Board of Supervisors — 2020-11-10

CEO Report

• The county received three 2020 Challenge Awards from the California State Association of Counties.
• Awards recognized Public Works for the Barone Ranch restoration, Human Resources for a job match program, and the District Attorney’s arson task force.

Supervisor Announcements

• Supervisor Lavinino announced a Veterans Day drive-through event scheduled for November 11 outside the Joe Centeno Government Building.
• The event includes service contact lists and gift cards, supported by a $5,000 donation from Coast Hills.

Clerk Announcements

• Administrative Item A24 regarding an emergency occupancy agreement was continued to the November 17 agenda.
• An addendum was posted to the agenda adding a hearing on encampments in Isla Vista and temporary emergency sheltering options.

Outside Counsel Contract (Item A9)

• The board approved a contract with Churchwell White LLP for the Independent Redistricting Commission.
• The contract is structured to terminate on January 31, 2021, unless the Commission indicates it wishes to continue.
• This temporary arrangement allows the Commission time to select its own counsel without pressure.

Budget Report (Item A16)

• The board received and filed the fiscal year 2020–2021 first quarter budget and financial status report.
• Staff clarified that increased cannabis tax revenue would remain in fund balance as a financing source for the next fiscal year.

COVID-19 Health Officer Orders (Item A34)

• The board considered an ordinance to adopt remedies, including administrative fines, for violations of county health officer orders.
• The motion to approve the item passed with a 3 to 2 vote.

COVID-19 Update and Data Dashboard (Departmental Item 1)

• Public Health reported 10,230 cumulative cases and noted the county remains in the Red tier of the Blueprint for a Safer Economy.
• Staff introduced a new Community Data Dashboard featuring interactive charts for testing rates, healthcare capacity, and demographics.
• The dashboard is available in English and Spanish and includes data on hospital capacity and community impact metrics.

Commission for Women Annual Report

• The Commission presented its annual report, highlighting activities such as the Veterans Stand Down collaboration and CEDAW resolutions.
• Commissioners outlined future plans to develop an equity and inclusion action plan and fill open district positions.
• The board unanimously accepted the report.

COVID-19 Ordinance Amendments (Departmental Item 3)

• Staff recommended extending the expiration date of the Temporary Development Standards Suspension Ordinance.
• The amendments apply to the Montecito Land Use and Development Code, Article 2, and the County Land Use and Development Code.
• The board unanimously approved the staff recommendations and adopted the ordinances.

Lot Line Adjustment Appeal (Departmental Item 4)

• The board heard arguments regarding a lot line adjustment and recorded map modification for properties on Toro Canyon Road.
• The appellant argued that the Planning Commission failed to adequately protect habitat and enforce previous conditions.
• The applicant refuted claims of unauthorized development, citing staff investigations that found no violations.
• The board unanimously upheld the project and denied the appeal.

Homeless Encampments and Temporary Shelter (Departmental Item 5)

• Staff proposed a temporary non-congregate shelter in Isla Vista with up to 40 beds and 20 pallet houses.
• The project is estimated to cost $900,000, funded by CARES Act and Emergency Solutions Grant funds.
• Good Samaritan Shelter was identified as the operator, providing 24/7 security and housing navigation services.
• The board moved to adopt the staff recommendation for conceptual approval of the shelter.

Closed Session

• The board considered matters involving potential civil litigation, real property negotiations for the Beachside Cafe lease, and the Navigation Resource Center.
• County Counsel reported that there were no reportable actions from the closed session.

Meeting Start and Roll Call

• The November 10, 2020, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. The clerk called the roll, and all members were present. The board pledged allegiance to the flag.

Approval of Minutes (October 20, 2020)

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

CEO Report

• Discussion: CEO Miyasato reported that the county received three 2020 Challenge Awards from the California State Association of Counties. The awards recognized:
• 1. Public Works for the Barone Ranch restoration project (purchasing over 1,000 acres to secure a buffer zone adjacent to the landfill). 2. Human Resources for an employee job match program established during the disaster to reassign county and mutual aid employees. 3. The District Attorney’s arson task force for education, prevention, and investigation efforts.

Supervisor Announcements

• Supervisor Lavinino: Announced a Veterans Day drive-through event scheduled for the following day (November 11) from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM outside the Joe Centeno Government Building. The event would include bags of goodies, gift cards, and service contact lists. He noted a $5,000 donation from Coast Hills and thanked Supervisor Hartman for promoting the event.

Clerk Announcements

• Public Comment: The clerk reminded the public that comments could be made by phone at 805-568-2240.
• Continuance: Administrative Item A24 (Public Health request to ratify an emergency occupancy agreement with Best Western Plus and Senina Inn & Suites) was continued to the November 17 agenda at the request of the department.
• Addendum: An addendum was posted to the agenda adding Departmental Item 5 (Community Services hearing regarding encampments in Isla Vista and temporary emergency sheltering options for COVID-19 response).

Administrative Agenda – Item A9 (Outside Counsel Contract)

• Item: Consider recommendations regarding an outside counsel contract with Churchwell White LLP for the Independent Redistricting Commission.
• Discussion: Supervisor Williams suggested approving the contract on a temporary basis until the Commission’s December meeting when it would have 11 members, allowing the Commission to choose its own counsel. Supervisor Adams suggested extending the temporary period to January 31, 2021, to allow the Commission time to process the decision without pressure. County staff (Ghazani) noted the contract has a 30-day termination clause and suggested the motion be structured so the contract terminates on January 31, 2021, unless the Commission indicates it wishes to continue. Chair Hart agreed to this structure to ensure the Commission makes an active decision.
• Motion: Approve the contract, subject to termination on January 31, 2021, absent the Independent Redistricting Commission indicating they want to continue the contract.
• Second: Supervisor Hartman.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Agenda – Item A16 (Budget Report)

• Item: Receive and file the fiscal year 2020–2021 first quarter budget and financial status report as of September 30, 2020.
• Discussion: Supervisor Lavinino asked for clarification regarding cannabis tax revenue, noting an increase from an estimated $10.6 million to $14 million. County staff confirmed that the additional funds would sit in fund balance and become available as a financing source for the next fiscal year’s budget, absent board action to appropriate them mid-year.
• Action: The item was received and filed. No separate vote was taken.

Administrative Agenda – Item A34 (COVID-19 Health Officer Orders)

• Item: Consider recommendations regarding an ordinance to adopt remedies, including administrative fines, for violations of county health officer orders pertaining to COVID-19.
• Discussion: Supervisor Adams requested a roll-call vote.
• Motion: Approve the item.
• Second: Supervisor Williams.
• Vote: The motion passed 3 to 2.

Approval of Balance of Administrative Agenda

• Motion: Approve the balance of the administrative agenda, including the continuance of Item A24 to November 17.
• Second: Supervisor Williams.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

General Public Comment

• Paul Bradford (Patterson Neighborhoods): Representing 356 neighbors, he expressed concern about SB35 legislation and its impact on local control. He requested that the board direct staff to prepare a list of "objective standards" used to evaluate SB35 projects and recommendations for incorporating local community plan standards. Chair Hart stated she would follow up on his email.
• Isabel Nava: Spoke on behalf of her late grandson, Anthony Padilla, who died by suicide. She cited a lack of psychiatric health facilities and funds in the county as contributing factors and urged the board to allocate resources for mental health care. Supervisor Williams responded by noting that the county is expanding its bed system with various types of care to ensure psychiatric beds are available for those who qualify, which would improve access to appropriate care.

Departmental Item 1 (COVID-19 Update)

• Item: Hearing to consider recommendations regarding a COVID-19 update.
• Presentation:
• Dr. Doronoso (Public Health): Reported 10,230 cumulative cases, 164 active cases (a 39% increase from the previous period), and 131 cumulative deaths. She noted a 68% decrease in new cases in Isla Vista and an 183% increase in Santa Barbara. She provided context on state, national, and global case trends. Regarding the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, the county is currently in the Red tier. She anticipated the adjusted case rate would be 4.3, positivity rate 1.8%, and health equity metric 2.8%. She noted that hospitalizations are stable locally, unlike in other jurisdictions, possibly due to the age distribution of cases and stability in skilled nursing facilities.
• Terry Mosnisch (Assistant CEO): Introduced the new Community Data Dashboard, a public-private partnership funded by philanthropic efforts. The dashboard builds on existing surveillance metrics and adds interactive charts for testing rates, case rates, healthcare capacity, and demographics. It is available at publichealthsbc.org and in both English and Spanish.
• Carl Palmer (Legacy Works): Demonstrated the dashboard’s features, including tabs for status, cases, geography, healthcare, demographics, and community impact. He highlighted data on hospital capacity (56% total beds occupied, 61% ICU beds, 11% ventilators in use), demographic impacts (older adults and Latinx communities bearing disproportionate burdens), and community impact metrics (employment, school status, food insecurity, homelessness, and substance abuse services).
• Dr. Lynn Fitzgibbons (Infectious Disease Physician): Expressed gratitude for the dashboard, noting its utility for tracking the epidemic and making data-driven predictions. She emphasized the importance of the community impact tab.
• Steve DeLera (Family Service Agency): Highlighted the dashboard’s role in providing transparency and allowing the community to analyze data by region, noting that different areas may be in different tiers (e.g., Santa Maria in widespread while the county is in substantial).
• Board Comments:
• Chair Hart thanked the team for the collaboration and highlighted the dashboard’s accessibility in Spanish and its value for transparency.
• Supervisor Hartman praised the partnership and the public health department’s responsiveness. She expressed a vision for applying similar data-driven metrics to other county programs.
• Public Comment:
• Andy Caldwell (Colab): Criticized the omission of Sweden from the Johns Hopkins comparison chart presented by staff. He argued that case counts are less meaningful than hospitalizations and deaths, and questioned the continued shutdown status given high testing volumes and negative results. He urged staff to consider alternative metrics and the possibility of herd immunity.
• Motion: Accept the report.
• Second: Supervisor Hartman.
• Vote: The transcript ends during the roll call for this motion. The outcome is not stated in this part of the transcript.

Agenda Item: Commission for Women Annual Report

• Presentation: Eva Camarena, Executive Assistant for the Community Services Department, introduced the Commission for Women. Chair Margaret Margs Fitzwilliam and Vice-Chair Yvette Peralta presented the annual report, outlining the commission’s mission to promote the well-being and equal status of women across the gender spectrum in Santa Barbara County.
• Activities Discussed: The presentation covered the commission’s subcommittees (Advocacy, Leadership Development, Listening Sessions, Policy, and Veterans Stand Down) and recent activities, including:
• Collaboration with the Veterans Stand Down program in Santa Maria, including the production of a video featuring women veterans experiencing homelessness.
• Participation in Women’s Marches in Santa Maria and Santa Barbara.
• Hosting a "Women in Government" forum at Allan Hancock College.
• Sponsorship of the 2020 Leadership Summit and the "Her Festival" in Goleta.
• Distribution of masks and menstrual hygiene products during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Presentation of annual service awards to recipients from each of the five districts.
• Adoption of CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) resolutions in all eight cities within the county.
• Support for student poll workers during the 2020 presidential election.
• Future Plans: The commission outlined plans to historicize its relationship with the Veterans Stand Down, develop district award nominees for March 2021, convert its Facebook page to public, and seek collaborative partnerships. They noted a need to fill three commission positions in the Fourth District and one in the Third District.
• Public Comment:
• Supervisor Williams expressed support for discussing CEDAW further.
• Supervisor Hartman noted that the Third District appointee is in process and thanked the commission for their work.
• Supervisor Lavagnino congratulated Commissioner Tracy Beard on her recognition and thanked the commission for their support of the Veterans Stand Down.
• Commissioner Susanne Peck provided background on CEDAW, noting that while 163 countries have signed it, the U.S. has not, and urged the Board to pass a CEDAW ordinance.
• Commissioner Tracy Beard stated the commission’s goal to work with the CEO’s office and HR to create an action plan for equity and inclusion in 2021.
• Motion and Vote:
• Supervisor Hartman moved to accept the report.
• The motion was seconded.
• Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 3: Planning and Development – COVID-19 Ordinance Amendments

• Presentation: Staff presented recommendations to extend the expiration date of the Temporary Development Standards Suspension Ordinance related to COVID-19. The original amendments, approved in June 2020, were set to expire on December 16, 2020, or upon the termination of the local emergency declaration, whichever came first.
• Proposal: The proposal seeks to amend the Montecito Land Use and Development Code (MLUDC), Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance, and the County Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) to extend the expiration date until the earlier of the Board declaring the local emergency terminated or the specific COVID-19 provisions being terminated by ordinance amendment.
• Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended that the Board make findings for approval, determine the amendments are exempt from CEQA, and adopt the ordinances for Case Numbers 20 ORD 8 (MLUDC), 20 ORD 9 (Article 2), and 20 ORD 10 (LUDC).
• Public Comment: No public comments were received.
• Motion and Vote:
• A motion was made to approve the staff recommendations.
• The motion was seconded.
• Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 4: Planning and Development – Appeal of Lot Line Adjustment

• Presentation: Staff presented an appeal by Mr. Alger regarding the County Planning Commission’s June 10, 2020, approval of a lot line adjustment and recorded map modification (Case Numbers 19 LLA3 and 19 RRM1) for properties at 785 and 805 Toro Canyon Road.
• Project Details: The project involves adjusting property lines and modifying building and development envelopes between two lots for future residential development. No structural development is currently proposed.
• Appellant’s Arguments: The appellant’s attorney, Ms. Petrovich, argued that the Planning Commission failed to adequately prohibit further damage to habitat, failed to require the removal of non-native invasive plants, and failed to require the removal of a road that displaced native vegetation. She presented evidence of vegetation clearing and widening of a road, arguing these actions violated recorded lot split conditions and constituted "development" requiring a permit. She requested additional conditions, including the removal of invasives, replanting with natives, biological monitoring, and limiting the road to fire access only.
• Applicant’s Response: The applicant’s representative, Mr. Lloyd, attempted to present his case but experienced significant technical difficulties with audio and video connections via Zoom. After multiple breaks and troubleshooting, the Board was able to hear him, but the transcript ends before his substantive presentation is completed.
• Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended denying the appeal, making required findings for approval, adopting a mitigated negative declaration, and granting de novo approval of the project.
• Status: The item was under discussion, with the applicant’s presentation interrupted by technical issues. No motion or vote was recorded in this portion of the transcript.

Agenda Item: Lot Line Adjustment and Record Map Modification (Toro Canyon Road Property)

Discussion and Presentation

• The applicant’s representative presented a proposal to increase the setback between two development envelopes from 10 feet to 50 feet to align with rural zone district designations. The presentation addressed assertions made by the appellant regarding past property modifications, specifically:
• Driveway Entry: The applicant stated the property has had two driveway entries for decades, refuting claims that a second entry was created in 2004.
• Vegetation Removal: The applicant explained that 2017 work involved the removal of dead eucalyptus trees and brush, coordinated with the fire department for fuel management. The applicant noted that an erosion control permit was obtained for road improvements, which prohibited asphalt paving but did not prohibit graveling or soil cement treatments.
• Road Grading: The applicant presented evidence that county grading inspectors investigated a 2017 complaint and found no unauthorized grading or widening of the road beyond what was permitted for drainage and weed removal.
• Conditions of Approval: The applicant stated that the conditions approved by the Planning Commission designate areas outside the development envelopes as "development exclusion areas," prohibiting any development or ground disturbance other than passive use. The applicant rejected additional conditions requested by the appellant, such as the removal of the pre-existing driveway or revegetation of areas where dead brush was removed, arguing these actions were already litigated and found to be in compliance with county policies in 2017.

Appellant and Opponent Comments

• Mr. Alger (Appellant’s Representative): Stated that the county previously informed them that enforcement of 2001 conditions and habitat protection would occur once a permit was filed. He argued that without further protection, there is a financial incentive for the applicant to deter native vegetation regrowth to prepare the area for future development.
• Ms. Petrovich (Appellant): Argued that the 2001 conditions were not enforced and questioned why new conditions would be enforced if previous ones were not. She cited slides showing the road was intended for dirt only with no widening, contrasting this with satellite imagery she claimed showed widening. She requested a condition requiring the restoration of vegetation on the mesa, stating that clearing nearly two acres of environmentally sensitive habitat was unjustified and potentially part of a strategy to propose future development.

Applicant Rebuttal

• The applicant’s representative refuted the claim that county staff refused to act, stating that staff investigated the 2017 work and found no violations. He argued that the current conditions of approval strictly prohibit development outside the envelopes and that any future development would require a new discretionary application subject to full county scrutiny. He characterized the appellant’s concerns as self-serving and lacking factual basis.

Staff Comments

• Ms. Plowman: Confirmed that the applicant’s description of the 2017 staff findings was generally accurate. She noted that the new conditions are enforceable and that staff will investigate any complaints of violations.
• Mr. Lee: Stated that the Planning Commission modified conditions in June to strengthen resource protection. The new conditions take effect upon recording of the map, require specific species to be marked on plans, and prohibit development, non-native ornamental landscaping, and grading outside the development envelopes.
• Mr. Tuttle: Added that the project description tightens language regarding activities allowed outside the development envelopes, providing greater protection for native vegetation and prohibiting non-native planting.

Board Deliberation

• Supervisor Williams: Noted that aerial photos suggest the road existed before the current owner and that vegetation changes may be seasonal. He expressed support for the staff’s professional opinion that no violation occurred.
• Supervisor Lavagnino: Questioned the path for future development on the mesa. Staff clarified that any such development would require a discretionary lot split application, which is appealable. Staff further noted that the minimum lot size in the zone is 10 acres, and the remaining parcel is 10.67 acres, making a split impossible without rezoning.
• Supervisor Hartman: Focused on the interpretation of "development" and the lack of restoration requirements for the mesa. She noted that while the new conditions restrict native vegetation removal and non-native planting, they do not require restoration of previously cleared areas. She expressed concern about invasive non-native grasses but voted to uphold the project.
• Supervisor Adams: Stated that the appellant had the opportunity to appeal the 2017 decision and that there was no violation. He supported approving the project.
• Supervisor Lavagnino: Commented on the high costs of the legal process compared to the potential cost of restoring the mesa, expressing frustration with the neighbor dispute.

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made and seconded to uphold the project and deny the appeal. Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.
• ***

Agenda Item: Closed Session

Discussion

• The Board recessed to closed session to consider three matters: 1. A matter of significant exposure to civil litigation involving the City of Goleta’s letter of October 15, 2020, regarding the 2002 Revenue Neutrality Agreement. 2. Real property negotiations concerning the existing lease of the Beachside Cafe (Parcel 071-200-017). 3. Real property negotiations concerning the Navigation Resource Center at 809 Chapala Street.

Report

• Upon reconvening, the County Counsel reported that there were no reportable actions from the closed session.
• ***

Agenda Item: Departmental Item 5 – Homeless Encampments in Isla Vista and Temporary Emergency Shelter

Staff Presentation

• Staff presented a concept for a temporary emergency shelter in Isla Vista to address health and safety issues arising from increased homeless encampments during the public health emergency. Key points included:
• Context: Encampments in Isla Vista parks have increased, leading to fire risks, law enforcement calls, and park deterioration.
• Proposal: A non-congregate shelter with up to 40 beds using the Isla Vista Community Center and up to 20 "pallet houses" on the adjacent parking lot owned by the Isla Vista Recreation and Parks District.
• Operator: Good Samaritan Shelter was identified as the proposed operator, providing 24/7 security, meals, showers, and intensive case management/housing navigation services.
• Cost and Funding: Estimated cost is $900,000, funded by CARES Act funds and Emergency Solutions Grant funds. Pallet houses cost approximately $8,000 per unit including assembly.
• Timeline: The shelter is proposed to operate from mid-December 2020 to mid-June 2021, with a ramp-down period in the final 60 days.
• Outcomes: Anticipated service for approximately 50 guests, with a goal of 15% achieving long-term housing placement.
• Recommended Action: Receive and file the report, provide conceptual approval of the shelter and navigation services, direct staff to return with agreements, and determine the action is not subject to CEQA.

Public Comment

• Father John Hedges: Supported the proposal, describing it as a wise and compassionate response to a "category five" disaster. He noted the pallet houses could be stored for future use and praised the case management bridge to further services.
• Emily Allen (United Way Home4Good): Supported the conceptual approval, stating the project meets immediate needs and focuses on long-term solutions through services and housing navigation. She expressed hope that the pilot would serve as a model for other areas.

Board Deliberation

• Supervisor Williams: Asked about the vendor and cost per unit. Staff identified the vendor as "The Pallet Company" and confirmed the $8,000 per unit cost. He emphasized the need to expand non-congregate housing options regionally.
• Supervisor Hartman: Highlighted the fire hazard posed by encampments and the cold weather conditions. She praised Good Samaritan and Sylvia Bernard for their leadership and capability. She described the pallet houses as an elegant solution and a necessary pilot.
• Chair Hart: Acknowledged the leadership of the task force and the success of the Roomkey South project in transitioning guests to permanent housing.
• Supervisor Williams: Asked for clarification on costs, noting the base cost of $2,450 per unit plus add-ons.
• Mr. Chapshian (Staff): Clarified that the cost includes services and land use agreements, not just the physical units.
• Mr. Chapshian (Staff): Tempered expectations, noting that the Isla Vista population may be more difficult to house than the Roomkey South population.
• Supervisor Lavagnino: Offered good luck to the project team, noting that many will be watching how it works.

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made and seconded to adopt the staff recommendation. Vote Outcome: The transcript ends during the roll call vote. The clerk called for votes from Ms. Hartman (Aye), Mr. Adams (Aye), and Mr. Lavagnino (Aye). The vote for Mr. Williams was called but the response is not recorded in this segment.

Adjournment and Memorial

• The Chair proposed adjourning the meeting in memory of Lori Romano, who passed away on October 24, 2020. The Chair provided factual details regarding Romano’s service as a 2nd District Commissioner on the South Board of Architectural Review (2007–2009 and 2012–2020), her professional affiliations, and her role as principal in charge of the Santa Barbara Central Library Plaza project. The motion to adjourn was seconded and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned until Tuesday, November 17, 2020.