Meeting Summary
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Speed Limits Ordinance
- Staff explained that state law restricts the Board's ability to lower speed limits below the 85th percentile survey results.
- Supervisor Carbajal expressed disappointment regarding the limited flexibility to address constituent concerns on specific roads.
- The Board passed a motion for the first reading of the ordinance and set follow-up actions for May 1st.
Lost Forest Ranch Project
- Staff and the applicant presented a proposal to reconfigure parcels and provide three public trail easements in the Gaviota area.
- Public comment was divided, with supporters citing the generosity of the trail offer and opponents raising concerns about privacy, safety, and environmental impacts.
- The Board directed staff to conduct additional analysis and revise the Environmental Impact Report before returning the project to the Planning Commission.
Jail Medical and Mental Health Services
- Staff reported on the status of the Corizon contract and the ongoing process for National Commission for Correctional Health Care accreditation.
- Board members requested specific data on self-survey findings, corrective action plans, and budgetary implications of the contract.
- The Board voted to receive and file the presentation after public comment addressed concerns about care quality and privatization.
Mentally Ill and Homeless Recidivism Cost Analysis
- Staff presented a cost comparison showing that stabilizing services cost approximately 25% less than incarceration for this population.
- Discussion focused on the need for an actionable plan, with suggestions including a hybrid jail model and better coordination among stakeholder groups.
- The Board accepted the report as a first step and directed staff to consult with stakeholders and the courts to develop further guidance.
Full summary
Meeting Opening and Roll Call
- The regular session of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was convened. Roll call confirmed the presence of Supervisors Wolfe, Gray, Lavagnino, Carbajal, and Farr. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Approval of Minutes
- Item: Approval of the minutes from the April 10th meeting.
- Action: A motion was made by Supervisor Gray and seconded by Supervisor Carbajal.
- Vote Outcome: Passed.
Public Comment (Non-Agenda Items)
- Public comment was opened for items not on the agenda. Six speakers addressed the Board: 1. Dr. Michael Weissman: Requested the Board direct the County Recorder to audit records, the District Attorney to investigate suspicious recordings, and the Sheriff to suspend evictions pending investigation regarding perceived fraud in mortgage foreclosures. 2. Elsa Granados: Presented a report titled "Trustee Sales in California Crisis by Theft," requested individual acknowledgments from Board members that they had received the report, and asked for meetings with each Supervisor. 3. Candace Jones: Urged the Board to stop the recording of "fortuitous documents" to protect land titles, citing actions in San Francisco and Hawaii regarding foreclosure moratoriums. 4. Dr. Robert Jones: Discussed the housing issue and alleged a scam involving the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). The Chair reminded him to address the full Board rather than individual members. 5. Erika Martín del Campo (Santa Barbara Rape Crisis Center): Spoke in support of "Genes for Justice" and Sexual Assault Awareness Month, promoting "Denim Day" on April 25th. Supervisors Wolfe and Carbajal noted that Board staff would be permitted to wear jeans on that day. 6. John Dohm (California Wireless Association): Recognized National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week and highlighted the role of wireless infrastructure in emergency 911 calls.
Administrative Agenda
- Action: The Chair proposed pulling Item A-4 and Item A-16 from the bulk administrative agenda.
- Item A-4 (Resolution Celebrating the 64th Anniversary of the Founding of the State of Israel):
- Public Comment: Dr. Robert Jones spoke, making comments directed at individual Supervisors. The Chair warned him to stay on topic and eventually asked him to sit down.
- Decision: The item was included in the bulk vote of the administrative agenda.
- Bulk Administrative Agenda (excluding A-16):
- Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the administrative agenda items, excluding A-16.
- Vote Outcome: Passed.
- Item A-16 (Appeal of Planning Commission Determination - Park Hills Estates Project):
- Discussion: Supervisor Wolfe stated she would recuse herself from the vote due to a conflict of interest, as the project is in close proximity to her home.
- Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item.
- Vote Outcome: Passed with one recusal.
Departmental Agenda Item 1: Speed Limits
- Item: Hearing to consider recommendations regarding speed limits on various roads in the 1st, 3rd, and 4th districts (Public Works Department).
- Presentation: Staff presented the process for setting speed limits, governed by state law. They explained that engineering and traffic surveys are required every 7–10 years. The 85th percentile speed is the critical factor for setting limits. Staff noted that the Board has limited flexibility in setting limits lower than the survey results unless specific conditions under Assembly Bill 2767 are met.
- Board Comments: Supervisor Carbajal noted that state law limits the Board's ability to lower speed limits based on constituent concerns, citing specific roads in his district (Lily Avenue and Toro Canyon Road). He expressed disappointment in the lack of flexibility but acknowledged the legal constraints.
- Public Comment: No speakers requested.
- Action: A motion was made and seconded for the first reading of the ordinance and to set follow-up actions for May 1st.
- Vote Outcome: Passed.
Departmental Agenda Item 2: Lost Forest Ranch Project
- Item: Hearing to consider recommendations for the Lost Forest Ranch Project (1,784 acres, Gaviota area, 3rd District).
- Ex Parte Disclosures: Supervisors disclosed meetings with various parties, including the applicant’s representatives (Susan Petrovich, Paul Van Leer), ranch managers, and trails advocates.
- Staff Presentation: Staff outlined the project, which involves reconfiguring nine parcels into seven, including lot line adjustments, a conditional certificate of compliance, and a tentative parcel map. The project includes improved access roads, a private water system, and three public trail easements: a lateral access along Sandy Beach, a lateral access north of the highway (California Coastal Trail segment), and a vertical beach access along Las Flores Creek.
- Key Issue: The Planning Commission referred a specific technical question to the Board: whether the burden imposed by the project warrants the exaction of coastal trails south of the highway.
- Alternatives: Staff noted that trails advocates proposed an alternative trail route closer to the shoreline, which the applicant opposes. Staff highlighted that the applicant’s proposed trail affects approximately one acre of agricultural land, while alternative routes proposed by advocates would impact significantly more pasture land (ranging from 21 to 67 acres) and require complex infrastructure like bridges over railroads.
- Applicant Presentation (Susan Petrovich, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck):
- Represented the applicant (Tim Doheny/Las Farras Edwards Ranches).
- Argued that the project is a simple lot line adjustment to preserve the ranch as a single agricultural operation and pass it to heirs.
- Stated that the applicant is offering generous trail easements, including a beach access and parking lot, in an area with no existing public access.
- Opposed the exaction of additional trails south of the highway, arguing there is no nexus between the project impacts and the proposed trails, and that the trails would disrupt the grazing operation, threaten biological resources, and pose safety risks.
- Cited legal standards (Nolan and Dolan cases) requiring an essential nexus and rough proportionality for exactions.
- Warned that if the Board requires additional environmental review for alternative trails, the applicant may withdraw the project or seek a writ.
- Clarified water issues: The Goleta Water District meters are for irrigation only; domestic water is currently provided via bottled water. A private domestic water system is proposed but not intended to be built immediately.
- Board Questions:
- Supervisor Wolfe asked about the potential for 14 domestic connections mentioned in a Public Health Department letter. Staff clarified that this assumes every parcel justifies a farm worker dwelling, which is unlikely given the grazing focus.
- Supervisor Gray asked about the current water source for existing residences. Staff confirmed they are served by bottled water delivery.
- Public Comment: 16 speakers were recognized.
- 1. Andy Caldwell (COLAP): Supported the project, calling the landowner's offer of trails and beach access "generous." Argued that demands for additional trails are disproportionate and greedy, especially given the lack of nexus. 2. Paul Van Leer (Ranch Manager): Opposed the alternative trail alignments, citing native habitats, erosive soils, and the high cost of construction (bridges, etc.). Emphasized the impact on the cattle operation and urged the Board to accept the offered trails. 3. Tyke Minetti (Rancher): Supported the project, noting the landowner's intent to preserve agriculture. Expressed concern about public safety, vandalism, and dogs interfering with cattle if trails are placed through the ranch. Suggested fencing any trails to keep the public in a corridor. 4. Russell McLaughlin (Briarcliff Trust): Opposed the south-highway trail alignment. Cited concerns about trespassing, privacy (client is a celebrity), sensitive biological habitat (red-legged frog, native grasses), Chumash archaeological sites, and public safety risks (railroad crossings, cliffs, Caltrans staging area). 5. Brett DeCampo: (Speaker introduced, but transcript cuts off before his statement is fully recorded). 6. Opposition to Proposed Trail Alignment: Several speakers, including representatives for the Briarcliff property, the Santa Barbara County Trails Council, the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, and CRATAC (County Riding and Hiking Trails Advisory Committee), expressed concerns regarding the proposed trail location north of Highway 101. Arguments included potential invasion of privacy for adjacent properties, safety hazards related to railroad tracks and cattle operations, and the failure of the EIR to adequately analyze alternative trail alignments closer to the ocean. Speakers cited the California Coastal Act and local coastal plans, arguing that the trail should be within the "sights and sounds" of the ocean. Several speakers requested that the Board return the project to the Planning Commission to recirculate the EIR with a more robust analysis of trail alternatives, agricultural impacts, and other environmental factors. 7. Support for Applicant’s Proposal: Speakers representing the applicant, the Las Flores Ranch, and local agricultural interests supported the applicant’s proposed trail alignment. Testimony highlighted that the applicant’s proposal proactively offered coastal access while maintaining the viability of the agricultural operation. Speakers argued that the current proposal complies with county rules and that the EIR adequately addressed the project's impacts. One speaker noted that the applicant’s offer was generous compared to neighboring properties and urged the Board to approve the project to preserve long-term agricultural productivity through Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
- Staff and Legal Input: Staff clarified that the Caltrans staging area is outside the project boundary and provided distance estimates between the proposed trail and nearby private residences. Staff confirmed that the EIR did not extensively detail the seasonality of cattle calving operations, a point raised by Supervisors and ranchers. County Counsel explained the Nollan-Dolan test, noting that the Board must determine if there is an essential nexus between the project’s impacts and the trail exaction, and if the exaction is roughly proportional to those impacts. Counsel stated that the decision is fact-specific and within the Board’s discretion.
- Motion and Vote:
- Motion: Supervisor Farr made a motion to direct staff to conduct additional analysis and revise the EIR in several areas, including aesthetics, biology, hazardous materials, agricultural resources, historic resources, water systems, and trail alignments. The motion further directed that, after the EIR is revised and recirculated as necessary, the project be returned to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the entire project before returning to the Board of Supervisors for final decision.
- Second: Supervisor Carbajal seconded the motion.
- Vote Outcome: Passed.
Agenda Item: Jail Medical and Mental Health Services Presentation (Corizon Contract Status)
- Discussion and Presentation: Staff presented the current status of health care services provided to inmates, noting that the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office has provided these services through a contract with Corizon since 1995. The current contract extension expires in June 2013. Staff reported that the department is pursuing accreditation through the National Commission for Correctional Health Care (NCCHC). The process is currently in the self-survey phase, with identified gaps related to custody facility layouts, privacy for evaluations, and staffing levels. Staff stated that data collection for one year is required before the formal application process can begin.
- Staff provided statistics for 2011, noting an increase in sick call requests and outpatient appointments (up 26% from 2010), primarily due to obstetrical and public health clinic visits. Mental health patient numbers remained relatively stable. Staff highlighted improvements in pre-release planning and collaboration with community partners, including the implementation of weekly multidisciplinary meetings to address complex medical and mental health cases. Staff also noted that AB 109 has impacted jail population trends, shifting the ratio of pre-adjudicated to sentenced inmates and increasing the average daily population in early 2012.
- Board Inquiries and Requests: Board members requested specific information regarding the NCCHC self-survey findings, corrective action plans, and timelines for implementation. A request was made for a memo outlining these issues. Additionally, Board members requested data on the average pre-adjudication period for inmates and the budgetary implications of the Corizon contract compared to previous years. Questions were raised regarding the suspension of Medi-Cal/Medicaid coverage upon incarceration and the current process for billing private insurance for inmate medical services. Staff indicated they are considering adding a billing position to the next contract.
- Public Comment: Nine members of the public addressed the Board. Comments included:
- Concerns regarding the adequacy of medical and mental health care, with specific allegations of neglect and poor conditions in safety cells.
- Criticism of the privatization of jail health services and calls for an independent public oversight panel to handle complaints.
- Testimony from family members of inmates describing personal experiences with the jail system, including delays in treatment and lack of communication.
- Advocacy for alternative solutions to incarceration, such as supportive housing, rehabilitation, and crisis beds, arguing that jail is detrimental to individuals with mental illness and substance abuse issues.
- Requests for the Board to address homelessness and the "revolving door" of incarceration, including specific issues with illegal camping tickets and lack of safe sleeping options.
- One speaker directed personal blame at a specific Board member regarding the release of funds for mental health services.
- Motion and Vote:
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to receive and file the presentation.
- Vote Outcome: Passed.
Agenda Item 4: County Executive Office’s Hearing to Consider Recommendations Regarding the Mentally Ill and Homeless Recidivism Cost Analysis
- Report Presentation: Mr. Buzanich presented a staff report responding to a Grand Jury request for a cost comparative analysis between incarceration and providing supportive services to mentally ill and homeless individuals. The report was described as a "10,000-foot view" intended to provide a snapshot comparison of core services necessary to move individuals from homeless to housed, housed to treated, treated to employed, and employed to engaged. Key data points included in the presentation:
- Population Statistics: Approximately 72% of the severe mentally ill homeless population has co-occurring substance abuse issues; 77% have spent time in jail.
- Current Resources: General Relief provides a maximum of $91/month for three months; CalFresh provides up to $200; SSI provides $625–$938/month.
- Cost Analysis:
- Stabilizing services (housing, treatment, etc.): Approximately $33,500 per person per year.
- Incarceration costs (housing, security, food, mental health evaluation/treatment, medical treatment): Approximately $44,500 per person per year.
- This represents an approximate 25% cost gap favoring stabilizing services.
- Challenges: Limited housing capacity, service effectiveness/recidivism rates, and the importance of effective transition planning upon release.
- Discussion:
- Supervisor Wolf inquired about specific outreach efforts to convert General Relief recipients to SSI. Mr. Buzanich stated that DSS staff advocates for conversion, with an estimated 7% monthly conversion rate, and offered to provide comparative data with other counties.
- Supervisor Lavagnino suggested considering a hybrid model for the proposed North County Jail, utilizing open space for mental health treatment rather than standard incarceration, to address the unsuitability of jails for mentally ill individuals.
- Supervisor Carbajal supported the hybrid jail concept and emphasized the need for a strategic plan to avoid the report being merely filed without action. He noted resource constraints from state/federal levels but advocated for creative leadership and incremental improvements in housing capacity and services.
- Supervisor Wolf referenced the AB 109 realignment program, noting that it allows for alternative sentencing and community-based supervision for certain individuals, potentially reducing jail populations.
- Motion and Vote:
- Motion: To continue Agenda Item 5 (not Item 4) to May 8 due to time constraints and the presence of 14 public speakers.
- Second: Seconded.
- Vote: Passed.
- Public Comment: The Board accepted public comment on the Ten Year Plan and the current agenda item. Speakers included:
- Michael Cravens (Consumer Advocacy Coalition): Stated that lack of mental health services leads to incarceration and homelessness.
- Ronald Caldwell (Casa Esperanza): Argued that individuals need transitional residential treatment prior to housing to prevent failure and relapse.
- Emily Allen (Attorney): Cited a US Interagency Council on Homelessness report, recommended scattered-site housing with supportive services, and noted the need to restore social worker positions at the Public Defender’s Office.
- Lois Hamilton (Families Act): Advocated for using AB 109 funds to shift from punishment to rehabilitation and referenced a Families Act report on model programs.
- Maureen Earles (CLU): Recommended the report be sent back for rewriting with engagement from the "Bring Our Community Home" collaborative.
- Michael Foley (Bring Our Community Home): Criticized the report as incomplete, arguing that incarceration costs were understated (excluding police, court, and ER costs) and supportive housing costs were overstated (citing Pathways to Housing model costs). He cited examples of long waits for psychiatric beds.
- Mike Cordero (Santa Maria City Council): Supported Foley’s comments and noted the impact of recidivism on city budgets.
- Nancy Spear: Urged collaboration between Sheriff, Probation, and Mental Health departments to reallocate funding toward treatment.
- Deborah McRoberts: Suggested removing 72% of dual-diagnosis inmates from jail into treatment, building crisis beds, and starting treatment while incarcerated.
- Corinne Neal (Families Act): Shared personal experience of homelessness and advocated for better intervention at the point of arrest using CARES.
- Linda Schad: Argued that incarceration damages mentally ill individuals and suggested alternative models like HICAP for SSI enrollment.
- Suzanne Riordan: Called for action on a "new paradigm," proposing a community forum in May, sober living houses, and job training.
- Dr. Robert Johns: Recommended hiring a supervising and clinical psychologist for the jail to provide therapy and group support.
- Amanda Devlin: Emphasized the importance of case management and volunteer opportunities for independent living skills.
- Sheriff Jim Peterson: Clarified that the Phase 2 AB 900 project for the North County Jail includes 16 medical and mental health beds. He noted that AB 109 realignment places strain on county services by keeping individuals in local facilities longer, requiring more medical and mental health resources.
- Bev Taylor (Probation): Stated that AB 109 funds are being used to provide enhanced services, including substance abuse and mental health, through day report centers and partnerships with ADMHS and other providers. She noted a shift toward split sentences allowing for community-based alternatives.
- Supervisor Gray: Expressed frustration that while there is consensus on the need for supportive housing and services, there is a lack of clear direction on implementation. He questioned how to move beyond the report to actionable steps, noting that current laws require booking individuals who commit crimes into jail unless a judge intervenes.
- Conclusion: The Board concluded the session for the day, having continued Agenda Item 5 to a future date. No further motions were taken on Agenda Item 4 beyond the acceptance of the report and the filing of the letter to the Grand Jury, as implied by the staff's request to "accept and file the staff report" and the subsequent discussion. The transcript ends with Supervisor Gray's question to staff regarding implementation strategies.
Agenda Item: Grand Jury Response and Supportive Housing/Incarceration Analysis
- Discussion:
- Stakeholder Coordination: A speaker noted the existence of multiple stakeholder groups (including "Bringing Our Community Home," "Common Ground," and the Mental Health Commission) working on related issues, such as the probation AB 109 plan. It was suggested that these groups should be brought together to focus efforts rather than meeting separately. A representative indicated willingness to provide ongoing updates to the board on this coordination effort.
- Critique of Report Conclusions: A board member stated that the report did not go far enough, particularly regarding the conclusion that funding supportive services would not result in equivalent savings to the county due to treatment effectiveness rates and funding variety. The member argued that the 25% cost difference between supportive housing and incarceration was significant and required further analysis.
- Action Plan Request: The same board member criticized the report’s conclusion regarding limited housing capacity, stating that citing a lack of funds was insufficient. They requested that the board treat this as a first step and direct staff to return with an action plan for priorities after consulting with stakeholder groups and reviewing the Families Act report.
- Administrative Correction: A board member noted an error in the draft letter to the courts, which listed two different judges' names, and requested that one be selected before signing.
- Role of Courts: Discussion shifted to the role of the judiciary in addressing mental health issues at intake and sentencing. It was noted that while the board can request cooperation, the courts operate independently. Mention was made of existing mental health courts in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria, where mental health staff provide assessments. A representative from the courts expressed interest in participating in the conversation.
- Motion and Vote:
- Motion: A motion was made to accept and file the report as a first step, including the letter to the courts, and to provide additional guidance and direction for staff to begin conversations with the courts.
- Second: The motion was seconded.
- Vote Outcome: The motion passed.
Adjournment
- The Chair announced that the meeting was recessing (not adjourning) to the Emergency Operations Center, where the meeting would conclude.