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
Independent Contractor Agreement (MJHMP Update)
- The board considered an agreement with Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions for the 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan update.
- Chair Nelson opposed the contract, citing a prior jury finding of fraud involving a local planner from the firm.
- Supervisor Hartmann moved to approve the item, which passed 4 to 1.
No decision 0–1
Black History Month Resolution
- Supervisors Williams and Hart sponsored a resolution to proclaim February 2021 as Black History Month in Santa Barbara County.
- Public commenters shared personal histories and emphasized the importance of acknowledging African American achievements and historical oppression.
- The board responded to critical public comments regarding housing policies and civil rights issues.
- The motion to adopt the resolution passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
COVID-19 Update and Vaccination
- Public Health reported a 50% decrease in active cases but a 29% increase in deaths over the previous two weeks.
- The county remains in the Purple Tier with an adjusted case rate of 47.2 per 100,000.
- Staff detailed the transition to a third-party administrator for vaccine distribution and the current allocation of approximately 6,000 doses per week.
- Recommendations included limiting gatherings to three households or fewer, outdoors, for less than two hours.
State Emergency Rental Assistance Program
- Staff presented three options for administering the county’s $13 million in federal funds alongside state ERAP funds.
- The board expressed concern about the state’s capacity to administer the program and the need for bilingual outreach.
- Supervisor Hartmann moved to adopt the hybrid model (Option 3) as general direction, allowing staff to gather more information before a final decision.
- The motion to proceed with the hybrid model passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
Commercial Cannabis Licensing Amendments
- Staff proposed amendments to streamline plan review, clarify definitions, and align ownership change thresholds with state requirements.
- The board discussed the impact of ownership changes on cap queue retention and the non-transferability of business licenses.
- Supervisor Lavagnino moved to adopt the recommended actions, including a direction to revisit cap retention issues in the future.
- The motion to adopt the ordinance amendments passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
Water Supply Contract Amendments
- Staff presented two amendments to the State Water Project contract, including a term extension to 2085 and changes to water trading rules.
- The Central Coast Water Authority requested a continuance to negotiate staff-proposed conditions regarding financial responsibility and revenue sharing.
- Public commenters from various water districts urged approval without conditions or requested a continuance for further discussion.
- The board voted unanimously to continue the item to the March 2, 2021 meeting for further staff negotiation.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
Full summary
Approval of Minutes (January 26, 2021)
- Discussion: No discussion was recorded.
- Motion: Supervisor Hartmann moved to approve the minutes; Chair Nelson seconded.
- Decision: The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
CEO’s Report
- Discussion: The CEO reported there was no report for the morning session.
Announcements and Agenda Changes
- Public Participation: The Clerk provided instructions for public comment via Zoom, including registration procedures, muting/unmuting protocols, and the three-minute time limit per speaker.
- Agenda Addendum: The Clerk announced the addition of Administrative Item A14, a resolution sponsored by Supervisors Williams and Hart to proclaim February 2021 as Black History Month in Santa Barbara County.
- Agenda Amendment: The Clerk announced an amendment to Departmental Item 1 (COVID-19 update) to add Recommendation B: to receive and file a presentation on federal and state rental assistance program funding and provide direction as appropriate.
Administrative Agenda Approval
- Discussion: Chair Nelson noted a preference to hear Item D3 (potential continuance) and confirmed board concurrence to proceed with the discussion. Chair Nelson pulled Administrative Item A1 for individual consideration. The Clerk noted Supervisor Williams intended to pull Administrative Item A14.
- Motion: Supervisor Hartmann moved to approve the balance of the administrative agenda, excluding Items A1 and A14; Chair Nelson seconded.
- Decision: The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
Administrative Item A1: Independent Contractor Agreement with Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Inc.
- Description: Consideration of recommendations regarding an independent contractor agreement for the 2022 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) update.
- Discussion: Chair Nelson expressed opposition to the contract, citing a prior jury finding that a local planner for the firm defrauded the county, and stated it was his fiduciary duty to oppose the agreement. Supervisor Hartmann moved for approval.
- Motion: Supervisor Hartmann moved to approve Item A1; Chair Nelson seconded.
- Decision: The motion passed 4 to 1.
No decision 0–1
Administrative Item A14: Resolution Proclaiming February 2021 as Black History Month
- Description: Adoption of a resolution sponsored by Supervisors Williams and Hart to proclaim February 2021 as Black History Month in Santa Barbara County, focusing on the national theme of the Black family, representation, identity, and diversity.
- Discussion:
- Supervisors Williams and Hart spoke in support of the resolution, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging historical oppression, violence, and the achievements of African Americans.
- Wendy Sims-Moten, Lawanda Lyons-Pruitt (NAACP), and Jordan Killebrew (Healing Justice) spoke in support, sharing personal histories and emphasizing the need for education and community engagement.
- Public commenter Tom Becker spoke, referencing his family history and criticizing the board and specific political groups regarding housing policies and civil rights issues.
- Supervisor Lavagnino expressed support for the speakers and the resolution.
- Supervisor Hartmann thanked the speakers and acknowledged the importance of listening to personal stories.
- Public commenter Simone IKEA requested that the board condemn the comments made by Mr. Becker, stating they were anti-Black and harmful.
- Supervisor Williams responded to Mr. Becker’s comments, characterizing his behavior as bullying and noting his history of lobbying against affordable housing.
- Supervisor Hartmann acknowledged the reprehensible nature of Mr. Becker’s statement and thanked Ms. IKEA for prompting a response.
- Supervisor Hart commented on the value of community solidarity and spiritual songs in celebrating Black history.
- Chair Nelson stated that while he found the characterization of a group as monolithic offensive, Mr. Becker had the right to speak in the public forum.
- Motion: Supervisor Williams moved to approve Item A14; the Clerk seconded.
- Decision: The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
General Public Comment (Items Not on Agenda)
- Andy Caldwell (COLAB): Spoke regarding the independent redistricting commission, expressing disappointment over the selection of legal counsel and demographic firms, and alleging conflicts of interest and bias in the process.
- Renee O’Neill: Spoke to commend the board for their previous comments, shared a lighthearted remark about Groundhog Day, and expressed appreciation for the service of the interim Chief of Police, Barney Molekians, noting his upcoming departure.
- Tom Becker: Spoke regarding affordable housing and transportation policies, asserting that county and state governments are targeting communities of color for high-density housing and preventing them from living in low-density single-family neighborhoods. He stated he is seeking facts to prove bias in these policies.
Departmental Item 1: COVID-19 Update
- Description: Hearing to consider recommendations regarding an update on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), including data, vaccination efforts, school plans, and rental assistance.
- Presentation (Dr. Del Reynoso, Public Health):
- Case Data: Active cases decreased by roughly 50% in the last two weeks of January (from 2,568 to 1,288). Isla Vista reported an increase in cases, while other areas showed decreases.
- Hospitalizations/Deaths: Hospitalizations decreased from 208 to 170. Deaths increased by 29% (from 231 to 298) over the past two weeks.
- ICU Availability: Increased from 7% to 17.1% but remains low.
- Blueprint Metrics: The county is in the Purple Tier. Adjusted case rate is 47.2 per 100,000 (down from 63.8). Positivity rate is 11.2%. Health equity metric is 16.7%.
- Recommendations: Limit gatherings, especially around Super Bowl Sunday. Keep gatherings outdoors, small (3 households or less), and short (less than 2 hours).
- Vaccination: The county has received 51,375 doses. 86% of received doses have been administered. Allocation is based on population and demographics. The state is transitioning to a third-party administrator (Blue Shield) framework.
- Schools: Working with six school districts on reopening plans. Reopening in the Purple Tier requires the case rate to fall below 25 per 100,000.
- Discussion/Questions:
- Supervisor Lavagnino asked for clarification on whether the dose counts included second doses and if there was a risk of shortage for upcoming second-dose appointments. Dr. Del Reynoso confirmed the counts included both first and second doses and that the county continues to receive allocations for both.
- Supervisor Williams asked for a breakdown of doses administered to the 75+ population and healthcare workers, and inquired about the maximum effective interval between first and second doses. Dr. Del Reynoso stated that demographic breakdowns were pending, and while CDC guidance allows up to six weeks, CDPH supports the 21–28 day timeframe.
- Supervisor Hartmann asked for an explanation of the vaccine allocation process. Dr. Del Reynoso explained that allocations are issued weekly by CDPH based on population and demographics, with a 96-hour administration requirement. The state is moving to a Blue Shield administration model.
- Vaccine Allocation and Administration: Staff explained that the state is transitioning to a third-party administrator to improve consistency and efficiency in vaccine distribution across counties. Staff noted that Santa Barbara County is currently receiving approximately 6,000 doses per week, which equates to vaccinating roughly 1.4% of the county’s population weekly. Staff confirmed that this per-capita rate is comparable to Los Angeles County.
- Equity and Scarcity: Staff stated that allocations are distributed using an equity lens to ensure access for eligible community members. It was noted that all jurisdictions in Southern California are experiencing vaccine scarcity and challenges with appointment availability.
- Data Reporting: Staff clarified that providers are required to enter vaccination data into the state system (CareNet) within 24 hours. However, data from skilled nursing and long-term care facilities may be submitted via paper or fax, creating a gap in real-time reporting. Staff indicated that the state is working to close this data gap.
- Antibodies and Prior Infection: In response to a question regarding individuals with prior COVID-19 infection and antibodies, staff stated that per CDC guidelines, the county encourages these individuals to delay vaccination to allow others who have not been exposed to receive the vaccine first.
- Variants and Mitigation: Staff expressed concern regarding new, more contagious variants of the virus, noting their detection in nearby counties. Staff recommended continued adherence to masking, social distancing, and limiting gatherings to three households or fewer, outdoors, for two hours or less.
- School Reopening: Staff confirmed that current in-person instruction metrics apply only to K-6 students. There are no current metrics or plans for high school in-person instruction.
- Wastewater Monitoring: Staff stated that while UCSB and private groups are monitoring wastewater for the virus, the County Public Health Department is not currently involved in these efforts.
- Public Comment:
- A parent and school board trustee requested that teachers and school staff be prioritized for immediate vaccination, citing their essential role and current in-person teaching duties.
- A representative for COLAB questioned the plan for administering second doses, noting conflicting public statements regarding the suspension of first-dose administration due to supply shortages.
- A resident raised concerns regarding density in housing and its impact on disease transmission, specifically questioning the disproportionate impact on Hispanic populations.
- A resident corrected a previous comment regarding vaccine efficacy against variants and advocated for the use of higher-quality masks (such as N95s) to mitigate the spread of more transmissible variants.
- Decision: No motion or vote was taken on this item.
Departmental Item 1 (Continued): State Emergency Rental Assistance (ERAP) Program
- Discussion:
- Program Overview: Staff presented information on the State Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and the county’s $13 million in direct federal funds from the U.S. Treasury. The state program requires landlords to forgive 20% of accumulated rental arrears in exchange for 80% of payments through the state fund.
- Options Presented: Staff outlined three options for the board:
- 1. Consolidate both the state and federal funds under state administration. 2. Consolidate both funds under county administration (noted by staff as requiring significant additional staffing, estimated at 20–30 employees). 3. A hybrid model where the state administers its $14 million allocation and the county administers its $13 million federal allocation.
- Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended Option 3 (Hybrid), citing concerns about the county’s current infrastructure to administer the combined program and the risk of delaying the disbursement of federal funds if tied to state deadlines and requirements.
- Board Concerns: Supervisors expressed concern about the state’s capacity to effectively administer the program and the potential for funds to remain unspent. There was discussion regarding the need to keep federal and state funds separate to maintain flexibility and ensure rapid deployment. Supervisors also raised the need for bilingual outreach and assistance for small landlords and tenants.
- Deadline: Staff noted a deadline of February 3 to submit an expression of intent to the state, with a full report scheduled for February 9.
- Public Comment:
- Four members of the public spoke. Comments included requests for teacher vaccination (reiterated from the previous item), questions regarding second-dose planning, concerns about housing density and public health impacts, and advocacy for improved mask usage.
- Motion and Vote:
- Motion: Supervisor Hartmann moved to adopt Option 3 (Hybrid model) as the general direction for staff, with the understanding that additional information and details would be reviewed before a final decision on February 9.
- Second: Supervisor Williams seconded the motion, adding that staff should seek the additional information requested by the board.
- Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
Departmental Item 2: Chapter 50 Licensing of Commercial Cannabis Operations Ordinance Amendments
- Description: Consideration of proposed amendments to the commercial cannabis licensing ordinance, resulting from nearly 10 months of collaboration with county departments, industry representatives, and community groups.
- Discussion:
- Key Changes:
- 1. Consolidated Plan Review: The site plan and site security plan reviews will be combined into a single process. Staff noted that separating these reviews previously caused delays when changes to the security plan required returning the application to planning. 2. Business License Timeline: Applicants will be required to submit a business license application within 15 days of receiving an approved set of plans from Planning and Development or a land use permit. This aims to prevent delays in the business licensing process after land use approval. 3. Definitions: Revisions to align definitions with Chapter 35 (Land Use and Development Code). 4. Consistent Submittals: Requirements for consistent information across processes, specifically submitting an approved premises diagram from Planning & Development (P&D) to reduce resubmittals. 5. Criminal History & Security: Clarification of employer responsibilities for criminal history checks (requested by the Sheriff’s Office) and allowing seasonal/temporary employees to work at multiple operations with transferable IDs and background checks (requested by industry). 6. Site Security Plan: Requirement to submit an approved site security plan to minimize revisions during the business licensing stage. 7. Tax Delinquency: Clarification that tax delinquency includes failure to file reports with the county, not just failure to pay taxes. 8. Change in Ownership: Alignment with state requirements by increasing the ownership change threshold from 10% to 20% and specifying notification timelines. 9. Appeals: Language limiting cannabis operations under appeal if the operator requests to continue hearings beyond 60 days. 10. Tax Reporting: Semantic language changes to clarify that the Treasurer-Tax Collector sets the frequency of required tax reports and acts as the county’s agent for cannabis revenue collection.
- Unaddressed Issues: Staff acknowledged that the amendments do not fully address the complex relationship between corporate operating structures and financial structures. Staff indicated that further coordination will be needed to vet changes in financial structures without halting operations or requiring complete resubmissions.
- Board Questions:
- Supervisor Hart asked how the board would accommodate ongoing dialogue regarding ownership disclosure and financial sources. Staff explained that the 10% to 20% threshold increase aims to ease requirements for operations where management stays the same but funding sources change. Staff noted that vetting financial sources separately from the business license process is a future regulatory challenge. Supervisor Hart asked about the administrative structure to ensure timely processing of the 15-day application requirement; staff and P&D representatives stated that consolidating site plan reviews would improve efficiency.
- Chair Nelson asked if a change in ownership would cause an operator to lose their position in the cap queue. Staff indicated that while the application would be on hold, the operator might not retain their place in line, as others could pass them. Supervisor Lavagnino expressed concern that removing an operator from the cap due to ownership change would be detrimental policy. Staff and the County Attorney noted that business licenses are currently non-transferable, creating tension with the desire for certainty. The board discussed the possibility of addressing transferability and cap retention in future amendments as the cap approaches saturation.
- Supervisor Hartmann expressed concern that land use permits should not be issued in perpetuity without a corresponding business license, advocating for mutual dependency. Staff and the County Attorney advised against changing the sequencing immediately, noting it could have unintended policy consequences and that the board has discretion to revisit this in the future.
- Supervisor Hartmann asked for clarification on inspection notice requirements and the definition of "nuisance" regarding odor control, particularly for AG-2 properties. Staff clarified that there is no prior notification requirement for inspections during normal business hours once an application is submitted. Regarding nuisance, the County Attorney stated that common law nuisance elements apply and that a successful civil nuisance case could serve as grounds for license revocation. The County Attorney recommended against adding the specific word "odor" to the "best available control technology" definition to avoid confusion with existing code language.
- Supervisor Hartmann questioned the inclusion of "grading" in the definition of cultivation. Staff explained that grading is a functional part of agricultural operations and the definition aligns with the Land Use Development Code.
- Public Comment:
- Amy Steinfeld (North County Farmers Guild): Supported most changes but urged clarity on ownership transfers to ensure operators do not lose their cap spot. Requested that partial ownership changes (e.g., adding a partner) be treated as renewals rather than new applications. Requested a time limit for the county to act on applications.
- Renee O’Neill: Requested specific time limits for process phases and deadlines for remedying corrections. Expressed concern over non-compliance by some growers. Recommended criminal history checks for all employees and proof of valid driver’s licenses/insurance for workers. Suggested a reward system for compliant operators and heavy penalties for non-compliance.
- Peter DeGray (Carp Growers): Supported efforts to streamline the process. Highlighted the association’s community investments and focus on odor control technology. Noted the professionalism of farms during the pandemic.
- Jared Ficker (Action Advisers): Supported the amendments but suggested mimicking state agency requirements for reporting financial interest holders to avoid triggering new license applications for minor changes.
- Sabrina Noah: Appreciated the changes but noted concerns about unintended consequences for operators in the permitting process. Requested further discussion on definitions of cultivation and manufacturing.
- Motion and Vote:
- Motion: Supervisor Lavagnino moved to adopt staff’s recommended actions A through D, with Recommended Action A amended to incorporate the revised language shown in PowerPoint slide number 6 from staff’s presentation. The motion also included direction for the board to revisit the issue of cap retention during ownership changes and to consider regular annual reviews of Chapter 50.
- Second: The motion was seconded.
- Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
Departmental Item 3: Public Works Board of Directors Flood Control and Water Conservation District; Hearing to consider recommendations regarding the request of the Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) to approve two water supply contract amendments.
- Description: Consideration of two amendments to the State Water Project (SWP) contract on behalf of CCWA.
- Discussion:
- Staff Presentation:
- Amendment 20 (Contract Extension): Extends the SWP contract term from 2038 to 2085. Staff noted this allows for the financing of capital expenditures over a longer period, eliminates the "project interest rate" (which previously resulted in a $1.4 million interest payment to CCWA for under-collected bills in 2018–2019), and increases "rate manager credits" by an estimated $8.5 million over the next 14 years. Staff emphasized that these financial benefits are not available under the existing "evergreen clause."
- Amendment 21 (Water Management): Modifies how SWP contractors buy, sell, and exchange water. It clarifies exchange ratios and compensation limits, allows for outright sales (transfers) of water between contractors without the requirement to return water, permits the sale of up to 50% of carryover water stored in San Luis Reservoir, and allows groundwater stored outside the contractor’s service area to be transferred without first returning to the service area. It includes provisions for transparency and dispute resolution.
- CCWA Position: Ray Stokes, Executive Director of CCWA, stated that the CCWA Board of Directors opposes two conditions proposed by County staff: (1) an amendment to the Transfer of Financial Responsibility Agreement (TEFRA) to match the new contract term and add a property tax levy provision for payment defaults, and (2) a requirement for a "revenue sharing of water sales agreement" for any water transfers. CCWA requested that the item be continued to the March 2, 2021, meeting to allow time for staff-to-staff discussions regarding these conditions.
- County Counsel Context: Senior Deputy County Counsel Johanna Hartley (via County Counsel) noted that the TEFRA dates from 1991 and that the proposed conditions aim to clarify implied terms and address liability concerns, specifically regarding the pre-Prop 13 tax exemption status of the extended contract. County Counsel stated the Board has the discretion to approve both, none, or one of the amendments.
- Board Questions and Responses:
- Supervisor Williams questioned the long-term benefit to the county of allowing water sales outside the county, suggesting that incentives should favor in-county storage and transfers.
- Supervisor Hartmann asked about potential future financial obligations if the State proposes larger projects (e.g., Delta Conveyance Project). Mr. Stokes responded that CCWA has already voted to opt out of the Delta Conveyance Project and requested the County execute that opt-out to avoid cost allocation.
- Supervisor Hart asked how these amendments relate to a previous CCWA request to assign the SWP contract to CCWA. Staff clarified that the current item involves amendments to the existing County-State contract, whereas an assignment would transfer the contract entirely to CCWA, relieving the County of liability. Mr. Stokes reiterated CCWA’s request for contract assignment to address County liability concerns.
- Supervisor Lavagnino suggested that any water sold outside the county should first be offered to in-county CCWA members via a right of first refusal.
- Chair Nelson asked if the amendments facilitate underground storage. Mr. Stokes confirmed the existing contract already allows for groundwater banking, but Amendment 21 allows for the sale of banked water outside the service area without returning it. He noted CCWA is analyzing water banking options, primarily outside Santa Barbara County.
- Public Comment:
- 1. Bob McDonald (Carpinteria Valley Water District): Supported the amendments and urged the Board to continue the item to March 2 to allow time for CCWA and County staff to resolve the conditions. He argued that water sales provide efficiency and financial flexibility for CCWA members. 2. Shade Springer (City of Santa Maria): Requested approval of the amendments without the staff-proposed conditions, arguing the conditions focus on County control rather than constituent benefits and could discourage investment in water supply. 3. Carolee Krieger (California Water Impact Network): Opposed both amendments, citing financial risks, potential debt from future state projects, and the unreliability of the SWP during droughts. She argued the County should use funds for regional desalination, conservation, and reclaimed water instead. 4. Nick Turner (Montecito Water District): Urged approval without conditions, stating the proposed conditions (tax levy and revenue sharing) are unjustified and would increase costs for customers. He highlighted the district’s use of water banking and desalination agreements. 5. Tobe Plough (Montecito Water District President): Supported the amendments for operational flexibility, particularly the ability to lease or sell surplus water to offset high costs in low-allocation years. He requested a continuance to further discuss operational and fee structures. 6. Peter Garcia (San Ynez River Water Conservation District Improvement District No. 1): Urged approval without conditions, noting the district’s $80 million investment in SWP supplies. He stated that CCWA member agencies have the legal authority and responsibility to manage their own supplies and requested the Board either approve the amendments or continue the matter for further staff collaboration.
- Board Discussion:
- Supervisor Lavagnino responded to public comments, rejecting the characterization that the County is solely interested in financial gain. He reiterated his support for a right of first refusal for in-county entities but opposed the moral high ground taken by some commenters.
- Supervisor Williams expressed skepticism about the benefits of out-of-county sales and suggested voting "no" if further discussion did not clarify the drought buffer benefits for the county.
- Supervisor Hartmann agreed with the need for further exploration of the right of first refusal and questioned what the County receives in return for its historical investment if water is sold out-of-county. She raised concerns about long-term liability and Prop 13 exemption status.
- Supervisor Hart supported the CCWA request for a continuance to allow for collaborative staff discussions to resolve the issues.
- Supervisor Hart stated that while not opposed to the amendments in principle, he opposed the position of taking money for sales now with the county being paid back in the future if the full contract were assigned to CCWA. He argued that such funds purchased county oversight and that district taxpayers should be compensated if CCWA sought to assume the entire contract. He supported Supervisor Lavagnino’s request for a first right of refusal and suggested setting conditions in advance to inform CCWA of whether to bring a purchase to the board. Supervisor Hart stated he was not in favor of either amendment, citing concerns regarding the relationship between one of CCWA’s largest members and the unincorporated area of Santa Maria Valley, and noted that he had received personal criticism from a commenter regarding his stance.
- Motion and Vote:
- Motion: Supervisor Lavagnino moved to send staff back to negotiate and return to the board at a later time, noting that a timeline was running. Supervisor Hart seconded the motion. CEO Miyasato noted that staff had recommended returning on March 2. Chair Nelson confirmed that the date was acceptable and that other items could be moved to accommodate it. Supervisor Hart noted that returning on March 2 meant docketing the item approximately 12 days prior to that date. Chair Nelson moved to continue the item to March 2. The motion was seconded.
- Vote: The motion to continue the item to March 2 passed unanimously.
Adjournment
- Chair Nelson adjourned the meeting, noting the next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, 2021.