in and say anything positive about P&D. So I get the hesitancy, but...

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 43:59:58 · ≈ 8:06 PM

We've given this direction like this before, though. That's my point. Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:00:03 · ≈ 8:07 PM

I for one appreciate it. I'm glad we're moving in the right direction. I mean, when I read this report, I was like, dude, this is what we've been talking about for 20 years. So maybe it is. I've never seen it come as a staff report with recommendations. Maybe it's always direction from the dais. And that's the problem is we were directing from the dais without a board majority to try to make this happen. But these things aren't North or South, Republican or Democrat. Somebody trying to build a house or put a pool in or a shed.

It means it's important to them. So I think the fact that everybody's kind of shared the pain along the way now is gotten us to the point where I think everybody sees that something needs to be done. And it was, I'm more hopeful and positive. So hopefully it

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:00:47 · ≈ 8:07 PM

happens.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:00:47 · ≈ 8:07 PM

You can balance me out, thanks. Yep, all right.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:00:49 · ≈ 8:07 PM

Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 34:00:51 · ≈ 8:07 PM

Well, I do see this as the third and final phase of a comprehensive three-phase process. When we hired Director Plowman, we asked her to take this on, and you've done it. And now we have to make some hard decisions. I just have a few questions. On commercial use, if you're going from a use that is relatively Less intensive to more intensive. For example, maybe a restaurant to a drive-through where you have a lot more people coming in and out, say. Or you're going from a storage unit maybe to a gym.

You've got more traffic. It's not just the parking, it's the traffic. Is there any way to take that into account? I mean, if it's much more intensive use,

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So just on the drive-thru example, that requires under our current code a conditional use permit. So something like creating a drive-thru where one doesn't currently exist, that would be a discretionary process. Other uses in the commercial zones are tricky because, you know, if you look in, say, our general commercial zone, our C2 zone, we have a list of You know, 30 different uses that are all considered permitted, you know, through a land use permit or CDP, not conditionally permitted like a drive-through, but just a permitted use. And so it's been sort of pre-established that those uses are considered appropriate for that zone as a permitted use. And so you don't really get into the issue of intensity.

Parking is where that comes to play. You know, we have different parking standards depending on the use and and like a restaurant is like one parking space for every 300 feet of patron space plus plus the number of employees, whereas a general retail is, you know, the parking per square footage of retail space. And so the parking. has been sort of the moderator of the sort of the level of use, but we have seen and heard that that presents challenges in terms of being able to shift from one commercial use to another and getting stalled out because of the inability to accommodate additional on-site parking.

And so we do see that as a demonstrable way of sort of removing that barrier that currently exists.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 34:03:32 · ≈ 8:10 PM

Okay. And since you explain it that way, I guess parking is a surrogate. I think it's more traffic that people get worried about, at least in my experience. But I think what I hear you saying is that the commercial uses are similar enough that that's unlikely to trigger a big concern about neighborhood traffic increases.

4:03 – 4:1318 turns

I think for the level of the typical kind of changes of use that we see, that would be my perspective. I think when you're getting like a new commercial development, I think that's where those big issues with regard to like traffic studies and whatnot come into play. But typically for a change of use, just changing from a restaurant to a gym or retail to a bank or whatever, we don't typically, even though it currently requires a land use permit, we would not typically require any like traffic study or anything like that. It's just process.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 34:04:36 · ≈ 8:11 PM

Got it. Just two other quick points. So when you're exempting things, proposing to exempt things like HVAC or backup generators, is there a longer list? I was curious about water heaters. And then in terms of generators, I know APCD has a cutoff between where you need a permit and not, and wondered if that would make sense here.

Supervisor Hartman to the chair. Yeah. So when we talk about HVAC and it would be sort of similar mechanical equipment that some of which already like, if you're just putting a water heater against the side of your house. That already is exempt, but HVAC and air conditioning units, they haven't historically been. Generators, the same, but those are all things.

The issue with generators and HVAC to a lesser degree is the noise. that we typically hear in terms of sort of neighbor concerns. So we have sort of administratively come up with standards for how we would address backup generators. We could certainly look at, if we're exploring this further, what the thresholds are for when APCD review kicks in, which is, I believe, a pretty high threshold that you wouldn't normally see at the residential scale.

And certainly things like the condensing units for HVACs, there's no reason that you would, we should be requiring permits for those, planning permits. And I should say we're focused all this discussion on planning permits. None of this is, we're talking about exempting things from building permits and electrical permits, plumbing permits. So we're really just talking about planning permits today.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 34:06:32 · ≈ 8:13 PM

And then my final question is sort of weighing this about, do we still hold standards for community plan areas? And the Gaviota Coast or scenic highways, those are something I've got top of mind trying. There was a lot of blood, sweat, and tears that went into the Gaviota Coast plan. And so I'm going to be trying to defend its integrity to the extent that I can.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:07:00 · ≈ 8:14 PM

Thank you Supervisor Harmon. I wanted to lean into a little bit of that next piece of building permits because there's only the planning side which is about a half of the problem, right? So are there any efforts in place to try to address the difficulty getting through the plan check and the building process?

GovLisa Plowman4:07:20 · ≈ 8:14 PM

Thank you. Mister chair and members of the board. So we have a number of efforts underway. One of them is to create these on-demand permits that we have reported on. Like our reroutes are on demand. Our water heaters are on demand. The solar on demand. We're doing. We're going to be looking at window replacements to be on Many splits would be on demand, that kind of thing. So we are trying to move sort of the simple stuff to these on-demand permits, which is really essentially like an over-the-counter permit. You put your information in, your permit spits out, as long as you put all the information in and it aligns with what the code requirements are.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:08:08 · ≈ 8:15 PM

And that should happen with our exempt permits then as well, right?

GovLisa Plowman4:08:10 · ≈ 8:15 PM

Well, it's a little bit different. Why? It's a little bit different because we do have to measure setbacks, height, look at different things. But

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:08:21 · ≈ 8:15 PM

if you say that you're complying with the setbacks?

GovLisa Plowman4:08:23 · ≈ 8:15 PM

Well, no, so building code standards are a little bit different. No, but

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:08:27 · ≈ 8:15 PM

on a planning side, if you and your permit say, I'm going to comply with the setbacks, why would we need to verify that?

GovLisa Plowman4:08:33 · ≈ 8:15 PM

I think we would want to look at the plan. That would be my recommendation is that we look at the plan to make sure that all of the standards are met and then we can move the project forward.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:08:43 · ≈ 8:15 PM

Yeah, I understand that. But, you know, like you're trusting on the building permit side on these simpler things. I think that's what we're looking for in the development community on these exempt permits is that say, hey, if I comply, trust me, because I said I comply. If I don't comply, then you're going to have a building violation or planning violation.

And so it's proving your innocence versus, you know, the other way around. So I think that that's because to get for you guys to check on whether I comply, is 10, 20 hours, which is $3,000 to $6,000. It is. I mean, I hear from people all the time. I know Supervisor Lavin, you know, like, I've got a lot of unincorporated area. I've got a lot of people that go in and then they decide not to do anything or they just build it without a permit because it's just so expensive to even comply.

GovLisa Plowman4:09:32 · ≈ 8:16 PM

We're going to be looking at the things that are going to be exempt from permits. We will not be The staff would not be looking at. But currently, right now, the way we would have it set up for something that was ministerial, we would look at it. But as I'm saying, the goal here is to truncate that review process, reduce the number of hours that are spent reviewing it, and where we can use the fixed fees so people have a better idea of what it's going to cost and address it that way.

That's the objective here. And I understand your frustration with the Ag Enterprise Ordinance. I think it was more complicated than we had anticipated. But what I can tell you is what our objective is. And it's to simplify the process. And make it easier for the mom and pop that is trying to get through the process, whether they want to do an addition on their house, or build a shed, or put in a pool, or build a new single family home.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:10:45 · ≈ 8:17 PM

So again, I think it's an area that we could do some additional work, especially on the building side, to be looking for more exemptions there. Or letting people get their own plan check, having a state-licensed plan checker. It's what the county does. It makes sense that we let people do that as well. Or even building inspectors. You know, there are state-licensed people that have stamps that are licensed by the state that have bonding insurance, things that we don't even have for ourselves when we go out there and check other people's work. So those are some ideas that might also simplify the process moving forward that hopefully you guys could help with.

Okay. And then I think the other piece I think in simplification is looking at using more exemptions on CEQA. I think often we're doing projects, you know, we're going through CEQA processes that, you know, Are more robust than that are necessary because we're all, you know, we're trying to protect against some of these potential appeals. But I do think that there's a lot others, you know, most jurisdictions use exemptions a little bit more aggressively than we do. And I think that that's something that we should lean into more.

GovLisa Plowman4:11:49 · ≈ 8:18 PM

Mr. Chair, just to follow up on that comment, I'm not sure if you've noticed, and maybe you haven't, because you're sharing this comment, but the department has been using exemptions to a much greater degree than historically had happened. And part of that has to do with the changes in state law around housing, et cetera. It's made it easier for a jurisdiction to use those exemptions. And we've been using them pretty rigorously.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:12:17 · ≈ 8:19 PM

OK, thank you. Other questions? No other questions. Okay. I guess we need to go through the spreadsheet and give you some direction or some of these questions.

GovLisa Plowman4:12:28 · ≈ 8:19 PM

So let's go to those first set of questions. Okay. So this first two questions about residential ministerial permitting, it's should we have a break? Let's just say it's a single family house. Should there be a point at which you have to get an appealable permit and anything below that size, you're ministerial? Or should everything be ministerial and we sort of have this internal division where there's a more complex project and it needs a little bit more review because they're on slopes, hillside ridgeline, they exceed an FAR, well actually we're using that for design review, there's environmentally sensitive habitat that they're encroaching into Those could be the triggers between those two things. So the question is, is there a mix of land use permit and ministerial or everything is ministerial and we use the same threshold to determine whether it's a sort of an easier review process because you're not trying to do anything, you're not having excessive grading, you're not on a slope, you're not in an ESH buffer.

So it's the same threshold, it's just two different concepts.

4:13 – 4:2126 turns

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:13:51 · ≈ 8:20 PM

I read that a few times, I had to try to figure out what the difference was between the two.

GovLisa Plowman4:13:54 · ≈ 8:20 PM

Yeah.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:13:56 · ≈ 8:20 PM

So I finally got it.

GovLisa Plowman4:13:58 · ≈ 8:20 PM

Yeah.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:13:59 · ≈ 8:20 PM

You know, it's ministerial and appealable, and then under ministerial, if you choose ministerial, do you want to break that up into simple and complex review of your staff?

GovLisa Plowman4:14:08 · ≈ 8:21 PM

Yeah, so if we go true, everything becomes ministerial. I think it's a really big house. Under the first one because it's so big. It would still be a land use permit. It wouldn't be ministerial. But under the second option, it would be

And really with that second option, what you're what you're gaining from this process is removing the notice and the appeal ability, but that the level of staff review wouldn't necessarily change at that complex level. It would be pretty similar to what our current processes, but the goal would be to establish these thresholds where. If you meet those thresholds, it really would be that that quick. I think what you're looking for, Mr. Chair, in terms of that quick, easy review, and it can just be expedited that way.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:15:07 · ≈ 8:22 PM

Yes, that's that's number two. That's number two. And so but what about so somebody wanted to build that? FAR 50, like where it's all against every single setback. Is that going to be a ministerial permit or is that appealable? Is there something that eventually

triggers? Well, I think we're kind of, so with residential and commercial for that matter, and when we're talking about ministerial, it's really sort of these two components. One is the permitting side and then the other is the design review side. We see the FAR issue as being perhaps something that could be leaned on for design to determine whether or not something requires design review, because it's not necessarily a planning issue. It's like more like a privacy neighborhood compatibility issue, which aren't necessarily policy issues. So we would see the FAR as being something that could be used to.

As a threshold for whether it's exempt or requires design review as opposed to whether it requires necessarily an appealable permit. But the issue, of course, is that design review, if it's triggered at the full BAR level, is appealable. It's noticed. And so you get swept up into that process. But at least at that point, It could still be a ministerial permit, so that side of things are set aside, and you're really just focusing on the design. And

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:16:24 · ≈ 8:23 PM

just, you know, kind of basic law on land use is that, you know, if you have a parcel, you should be able to build a house on it, right? Isn't that kind of a basic concept of, right? So we're just saying it's ministerial. This is kind of a property rights question here, right? In some ways, I mean, you have a right to build a house. We're starting from that point.

Build your house. But the processing is going to be either simple or complex, depending on

GovLisa Plowman4:16:49 · ≈ 8:23 PM

what kind of house you

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:16:50 · ≈ 8:23 PM

want to build.

GovLisa Plowman4:16:51 · ≈ 8:23 PM

Yeah, so I think the example I used may be confused matters, unfortunately. Let's say you're on a hillside ridgeline, right? So if you're on a hillside ridgeline and you're visible from all the way around and a lot of your neighbors can see you, That would potentially trigger a more complex level review, or you're doing a huge amount of grading because you're on this slope.

That would trigger a more complex review.

Yeah, and I would just add really those thresholds are geared towards looking at our county policies. And typically when we see residential projects come through, you know, a planner will spend time evaluating that project against our fairly robust and voluminous set of policies that are in place. And most of those policies are resource based. So cultural resource, historical, biological resources, grading, like minimization of grading, and so a project would be evaluating against that, and that's what can tend to require a fair amount of staff time, depending on the project, is reviewing it against those county policies.

So the idea with these thresholds is to set them at a point where you can be reasonably assured that a project that meets those thresholds would be consistent with county policy, and then you can remove that review.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:18:17 · ≈ 8:25 PM

All right, well, thank you for the explanation, but I do think we need to kind of move through some of these because I know one of my colleagues asked to leave a little early here, and I want to make sure their opinion is made in here. So I'm okay with two. I don't know where anybody else is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:18:31 · ≈ 8:25 PM

at. I'm two just because, so two is non-appealable though, but it's basically, it's you guys doing the review and taking the neighbor out of it. And see, that's key to me because I think I don't think I've ever been at an appealable situation with a single family home that made sense when we got through the whole thing and you guys had run it through the ringer. So I think removing the appeal process on a single family dwelling is the way to go. Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 34:19:01 · ≈ 8:26 PM

Again, I'm thinking about the Gaviota Coast, I'm thinking about McMansions, and I'm not sure that 2 adequately deals with that, so I tend to favor 1 where there's

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:19:14 · ≈ 8:26 PM

thresholds. Could we make 2 but in certain, like, special areas? You know, some that are carved out that, you know, that are over 5,000 square foot houses or in scenic zones that that might trigger the appeal. I mean, make an appeal is really the exception, but in really high focus

areas. And Supervisor Hartman, through the chair, I guess part of the question is, what's the purpose of that more rigorous review? Is it to address policies? Or is it to address like sort of the visual sort of design issues of like compatibility of a project? Because I think it's the

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 34:19:57 · ≈ 8:26 PM

latter. I think

it's both. Then that could be handled through the design review component as opposed to whether a project is, whether the permit's appealable. Certainly, I mean, one of the significant questions and considerations we've presented today is whether to apply uniform standards or to have carve-outs. And so we can certainly work with whatever direction you want. And I'm going to be interested

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:20:23 · ≈ 8:27 PM

in carve-outs because there are some of our areas that we've gone through extensive community planning areas like Old Town Orchid, Bell Street. I know you guys have some as well that still need design review there. You know, those are areas that, you know, you've kind of built a A concept around that and to kind of abandon it at this point would be really disruptive to those communities. So I think there are I'm going to be looking for carve outs.

GovLisa Plowman4:20:46 · ≈ 8:27 PM

Yeah, and I think that works well with design review. Less well with. Ministerial versus non-ministerial permit. But, you know, we'll accept the board, whatever the board majority direction is.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 34:21:02 · ≈ 8:28 PM

So, again, size, if it's a 10,000 square foot house, 12,000 square foot house, could that be under 2 exempt?

GovLisa Plowman4:21:13 · ≈ 8:28 PM

So, it could be. Under number 2, it would be exempt. That's, yes.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 34:21:21 · ≈ 8:28 PM

Yeah, so that's why I prefer number one where you've got, there's some cutoff or maybe tiered, but if it's really big and a really big impact on the neighborhood or the viewshed.

4:21 – 4:2820 turns

GovLisa Plowman4:21:38 · ≈ 8:28 PM

I think we would use that as the design review threshold, but The question is like each one's different. Each one's unique, right? You might have a 10,000 square foot house on a five acre property and nobody can see it. So why should we be requiring an appealable permit for that? That's the question, right? So if the board direction is for us to explore like some unique areas that are along scenic highways or something like that, we could do that. But I guess, My recommendation as the Planning Director would be try and make it, for the permit type, make it consistent. For the design review process, I think it's easier to make that community plan by community plan.

That's just, but we're listening. We're in our listening mode.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:22:35 · ≈ 8:29 PM

Well, maybe what might help, too, is if you guys, when you guys are going through this process, because you're taking direction here. And it comes again is, you know, are there some, you know, 95 to 98% of this should be ministerial. You know, I think what I'm hearing from Supervisor Hartman is that there are some of those areas that are a little bit Special that could screw up the, you know, the bad apple could mess up the whole bunch here, right? Okay, but let's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:23:05 · ≈ 8:30 PM

think about this. What's going to actually happen? We're going to start carving out. Right. And it's going to be the entire 3rd District. Honestly, no, no, no. That's the way it's going to be because you don't want anything on that ridgeline. We don't want anything over there. We don't want anything on Gaviota. We don't want... And then you're going to say Old Town Orchid.

You're going to go with Mission Canyon and Hope Canyon, all these places. And it's like, cool, so you can build in Santa Maria, you know. And that's, if you start carving.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 24:23:37 · ≈ 8:30 PM

Yeah, I'm kind of with you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:23:39 · ≈ 8:30 PM

We're going to lose what we're trying to do here. We're trying to tell them to go faster and make it less expensive, but I still want control over it. And you can't have both. It's the old fast, cheap, and whatever.

GovLisa Plowman4:23:54 · ≈ 8:30 PM

Cheap and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:23:57 · ≈ 8:30 PM

easy.

GovLisa Plowman4:23:58 · ≈ 8:30 PM

This might help, Supervisor Hartman. We're talking about the areas outside the coastal zone appeals jurisdiction. So if you're in the appeals jurisdiction, you're still getting a CDP and it's still appealable. It's narrow in some areas and large in others, but that is, and if I'm thinking about the project that I think you're thinking about, it would be captured by that.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:24:28 · ≈ 8:31 PM

So I've got a couple of twos from Laura and I. I didn't hear from Roy or Laura as you're trying to figure out some consensus here where we're at.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 24:24:37 · ≈ 8:31 PM

I confess I have a challenge with planner speak and so I mean I'm. Laura makes

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:24:43 · ≈ 8:31 PM

you

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 24:24:43 · ≈ 8:31 PM

normal by the way. And we met so I'm not this is this is this is on me but I mean I lean towards towards two but I just yeah I don't know how many questions we have but it's it's daunting.

GovChris SneddonDirector of the Public Works Department4:24:59 · ≈ 8:31 PM

Roy? Probably one and a half. So that's

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 24:25:03 · ≈ 8:32 PM

where I think we're getting planning saying that's where design review is going to come into place.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:25:26 · ≈ 8:32 PM

And after I was so negative, I want to try. We need to try something, guys. We have to do something different. So I mean, this may be painful for some of us. And we may have to come back here later on and change things in a couple of years because maybe it went crazy. It was maybe too successful. That'd be a good problem to have. But knowing the history of how things have gone, it's probably not going to lead to uncontrolled, unfettered development that we're going to be really uncomfortable with.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 24:25:56 · ≈ 8:32 PM

I

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:25:56 · ≈ 8:32 PM

agree, we have

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 24:25:56 · ≈ 8:32 PM

to make things faster and cheaper. And we also, with carve-outs, I also think that's an invitation for neighborhood appeals. And I'm just not, I'm not comfortable with the carve-out concept. Every district is scenic.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:26:11 · ≈ 8:33 PM

What, okay, so that takes us to design review, right? And so what's exempt? You're asking us on that. Exempt single-family homes, So

as as Ben mentioned right now in some areas like Mission Canyon Montecito everything requires design review whether you're putting in a 100 square foot addition to your single story house or a 5000 square foot new home. It all is subject to design review. So the idea with option one would be to identify some objective thresholds. You could use height, you could use floor area ratio. We suggested hillside ridgeline. Those tend to be more visually prominent.

And if you're below those thresholds, you'd be exempt from design review. If you exceed those thresholds, you'd be subject to design review. Sort of the tiered approach would be to kind of come up with a middle zone where you'd be subject to design review and have to comply with the residential design guidelines that may exist for that area. But that design review would happen at the staff level.

Other jurisdictions do this. It's administrative design review. It's not noticed. It's not appealable. So there's some. some oversight, some opportunity to control the design and make sure the design is consistent with what kind of the community is looking for, but it doesn't open up the project to an extensive full review. And then sort of you and then you're or appeal and then and then you reserve sort of that highest tier for those projects where we think full design board is remains appropriate consistent with our current process. Right.

4:28 – 4:3436 turns

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:28:03 · ≈ 8:35 PM

If we end up having an administrative design process, I hate to say it, what's the point of having our bars then? What would our bars be reviewing?

So, hypothetically, let's take height, for example. Perhaps your three tiers are anything single story is exempt, anything two stories administrative, anything over two stories is full design review from the full board. F.A.R. you could say okay we'll come up with a zone that's exempt an area if that kind of a middle zone that is administrative and then anything above that full board because you know that those bigger projects those larger homes have a greater likelihood of raising privacy issues or neighborhood compatibility, just in terms of the scale of the project, where having the expertise and sort of public process of the design review where the neighbors can comment and participate is appropriate.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:29:03 · ≈ 8:36 PM

And is that number one or is that number two?

Well, the three-tiered approach would be sort of number two. You can really think of it, number one is really a two-tiered approach. You're either exempt or full board. And the second option is to create like a middle administrative tier. That's good because

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:29:23 · ≈ 8:36 PM

that will

mean

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:29:24 · ≈ 8:36 PM

less things for the full board.

Less things for the full board. We've already started because of various housing laws that have removed our ability to apply discretion. Our full boards, our board agendas are already shorter and lighter than they have historically been. This would continue to further lighten that load if we were to come up with, well, with whichever tier or whichever approach.

GovLisa Plowman4:29:48 · ≈ 8:36 PM

Just in this category, but the BARs would still be reviewing the larger We've already taken multi-family housing projects out of the design review process because we did the objective standards, right? But we do have a consultant that reviews compliance with that. But I think it really the key question is here is it do we just want to have an exempt tier and then those that go to B.A.R. or do we want to have this sort of middle ground where staff does some review?

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:30:19 · ≈ 8:37 PM

I think the middle ground actually makes things faster because I think there's

GovLisa Plowman4:30:23 · ≈ 8:37 PM

exempt stuff that's going to be exempt

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:30:24 · ≈ 8:37 PM

anyway.

GovLisa Plowman4:30:25 · ≈ 8:37 PM

Yeah, there could be more projects that don't go to the AR. And

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:30:27 · ≈ 8:37 PM

it's the stuff that's in between there that would get some of the review. So actually I think two is actually the fastest process because it captures some of those things and gets reviewed by staff instead of going to BAR.

It could be. Or the more nuanced. Probably a greater number of projects that either be exempt or administratively approved versus the full BAR.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:30:51 · ≈ 8:37 PM

Okay. Well, understanding that concept, I'm okay with two, if that. So again, we're trying to move to a more streamlined process.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 34:31:01 · ≈ 8:38 PM

And I'm okay with two as well.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:31:03 · ≈ 8:38 PM

Anybody else? Well, this is the second one. This is the next two. Design review. Okay. Me too.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 24:31:14 · ≈ 8:38 PM

Yeah, that's fine. We're

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 14:31:16 · ≈ 8:38 PM

talking about design review.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 24:31:17 · ≈ 8:38 PM

Yeah, that's fine.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 14:31:19 · ≈ 8:38 PM

Oh, then, then I agree with you. 2-2.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:31:23 · ≈ 8:38 PM

2-2. Design review. Okay, so we're at 1-2 and 2-2. We're not, and so.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:31:29 · ≈ 8:38 PM

So under design review,

GovLisa Plowman4:31:31 · ≈ 8:38 PM

what we're going to do is

CommentDr Lee Heller4:31:34 · ≈ 8:38 PM

a three tiered approach where

GovLisa Plowman4:31:36 · ≈ 8:38 PM

The three-tiered approach where there'll be some projects that are exempt, there'll be some projects that go through a staff review, and there'll be some projects that go to BAR. Correct. Yeah. Cool.

All right. And then the big question is sort of the uniformity versus maintaining different requirements depending on the community plan area.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:31:59 · ≈ 8:38 PM

So I got the Orchid Community Plan, which is a big community, right? But then I also have the Old Town Orchid.

Right, which is the only area within Orchid that has the design guidelines.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:32:07 · ≈ 8:39 PM

Right, and then you have like Los Alamos, but then you have Beale Street. And maybe it's more for the commercial piece, and maybe that's already going to be covered no matter what. It's like Beale Street and Clark and Old Orchid should have some design reviews. You're trying to keep in, you know, a lot of people invested a lot of money into keeping the Old Town theme.

And I think that that is a good use of design review, is to have some additional purview on that. I don't want to get into Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 34:32:45 · ≈ 8:39 PM

Well, I agree Los Olivos would be another example, but I'm trying to understand. I mean, I think people went through blood, sweat and tears on community plans, and I could compromise some, but on the Gaviota Coast, that's one that I think is really, I can't override that and I need to understand better how these changes would affect that and I'm sorry I have to catch a plane to Sacramento.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:33:19 · ≈ 8:40 PM

So real quick do you have any commercial thoughts real quick before we leave you or before you leave us?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 34:33:25 · ≈ 8:40 PM

I'm supportive of the changes that they proposed to commercial and turning over, being more productive of those properties. That's important.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:33:34 · ≈ 8:40 PM

Okay. I think those are some of the questions that they're going to need feedback on. So I want to make sure you got a chance to comment on that. So,

all right. Back to you, Alex. Um, well, I guess, uh, speaking of the design review exceptions of the carve outs, I think what we'd like to hear, um, is from the other board members on other areas within the county that have design guidelines and that have, for example, Montecito that has. It's own Board of Architectural Review and looks at every project, whether we want to retain, whether the board wants to retain that current process or still find ways to weave this approach into all areas of the county.

4:34 – 4:4017 turns

GovLisa Plowman4:34:27 · ≈ 8:41 PM

It's a question of what's going to go to design review versus what's not going to go to design review, right? So we want to set thresholds for what will go to design review. So you will still have design review in your community plan areas, but what is the threshold that triggers that?

Right. So, for example, Montecito has has floor area ratio guidelines. It's not a ordinance standard, but they are guidelines. So. But right now, they are just that they are just guidelines. But, you know, the question is whether you have the same thresholds countywide or you establish perhaps less generous or more generous threshold in some areas versus others. So more things could go to still be subject to design review in certain areas, whereas less could be subject to design review in other areas.

GovLisa Plowman4:35:26 · ≈ 8:42 PM

I guess and what I would add to this is the simpler the better if we're going to simplify the process. The call outs for those commercial areas where you have these very specific like Lily Avenue and Bell Street and Old Town Orchard, I can see where that would be important. But I would recommend that we would use the same thresholds to trigger design review throughout the county. So it's simple. Part of the reason for the complexity in our process is we have different policies in every community.

And so it makes it more complex for the planners that are switching back and forth between projects that are in different communities, et cetera. So that's my recommendation is that we try and keep it simple. But again, we are here to listen. So I just wanted to share that thought.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:36:19 · ≈ 8:43 PM

Well, I think the question is to Supervisor Lee here on your thoughts on design review.

GovLisa Plowman4:36:26 · ≈ 8:43 PM

So I guess the question would, would you be comfortable with us establishing thresholds that trigger a level of design review that would be on whether it's an FAR, meaning how big is the house on the lot, or it's on hillside ridgeline, It goes to design review or it's encroaching into environmentally sensitive, or no, that's a different one, sorry. What else would we use for design review? Height, height, over a certain height. Would you be comfortable having those, the same standards that we would have in Montecito for Mission Canyon? Like where that line is, where that trigger is for more design review?

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 14:37:11 · ≈ 8:44 PM

So I would have hoped that you have reached out to me earlier, and so let me think about this and give me feedback.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:37:19 · ≈ 8:44 PM

And I think that's because this is just looking

GovLisa Plowman4:37:21 · ≈ 8:44 PM

for some direction. This is just a briefing. Yeah, so it's just getting ideas.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:37:25 · ≈ 8:44 PM

Let me recommend, especially since this is a really sensitive area there, that staff work with the first district on it because I think that they have some conflict areas there, especially if they have their own bar just for one community, that I think that's where the most of the work is going to need to be done. And I think I think the rest of us can get comfortable with what comes out of that.

So

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 14:37:45 · ≈ 8:44 PM

yeah. So for now, just let's let's work about talk about it and work it through because Montecito is different from Mission Canyon. It's Montecito is different from everywhere else. But don't we know it?

All right, I think we have enough to work with on that one, and then let's shift to the commercial. So the first, as we discussed, was the changes of use and whether to allow those as an exempt, whether it's like-for-like or from one use to another, and sort of remove the threshold that has been currently relied upon in terms of the parking requirement. So, for example, so long as you don't remove any parking, you can do a change of use and any increase in parking would not be imposed. Is that an amendment we want to pursue?

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:38:51 · ≈ 8:45 PM

Again, I think we need to do some things differently, so I'm willing to take the risk here. I agree. I think there's some risk to it, but I think overall, the greater good of what we're trying to accomplish here, it needs to be, we need to take some risks.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 24:39:05 · ≈ 8:46 PM

Like, for example, as far as I understand, like going from retail to a restaurant.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:39:10 · ≈ 8:46 PM

Correct. And it's always hard to tell. You don't know if it's going to be a popular restaurant or not a popular restaurant. I mean, it's true, right? I mean, some things get a lot of use and you're never going to know until it goes in there. And it may blow up the parking lot and everybody's mad at that one, you know, one retailer. But, you know, it's kind of the process that has to go through. And that sometimes ultimately becomes a self-limiting factor for that business as well, is the parking available. So.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 24:39:35 · ≈ 8:46 PM

Yeah, I'm comfortable moving forward.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:39:39 · ≈ 8:46 PM

Okay, I'm seeing unanimity here on that and I get I think Supervisor Hartman expressed a similar feelings there. So number two, Establish thresholds for

ministerial commercial development. Right. So as Mr. Singer mentioned, right now commercial development requires anything from a land use permit up to a development plan with different thresholds. There's no sort of exempt level or no ministerial level currently. So the question is whether to establish a ministerial threshold for commercial. And we could either come up just with a fixed threshold amount. We threw out 500 to 1,000 square feet.

That could be any new development or additions. Alternatively, our current threshold for what is processed through a land use permit is, in most zones, is about 5,000 square feet. So you could just take that threshold and instead of, kind of similar to the residential, and just make those ministerial, and by ministerial we just mean staff level, not noticed, not appealable. Right.

4:40 – 4:4625 turns

GovLisa Plowman4:40:47 · ≈ 8:47 PM

The ultimate question is, should there be some level of commercial development that is truly ministerial?

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:40:53 · ≈ 8:47 PM

And the answer is, in my opinion, yes. I guess we can play around with that number. If you want to start with $5,000 and we can kind of discuss that and debate it over the next few months when you bring this back to us. I'm comfortable with that number. Do you guys think that that captures a lot of smaller projects? Is everybody comfortable with that there?

Okay, and then the last thing is the design review for commercial, which again, right now, everything, any commercial development, whether you're 50 square feet or 5,000 square feet, requires design review countywide. So similar to residential, do we want to establish some thresholds below which they would be exempt?

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:41:45 · ≈ 8:48 PM

I'm comfortable with that. I do think we have these areas that we've done some really significant community design work in. You know, that's the areas I want to protect. But outside of those areas, I'm okay with a lot of exemptions when it comes to this. You know, a business, they want their place to look nice, right? I mean, they're the ones that are spending the money. It's their property. They're not going to try to make it look bad.

Now I know that there's themes that we're trying to get to and we want to make sure that one neighbor doesn't screw it up for everybody else in these design areas and that's why we have design review. Other than that, I don't, I'm not overly concerned about it.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 24:42:23 · ≈ 8:49 PM

I would say uniform versus tailored.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:42:38 · ≈ 8:49 PM

Is that helpful for you guys on some feedback here or are you looking for more?

GovLisa Plowman4:42:41 · ≈ 8:49 PM

No, I think we understand that some will be exempt from design review and there's a mixed feeling about the uniformity versus non-uniformity.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:42:52 · ≈ 8:49 PM

Okay, well give us some options.

GovLisa Plowman4:42:53 · ≈ 8:49 PM

I think

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:42:54 · ≈ 8:49 PM

that's helpful. Give us some options. And what we're really doing is we're bringing the value back to the zoning, you know, that zoning should allow certain uses, right? Residential should allow a house and commercial should allow commercial development. I mean, that's kind of what We've kind of overly processed these things at this point, so this kind of opens it up a little bit.

All right, so we've got one more for

us. One more slide here. So here is just sort of a universal look at kind of looking through all of our use tables and identifying what we think are appropriate We're trying to identify where we think there's opportunities. Yes. I think that's something we all want to see done. And then the last question is on looking at our list, current list of exemptions, and again looking to see where we can make reasonable expansions to them without sort of giving up the farm on that. Yes.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisor, District 24:44:08 · ≈ 8:51 PM

Yes.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:44:09 · ≈ 8:51 PM

Yes, I think we're all in favor of this. One thought that came out of this was when we were talking about this, or going through this, we got residential, we got commercial. We didn't do anything in our industrial zones. I know we have very few. So I just ask you guys to maybe go back and look at that if there's some abilities to bring us back some further exemptions in our industrial areas. Because those are the areas where you should be able to do large development plans without permits or without CUPs, lower level permits.

So that's where that could kind of fit into that number one category there.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:44:39 · ≈ 8:51 PM

Thank you.

All right. So just as far as next steps, we'll be taking the direction that you've given us today. We got some work ahead of us to try to take that and put it into a code or three codes. And then our goal, as we've indicated previously, is to get back to your board before the end of this calendar year. So we'll try to We'll try to stick with that. And we'll certainly be happy to meet with individual board members during that time as we work through these issues.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:45:18 · ≈ 8:52 PM

All right. Thank you. So we'll go. Well, my last statement is I know it's cranky at the very beginning, but nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong. So good luck. And I'm signing up to be helpful in the process any way I can to make this a successful plan. So with that, I'll make a motion to approve items A through C.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 14:45:42 · ≈ 8:52 PM

I'll second.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:45:42 · ≈ 8:52 PM

Second by Supervisor Lee. Any further discussion? Seeing none.

GovRachel Van MullemCounty Counsel4:45:48 · ≈ 8:52 PM

Mr. Chair.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:45:49 · ≈ 8:52 PM

Sorry.

GovRachel Van MullemCounty Counsel4:45:49 · ≈ 8:52 PM

Did you want the motion to include direction? Because B just says provide direction. Or do you want it

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:45:54 · ≈ 8:52 PM

to

GovRachel Van MullemCounty Counsel4:45:54 · ≈ 8:52 PM

just be? A through C.

ElectedBob NelsonChair, District 44:45:55 · ≈ 8:52 PM

So with the direction, my motion included the direction that we had given. In the hearing. Thank you. Sorry. That includes, that was B, A, B, and C. Sorry. Supervisor Lee, do you accept that clarification of my motion? I do. Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right. Let's go ahead and this adjourns our meeting for May 12th, 2026. Our next regularly scheduled meeting will be June 9th, 2026 in our Santa Barbara hearing room. See you there.