Meeting Summary
Present: Williams, 3-Hartmann, 5-Lavagnino, 4-Nelson
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
Emergency Permit for Tunnel Trail Repair
- Staff detailed a two-phase repair process for unpermitted grading, with Phase 1 addressing immediate safety hazards and Phase 2 focusing on ecological restoration.
- A settlement agreement with Southern California Edison resulted in approximately $3.5 million in restitution to offset impacts that cannot be fully mitigated.
- The board moved the item to a future date to allow for further review of the mitigation plan.
License Agreement for 980 Cold Springs Road
- The board considered a license agreement request from the Mitchell family for the specified property.
- The motion to approve the license agreement passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
COVID-19 Update
- Public Health reported a significant decrease in active cases and hospitalizations, with the county anticipated to move to the Orange Tier.
- Vaccination data indicated 52% of the county has received at least one dose, with mobile clinics deployed to reach underserved populations.
- The board received and filed the report, noting the alignment of local health orders with state guidelines.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
KPMG Business Case for Standalone IT Department
- KPMG presented a business case recommending a hybrid IT model to enhance cybersecurity, reduce redundancy, and improve service delivery.
- The board endorsed the concept of a standalone IT department and directed staff to proceed with Phase 1 planning tasks.
- Supervisors discussed the timeline for hiring a department head and the need to coordinate current IT activities with the new organizational structure.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
CDBG Urban and HOME Consortium Annual Action Plan
- Staff recommended funding the Isla Vista Community Center over the Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinic due to project readiness and timeline constraints.
- The board approved the staff recommendation but directed that the remaining capital balance of $22,763 be allocated to the Neighborhood Clinic for planning purposes.
- The board will explore other funding sources, such as ARPA funds, to complete the Neighborhood Clinic project.
No decision 2–0
Central Coast Water Authority Amendment 21
- Staff recommended approval of Amendment 21 to allow CCWA to purchase water from other contractors and sell surplus water outside the county.
- The board approved the amendment with conditions requiring board approval for out-of-county sales and prioritizing intra-county water security.
- CCWA representatives opposed the conditions, arguing they limit flexibility, but the board maintained the safeguards to protect county water resources.
No decision 0–0
Closed Session
- The board considered anticipated litigation regarding the City of Goleta’s revenue neutrality agreement.
- Discussions included real property negotiations and the appointment of the Director of Behavioral Wellness and County Counsel.
- The board conferred with labor negotiators concerning the acting director of the Department of Behavioral Wellness.
Full summary
Meeting Start and Roll Call
- The April 20, 2021, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order by Chair Nelson. The Clerk of the Board called the roll, confirming the presence of all five supervisors: Williams, Hart, Hartman, Lavinino, and Nelson. The board pledged allegiance to the flag.
Approval of Minutes (April 6, 2021)
- A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes from the April 6, 2021, meeting. No discussion was recorded. The motion passed unanimously.
Announcements
- The Clerk of the Board announced that board meetings are interpreted and broadcast live in Spanish via Cox Cable (South County) and Comcast Cable (North County) using the Secondary Audio Programming (SAP) feature. The Clerk also outlined procedures for public participation via Zoom, including registration requirements, time limits (up to three minutes per person), and contact information for the Clerk’s office.
County Executive Officer’s Report
- CEO Miyasato reported that there were no items to report for the day.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
No decision 2–0
No decision 0–0
Approval of Administrative Agenda
- The Clerk noted requests to pull items A13 and A16 from the agenda. Chair Nelson requested a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda with the exception of items A13 and A16. A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda, excluding items A13 and A16. The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
Administrative Item A13: Emergency Permit for Tunnel Trail Repair
- Sponsor: Planning and Development.
- Description: Consideration of recommendations regarding a report on Case No. 20 EMP1, an emergency permit to allow repair work on Tunnel Trail following unpermitted grading in the Mission Canyon Community Plan area (First District).
- Discussion:
- Supervisor Williams stated that the repair work and the underlying violation are significant to the Mission Canyon community and trail users. He emphasized the need for full mitigation of impacts to recreational and visual resources in the second phase of the permit, noting that the first phase was rushed to address safety before the rainy season.
- Staff (Alex Tuttle) explained the two-phase process: Phase 1 involved critical repairs (rock hazard netting, berm restoration) completed prior to the rainy season. Phase 2 involves restoration of Michigan Creek and slopes in partnership with the Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Army Corps of Engineers. Staff noted that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife is the lead agency for the CEQA document. Staff also mentioned a settlement agreement between Southern California Edison (SCE) and the District Attorney’s office, resulting in approximately $3.5 million in restitution from SCE to offset impacts that cannot be fully mitigated.
- Public Comment: Nancy Weiss, representing the Mission Canyon Association, thanked the board and staff for working with the community. She stated that the association did not challenge the emergency permit but has worked with agencies to ensure SCE is held accountable for repairs.
- Supervisor Williams reiterated the goal of full mitigation from the 2019 illegal dumping and thanked the neighborhood association.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to move item A13.
- Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
Administrative Item A16: License Agreement for 980 Cold Springs Road
- Sponsor: Public Works.
- Description: Consideration of recommendations regarding a license agreement for 980 Cold Springs Road (First District).
- Discussion:
- Public Comment: Susan Petrovich, representing the Mitchell family, requested approval of the license agreement and offered to answer questions.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve item A16.
- Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
General Public Comment
- Three members of the public spoke on items not on the agenda: 1. Valerie Trenev: Requested recognition of National Medical Laboratory Week (April 18–24) and highlighted the importance of clinical laboratory scientists, particularly during the pandemic. She urged the board to consider issuing a proclamation and noted the need for new entrants into the field. 2. Katie Mickey: Spoke against the placement of small cell antennas in residential neighborhoods, citing concerns about health risks (microwave radiation), property value decline, and fire hazards. She argued that telecom carriers are acquiring public right-of-way without proof of significant coverage gaps and referenced the December 2019 rescission of county code restrictions. She called for the board to enforce legal proof of coverage gaps and setback limitations. 3. Anne O’Dowd-Thomas: Opposed five wireless facility applications by Crown Castle in South County, noting their proximity to residences (as close as 16 feet). She argued that the FCC’s Title II preemption does not apply to data transmission (Title I) and that local authority remains intact for data services. She urged the board to update the county code to protect residents from unnecessary radiation exposure and to consider the legal arguments presented by attorney Andrew Campanelli.
- Board Response: Supervisor Williams stated that it would be irregular for the board to hire an attorney with a profit motive but acknowledged that the board had heard out Mr. Campanelli. He noted that the County Counsel’s office was reviewing the issues under the eight-hour rule and that the board was not deaf to the public’s comments.
Departmental Item D1: COVID-19 Update
- Sponsor: County Executive Office.
- Description: Hearing to consider recommendations regarding an update on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
- Presentation:
- Dr. Vando Ranoso (Public Health): Reported a decrease in cases from April 1–15, with a 53% decrease in Santa Maria. Active cases decreased by 21%. Hospitalization and ICU rates were the lowest since late October. The county is anticipated to move to the Orange Tier based on an adjusted case rate of 4.5 and testing positivity of 1.8%. A new Health Officer Order (2021-12.7) is expected to be released, aligning with state Orange Tier allowances.
- Vaccination Data: 52% of the county has received at least one dose; 29% are fully vaccinated. Mobile clinics are being deployed to remove barriers for underserved groups, including H-2A workers, housing facilities, and faith-based communities.
- Ms. Jasmine McGinty (RISE Business Update): Reported that approximately 4,706 businesses have submitted attestations and reopened. Detailed the changes moving from Red to Orange Tier, including increased capacity limits for gatherings (up to 50), private events (up to 100 outdoor, 150 indoor with testing/vaccination proof), and indoor seated live events. Noted that retail capacity limits are removed, and indoor pools, gyms, and bars (outdoor) may reopen with modifications.
- Discussion:
- Supervisor Hartman asked about vaccination rates among the unsheltered population and vaccine hesitancy. Dr. Ranoso stated that data on unsheltered populations is being gathered and that outreach is focused on Latinx and Black/African American communities due to historical hesitancy, as well as white evangelical conservative groups through faith-based partnerships.
- Supervisor Williams encouraged community groups to contact public health to mobilize vaccination efforts.
- Chair Nelson asked about testing trends and whether the county’s health officer order would be more restrictive than state guidelines. Dr. Ranoso confirmed alignment with state guidelines and noted that testing sites in Santa Maria and Lompoc are underutilized, with a statewide trend of decreasing testing numbers.
- Chair Nelson highlighted the disparity in fully vaccinated individuals between North and South County and acknowledged the public health department’s efforts to bridge the gap.
- Supervisor Hartman announced upcoming mobile clinics in Buellton and at Bethania Lutheran Church and asked about walk-in availability. Dr. Ranoso confirmed that walk-ups are being accommodated at mobile clinics and some partner clinics to reduce barriers.
- Supervisor Hart asked for clarification on the distinction between "gatherings" and "private events." Dr. Ranoso explained that gatherings are informal social events without defined guest lists, while private events are formal meetings/receptions with defined guest lists where testing/vaccination status may be tracked.
- Supervisor Lavinino asked about protocols for verifying vaccination status at events. Dr. Ranoso stated that verification is left up to event organizers and facility subcontractors.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve staff recommendations A through C (receive and file the report).
- Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
Departmental Item D2: KPMG Business Case for Standalone IT Department
- Sponsor: General Services.
- Description: Hearing to consider recommendations regarding the KPMG business case for a standalone Information Technology (IT) department.
- Presentation:
- CEO Miyasato: Introduced the item, noting that KPMG recommended in August 2019 that the county establish a standalone IT department to increase resiliency, enhance cyber risk mitigation, reduce operational redundancy, and improve customer service.
- Barry Brunsman (KPMG): Presented the business case based on an eight-week engagement starting in July 2020. The recommended model is a "hybrid IT model" that centralizes shared IT services while retaining departmental IT capabilities for unique needs. The scope includes shared technology support (Office 365, infrastructure) and value-added services (portfolio management, cybersecurity, technical support, and an Information Executive Organization with vendor management). KPMG identified potential cost savings through vendor management and operational efficiencies. Implementation is proposed in two phases: Phase 1 (9 months) for detailed design and planning, and Phase 2 for building the organization.
- Ms. Paul (General Services): Requested the board to receive and file the report, endorse the concept of a standalone IT department, direct the CEO and General Services to proceed with Phase 1 prerequisite tasks, direct departments to cooperate, direct staff to return with a return on investment analysis, and determine that the actions do not constitute a project under CEQA.
- Discussion:
- Supervisor Hart emphasized the critical importance of cybersecurity and the need for a strong protection mechanism against cyberattacks, which she viewed as a primary driver for the standalone department.
- Chair Nelson expressed concern about the nine-month timeline for Phase 1 given current budget requests for IT expansions and data needs. He asked whether the county should pause other IT purchases, expedite the process, or hire a CIO earlier to guide the process.
- Mr. Brunsman responded that some benefits, such as portfolio management, could be implemented in parallel with Phase 1. He suggested that hiring a CIO earlier could be beneficial to shape the department but is not a critical requirement to launch Phase 1. He recommended coordinating current IT activities with the Phase 1 development.
- Chair Nelson stated his support for a standalone IT department, noting that the current scope is too large for one department and that this is necessary for 21st-century county governance. He emphasized that this is not a reflection on General Services’ performance but an acknowledgment of the scale of IT needs.
- Supervisor Williams agreed, stating that the breadth of responsibility is too great for one department and that moving toward a standalone department is the right call to adapt to current conditions.
- Supervisor Hart agreed, noting that past underinvestment in technology allows for a strategic, significant investment now, which will benefit the county.
- Supervisors discussed the concept of "technological sprawl" and the need for an integrated, coordinated IT system to enhance cybersecurity and inter-departmental collaboration. Supervisor Hartman referenced the Claremont Colleges model, where distinct institutions share services while retaining individual identities, as a potential framework for the county. Supervisor Lavagnino raised the question of whether to hire a department head (general manager) before or after the assistant coach (IT staff), noting this could be part of budget decisions. Chair Nelson suggested leaving the discretion to the CEO’s office, provided the CEO and General Services have board support.
- The County Executive Officer (CEO) stated they would work closely with staff to determine the optimal timing for hiring a department head, noting that board approval is required for such appointments. The CEO indicated that specifications and classifications could be developed during the nine-month study period, with a report to the board when the timing is appropriate. Chair Nelson suggested starting recruitment early to ensure the department head is in place by the nine-month mark.
- Motion: Supervisor Hart moved to adopt staff recommendations A through E.
- Second: Supervisor Hartman.
- Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.
Departmental Item D3: Community Services – CDBG Urban and HOME Consortium Annual Action Plan (FY 2021-2022)
- Staff Presentation: Staff presented the 2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan, including recommendations for public service and capital project funds.
- Public Services: 29 applications were received for ~$197,000 in funds. The Human Services Commission made funding recommendations.
- Capital Projects: 10 applications were received for $957,000 in funds. A discrepancy existed between the Capital Loan Committee and HCD staff recommendations regarding two projects: the Isla Vista Community Center (staff recommendation) and the Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinic (Capital Loan Committee recommendation).
- Staff Concerns: Staff preferred the Isla Vista Community Center project because it was "shovel-ready" and met CDBG timely expenditure requirements. Staff had concerns about the Neighborhood Clinic project's timeline, scale (sewer connection), and the clinic's experience with large construction projects. The Clinic indicated it would raise additional funds to cover a $127,000 shortfall.
- HOME Funds: The City of Santa Maria will use $150,000 of its suballocation for tenant-based rental assistance.
- Public Comment:
- Victoria Garfield (New Beginnings): Expressed gratitude for CDBG funding recommended for their safe parking program, noting increased need due to the pandemic.
- Nancy Tilley (Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinics): Argued for funding the sewer connection project due to environmental concerns (septic backups near a creek) and the clinic's role as a safety-net provider. She stated the clinic had secured bids and was working with project managers to ensure timely completion.
- Board Discussion:
- Supervisors discussed the trade-off between the two capital projects. Supervisor Hartman questioned the risk of the Clinic project missing deadlines and the potential recapture of funds by HUD.
- Supervisor Hart suggested using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to supplement the Clinic project later, allowing the CDBG funds to go to the Isla Vista Community Center now.
- Supervisor Williams emphasized the need for county-city partnerships, noting that cities may have more resources due to federal relief packages.
- Chair Nelson expressed support for funding the Isla Vista Community Center and protecting unincorporated areas, while suggesting the Clinic project could be addressed through other funding avenues (e.g., ARPA or federal grants for federally qualified health centers).
- Staff clarified that CDBG funds generally require project completion within a specific timeframe. Committing CDBG funds for planning only could create an obligation to complete the project with future CDBG funds. Staff recommended setting aside the remaining balance ($22,763) for the Clinic project pending identification of other funding sources, rather than committing it immediately for planning.
- Supervisor Hart moved to adopt the staff recommendation for the Isla Vista Community Center, with the addition of allocating the remaining balance of $22,763 to the Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinic for planning/permitting purposes, contingent on the board seeking other funding sources (e.g., ARPA) to complete the project.
- Supervisor Hartman seconded the motion.
- Staff confirmed that setting aside the $22,763 would not violate HUD guidelines if the intent is to secure other funding for completion, but if no other funding is found, the board would be obligated to use future CDBG funds to complete the project.
- Supervisor Lavagnino supported the motion, noting that committing the $22,000 for planning would demonstrate commitment and potentially tie the board's hands to complete the project in the future if other funds are not found.
- Motion: Adopt staff recommendations for the CDBG Urban and HOME Consortium Annual Action Plan, with the specific direction to allocate the remaining capital balance of $22,763 to the Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinic for planning/permitting, while the board explores other funding sources (e.g., ARPA) to complete the project.
- Second: Supervisor Hartman.
- Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.
Departmental Item D4: Public Works – Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) Amendment 21 to State Water Contract
- Staff Presentation: Staff recommended approval of Amendment 21 (Water Management Amendment) to the State Water Project contract.
- Purpose: Allows CCWA to purchase water from other State Water Project contractors and sell State Water outside the county to other contractors.
- Context: Current State Water Project allocation is 5%. Local reservoirs (Kachuma, Gibraltar, etc.) have reduced yields due to environmental regulations and sedimentation. Groundwater levels have not fully recovered from the last drought.
- Benefits: Enables CCWA to secure critical water supplies this year and facilitates regional cooperation, potentially with San Luis Obispo County.
- Conditions: Staff proposed conditions in the resolution to ensure water security, including first right of refusal for CCWA members on surplus water and board approval for sales outside the county.
- Public Comment:
- Joshua Hagermark (City of Santa Barbara Public Works Director): Supported approval of Amendment 21 but opposed the staff-proposed conditions, arguing they interfere with water supply planning, conflict with the city's Urban Water Management Plan, and ignore the dynamic nature of water markets.
- CCWA Representative Comment:
- Mr. Stokes (CCWA): Supported approval of Amendment 21 as critical for acquiring water supplies this year. Opposed the proposed conditions, stating they are unwarranted and would limit CCWA's ability to maximize water supplies through purchases, sales, and banking. CCWA preferred approval without conditions over rejection.
- Board Discussion:
- Supervisor Williams questioned whether CCWA had negotiated with the county regarding the conditions, noting that the board had previously directed staff to find a middle ground. He emphasized the board's role as the contract holder and the need for safeguards to prevent short-sighted financial decisions that could reduce county water security. He argued that intra-county transfers should be incentivized over out-of-county sales.
- Supervisor Hart emphasized the importance of collaboration and noted that the conditions require partners to work together for the best deal, which is ultimately in everyone's interest.
- Supervisor Lavagnino supported the collaborative approach.
- Chair Nelson asked about the process for future water transactions under the amendment. Staff indicated that purchases would be expedited by the County Executive Officer under the resolution's conditions, while sales outside the county would require board approval.
- Chair Nelson suggested a two-track approach: expedited processing for transactions meeting the board's criteria, and a business case requirement for transactions outside those criteria.
- Motion: Adopt the staff recommendation to approve Amendment 21 to the State Water Contract, including the proposed conditions.
- Second: Supervisor Williams.
- Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.
Closed Session Agenda
- The board recessed to closed session to consider five items: 1. A matter of significant exposure to civil litigation (City of Goleta letter regarding the 2002 Revenue Neutrality Agreement). 2. Real property negotiations (vacant property on Brookside Avenue in Orcutt, parcel 107-321-013). 3. Appointment of the Director of the Department of Behavioral Wellness. 4. Appointment of the County Counsel. 5. Conference with labor negotiators concerning the Acting Director of the Department of Behavioral Wellness.
Adjournment in Memory
- Supervisor Williams requested to adjourn the meeting in the memory of Art Wayne Nelson, a former county department head who passed away on March 23rd. He described Nelson's career in social services, his teaching roles, his awards, and his personal qualities. The board acknowledged the tribute.
Closed Session Report
- An unidentified speaker reported that the board considered five separate matters in closed session: 1. Anticipated litigation regarding the City of Goleta’s October 15 letter concerning the 2002 revenue neutrality agreement. 2. Real property negotiations. 3. Two separate public employee appointment discussions: one for the Director of Behavioral Wellness and one for the County Council. 4. A conference with labor negotiators concerning the acting director of the Department of Behavioral Wellness. The speaker stated that there were no reportable actions resulting from these discussions.
Adjournment
- Bob Nelson moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded and passed. The next meeting was scheduled for May 4, 2021, in Santa Barbara.