Board of Supervisors — 2020-10-13

CEO Report and Great Shakeout Announcement

• The CEO’s office highlighted the upcoming "Great Shakeout" earthquake preparedness event.
• The OEM Director provided guidance on family preparedness, including securing items and registering for emergency notifications.
• No formal motion or vote was taken on this item.

Sub-Recipient Agreement with Housing Authority (Lompoc)

• Supervisor Williams emphasized the importance of creating permanent housing and shelters for individuals experiencing homelessness.
• The discussion noted state restrictions on certain outreach measures during the pandemic.
• No separate vote was taken as the item was part of the administrative agenda balance.

Non-Exclusive Easements for Storm Drain Lines (Santa Barbara Preserve LLC)

• A public commenter argued that the mapping was incomplete and that Planning Commission review was required.
• The Clerk of the Board stated that the CEQA component addressed environmental impacts and that the board had discretion to act.
• No separate vote was taken as the item was part of the administrative agenda balance.

Amendment to Ordinance for Supervisor Compensation

• A public commenter expressed concern about the board taking a Cost of Living Adjustment during the pandemic.
• Supervisors provided context regarding the use of funds and the message sent by the board.
• The motion to approve the item passed 3-2.

Coastal Resource Enhancement Fund (CREF) 2020-2021 Cycle

• A public commenter discussed the repayment of misappropriated CREF funds and their expected use for the Hollister Ranch Access Program.
• It was noted that the appropriation would not fully replenish the $1 million fund, but additional funds would be directed to the program as available.
• No separate vote was taken as the item was part of the administrative agenda balance.

Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) Allocation for COVID-19

• Supervisors expressed appreciation for the county’s investment in public health capacity and staff.
• Supervisor Adams supported the item while noting reservations about the longevity of government programs post-crisis.
• No separate vote was taken as the item was part of the administrative agenda balance.

Second Amendment to International Agreement for San Ysidro Interchange Improvements

• A public commenter cited additional expenditures for environmental review and requested a facilitated meeting to resolve an appeal.
• The commenter stated that county staff had refused offers of facilitated meetings to resolve issues regarding the coastal development permit.
• No separate vote was taken as the item was part of the administrative agenda balance.

Approval of Balance of Administrative Agenda

• Supervisor Hartman moved to approve the balance of the administrative agenda.
• The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Cannabis Retail Stores in Santa Ynez Valley

• A public commenter requested that the board consider exempting cannabis retail stores from specific unincorporated townships.
• The request cited high rates of youth drug use and a lack of sufficient buffer zones around schools.
• No action was taken on this item.

Hemp Regulation

• A public commenter asked for an update on the board’s plans to regulate or prohibit hemp.
• The commenter noted a previous private session regarding possible litigation.
• No action was taken on this item.

Departmental Item 1: COVID-19 Update

• Staff presented a quarterly demographic update covering testing volumes, positivity rates, and disproportionate impacts on specific populations.
• The board discussed the timeliness of public access to pandemic data and proposed posting agenda materials earlier in the week.
• The board agreed to endeavor to provide quarterly reports in a timely manner while acknowledging data availability constraints.
• The motion to receive and file the report and approve staff recommendations passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 2: Random Drawing for 2020 Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission (CIRC)

• Staff presented the process for selecting initial commission members via a random drawing conducted by the District Attorney.
• Board members and public commenters raised concerns regarding the demographic composition and transparency of the applicant pool.
• The District Attorney conducted the drawing, selecting one member from each of the five supervisorial districts.
• The motion to accept the results of the process and staff’s recommendations passed unanimously.

KPMG Report on Cannabis Permitting Process

• KPMG presented a report reviewing the cannabis permitting process, identifying three main takeaways for improvement.
• Six priority recommendations were detailed, including Excella integration, digital submission, and concurrent processing.
• Public commenters raised concerns regarding transparency, financial viability, and permitting in the San Ynez Valley.
• The motion to receive and file the report passed unanimously.

Existing Litigation – Southern California Fire Cases

• The Clerk of the Board presented the matter of existing litigation identified as the Southern California Fire Cases.
• The Clerk estimated the discussion would take approximately one hour.
• No motions were moved, seconded, or voted upon in this segment.

Closed Session

• The Clerk reported that the Board discussed the Southern California Fire Cases litigation matter.
• The Clerk stated there were no reportable actions taken during the closed session.

Meeting Start and Roll Call

• The October 13, 2020, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. The clerk called the roll, and all five supervisors (Lavinino, Williams, Hartman, Adams, and Chair Hart) were present. The board pledged allegiance to the flag.

Approval of Minutes (October 6, 2020)

• Discussion: No discussion was recorded.
• Motion: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

CEO Report and Great Shakeout Announcement

• Discussion: The CEO’s office directed attention to the upcoming "Great Shakeout" earthquake preparedness event. The OEM Director provided information on family preparedness, including identifying safe spots, securing items, and registering for ReadySBC.org emergency notifications. Supervisor Hartman added a personal note regarding the storage of emergency supplies.
• Decision: No formal motion or vote was taken.

Announcements

• Discussion: The Clerk announced the alternative method for public participation via phone (805-568-2240) and directed the public to page two of the agenda for details.

Administrative Agenda Items (Pulled for Public Comment)

Item 7: Sub-Recipient Agreement with Housing Authority (Lompoc)

• Discussion: Supervisor Williams highlighted the item, noting the importance of creating permanent housing and shelters for individuals experiencing homelessness, particularly in light of state restrictions on certain outreach measures during the pandemic. He acknowledged staff efforts in developing this solution.
• Decision: No separate vote was taken on this item at this time; it was part of the administrative agenda balance.

Item 9: Non-Exclusive Easements for Storm Drain Lines (Santa Barbara Preserve LLC)

• Discussion: A member of the public (Mark Shatillo, representing the Committee for Land, Air, Water, and Species) argued that the mapping was incomplete, the easement constitutes a disposal of real property subject to Government Code 65402, and that Planning Commission review and biological/cultural resource surveys were required. The Clerk of the Board stated that the CEQA component addressed the environmental impact report and that the board had discretion to act, though Planning Commission review was an option.
• Decision: No separate vote was taken on this item at this time; it was part of the administrative agenda balance.

Item 10: Amendment to Ordinance for Supervisor Compensation

• Discussion: A member of the public (Andy Caldwell, representing COLAB) expressed concern about the board taking a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) during the pandemic and recommended waiving it for the year and not making future increases automatic. Supervisor Adams stated he had made comments previously and requested a roll call. Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Adams provided additional context regarding the use of funds and the message sent by the board.
• Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item.
• Vote: The motion passed 3-2.

Item 12: Coastal Resource Enhancement Fund (CREF) 2020-2021 Cycle

• Discussion: A member of the public (Mark Shatillo, representing the Gaviota Coastal Trail Alliance) commented on the repayment of misappropriated CREF funds and their expected use for the Hollister Ranch Access Program under AB 1680. He noted that while the appropriation would not fully replenish the $1 million, additional funds would be directed to the program as they become available.
• Decision: No separate vote was taken on this item at this time; it was part of the administrative agenda balance.

Item 13: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) Allocation for COVID-19

• Discussion: Supervisor Williams expressed appreciation for the county’s investment in public health capacity and staff. Supervisor Adams acknowledged the public comment regarding the timing of raises but supported the item, noting the use of CARES Act funds for services, while expressing a reservation about the longevity of government programs post-crisis.
• Decision: No separate vote was taken on this item at this time; it was part of the administrative agenda balance.

Item 18: Second Amendment to International Agreement for San Ysidro Interchange Improvements

• Discussion: A member of the public (Tom Becker) discussed the San Ysidro roundabout project, citing an additional $35,000 expenditure for environmental review. He stated that county staff had refused three offers of facilitated meetings to resolve his appeal regarding the coastal development permit and had spent $8,000 on the appeal. He requested that the board direct staff to participate in a facilitated meeting with the County Counsel to resolve the issues before further taxpayer funds are spent.
• Decision: No separate vote was taken on this item at this time; it was part of the administrative agenda balance.

Approval of Balance of Administrative Agenda

• Motion: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve the balance of the administrative agenda. The motion was seconded.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

General Public Comment (Items Not on Agenda)

Cannabis Retail Stores in Santa Ynez Valley

• Discussion: Mary Conway, Director of the Santa Ynez Valley Youth Coalition, requested that the board consider exempting cannabis retail stores from the unincorporated townships of Santa Ynez, Los Olivos, and Ballard. She cited high rates of youth drug use in the area and the lack of sufficient buffer zones around schools and recreation areas.
• Decision: No action was taken.

Hemp Regulation

• Discussion: Renee O'Neill asked for an update on the board’s plans to regulate or prohibit hemp, noting she had asked repeatedly for three months. She mentioned a previous private session regarding possible litigation.
• Decision: No action was taken.

Departmental Item 1: COVID-19 Update

• Discussion: Dr. Duranosa and Senior Epidemiologist Joy Kane presented a quarterly demographic update covering March 1 through September 30, 2020. Key points included:
• Testing increased from 1,684 in March to a peak of 40,516 in July, stabilizing at ~30,000/month in August/September.
• Overall testing positivity was 5.6%, peaking at 8.4% in July and dropping to 3.7% in September.
• The 30-49 age group had the highest number of cases; the 70+ group had the lowest number of cases but the highest proportion of deaths.
• Hispanic/Latino populations were disproportionately impacted (65% of cases, 55% of deaths) compared to their population share (48%).
• Agricultural workers had the highest number of cases among occupations.
• North County unincorporated areas and Santa Maria had the highest case rates per 100,000 people.
• Most cases were attributed to close contact and community spread.
• 59 outbreaks occurred in congregate care settings between March and September.
• Recommendations included continuing partnerships with employment sectors, increasing prevention messaging to young adults, monitoring senior populations, and limiting gatherings.
• Blueprint for a Safer Economy Update:
• The county’s adjusted case rate was 4.2 (down from 5.8 the previous week).
• Testing positivity was 2.4%.
• The Health Equity Metric was 5.0.
• The county was in the red tier for 14 days, allowing K-12 schools the option to reopen for in-person learning.
• The Health Officer Order, anticipated to be issued that day, would maintain the prohibition on gatherings for two weeks to continue reducing case rates.
• There were 29 approved school waivers, one pending with CDPH (Children’s Montessori School of Lompoc), and one new waiver being processed (Peabody Charter Elementary).
• Questions and Comments:
• Supervisor Williams asked for the top three public health recommendations. Dr. Duranosa confirmed limiting gatherings, household quarantine, and basic precautions (masking, distancing).
• Supervisor Hartman asked about transmission rates in grocery stores. Ms. Kane noted grocery workers were not among the top occupations for case frequency, suggesting mitigation measures were effective.
• Supervisor Adams asked for context on occupation data relative to workforce percentages.
• Supervisor Hartman asked about the impact of cold weather on virus activity. Dr. Duranosa noted that indoor gatherings in winter could increase transmission risk.
• Supervisor Lavinino asked if the Santa Maria Acute Center outbreak was included in the recent case counts and if there was a strategy to discount those numbers.
• Data Timeliness Discussion: Board members discussed the timeliness of public access to pandemic data. Supervisor Adams proposed that agenda materials be posted on Friday afternoons rather than Monday afternoons to allow the public more time to review information. Staff explained that official state data is often received on Monday night or Tuesday morning, making Friday posting of real-time data difficult. Staff proposed a two-part approach: posting the regular board packet on Friday and sharing real-time updates as soon as they are received.
• Public Comment: One speaker representing CoLab criticized the Public Health Director’s statement regarding collaboration with the agricultural sector, asserting that farmers had not been invited to outreach committees. The speaker also criticized the board’s mask-wearing practices and cited external health guidance regarding reopening society and mask efficacy.
• Decision: The board agreed to endeavor to provide quarterly reports to the public in a timely manner when the board letter is filed, while acknowledging that real-time updates may only be available on the day of the meeting.
• Motion: A motion was made and seconded to receive and file the report and approve staff recommendations A through C.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 2: Random Drawing for 2020 Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission (CIRC)

• Background: Staff presented the process for selecting the initial five commission members via a random drawing conducted by the District Attorney. The County Elections Official had previously reviewed nearly 200 applications and selected the 45 "most qualified" applicants (nine from each of the five districts) based on criteria including analytical skills, impartiality, and appreciation for county demographics.
• Discussion: Board members raised concerns regarding the demographic composition of the 45-person applicant pool, noting it did not reflect the county’s diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, age, gender, or political party affiliation. Supervisor Hartman questioned why disqualified applicants in District 2 were not replaced to maintain a pool of nine per district and criticized the lack of transparency in the selection criteria used by the Elections Official. The Elections Official stated that the ordinance did not require replacing disqualified applicants and that the selection was based on subjective criteria defined in the ordinance, which did not mandate consideration of gender, age, or ethnicity for the initial pool. Supervisor Williams noted that the subsequent selection of the remaining six commissioners by the initial five is legally required to reflect county diversity and political party proportionality.
• Public Comment: Five speakers addressed the board.
• One speaker representing CoLab argued that the board should not criticize the Elections Official, as the board approved the process, and suggested that demographic disparities might be due to eligibility factors (e.g., age, citizenship) not accounted for in the board's comparisons.
• A representative for the League of Women Voters expressed concern that the pool did not reflect county diversity and that the process lacked transparency regarding how applicants were ranked.
• The Chair of the Santa Barbara County Democratic Party stated that the pool was created in secret without objective criteria and was disproportionate to the county’s demographics, urging the board to reopen the application process or open the entire pool to the initial commissioners.
• One speaker noted that the preliminary pool did not reflect the diversity required by Measure G and requested a Public Records Act response to understand the selection process.
• One speaker urged the board to refrain from selecting members from the current pool and instead direct a public review process to ensure the pool reflects county diversity.
• Board Comments: Board members expressed mixed views. Some expressed confidence that the independent commission would be fairer than the board drawing its own maps, while others reiterated concerns about the lack of transparency in the initial pool selection and the burden this places on the initial commissioners to correct demographic imbalances. The District Attorney stated that she was not given prior direction regarding objective criteria or public posting of criteria and expressed concern that the process might not meet statutory requirements for diversity, but indicated she would proceed with the drawing.
• Drawing Results: The District Attorney confirmed the presence of nine numbered balls in the drawing cage. The drawing was conducted for each of the five supervisorial districts, with the following results announced:
• District 1: Number 6 drawn, corresponding to Laura Katz.
• District 2: Number 4 drawn, corresponding to William McClintock. (Note: Balls 8 and 9 were removed from the cage for this draw as the district had only seven applicants.)
• District 3: Number 9 drawn, corresponding to Norman Bradley.
• District 4: Number 1 drawn, corresponding to Carrie Gray.
• District 5: Number 7 drawn, corresponding to Glenn Morris.
• Next Steps: Staff outlined the next steps, including the selection of six additional commissioners (one per district and one at-large) by the initial five, the engagement of third-party vendors for redistricting and legal counsel, and the requirement to hold at least 14 public meetings. The final submission date for new district maps is August 15, 2021, with a potential delay to December 15, 2021, depending on U.S. Census data availability.
• Motion: A motion was made to accept the results of the process and staff’s recommendations. The motion was seconded.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item: KPMG Report on Cannabis Permitting Process

• Discussion: Staff from the County Executive Office and the Planning and Development Department, along with KPMG, presented a report reviewing the cannabis permitting process. KPMG outlined their methodology, which included staff interviews, process mapping, data analysis, and benchmarking against other counties. Three main takeaways were identified:
• 1. Utilizing the Excella permitting management system to integrate business license and land use application workflows. 2. Improving internal coordination and timeline adherence between departments. 3. Establishing clear customer expectations for complete submissions and improving communication regarding fees and aging applications.
• Recommendations: KPMG detailed six priority recommendations:
• 1. Excella Integration: Merge the CEO’s office business license workflow with the Planning and Development Department’s Excella instance to streamline processes and reduce cycle times. 2. Digital Submission: Establish requirements for digital submission and review of plans using existing software (e.g., Box, Bluebeam) to allow concurrent review and real-time document access. 3. Concurrent Processing: Encourage customers to start the business license process at the beginning of the land use permitting process rather than sequentially, to allow for upfront fee collection and parallel departmental work. 4. Resubmittals: Develop an administrative policy requiring applicants to completely address all feedback notes during the feedback period to prevent case stagnation and ensure first-in, first-out processing. 5. Fee Process: Adopt the Planning and Development Department’s deposit reimbursement policies for the business license process to provide timely notification of fee status and allow for action on accounts in arrears. 6. Customer Resources: Develop a cannabis-based landing page with clear instructions and expectations.
• Implementation Updates: Department staff provided updates on implementation:
• The CEO’s office has implemented Excella for new business licenses since September, with full integration with Planning and Development anticipated in the second quarter of the next fiscal year.
• The Subdivision Development Review Committee is being expanded to include business license reviewers, with Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and fee updates planned for the second quarter of the current fiscal year.
• Digital plan review via Box and Bluebeam is being expanded to all reviewing departments.
• The department is working with County Counsel regarding the Permit Streamlining Act and administrative closure of inactive cases (over 90 days).
• Staffing is adequate, with a principal analyst for cannabis currently being recruited.
• Board Discussion: Supervisors discussed the benefits of parallel processing, the importance of clear application expectations to reduce back-and-forth, and the potential for KPMG to assist in designing a more effective auditing process for cannabis projects in the future.
• Public Comment: Three speakers addressed the board:
• 1. Mark Shatillo (Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis): Expressed concern over the lack of transparency and document availability, citing copyright issues. Requested that submittal documents require waivers of copyright/privilege, that the business license process be opened to public review, that planner manuals be created, and that odor abatement plans be more rigorously reviewed. 2. Renee O’Neill: Commended the staff and encouraged mandating that cannabis applicants enroll in the business license process at the start of the land use process. Raised concerns about financial viability and fraud, suggesting that fees be validated or bonded by financial resources to ensure applicants can pay county fees. 3. Jennifer Cabrera (San Ynez Valley Youth Coalition): Voiced objection to permitting cannabis business licenses in the unincorporated San Ynez Valley, citing concerns for youth and community character. Requested a pause in the permitting process and an across-the-board exemption for the San Ynez Valley, similar to exemptions granted in Montecito and Vandenberg Village.
• Clarification: Following public comment, Supervisor Hartman asked for clarification on the transparency of odor abatement plans and business license processes. Staff clarified that odor abatement plans are public documents upon submission and that the business license process requires the completion of the land use process. Staff confirmed they are working with counsel on copyright waivers for submitted materials. Supervisor Williams corrected the record regarding Montecito, stating it was not exempted but rather has limited zoning availability.
• Motion: A motion was made to receive and file the report. The motion was seconded.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item: Existing Litigation – Southern California Fire Cases

• Discussion: The Clerk of the Board presented the matter of existing litigation, identified as the Southern California Fire Cases. This is a Judicial Council coordination proceeding in Los Angeles County Superior Court, including the case Southern California Edison Company v. County of Santa Barbara (Lead Case Numbers BC 698429 and BC 699216). The Clerk estimated the discussion would take approximately one hour.
• Closed Session Report: Following a closed session, the Clerk reported that the Board discussed the same litigation matter. The Clerk stated there were no reportable actions taken during the closed session.
• Decision/Vote: No motions were moved, seconded, or voted upon in this segment. No decisions were recorded.

Adjournment

• The meeting was adjourned.