UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:01 – 0:047 turns
Hi, Carl.
Okay, good morning. I'll call to the order that April 20th 2021 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk please call the roll.
Roll call, called by Clerk of the Board
Show transcript
The next item of business is the approval of the minutes from the April 6, 2021 meeting. Is there any discussion? I'll entertain a motion. So moved.
Second.
Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 moved. Second. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
Thank you. Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?
0:04 – 0:066 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, I just have a couple quick announcements this morning. I would like to remind the public that the Board of Supervisors meetings are now being interpreted and broadcast live in Spanish. We are broadcasting our meetings in Spanish both for Cox Cable subscribers in South County as well as Comcast cable subscribers in North County. Members of the public can view our meetings in Spanish by turning on the secondary audio programming also known as SAP under their language settings.
Lastly, I would also just like to remind members of the public who are participating in our board meeting today of our alternative methods of public participation. For alternative methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on our board's agenda today please see page 2 of our agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment you may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page two.
After registration you will receive a confirmation email containing important information about joining the Zoom meeting. Once the chair has announced the item you want to comment on, please join the meeting with information provided in the registration confirmation email. The clerk will call you by the last four digits of your phone number or by name When removed from mute, you will hear a notification that your line has been unmuted.
If you are using a touch-tone phone, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself. Again, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself if using a touch tone phone. Each person may address the board for up to three minutes and this is at the discretion of the chair. If you have any questions, please contact the Clerk of the Board at area code 805-568-2240. Again that's 805 568 2240 and that concludes all my announcements today. Thank you.
Thank You Madam Clerk next item in business is the County Executive Officer's report. CEO Miyasato do we have anything to report today? No
report today Chair Nelson.
All right thank you very much.
The next item is the approval of the administrative agenda. Do any board members request to pull any items on the administrative agenda A 13 please Mr. Chair. Anything up in Santa Maria? I think we're good. Madam Clerk, are there any items pulled by the general public?
Chair
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
Nelson and members of the board yes we had a request to pull item A13 although I do not see that member of the public logged in at the moment so if you have pulled this item A13 please log in now as well as A16
Okay, can I get a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda with the exception of A13 and A16? So moved. Second. Any further discussion from the Board? Madam Clerk will you please call the roll.
Motion passes unanimously.
Madam Clerk, will you please read A13 of the record?
Chair Nelson and members of the board. Administrative item number 13 is sponsored by Planning and Development. It is to consider recommendations regarding a report on case number 20 EMP1 emergency permit to allow repair work on Tunnel Trail following unpermitted grading in the Mission Canyon Community Plan area and this is in the First District.
Supervisor Williams, you pulled this item?
Well, I wanted to highlight it. This repair work and the violation that precipitated the permit are a very big deal to the Mission Canyon community. And because of we're hearing all about trails these days, it's also important to the many, many users of Tunnel Trail We've been involved, and I've got to say that the neighborhood has been involved in a very productive manner with SCE.
Working with them but also attempting to hold them accountable. And I just want to make sure from staff that our goals are to make sure the next county LUP should include all actions and mitigate all impacts. See, this permit is supposed to be a one-two. And the one was rushed with cooperation from our office and cooperation from the neighborhood by SCE because of the imperative of beginning the work before the rainy season, such as it is in our community.
But we don't want number two to be rushed without handling all the mitigation necessary for those impacts. It was initially unpermitted grading and scaling in December 2019 that started this. And we're hoping that the impacts to recreational resources, visual resources into the upland areas are fully mitigated in the second permit. So if staff has anything to say...
A reminder to Southern California Edison that that is foremost in our minds or if staff has any impact. I of course love to hear that Thank You supervisor
Williams, I believe miss Plowman's on the line
Yes, mr. Chair members of the board I have both Alex Tuttle and Chris muckle who processed this emergency permit and worked on the I would like Alex to address the remarks made by Supervisor Williams. Just explain what the next steps in the process are.
Certainly, good morning members of the board. The as Supervisor Williams noted it was a two-phase process so we did issue a permit, a land use permit to correct some critical work back prior to the rainy season that consisted of some repair work installation if anyone's been up there it's pretty hard to miss. Some rock scale netting rock hazard netting prevent rockfall And some restoration of some of the berm along the slope of the, of the trail.
The phase two consists of in partnership with other agencies including Fish and Wildlife Service and Regional Water Quality Control Board and Army Corps of Engineers restoration of the creek, Michigan Creek which was impacted by the unpermitted grading And the slopes above the creek, as well as completion of some of the work that did not get done as part of phase one. So we're currently in the process of still reviewing that proposal.
Fish and Wildlife California Department of Fish and Wildlife is the lead agency on the CEQA document. And so they are processing that and it's also important to note You may or may not be aware that there was a settlement agreement that was reached between SCE and the DA's office. That resulted in the payment of, I think it was around $3.5 million from SCE towards as restitution of sorts towards the unpermitted work. In part in recognizing that some of Really can't be adequately mitigated to restore it back to its pre-violation condition.
So in part that money is meant to be spent to offset some of the, as offsetting improvements to compensate for some of the unpermitted work that was done. So that in coordination and conjunction with the phase two work I think will make sure we remain on focus towards Thank you Mr. Tuttle, does
that answer your question Supervisor Williams?
It does but if there's
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 moved. Second. Any further discussion from the Board? Madam Clerk will you please call the roll.
Show transcript
0:13 – 0:1822 turns
public comment I'd love to hear
that too. We do have one speaker. Madam Clerk will you...
Yes Chair Nelson and members of the board we have one request to speak on this item and we are going to Nancy Wise.
Ms. Wise when you're ready Miss Wise, you're muted.
And Miss Wise if you can unmute yourself and begin your comments please.
All right I see that she's on. If we can get her, that'd be great. If not I don't mind skipping back up to A-16. I believe that's being pulled by the public. We'll come back to 813 in a moment if we can get Ms. Wise on for that item. So my understanding is that A- 16 has been pulled by the public? Can you please read that one into the record?
Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 16 is from Public Works. It is to consider recommendations regarding a license agreement for 980 Cold Springs Road and this is in the 1st District. We do have one request to speak on this item and that is Susan Petrovich.
Ms. Petrovich when you're ready.
Good morning members of the board, Mr. Chair, this is Susan Petrovich representing the Mitchell family. I'm just here to answer questions really and to ask that you approve this license agreement.
All right thank you Ms. Petrovich. I don't see any lights on from the Board so can we go ahead and get a motion on A16 if that's it from the public?
That was our only request to speak on that item yes
So moved.
Second. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on 816?
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 moved. Second. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously
Thank You Miss Petrovich for being available let's try to go back and see we can get a hold of Ms. Weiss
Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board returning to administrative item number 13 from planning development to consider recommendations regarding a report on case number 20 EMP1 emergency permit to allow repair work on Tunnel Trail following unpermitted grading in the Mission Canyon Community Plan area. And I do believe she is unmuted and we have one request to speak on this item that is Nancy Wise you could go ahead with your comments.
Good morning can you hear me now? Welcome. Great. I apologize for my technology challenges. Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. My name is Nancy Weiss and I'm a member of the Board of the Mission Canyon Association. As you may be aware, the association has been extensively involved in this issue of SCE's illegal dumping incident that occurred December 2019. I want to thank Supervisor Williams, his staff, and Planning & Development for working alongside the community on this issue It's been highly complex and was a very large dumping incident. It's been a year-and-a-half since we've been trying to get this right, and we didn't challenge the emergency permit or subsequent land use permit but rather have been working closely with the different agencies in SCE to require that they are held to full account and that they do repair what they can Good morning, everyone.
Thank you for joining us today. We are here to talk about the unpermitted work in the canyon. We did raise comments but we never filed any appeals about our concerns that were not alleviated although many were and we appreciate that. In part because I want to thank the county and supervisor Williams for their support.
Back to you Supervisor Williams.
Well, I just want to make sure that Southern California has and if they're listening that we hope to partner with you but we really want to see full mitigation from the illegal dumping back in December of 2019. Right. And I want to thank the Neighborhood Association. You know it's their neighborhood associations are usually very centered on The neighborhood and its direct impacts. This is obviously part of the neighborhood, but it's been great to have an association so versed on environmental issues And I'm just as worried about the ecological impact says as the neighborhood impacts
Thank you with that can we get a motion?
I will move Move item a 13
second any further discussion from the board Hearing none, Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 Move item a 13 second any further discussion from the board Hearing none, Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Show transcript
0:19 – 0:2511 turns
Motion passes unanimously.
Okay that brings us to now is the time for the members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Madam Clerk are there any requests to speak on items not on the agenda today?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, yes we have three requests to speak on general public comment today. We are going to begin with Valerie Trenev to be followed by Katie Mickey.
Ms. Trenev when you're ready.
Good morning can you hear me?
We can thank you.
Oh good hi I'm a teacher from Orkut and I'm also a clinical laboratory scientist. I am the state president of our organization called California Association for Medical Laboratory Technology. Fortunately, I have a student teacher helping me right now so I could step away for a few minutes to give this message to the public. I was too late to ask you to issue a proclamation.
It is National Medical Laboratory Week April 18th to 24th and I would like to read a little bit of verbiage from a sample proclamation It's a great honor to be here today. I'm excited to be able to honor those people in the Santa Barbara County community that are working behind the scenes to provide accurate laboratory testing, and as you know, the previous year with the pandemic has just been very challenging.
I can't thank these hidden heroes enough, and even though I'm now in education, And before that, I was in San Francisco working in the lab. And so in honor of them, I'd like to just say whereas professionals who practice in the medical laboratory are invaluable members of the patient's healthcare team and whereas these well-educated and highly trained health professionals who perform and evaluate medical laboratory tests to detect, diagnose, monitor treatment, and help prevent diseases I'd like to start by saying thank you to all of the members of the Board of Supervisors for their hard work and dedication. I know it's been a long time coming, but I want to say thank you so much for your hard work and dedication as well. I know it's been a long time coming, but I want to say thank you so much for your hard work and dedication as well.
that they consider our field. It's called clinical laboratory science, and we desperately need new people coming into the field. We have many, many people aging out due to demographics, and we're just really hoping for a bright future for this profession, and it's really important to just call attention to these hidden heroes. So thank you for letting me speak, and I appreciate it.
Thanks Ms. Trenov, and thank you for highlighting this important profession this week especially in these times Madam Clerk.
We will now go to Katie Mickey to be followed by Anne O'Dayle Thomas who is our final speaker.
Miss Mickey, when you're ready.
Dear County Board of Supervisors I am here to shine a light on the new frontier land grab in the public right-of-way of residential neighborhoods in Santa Barbara County Telecom carriers are lassoing real estate in the public right-of-way like the cowboys of yesteryear. We need more wireless connectivity is their refrain, and that sounds great unless it's your bedroom window that is now 16 feet from the next public right-of way acquisition.
Nobody's monitoring the intensity of their pulse modulations that blast through your walls like a smack on the face every few hours. There are now thousands of peer-reviewed studies that say the levels of microwave radiation being transmitted cause harm while the FCC sticks to their obsolete data. What possible harms might there be? Well, they include immune suppression during a pandemic, fatigue, insomnia, anxiety, depression, brain fog, cardiovascular issues and cancer.
Property values decline an average of 20% adjacent to the small cell antennas. Furthermore, they're combustible and their electrical fires cannot be put out with water and standard fire equipment. Is this necessary? Well, the telecoms goal is to lay their claim to poll space in the public right away before their competitors. They claim significant gaps and coverage that must be filled by another tower when they make their application. Meanwhile, their marketing literature claims the opposite. They actually have excellent coverage. Do a drive-by test on addresses within our county that are pending approval by County Planning 75 Eucalyptus Lane 315 Arroyo Lane 2880 Ben Loman Your cell phone works just fine, there is no gap in service.
So who is the sheriff in this county to halt the robbery of our public right away? What happened to your oath of office to protect us? December 2019 you did rescinded two excellent restrictions in our county code. Proof of significant gap in coverage and prohibition of cell towers and residential neighborhoods. Show us the legal proof we can say no to the land grab.
You have asked. Safe Tech Santa Barbara County has sent you transcripts, your attorney and staff have met directly with Andrew Campanelli a leading national attorney on enacting smart planning provisions within our county code using our local zoning laws to enact specific provision such as proof of significant gap in coverage setback limitations So the question remains, who owns the public right of way? We, the people or Crown Castle and the telecos? Sheriffs among you do the right thing.
0:25 – 0:296 turns
We will now go to Anne O'Dowd-Thomas who is our final speaker.
Good morning, can you hear me?
Good morning, my name is Anudil Thomas and I'm a 20-year-old homeowner in Santa Barbara County. Crown Castle has five wireless facility applications under review by the South County Architectural Review Board. All five were denied after many people spoke out and 90 neighbors signed a petition to oppose these installations that would impact their property value health One more was submitted in Montecito and is currently undergoing review by the Montecito Board of Architectural Review. What is striking about these applications is their proximity to residences, one within 16 feet, one within 26 feet, another within 50 feet, exposing occupants to unnecessary and a high amount of harmful microwave radiation.
No proof of significant gap in coverage was provided by the applicant, Crown Castle. The FCC only requires the county to provide what is called Title II which is telecommunication service that only includes wireless and wireline phone calls. Title I is about data which can be better provided by fiber to the premises or coaxial cable. There is no preemption of local authority for data transmission The radiation from current wireless facilities far exceeds the level sufficient to provide Title II services to the residents, phone calls and texts.
Grand Castle is only looking at the bottom line which profits the telecom industry at the expense of our privacy property values health well-being safety risks of fires carbon footprint environmental impact and more The December 2019 County Code revisions allow for wireless facilities very close to our homes. We need to update the code and make it a protective for us, not the telecom industry. The County Board of Supervisors has the legal authority to improve upon the current code as was explained to some members of the board and staff by lawyer Andrew Campanelli on March 29th 2021. It is more than time for our county representatives to take a stand And that was our final request to speak on general public comment.
Supervisor Williams.
Well I know we're normally not supposed to respond to public comment, I just thought it would be important to informationally say you know it would be highly irregular for the board to hire an attorney who may be very well meaning but obviously has a profit motive You know, in this field but he may have expertise and we heard him out. And you know I think that the I've asked the county council's office within the eight hour rule to And I do appreciate the public speakers for their participation and for, you know, roping in Mr Campanelli to bring up some issues.
There may be something in that that the attorneys on our side will agree is a promising route. And so I don't want to get your hopes up too much, but I also want to say we're not deaf to your comments and appreciate you being constructive and trying to give us ideas.
Thank you Supervisor Williams. Okay that concludes our general public comment At this time, the next item up is departmental item number one. Madam Clerk, could you please read that into the record?
0:30 – 0:424 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an update on the coronavirus disease 2019 COVID-19.
Thank you. I believe we have Dr. Vando Ranoso with us.
Yes, good morning chair Nelson and members of the board. I have our weekly update for you madam clerk may I have the slides? Next. This morning's briefing topics will cover the Santa Barbara County COVID-19 data. Also, the blueprint metrics as well as an update to your board on vaccination efforts and Miss Jasmine McGinty will be giving your board an update on the RISE business update next.
This is the graph that describes our trends in cases. So from April 1st to April 15th, we are seeing a decrease in cases. Noteworthy is the 53% decrease during this timeframe in Santa Maria as noted by the gray line. For the rest of the region it is minimally fluctuating With some with most decreasing except for two areas, Goleta and Santa Ana's. Also during this time we are seeing active cases decreasing by 21%.
From April 5th to April 19th we are seeing that hospitalization and ICU rates are the lowest since the end of October. Hospitalization during the April 5th to April 19th decreased by 63% and ICU cases decrease by 71%. Next. So this is our anticipated CDPH monitoring status for today. We anticipate at noon to be announced by our governor's office that our adjusted case rate for this week is 4.5.
Our unadjusted new cases per day per 100,000 is 5.1. Our testing positivity is 1.8 and our testing positivity in the health equity metric areas is slightly lower at 1.7%. Next. This graph describes our case rate over the period of time, and we are seeing as I noted a decrease and around 2% from the last tier assignment. Next. This describes our testing positivity. The black line describes our community testing positivity rate, which has decreased by 5% since the last rating period. The gold line describes testing positivity in the health equity metric areas, which for the first time ever is lower Then the community testing positivity, and it has decreased by 37% from the previous rating period. So this is a really good trend to see that our health equity metric areas are testing positivity.
The rates are lower than the rest of the community next. So we are here, we are in the orange tier. We've far more exceeded the three weeks in the red tier with a 4.5 case rate to be announced today and the 1.8 testing positivity. We are solidly in the orange tier. Next. What this means is that we are working on our health officer order 2021 dash 12.7, we estimate to release the new health officer order at the end of today to be effective 8 am tomorrow on Wednesday for 21.
And the health officer order will contain elements that align our county with the state allowances for the orange tier. So being in the orange tier means an increase in allowances for the number of guests and customers, as well as the ability for some businesses and activities to begin indoors. Ms. Jasmine McGinty will cover These new allowances in detail in her rise business update.
Next next, so for our vaccination efforts this week. In our county, we have 7,280 first doses distributed from the TPA directly to various providers such as Cottage and other network providers. The TPA also allocated 1,200 doses to public health with regards to second doses This week in our county, we will be doing 16,870 second doses at Cottage among our network providers such as Sansum and the Lompoc Valley Medical Center as well as other health care providers.
The TPA allocated to public health and the providers in the community Who are not yet in the network, 1900 doses to be given as second doses and we in public health have drawn have drawn down 8000. Next slide, please. According to our new data from CDPH as of last night, CDPH is documenting that we have 52% in our county who have received at least one dose and we have 29% In our county, who are fully vaccinated and is creating a new dashboard that will list vaccine rates for all counties.
Next. With regards to vaccine equity, we have initiated mobile clinics and the goal is to remove any barriers for groups of individuals who are not able to easily access our community clinics. And we are doing this building on the success of our Friday outreach clinics So, with the new five teams we are focusing. On the h2 a housing, we are focusing on community based mental health care and treatment centers as well as agricultural work sites. Housing facilities congregate living facilities churches and other community organizations. We have 5 teams who composed of 8 to 9 staff. who are bilingual, and we are hosting our Santa Maria Healthcare Center is hosting three teams. Our Lompoc Healthcare Center is hosting one team and our Santa Barbara Healthcare Center is hosting one team for South County.
The clinics will run from Thursday to Sunday at different hours depending upon our community partners' requests Uh, community partners can. You can access a clinic through mobile clinics at sbcphd.org or via our online form at publichealthsbc.org under the vaccine tab, so each of these mobile clinics can accommodate up to 250 appointments and repeat that over a period of days or weeks as well.
Next. So I wanted to end with what you can do once you are fully vaccinated. So once you are fully vaccinated, you can spend time with other fully vaccinated people even indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing. You can spend time indoors without masks or physical distancing with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk of severe COVID-19 disease.
You can also travel domestically without a pre or post travel test and without quarantining after travel. Once fully vaccinated, you can also travel internationally without a pre-travel test and it depends on destination and without quarantining after travel. However, even if you are fully vaccinated, you should take precautions in public including wearing a well-fitted mask and physical distancing.
And you should get tested and isolate if you are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. You should also avoid crowds indoors especially when mixing with others who are not fully vaccinated. And you should avoid being indoors without a mask with people at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. And with that, I conclude my presentation and available for questions.
Thank You Dr. Doria. So questions from the board? Any questions up in Santa Maria?
0:42 – 0:479 turns
This is Supervisor Hartman, I have a couple. Dr. De Lino, so what do we know about vaccination rates with our houseless or unsheltered population?
I don't have that answer Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I don't have that information, but I am more than happy to gather that data for you however since vaccines have been available. We have partnered up with Doctors Without Walls and our medical operations team do go out routinely on a weekly basis to serve unsheltered individuals in encampments. As well, we are supporting our homeless shelters.
With regards to the vaccine uptake among in the encampments or in the homeless shelters I need to gather that information.
Thank you. And that leads into my final question, and that is about vaccine hesitancy. Do we know which groups or which sectors seem to be the most hesitant? Do we have any information in our county or even nationwide kind of where we need to focus?
Yes, so nationwide there have been published articles that reference people in the Latinx community as well as community members in the Black African communities are the two communities that have been noted as bearing the burden of disease as well as I'm going to start by saying that we have experienced some historical hesitancy due to historical real practices by our government. So given that, that is why we heavily focus on partnership with our community agencies serving both the Latinx population and the African-American We have a very good partnership with the NAACP, as well as a myriad of organizations such as cause and my cop in North County all aimed at reducing barriers so that when. Community members are ready to be vaccinated that the opportunity is there.
In addition to that, emerging articles are showing that among white evangelical conservatives, there is some hesitancy and thus we have. Initiated outreach efforts among churches throughout our county. Having conversations with pastors and fathers and other leaders within the faith-based communities Asking them for opportunities to visit their places of worship so that we can address questions as well as asking if they can sponsor mobile vaccine clinics at their places of worship. And we are reaching, we do have several places of worship signed up to host vaccination clinics and but there's still work to be done.
Thank you. Any other questions?
that doctor just highlighted and just put a request out to the public. If you are a member of any church organization community group that can mobilize fifty to 200 people to show up that need to be vaccinated, please give one of our offices a call or public health a call because you know this is Community can be safe, but it requires a certain level of participation and willingness to reach out to some of the people whether they're busy or they have some ideological hesitation.
trying to survive and make a living. One way or another, we need to be able to reach them where they are instead of just expect them to come to us.
Thank you Sir Roger Williams. I got a couple questions with the new health officer order coming out or any of the will there be anything more restrictive than the state guidelines?
No, we will be in alignment with the state
guidelines. Last week we had a significant reduction in our number per 100,000 part because of a large amount of testing. Can you speak to what you're seeing on testing? Because we didn't get as far of an adjustment this week.
0:47 – 0:5414 turns
We continue to put efforts towards testing and encouraging community members to test. Our comms team has done targeted media blast, ensuring that everyone is aware of testing capacity. We have our mobile testing bus in Lompoc right now And unfortunately, we are finding that both our testing site at the Santa Maria Fair Park as well as our testing bus in Lompoc are underutilized. And so we will continue to ask community members to utilize those two sites for worries about the state recalling those two testing opportunities. In addition, we intend to move Buzz back to Santa Barbara, because that is a site that has been widely utilized. So we will continue to make testing available to our communities and pushing that out on social media as well as communication with our community partners about that availability.
I guess the question is, is it a statewide trend that there seems to be less testing going on? Is that something we're seeing throughout the state?
That's correct. The state median is decreasing with testing numbers.
Thank you. And I wanted to go ahead and give the public health department kudos for the extra effort they are making to bridge the gap especially north and south. The dashboard that we've seen our vaccinations by percentage among Latinos go up by three or four percent in the last two weeks. I want to make sure I give you kudos there and the extra effort you're doing to reach out to the agricultural community and H-2A and the churches. I do want to highlight though, that since last week or two weeks ago The fully vaccinated North County has gone up by 9,000 while the fully vaccinated in the South County is going out by 17,000 according to the dashboard. So we still have a lot of work to do countywide if we hope to create parity there.
I do know that's also a lagging number because it's a second dose number. So, I do want to acknowledge that is the data but there is more to that as we dig in deeper. But I just want to make sure I highlight that so that we stay diligent as a community and as a county. Thank you.
I
think Dr. Reynoso had to follow up with that and then I'll be right back to you Supervisor Hartman.
Yes, thank you Chair Nelson and thank you for your comments. And that is why we initiated the mobile testing teams and basing three of them in Santa Maria and one in Lompoc We are really hoping that these mobile teams will remove the last barrier to access. And we really want to encourage any community partner wishing to vaccinate their staff, vaccinating their clients reach out to us and we're actually not waiting for people to reach out to us. We've been knocking down knocking on doors and really encouraging people to be our partner In those mobile clinics and hopefully with the increase in availability of appointments and mobile clinics at convenient times and places, we will be addressing that gap.
Thank you Dr. Donoriso. Supervisor Hartman?
Yes, two things. First I just wanted to announce that April 22nd there's a mobile clinic in the Buellton Senior Center and April 25th at Bethania Lutheran Church. I have heard from some people that they would like a walk-in that the appointment itself is a barrier I volunteered to work in Lompoc and Santa Maria. And what I noticed is that people who walk in actually can get registered at the time, and so having an appointment ahead of time isn't necessarily a barrier. And I'd like you to comment on that Dr. Del Reynoso.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair absolutely we are with us Being on My Turn, last week was our first clinic piloting My Turn. And we discovered that we can use My Turn with some tweaks and increased staffing allow for the walk-ups, we call them. And so moving forward, we will be hosting those appointments, those clinics using walk up availability As well, with our mobile clinics we are registering walk-ups and we are registering using paper old school form. And we have noted that that has also addressed some barriers in people having a smartphone or people being able to call 211 or people being able to access MyTurn or even registering online. So we are hoping that the walk-up is another last frontier as a barrier.
Thank you, Dr. De Reynoso.
Supervisor Hart? Yeah I think that's a really important point and I just want to make sure I understand it so you're saying at this stage now folks can just walk up to any of the clinics? Does that include the clinics that are operated by our partners, the hospitals and other providers?
No, it doesn't. We still strongly encourage people to schedule an appointment just for planning purposes, just for the vaccine management and the staff but we can accommodate walk-ups And I intend that future clinics that will feature walk-up as a sole way of accessing vaccine will be widely advertised and communicated as such.
Well, I think that is the key is to clearly communicate when that opportunity exists because there are people who are frustrated by the technology that would just prefer to come to a clinic and get a vaccine. And if there's space, that's a great option to make available for folks.
0:54 – 1:043 turns
Thank you Supervisor Hart. I think this time we'll go ahead and move on to Ms. McGinty with her presentation.
Hello there good morning Chair Nelson and members of the Board. If you could pull up the slides please Awesome. Next slide, please. So in terms of the RISE business update to date we have about 4706 businesses that have submitted their attestation and have reopened. There's 4242 in the cities and 464 in the incorporated so this is just a breakdown of those industry sectors.
Next slide please. And as Dr. Donoso had mentioned, we are anticipated to move into the orange tier with the health officer order being released by the end of the day in terms of the new state guidance that has been released they did release a couple different industry sectors that should be reflected in the health officer order one being private venues and events so in the orange tier this is the breakdown of both outdoor and indoor private events at private venues The main differences are for capacity limits. For outdoors, attendance is limited to a maximum of 100 attendees. However if they do show proof of negative test or full vaccination then those capacity limits increase and that is the same for indoors. For indoors, attendance must be limited to a maximum of 150 people.
With indoors, a negative test or full vaccination proof must be shown. Next slide. So additional state guidance that has been released was in terms of indoor seated live events and performances. In the orange tier, here's the breakdown of what can be allowed with venues for different capacity limits. So all venues can open with live audiences but need the following modifications And then the state guidance also breaks it down with venues 0 to 1500, and then venues 1500 and above. Again there's the capacity limits being noted in that guidance.
Next slide please. An additional state guidance that was released was in terms of outdoor seated live performance. So here's the breakdown of what can be allowed in the orange tier for outdoor seated live performances. Again mainly in regards to capacity limits Benyus must limit attendance to a maximum of 33% capacity, and this is the breakdown of that. So all of those guidances can be found on recoverysbc.org as well as the state website. We're still waiting for checklists for these different industries but the guidance has been posted.
Next slide. So here is the updated blueprint industry tier matrix as of the 13th of April. And it shows what is allowed in the orange sector should we move there by the end of the day to be effective tomorrow. So highlighted in yellow there, you'll see the differences from the red tier to the orange tier mainly in regards to capacity increases for each of the locations. So for example gatherings moving from red to orange increases to a max of 50 people For private events, it increases from 50 people to 100 people. Again there's the differentiation if guests are tested or show that full proof of vaccination, capacity limits increase. Next slide.
Again here's an additional breakdown of what changes as we move to the orange tier. We can see that for indoor seated live events and performances, the capacity limits increase. For example, venues of 0 to 1500. It goes from a maximum of 10% to 15%, from 100 to 200 people moving into that orange tier. Next slide. There's an additional breakdown in terms of retail capacity limits go away and they're allowed to be open indoors with modifications. That guidance can be found at recoverysbc.org or the state website In terms of physical distancing and masking, etc.
Next slide. We see that capacity limits here again increase for different industry sectors moving from 25% capacity in various industry sectors to 50% capacity. One thing to know is that in the orange tier indoor pools are allowed to open in both hotels and lodging industries as well as gym and fitness centers. They have to adhere by the 25% capacity in that orange tier limit, but they are allowed to reopen. That does not include water parks and water slides.
Restaurants moving to 50% capacity indoors with modification. Next slide please. We also see that in the orange tier bars are allowed to reopen outdoors with modifications Without serving beverages, so that industry guidance can be found at RecoverySBC as well. Wineries, breweries and distilleries capacity increases to 25% capacity indoors as well as family entertainment centers indoors they move to a 25% capacity. 50%, if all guests are tested or show proof of full vaccination. So there is that as well for the family entertainment centers.
Next slide. Here we see a couple more things being able to reopen in that orange tier. Offices are allowed to open indoors with modification, with an encouragement of tele-networking. Card rooms can open indoors with modifications at 25% capacity. Again for a lot of these industry sectors the main difference from red to orange is the capacity limits increase.
Next slide. And then we also see so here's just the completion of that Blueprint Industry Tier Next slide. And one thing to note is that the state did add an addendum to the blueprint activity tier, and that is in regards to venues with full testing vaccination capacity bonus. Again I mentioned those as I went through the different tiers for certain industry sectors if guests show proof of testing or full vaccination those in the capacity limits do increase in some certain sectors.
You can also see in the addendum that there's a differentiation between vaccinated-only sections and there's a six foot distancing between vaccinated-only sections versus non-vaccinated sections. So this addendum is new, added to that blueprint. Next slide please. And here's just some definitions of the tested only section versus the vaccinated only section for some additional clarification.
Next slide. So moving on to our RecoverySBC.org website, we are updating that and will be updating it as soon as we're officially in the orange tier with the release of the health officer order. Next slide. We just want to note that we do have resources for businesses that are being updated on a regular basis. We have a section on that page called Upcoming Webinars, that we are trying to keep updated with various webinars for businesses and resources. Next slide.
So yesterday we actually co-hosted a webinar with the Economic Development Collaborative and that focused primarily on the American Rescue Plan Act and different resources that came out of that for businesses. We had 240 attendees which is great they average anywhere between We had a good turnout there. We had a lot of Q&A answers, questions for those businesses and it was pretty successful so that information will be posted at edccollaborative.org.com and we're going to keep our RecoverySBC website updated with any upcoming webinars to make sure that our businesses have as much information as possible.
And here's just the contact information for various business advisory resources. We partnered with the EDC on the webinar yesterday and their contact information is available, they stand ready to answer any questions in regard to business resources as well as anything that came from the American Rescue Plan Act which was the focus of the webinar yesterday. Next slide please. Here's just some information where you can find all the updated industry guidance will be posted And with that, that concludes my report and I am available for any questions. Thank you.
Thank you Ms. McGinty. Supervisor Hart? Yeah, I have a question about the distinction between gatherings and private events. What is the distinction between those two events because one has a lower capacity and the other one has a higher capacity?
1:04 – 1:0816 turns
That is a good question. You know, from my end and Dr. Doronoso if you have the answer to these feel free to jump in.
Sure, so gatherings are defined as social informal gatherings where there is no defined guest list required and no testing or vaccination required. Whereas private events are described as meetings or receptions or conferences Where there is a defined guest list where you can have vaccination status and other testing status as part of the guest list.
So if you had an event, and you had a defined guest list, and the only people that you admitted were people that you had invited on that list, fall to a private event as opposed to a gathering?
I think the private event, I'd like to think of that as more of like a conference or as Dr. Ansorg will say as a wedding reception um or a convening in an enclosed Typically like at a hotel or at a convention center versus a gathering is more of something a lot less formal in your home, in your backyard, in your private space.
Okay so there's still a lot of gray area here okay thank you.
Thank You Supervisor Hart other questions from the board and Santa Maria? Supervisor Lavenino. I'm good, thank you. All right um the one question i have is about this uh vaccination for uh the events and whatnot are there any guidelines on protocols for requesting you know from your guests proof of vaccination it seems to be is that something that's going to be left up to You know, self-certifying that or what kind of thought has been put into that process?
When we have chatted with the hospitality industry as well as our state colleagues, the verification of vaccination status will be left up to the event organizer and the subcontractor of the facility.
Thank you that's what I was curious about so appreciate the clarification on that. All right, I believe that concludes questions from the board. Madam Clerk do we have any public comment on this item?
Chair Nelson and members of the Board we have no request to speak on this item.
All right thank you Ms. McGinty and Dr. Del Ranoso and Dr. Henning for being available. That concludes Item D1 and with that oh sorry I think we need a motion to receive and file
Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board. If we can get a motion to approve staff recommendations A through C.
So moved.
Second. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 moved. Second. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
Okay let's go ahead
move on to item D2. Madam Clerk, will you please read that item into the record?
1:08 – 1:186 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the Board. Departmental Item number two is from General Services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the KPMG business case for a standalone information technology IT department.
And I believe that we have CEO Miyasato. You're going to kick this off for us.
I think Mr Frapple was going to kick this off. Is he on the line, Jacqueline?
Right. Chair Nelson, members of the board. Good morning. As we discussed last week during budget workshops and part of our special issue on the digital transformation in the county. The county's ability to thrive and adapt and increasing technology for a future investments in our information technology functions will need to be made In August 2019, the General Services Department review by KPMG recommended that the county establish an information communication technology department as a standalone department to do five things. To increase resiliency, to enhance cyber risk mitigation, to reduce operational redundancy, to provide better performance and improve customer services.
KPMG has subsequently developed and was engaged to develop a roadmap for decimating costs and benefits for Stand Alone Department. The goals of an information technology department would be to become an innovator, and our partner with departments who support the county's mission to be a hub for shared technology solutions to drive efficiency countywide. We'll overcome our technologies sprawl that is developed from our decentralized and inconsistent systems in departmental policies and to provide countywide multi-department technology solutions.
I'm joined today by Barry Brunsman from KPMG, and he'll provide kind of overview of a few short slides. And then this is Patel, the Director for General Services will take over after that. So with that, Barry?
Yes Mr. Frepple thank you so much! And may we have the slides please? Very good, thank you. Good morning Chair Nelson and members of the board as Jeff said my name is Barry Brunsman I'm a principal in KPMG's advisory practice and I had the privilege to serve as your engagement partner for this project so it's my pleasure to be with you here today to provide an overview of the business case for standalone IT department.
So depicted on the screen is a summary of our engagement KPMG conducted an eight-week engagement beginning in July of 2020 Our field work involved two key activities. We interviewed ICT management, as well as department heads of other county departments and their IT leadership. All told the departments that were involved in this field work included behavioral wellness, the district attorney office, fire, general services, public health, public works and social services.
In addition to that work we examined data from other California counties The field work allowed us to develop a recommended scope for standalone IT department as an important element of what we would describe as a hybrid IT model that increases centralization of shared IT services, but also benefits from IT capabilities within the departments to support those departments' unique needs.
Next slide please Interviews with ICT and department management led to the conclusion that ICT staff are easy to work with. They are strong technical problem solvers, and they provided critical services for countywide solutions quite well. Interviewees further suggested that there were additional opportunities for ICT to add value by expanding its services but challenges with expanding services with ICT were also identified.
Most significantly, departments express worries that they might not receive the same level of service that they currently enjoy if those services were centralized. Next slide please. KPMG facilitated the development of a charter for an IT department. The charter includes a vision and mission goals and objectives for ITD. Now as a quick aside, KPMG refers to ICT when we are describing the current state We refer to an IT department or ITD when we describe the future scape for avoidance of confusion.
The mission and goal highlighted on this chart make clear the intended role of ITD. ITD will be a centralized component of a hybrid model that blends centralized contributions with contributions from local IT support in the departments. This operating model concept enables operational efficiency for shared solutions, and reduces technology sprawl over time.
The objectives identify the key elements of the value proposition for ITD, and these will be described a bit later in the presentation. Next slide please. You'll notice the objectives from the previous slide provided a basis for conceptual scope for ITD. This slides relatively busy but to simplify it let me divide the items here into two categories shared technology support and new value added services.
The two leftmost columns are focused on shared technology support. Shared technology includes solutions that are shared amongst two or more departments, Office 365 is a great example. It also includes the infrastructure that underpins county solutions as well as the operation of that infrastructure. Data centers and network administration are examples. The four columns on the right represent value-added services And to go through them one by one, portfolio management refers to an organization that provides governance as well as monitoring and tracking of the county's IT project portfolio.
Cybersecurity refers to an organization that provides an operational capability that protects county offices and technology users from cyber threats. Technical support refers to an organization that provides support to end users. For smaller departments, ITD would provide help desk and end user desktop support. And for larger departments that have their own help desk and support function, ITD would provide end user computing standards to simplify purchasing, support, and ultimately management of end-user computing cybersecurity threats.
The Information Executive Organization provides a mechanism to manage the business of IT Importantly, this organization includes a vendor management capability which would manage interactions with high priority IT vendors for the benefit of the county. It also includes a customer relations team. Customers in this case refer to the customers of ITD so users of countywide technology. This team is responsible for managing the concern that departments raised about the potential loss of services that they enjoy today.
Next slide please. KPMG's review and benchmark analysis identified several benefits that could be expected to be delivered by ITD. Benchmark analysis suggests potential cost savings in technology spend as a result of creating a vendor management office in ITD. Other operational efficiencies result from centralizing and maturing support for shared technologies.
The county should also expect technology project outcomes to improve over time, as a result of creating a portfolio management team And then finally, an operational cybersecurity capability should improve the county's ability to manage current and future cyber vulnerabilities. Next slide please. KPMG also developed the prerequisites for significant activities required to implement an ITD. KPMG identified 11 of these activities and organized them into two phases.
The first phase, which is made up of the four prerequisites indicated in light blue on this chart, is focused on the detailed design and planning considering people processing technology for the IT department. The outcomes of that phase are refreshed business case and a detailed implementation plan. The second phase, which is made up of the remaining seven prerequisites indicated in purple on this chart, is focused on building the IT organization and its processes.
Next slide please. Phase one includes four prerequisites that are estimated to require nine months to complete. The detailed technology and services scope will be defined, building on the information I shared in slide five previously. Staffing and managed services solutions for ITD will be defined. A technology roadmap that defines changes in technology necessary to bring solutions under ITD management will be defined.
And these outcomes will allow for a more comprehensive business case to be developed in support of the launch of phase two. Phase one success will result from the continued collaboration and interaction between ICT and the departments in order to design an ITD solution that best meets the county needs. And with that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Paul to discuss the final recommendations.
Thank you Barry. So today we're asking the board To receive and file the report on the KPMG business case for a standalone information technology department. Endorse the concept of the standalone IT department, direct the county executive office and general services to proceed with prerequisite tasks as outlined in phase one of the implementation plan. And direct departments to work with the CEO and general services toward implementing activities of the plan as required Direct staff to return to the Board of Supervisors with a return on investment analysis and actions to formally create an independent standalone information technology department, and then determine that these proposed actions do not constitute a project under CEQA.
And with that we're available to answer any questions. Thank you.
1:18 – 1:2614 turns
Thank you, Ms. Pell. Supervisor
Hart? Yeah well it seems to me one of the most striking reasons for doing the stand-alone IT department is the security against cyber attacks I know that that is something that is increasing concern and a real life challenge for many local governments around the country and I'm not even sure how you would protect against those sort of sophisticated attacks with the hybrid model that we currently have. I know that is important and we have steps in place, but you know the weakest link in the chain is the vulnerability to the entire system so it seems like separate from all of the other issues about efficiency and quality of service to departments that the critical imperative of having a strong protection against cyberattacks is really the most important I
believe that the operational component around cybersecurity creates the mechanism for an ongoing assessment and management of potential cyber vulnerabilities. So, I think your point is exactly correct.
Thank
you. Thank you, Supervisor Hart. Any questions up in Santa Maria? I think we're good,
thank
you. All right, I've got a couple questions for Mr. Brunsman. So nine months for this next phase, I'm not sure if you're aware but we've got a lot of requests for budget expansions this year for IT and for data in the county and so I'm concerned with that timeline because I know that we're going to be moving forward with purchases of applications and hiring staff to accommodate these demands Any thoughts on that? Are we going about this the right way? Do we need to hit the pause button, get the IT department up and then come back and fund this or do we need to expedite the nine month period so that we can do these things together.
Do we need to maybe hire our CIO ahead of time to begin that process with them you know on the ground to help advise us as we move forward I'm just kind of curious on all these things happening at once what
Chair Nelson, thank you for your question. I believe that the nine month estimate is based on a number of factors not the least of which is availability of county IT professionals to participate in the effort as it is an involved effort. I would say that there are several aspects of the findings that could be implemented with the development of the ITD department parallel with phase one's as an example and maybe to your point about some of the projects that you made reference to The idea of putting in place a project management capability or portfolio management capability need not wait until the development of an IT department which could offer some of the benefits around project execution success. So I believe that there are opportunities to maybe pull forward some of the activities that can support the agenda that you make reference to.
With regards to your question about the CIO, I would say that there are benefits from accelerating the hire of a CIO is that person then could have a role in helping shape the details around the IT department. I don't believe however that it's a critical requirement to launch the phase one activities. So in short summary, Chair Nelson. I believe that the possibility here is to coordinate the number of activities that you're that you've made mention of around the development and execution phase one activity so that those other activities you make mention of can benefit from some of the sort of superstructure that the IT department will ultimately be able to provide.
Okay well that's I guess that's helpful there. I'm interested as we further this discussion along with my colleagues Madam Clerk I guess the next question is do we have any public comment on this? And then we will try to get somewhere with this.
Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no request to speak on this item.
So back to the Board. So I guess I just want to follow up on where I'm going with that. That CIO position is that, I think you know sometimes if we build the organization and then we put a leader in front of it that could present some challenges. You know maybe that input earlier on in the process might be helpful to build that department And I think, ultimately, we're going to need somebody at that high level even if we don't have a standalone IT department. Maybe it's somebody that ends up being in the CEO's office to kind of guide us in this process. So I just want to put that out there, see what the board thinks, see what the CEO thinks as we move forward. And the other point that I want to make about all this is I think I don't want it to be seen that a standalone An IT department is any reflection of the performance by general services They're managing a lot of things right now in the countywide and I just think it's an it's a acknowledgment amount about work that they have on the Infrastructure side as well as acknowledgement about how big of a deal this IT side is And so, um, I think it's too big for one department at this time.
I'm definitely in favor Of a standalone IDT Department moving forward It seems to be the The backbone of the KPMG studies. We just keep coming back to it and back to it, and you know if I don't think we go back to this if we don't move forward, it's almost going to seem like this was for not because I think this is what we're going to need to move into a 21st century county governance so with that Supervisor Williams.
Yeah, it's very clear to me after four and a half years here that there's too much of a breadth of responsibility for any one department to handle here. And that to move us into this century, not the next century, we want to make sure that you know, the an organization that's that is adapted to the conditions as much as possible and and ironically by our determination to do more on infrastructure and deferred maintenance.
If we don't do this, we could make it worse because we're just going to give them. We're going to give general services more jobs Um, uh, outlined in the budget hearings. So I just do think that moving towards a standalone department is really the right call.
Yeah, I agree too and I think that ironically the underinvestment in technology that we've not done in the past 20 years is going to help us at this point because we're really gonna be able to make a significant difference with a significant investment In a strategic way, having the right kind of leadership directing those decisions. And so relatively quickly we're going to get where we need to be without having replaced a bunch of systems over the past 20 years because we just didn't do those things. So it's gonna work to our advantage and we're gonna end up with a great product that I think everybody in the county will benefit from.
Okay thanks Supervisor Hart. Any other further questions or comments up north?
1:26 – 1:3111 turns
This is Supervisor Hartman, I have several. The term that really jumped out at me was the idea of technological sprawl and I think we unless we do this we really risk a fragmented uncoordinated Incoherent system. We need to integrate it for many reasons, cybersecurity as Supervisor Hart noted but also so it's easier for departments to collaborate and work together more easily. I think of the Acela that we're using now for public health and planning. So that's really important to be able to be nimble and adapt quickly I spent many years at the Claremont Colleges where they have five undergraduate institutions, a school of theology and a graduate school. And that's rather like departments and they each maintain their own identity and culture But they collaborate on things like library, IT laboratories.
And so it enables them to have a university class shared services like that and still retain their individual characteristics that they value. And I see that as what we're gonna have here in the county where the departments still Their missions and their character, but they're going to get top flight IT services. And I think that's just critical for our county going forward so I'm very supportive of this.
Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Lavinino?
100% on board that the study was right on. I like the whole idea of the federalization and You bring up an interesting point. It's whether or not you hire the head coach before you hire the assistant coach, or the general manager set the team up. I'm open to either and maybe it's gonna be part of the budget decisions as we move forward but yeah that's an interesting point.
Thank you Supervisor Lavender. I guess my comment or direction would be to leave that discretion to the CEO's office, but understand that the CEO and General Services has the board support if they find through this process that that's a good move for them to make. I'm not wed to the idea. I just think it's something to be considered.
Supervisors to the chair, thank you for that. I'll work closely with Ms. Pell and Mr. Frapwell. I think there's value in having someone on board early to help go through this process but you don't want them on board too early As we're actually going through this process. So there's a fine line and if it is going to be a department head, it would be an appointment of the board not the CEO. I mean our code says I recommend but the board approves or rejects that appointment so the board basically has higher fire authority. So we'd have to figure out how that would work but during this nine months we can start looking at specs and classifications and getting things in gear and I can come back to the board within that period of time tell you where we are when we think it's the right time.
Yeah, if you don't mind Supervisor Hart. You know also we're going to hire a department head and we know what that process looks like and that sometimes could be months so maybe there's a way to if we know that it's heading in that direction that we maybe start our recruitment in time so that we can roll out at nine months to be able hit the ground running and maybe that's the hybrid that might be helpful for you.
Supervisor Hart? Yeah I think this has all been great extra I have great confidence in Ms. Miyasato and working together with everybody to make this happen seamlessly, effectively and quickly. So I would move staff recommendations A through E.
Second.
All right any further discussion? Supervisor Williams are you just ready to vote? Ready to vote. Okay all right Madam Clerk will you please call the roll
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 move staff recommendations A through E. Second. All right any further discussion? Supervisor Williams are you just ready to vote? Ready to v
Show transcript
motion passes unanimously.
All right, thank you. Madam Clerk moving on to our departmental item number three would you please read that into the record?
1:31 – 1:366 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board departmental item number three is from community services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the approval of Santa Barbara County Home Consortium and Community Development Block Grant CDBG urban fiscal year 2021 through 2022 annual action plan
Thank you. With that, we have Dinah Lockhart. Ms. Lockhart when you're ready.
Good morning Chair Nelson and members of the Board of Supervisors. Staff is here to present the 2021 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan which includes recommendations on the use of public service and capital project funds. These recommendations were made by the county's Capital Loan Committee Today by phone we also have Skip Szymanski, Chair of the Capital Loan Committee and Warren Ritter who is Chair of the Human Service Commission.
Lori Baker, Grants and Program Manager with the County's Housing and Community Development Division will give the presentation this morning. Lori?
Thank you Dinah. Good morning Chair Nelson and members of the board As Dinah mentioned, we're here today for approval of grant awards using CDBG funds. Could I have the next slide please? On November 2nd, 2020 the Division of Housing and Community Development published a notice of funding availability to solicit applications for CDBG and applications or notices of intent to apply for home funds.
We received 29 applications for public services funds for the just over $197,000 available We received 10 applications for capital projects for the $957,000 available. The Human Services Commission made the funding recommendations for public services programs and HCD staff as well as the Capital Loan Committee made recommendations for capital projects. Next slide.
These are the funding recommendations made by the Human Services Commission for public services programs. A full list of the applications received are included in your board letter. Next slide, please. This list shows the funding recommendations made by both HCD and the Capital Loan Committee. Note that there is one difference in the recommendations Made by the Capital Loan Committee and HCD.
HCD staff recommends funding to the Ivy Community Center, while the Capital Loan Committee recommended that Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinic. These are highlighted in yellow on this slide. The Isla Vista Community Center proposal was in staff's estimation most ready to proceed under general services project management. Staff's concern regarding the clinic proposal relates to the timeliness of the project and schedule, as it is a considerable construction project in the context of CDBG timely expenditure requirements.
The Capital Loan Committee's recommendation results in a $127,000 shortfall in the project budget The clinic indicated, however, that it would identify additional resources to cover this shortfall. We are seeking board direction on the final determination of the project to be funded. Next slide please. The county is a lead agency of the Home Consortium which consists of the cities shown on this slide.
Each city may identify projects for their sub allocations or they may pool their funds with the counties for inclusion in the annual NOFA. Home funds may be used for affordable housing projects and or tenant based rental assistance. Next slide please. The City of Santa Maria will use $150,000 of its suballocation to administer a tenant-based rental assistance program.
HCD staff maintains a list of housing projects that are expected to proceed in the next year or two and staff will return to the board for project approvals at that time. Next slide please. This concludes the staff report And we are available to answer any questions.
Thank you, Miss Baker. Questions from the board? Supervisor Williams.
Well I guess on the issue you're asking for direction from us but I'm hearing that The neighborhood clinics portion isn't executable in time for plan A. So how much discretion do we really have here? I need to kind of understand that.
1:37 – 1:4419 turns
Chair Nelson, could I piggyback on that question?
Absolutely if it's all right Supervisor
Williams. Absolutely. I was, I was trying to leave a gap because I was expecting the question first there please.
I mean, I think that you know the sewage facility connection is really important but staff had serious questions about whether it could be completed on time especially now they have to do the additional fundraising so what is the risk if they do not complete it on time and what assurances have they given us that
I'll
take a stab at it Lori and then you can fill in the gaps. So Chair Nelson, Supervisor Hartman, they the Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinics CEO has indicated to us that They are implementing a fundraising campaign that will begin, if it hasn't begun already. But they will begin and be fundraising throughout the summer and into the balance of this year. CDBG funds are not received by the county until later this year, sometime September-October at which time staff is working on contracts for execution. We bring those contracts back to the Board of Supervisors in January of 2022.
We can, if those fundraising goals are not met we can at that time come back to the board in January and provide a report to the board on the status of the Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinic project and the board can make an alternate decision at that time if their fundraising goals have not been reached so that's another option that the board can consider Lori, if you had anything
else. No thank you Dinah
and if I might follow up so the fundraising is one aspect but I think even before that if I read the report correctly there's a question whether it's shovel ready whether it can really be completed within the time period. Is that assumption correct and have they given assurances that they could?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. Yes, they have given us indications that they could however it is an extensive project that will include you know tearing up the street coordinating with the Kalita Sanitary District on approving the project we've not worked with the Santa Barbara Foundation on this larger project in the past typically these projects are done Like from a by a public works department.
So we don't know the extent of the Santa Barbara clinic experience with these kinds of projects. They haven't indicated whether they would be hiring a qualified project manager, but they have given us assurances that they will do the fundraising to have In time, we also have a parking lot. Resurfacing project with them for which we gave them $30,000 last year that's just now getting underway so it would be staffs preference to get that project completed and then perhaps next year we could help them with the.
With the sewer project that set Ivy Community Center Um, did apply two years in a row prior and we turned down their application because of a lack of an operations plan which is required to qualify the project for CDBG. They have returned this year with a five-year operations plan so we felt that they now meet the qualifications for CDBG We could move forward with that to complete the final components of the exterior that are needed to consider that project complete.
Thank you Miss Baker. Supervisor Hartman, any additional questions from you? Supervisor Hartman?
I'll wait till deliberations.
Okay. Supervisor Lavinino? I have a question. Just looking at the CDBG capital projects, I see four of those projects are in incorporated cities. Are any of those projects also receiving CDBG funds from those incorporated cities or are they just receiving them from the county?
Supervisor Nelson, they're just receiving CDBD funds from the county.
Okay and just to clarify for me when we look at our CDBG funds the way it's allocated to the county is that based on population of the entire county? Is that the unincorporated area how exactly do we get the allocations for the various categories in CDBG?
Supervisor Nelson, the formula for CDBg involves a number of data including of the low-income population, poverty population as a whole. And the cities and county that qualified for a direct allocation of CDBG are the County, the City of Santa Barbara, the City of Goleta, City of Lompoc and City of Santa Maria. The other incorporated cities in the county partner have joined up the CDBG Urban County Partnership and so the county funds really are for the county and those cities which are Carpentria, Builton and Solvang.
And when you say county do you mean unincorporated area or is that what you're referring to? Okay just wanted to clarify that for to set the stage for my comments during deliberations. Supervisor Williams
Well, I can save my comments for deliberations to not steal your thunder, Mr. Chair. All right. I think I can almost maybe like write your talking points. But I'm there with you. But to me, I think part of the partnership with cities is understanding when they're doing well and when they're not doing well. Under normal circumstances, they would not be doing well right now because of loss of revenues But because of the federal government's relief package, that is about to change. And so that's why I'm interested
in changes of expectations. Yeah and before we get too far into deliberations, I'm not as hardcore as I'm signaling. Encourage collaboration with the cities and equal investment. I know our mission at the county is different than the mission of cities So I do embrace that completely that we're more of a service Body But I also am going to be very zealous for unincorporated residents as well With that, I think we're gonna jump to public comment on madam clerk. Do we have any public comment on this item?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have two requests to speak on this item. We are going to begin with Victoria Garfield to be followed by Nancy Tilley.
1:44 – 1:4912 turns
Miss Garfield when you're ready.
Good morning can you hear me?
We can welcome
great good morning supervisors my name is Victoria Garfield and I'm the grants and compliance manager for New Beginnings Our executive director and program staff were unable to attend this meeting as they are all attending the Housing First virtual conference today, but they wanted me to pass along their gratitude. Our board of directors, executive director, staff and volunteers would like to thank the county for your continued support and for the recent CDBG funding recommended for our safe parking program, the only program that provides safe overnight shelter and rapid rehousing services for the vehicular homeless persons countywide.
In the past year, the need for access to low barrier homeless services has become more critical than ever. In our safe parking program alone 20% of clients in South County reported that they had become homeless due to COVID-19. The need for our homeless services programs has increased more than usual due to the pandemic related job loss evictions and the need for a place to safely social distance. We are proud to work with the county and our other community partners to address the needs of our clients in our community at this unprecedented time. We appreciate the support, hard work and dedication of James Francis, Lori Baker, Sarah Brassell and the rest of the Housing and Community Development Department staff as well as a review and allocations committee.
County funding allows us to continue to carry out our mission of providing quality, affordable counseling, shelter, case management and education that strengthens our community and provides our clients with the ability to lead healthy and productive lives. Overall, our longstanding partnership with the county has been invaluable to our agency, and we're excited to continue to collaborate on improving the homeless services in our community.
We thank the committee for their funding recommendations and the Board of Supervisors for their continued engagement in our collective efforts to end homelessness in Santa Barbara County. Thank you.
Thank you.
We will now go to Nancy Tilly who is our final speaker.
Thank you, can you hear me?
Yes Miss Tilly when you're ready.
Thank you. I am Nancy Tilly, the Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Financial Officer for the Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinics. I appreciate the support that we have received in the past for our clinic system in our parking lot and we will be completing that work shortly. We went forward with this request for making sure that our clinic got put on the sewage system through connection because we had had some backups in the past with our current septic tank.
And we do have agreement from the sanitary district that we could remain there, however it is really an environmental concern of ours and We have seen this as an opportunity to try to remedy that. We are assuredly have the funds that we could set aside, to be able to make up for the shortfall and we would like to go forward as again this is an environmental concern where near a creek And we would, if we had some disruption in our septic system, we would have to close down the clinic. And at this time that is something that would not be feasible. We are serving your safety net provider, the largest safety net provider in South Santa Barbara County and not having access for people that are underserved already would not be a wise thing to do.
And so this is the reason we want to move forward We've been very fortunate in that the census of the clinic has been lower during COVID. We've had less people coming in, but now that we're opening back up and getting everyone onto their regularly scheduled visits and immunizations, we will again have a lot of activity coming through the clinic. Thank you for your support and I appreciate the work The county staff has done and the committee to recommend that our project be funded as it is a critical
need. May I ask Miss Tilley a question?
Absolutely, Miss Tilley will you stay on the line here for a moment? Supervisor Hartman has a question for you
Yes. Thank you for all the good work you do and we certainly wanna dedicate funds to fix this, but can you answer the staff concern about your capacity to oversee a project of this scale? I read in the staff report that if the expenditure deadlines aren't met then we risk the recapture of funds by HUD And so we certainly don't want that to happen. So can you give us some assurance?
1:50 – 1:5613 turns
Yes, we've already been reaching out to project managers that we would be able to work with on a project of this size. We understand that we have to be opening up the ground. We've gotten bids just for this project. This is the second time around that we bid this large project out and we are assured that the contractors we would be working with have done work for the city and the county before and are used to doing this level of project
Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Hart?
Yeah well I think this is unfortunate because the neighborhood clinic grant application is for a very high priority project. I mean connecting to the sewer system is about as high of a priority as you could get when you look at the comparison to other projects but there are limited funds and the community center in Isla Vista has been a long standing need as well You know, it does feel as though there may be a way to address this issue perhaps with ARPA funds that are coming. I mean the neighborhood clinic is a key partner in our COVID response and this is infrastructure that's directly related to that. I mean if you can't have the sewer connection, you can't operate the clinic and you can serve people during a pandemic so I think there's a really compelling case to make this investment but to supplement these funds a little bit later, let these projects as the staff has recommended go forward and then backfill the funding and perhaps even the full funding for this project a little bit later once we get more clarity on what the ARPA funds could be used for.
So I think there's opportunities and it certainly if nothing else makes the case that the Neighborhood Clinic Project oughta be at the very top of the list for the next allocation of CDBG funds.
Thank you Supervisor Hart Other comments?
Supervisor Williams. Well, I thought it was germane to a lot of discussions to talk about partnerships between city and county and I do think that while In the last couple years, cities have had much less ability financially to be able to participate in partnerships around some of these type of at least the housing portion of this effort. Looking at the dollar figures from the relief packages, that potentially changes and I do think that the time is now for more partnerships between the county and city.
And so I thought that was germane to bring that up though I think it's still we should fund all these projects as they are.
Supervisor Hartman or Lavanino?
I'm fine, thank you.
Supervisor Hartman?
I'm really struggling on this. So, but I'll struggle inside my own head for a minute.
Okay, I'll go ahead and jump in and obviously kind of began to show my cards a little earlier with my questions. I would actually when I look at the capital projects, I would actually put Isla Vista number one on my list of projects so I'm in favor of funding that project You know, over half my constituents are in cities and Alampoca the city of Santa Maria. But I'm also very protective of our unincorporated areas and making sure the limited funds that are available to those areas are maximized. You know Supervisor Williams mentioned that some of the cities have been strapped with not being able to have those revenues to accomplish on these projects in Only people worse off than the cities are actually unincorporated communities who have no funds to devote to two projects.
And you know, I like to know more about the neighborhood clinic their business plan. You know what how does it work? You know moving forward and maybe that's a project that the city and the county can as Supervisor Hart suggested maybe partner with ARPA funds and I hope you know when we work with the cities because All of us have constituents that are in the city. So I understand when we make decisions up here, we're not the Board of Supervisors for the unincorporated area.
I get that completely but I do think we have an extra responsibility to those that are in the undercorporate areas to make sure they're served with funds that aren't typically available exclusively for them. You know they have to share their unincorporated dollars and sales tax dollars with all these other needs that counties have to administer, and that's why they're usually less served even though they are urban areas. And so I'm going to keep you know we had that drumbeat throughout my tenure on this board and so again that's why I had Isla Vista as the top of my list and I would support a motion that reflected And then maybe table the neighborhood clinic and try to find out if we can do some kind of partnership with the city of Goleta.
As we move that forward in the future, and maybe that can be a model for other ARPA projects. I know I'll probably be looking into some things in Lompoc with the county. I know there's some nexuses there, especially with the unsheltered population. And I've already been talking to the city about us coming together, county and city, to really be true partners in some of these projects.
Chair Nelson?
Yeah. This
is George Chapton. One of the things, this is a federally qualified health clinic so we probably want to know you know how much federal money could they get for this type of project as well? Would there be federal money available? So given a little bit more time we can dive into those types of things.
1:56 – 2:0214 turns
Okay so that they might be eligible for some federal funding? Is that what you're suggesting?
Yeah, it is a federally qualified health clinic. Okay
well I think we've got some time as has been suggested by Supervisor Hart. I know nobody wants to be against the neighborhood clinic and not to be supportive and I don't think that if we decide not to fund it, I don't think that the neighborhood clinic should feel unsupported by this board. I think the comment is there might be another avenue that's more appropriate. I don' think some of those funds federal funds may be easily available to something like the IB Community Center And so, you know, let's let's allocate revenue where it's most easily travels to be my thought supervisor heart and supervisor Williams.
Yeah, I think another element to consider in this conversation is that the CDBG allocations It is not as though they are not stepping up to the bar themselves. They are just too many priorities and not enough dollars to chase after those really important needs but there may be an opportunity in this particular instance to coordinate with City of Goleta. I certainly will make that point.
Mayor Parodi and the City Manager for the City of Gilead this week. And so I'll ask questions about that and the projects that they funded with their CDBG funds and what their thoughts were about the neighborhood clinic, and maybe we can better coordinate these in a future application. The use of those funds may not be necessary. Maybe we can advance funding for this project in advance of the CDBG cycle next year, and just maybe there's a timing thing. There just seems like a lot of opportunities for creativity. This is a super critical infrastructure project though so everybody needs to remember that. We're fixing up baths, remodeling restrooms in other places and we're talking about a sewer connection. And I think there is an obvious hierarchy of needs involved in those different projects.
Good point. Supervisor Williams?
Yeah, from the staff input it seemed to me that we still have a little bit of time to make this determination and it seems to me that we should afford some time for this to shake out You know, at least my viewpoint is if we have a divided heart today on this then perhaps it is not the right time to make that call.
Let's clarify that. Supervisor Miyasato? I'm sorry for the demotion. C.O. Miyasata. I don't
know whether that was a promotion or a demotion but thank you very much. Well Ms. Lockhart said these contracts would come back to your board In a few more months, I think should before January and so you could make you could follow staff's recommendations now And I think with the caveat that when these come back to the board in January for the actual contracts You can see where they are and what additional research they've done. And I just wanted to ask mr. Chapter and mr. Miss Lockhart if I heard you correctly on that Yes
≫ Thank you. I'm sorry, 2022. That's one option. Another option is to defer a decision on the neighborhood clinics completely until there is further discussion with the city of Goleta on the use of their ARPA funds as I believe Supervisor Hart mentioned. So there are some options available
So my thoughts here again is, I don't think it's whether GLIDA is a worthy project or not. It's whether I think we fund the IV Community Center as part of the discussion here and then try to find other resources to assist the neighborhood clinic. I don' know what motion comes out of here but again, I am interested in fully funding the IV Community Center and then that would actually leave a balance at $22,763 which I would hope that we program for Gleada Clinic so that we could fully subscribe our capital funds for this cycle and then again to work with them on trying to find the additional $200,000 they were asking the county for through other avenues.
Chair Nielsen if that's a motion I would second it.
I'll make that motion, but with the caveat that the original request was for $350,000. So I think when we're conceptualizing of this, let's go back to that number. This is clearly worthy of investment in CDBG funds and you know, I'll do my best to help coordinate the conversation with City of Goleta and our staff about figuring out a way to get this project done as fast
All right. So there was a motion from actually the motion came from Supervisor Hart. Supervisor Hartman, would you second that motion? OK, I believe Mr Gozoni has some guidance.
Chair and supervisors it's been discussed, I think, but maybe not expressly and that is just the timing components on this and it might even help to hear from the department on their timing constraints on this just so as you go through this motion you understand what would be occurring right away and what would be occurring at a hard date in the future?
2:02 – 2:0715 turns
Okay staff would you like to add to the conversation here?
Chair Nelson, the hard constraint for us is the expenditure ratio that staff will face in April of 2022 where we will have We have had to expend, and I don't remember the exact percentage but we will have had to expend a certain amount of our CDBG funds. Our goal is that CDBG capital projects be completed within a six month time frame. We will provide contracts to the board in January and we expect that the projects will be nearing completion toward Again, pending fundraising and the clinic's ability to secure all of the contracting and permitting that will be necessary to complete the sewer connections.
Staff will definitely be monitoring that to ensure that the project does not run into any unnecessary cost overruns or project delays.
Okay. Just one more question for clarification so the motion includes the extra $22,000 to the neighborhood clinic. So is that would that funding be eligible for them to do this pre planning work to get the permits and Maybe it doesn't even matter if you don't have to spend 100% of the dollars by the deadline. $22,000 is a pretty small percentage of $957,000 maybe it doesn't matter but I just want to make sure that I understand what Ms Lockhart was referring to.
Normally staff would not recommend committing dollars that do not fully complete a project. So in this case what staff can do is we could certainly set those dollars aside, those $22,000 aside at such time that the funding package for the clinics is complete and then we could come back and commit those funds at that time.
Is that acceptable for the motion maker? I'm supportive of committing them now and using that as an incentive to get everybody to the table
here. Normally it's not this situation, we're dealing with a different situation. Allocating funding demonstrates our commitment to this project.
Chair Nelson, we do have the two members from Neighborhood Clinics on the line. I think we should just ask them if that actually helps them to answer Supervisor Hart's question about planning. So Ms. Anderson if you could get them back on.
I think it's Miss Tilley is that right?
Yes.
Hi Miss
Tilley. So I suspect if you're splitting You're saying we'll grant you this to get your planning done and then you have to find the other money. I guess I want to be clear on, we would not be able to do the project for $22,000 obviously. So is the expectation that we would do it with $1,000 or we would be able to use that money for planning only and then have to go out The project is well more than even the money that was allocated, but we were willing to do the fundraising and get that all in place. And so I'm just trying to find out the conditions of getting the 22,000. Would we get that? And it would be just to be doing the planning. So that's all we would be required to do during that year then and have the next year to figure out Whether we apply in the next round to get the remaining funds to fully cover this project or not, if there were other federal funds that were available for this project, we would have already made that application.
So I appreciate someone saying as a federally qualified health center, we are entitled to other funding that other community organizations may not be. However, if it were available, we would have already done that.
Thank you, Mr. Telly.
I guess I'm just trying to understand what the conditions of the money that we're getting are. That's all.
Before we go to see Omiya-Sato, I believe what the money is it's an initial commitment from the board. It's the balance of our capital funds and then the board will be coming back with exploring some other options for county funds to be available or grant funds that we might be able to partner with you to accomplish the goal of the $350,000 to complete the project.
Okay.
I guess we just have to yeah, we just have to work that out.
2:07 – 2:1424 turns
Chair Nelson to the board if it's really for Miss Tilly and maybe Ms. Lockhart but Miss Tilly I think the question is would the $22,000 help you in getting your project started for plans etc? And the second question is from Ms. I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions.
The initial $22,000 can be set aside. And we can certainly work with the Neighborhood Clinic and Chair Hart, Supervisor Hart and any others to identify full funding for this project. If for some reason, I know there's another contingency, if for some reason we are unable to secure additional funding, we can take this back to the board next year There will be $22,000 sitting available.
And the board at that time can decide with the new funding available in CDBG in 2022 to fund the clinic at that time with the $22 thousand that will be available and that again is another contingency if there are no other funds that can be identified this year either through CDBG or ARPA For this project.
I've got a quick question then. Supervisor Hart, you have an additional comment?
I'd like to hear also from Ms. Tilly about the utility of the $22,000 now.
All right. Let's go ahead and get that satisfied for Supervisor Hart. Would $22,000 would you repeat the question for Ms.
Tilley? Yeah, Ms. Tilley with the $22k allocation now for planning purposes help you facilitate and advance the project?
Yes.
That's a good answer thank you.
We'd be able to start working on getting our permits and moving forward with what we need to do. I think that as long as it was, I guess the grant we applied for was different so I just want to make sure that we can comply if what we're being told is we're getting the $22,000 to do the planning and the permitting part of it then yes, that would be helpful and we could start moving forward.
The challenge is going to be, as we've spoken about trying to get the remaining balance of the project to move forward.
And I think the thing that perhaps we're not clearly communicating is that there is this additional federal funding that's coming you know as part of the COVID relief package it isn't certain what the uses are going to be allowed for those dollars but this seems like it would be very high on the priority list Those investments and that is a sooner rather than later allocation. It's not, you know next year with the CDBG funds. There's an opportunity in between and so that I think should give you a little hope that this is not being delayed necessarily for a whole year All right
Yeah,
yeah one second we got County Council, I think would like to add and then I'll come back to Supervisor Hartman
Chair and Supervisors, I'm just sidebarring with our clerk. And just as you go through the motion on this, it may help again to hear from county staff on this whether there's enough granularity in that to know what revisions you're actually directing in the draft document?
Okay, let me go ahead and go to Supervisor Hartman and then we'll clarify with staff. Supervisor Hartman?
My question is for Ms. Lockhart if we award the planning grant of 22 plus thousand does that conform to HUD guidelines?
So let's answer that question first Miss Lockhart and then we'll get clarification on the larger motion for you.
Chair Nelson and Supervisor Hartman Again, CDBG normally requires that a project be fully completed. So when funds are made available to a project the intention is that there is a public objective completed. Planning alone would not be sufficient to meet that standard. So if planning funds were committed and expended under CDBG HUD would require that the county ensure that the project is completed. So that could unintentionally create an obligation toward next year CDBG grant to be dedicated to the clinic, to ensure that a public objective has been achieved.
So again, we can set the $22,000 aside pending the identification of other federal or ARPA funds to complete the full project and then Commit the CDBG $22,000 for planning purposes. That would be staff's recommendation.
I'm not sure if that would be an unintended consequence. I think that would be an intended consequence actually. Supervisor Lavagnino were you jumping in there?
No i was saying that that that's exactly what I was thinking is there's nothing wrong with um you know obviously we've all said what we need to say about how important this project is. I think we moved it 22 000 to get the planning done You know if our hands are tied for next year that we have to do this project, I support it.
All right thank you so Miss Lockhart with the motion that we currently have which would be to move the staff recommendation not this with the addition of the balance of $22,763 allocated to the Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinic is that clear or do you need additional direction from the board?
No, I think that's clear at this point. Thank you.
Chair Nelson, this is George Jackson. Yes, Mr.
Chapton.
My understanding then is if ARPA funds are not used or any other funds identified then we would commit future CDBG allocation to complete the entire project? That would be about $330,000. Yes. I
2:14 – 2:266 turns
think our eyes are wide open in this decision. So any additional discussion from the board? All right. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?
Chair Nelson and members of the board I have the maker of that motion as Supervisor Hart. I'm sorry who was the second?
Second it was Supervisor Hartman.
Roll-call vote 2–0 motion as Supervisor Hart. I'm sorry who was the second? Second it was Supervisor Hartman. Thank you. · 2 under review
Show transcript
Hi
motion passes unanimously go
ahead and take a five-minute break then come back to finish up our last item our departmental item for the day before breaking for closed session Final departmental item. Madam Clerk, will you please read that into the record?
2:26 – 2:345 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Departmental Item Number 4 is from Public Works, Board of Directors, Flood Control and Water Conservation District. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the request of a Central Coast Water Authority to approve Amendment 21, water management amendment to the state water contract.
Mr. Fearon? Yes, good morning Mr. Chair members of the board as clerk noted this is a we're turning to your board for approval of contract amendment 21 to the state State Water Project contract and I also want to note for the record your board may recall that your board had previously approved contract amendment number 20 which was requested by CCWA which extended via contract you go to slide two please So just as a reminder, Amendment 21 also called the Water Management Amendment. It allows purchases of water from other state water project contractors and it also allows the sale of state water outside of the county to other state water contractors.
I do want to note that in this case there are some potential regional benefits in cooperation with our neighbors to the north and San Luis Obispo County. San Luis Obispo County has a rather large unusable Table A, and with approval of this amendment We could potentially address water supply issues in both Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo County. We also could work with CCWA on agreements that could offer significant benefits to both of our counties.
I think it's important to note that there are new threats to supplies in our county. Reduction of yield and surface reservoirs like Kachuma, Gibraltar, Jameson and Twitchell are being seen as A result of either environmental forces from regulatory agencies, sedimentation of these reservoirs all resulting in lowering the amount of water that can be drawn from these supplies.
We've also seen in recent years last several decades, in fact, the reduction and the reliability to State Water Project. And this year, in fact, the Department of Water Resources has indicated that the allocation is only 5%. which has triggered a need for CCWA, that has indicated that they need to buy additional supplies to meet demands in our county. We also have unknown impacts of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act or SGMA. There may be possible reductions and drafting of groundwater supplies and therefore additional supplies from other sources would be needed. Next slide please.
I also thought it would be important to talk about the current conditions. Our current rainfall is about 50%. That resulted in very little impact on our water supplies and the graph on the upper left is kind of telling, it shows that trailing 10 year average We are at all time low as measured at Gibraltar Dam. Gibraltar Dam is a good indicator rain gauge for the San Ynez River watershed, which is a key element of water supplies for the South Coast and San Ynez and Lompoc Valleys.
Supply conditions, I mentioned the 5% allocation with the State Water Project. Kachuma as it stands right now, the water is basically all committed to either the member units environmental purposes or reserved for evaporation so there stands to be little if any of additional Kachuma water until we have additional inflow. And then in the lower graphs, you'll see that the groundwater levels and most basins have not appreciably recovered from our last drought. Which means if we are indeed continuing this drought or entering into a new prolonged drought that our groundwater basins are starting at a lower level than where we were in the last drought in all cases.
Next slide please. So Mr. Chair and members of the board, we recommend that you authorize execution of Amendment 21 and implement the conditions as outlined in the resolution and the staff report. This would allow CCWA to immediately seek water for purchase which they've indicated a dire need to do. And then we also stand ready to work with CCWA to keep our Table A water supplies in our county, to protect our local supplies.
And then also we would continue discussions with CCWA on addressing water supply issues. We appreciate the opportunity to work with CCWA and we're committed to doing that in the future. And with that Mr. Chair staff is available for questions and I believe Mr. Stokes is available for questions as well. Next slide, ma'am. All
right thank you Mr. Payram. Supervisor Hart? Yeah I just want to thank staff for working so collaboratively with the CCWA staff to get to this point today. This is really an important development and it's it's an important milestone. The local water agencies critically need the ability to purchase water from other state water contractors they've made that very clear that's their one of their highest priorities And as we're all getting stressed about the availability of water locally, that's a really important option. So making sure that this is—that option is available to the CCWA members is really an important conclusion of this ongoing discussion with them.
So the ability for them to also sell water under certain circumstances with limitations Is is also another benefit of this arrangement and as Mr.. Famer pointed out the very low delivery of state water This year is indicative of growing concern statewide about water availability It's not just California that suffering from that. I saw that the federal government is making Very serious taking very serious steps to control, Colorado River water and like weed and in the Hoover Dam.
I think they're the history of that system. So there are ominous things out there, our groundwater levels haven't recovered. There hasn't been enough time and enough rain to replenish those supplies. So every drop of water that we have in our county is really important and we need to get more water into our county. We've got that big state water pipeline. I'd like to see that full and delivering water to our county sooner than later. And this amendment will give the flexibility to CCWA To do what they do best, which is deliver water to customers throughout the county.
Thank you Supervisor Hart. Questions up in Santa Maria? Nope waiting for public comment thank you all right good any questions Supervisor Williams? I'll wait for public comment. All right I believe we have one public speaker Madam Clerk
Chair Nelson and members of the board, that is correct. We had one request to speak on this item and that is Joshua Hagermark.
2:34 – 2:399 turns
Mr. Hagermark when you're ready.
Chair Nelson's County Supervisors my name is Joshua Hagermark I'm the Public Works Director for the city acting public works director for the City of Santa Barbara I want to start off with my appreciation that your staff have come around to the gravity of the decision before you today. The recommendation to approve Amendment 21 is the right move to ensure CCWA and its members are able to secure water during a water shortage. As you know, approval of Amendment 21 has the unanimous support of the City and all the CCWA members Who are in themselves, this county's true water supply experts with oversight from elected officials accountable to water rate payers. The staff recommendation before you today to include additional conditions for the purchase and sale of surplus water under Amendment 21 is inconsistent with good water supply planning practices directly impacts the city's ability to manage its water I'm not talking about the first right of refusal.
I have no issue with offering surplus water to CCWA members, first and at cost. However, the requirement for approval to lease water stored outside the county ignores our water supply expertise in the rights and responsibilities of individual elected officials and the people they represent The additional requirements ignore the realities of the water markets, which you know are weather dependent and thus dynamic at times requiring CCWA and its members to move quickly to avoid the loss of water. The proposed conditions interfere with our ability to manage our water supply planning in our conflict with the city's state mandated urban water management plan. The City of Santa Barbara supports the approval of Amendment 21 but rejects the staff recommendations with additional conditions.
Thank you
Thank you Mr. Ackerman. Hagermark, thank you. Madam Clerk is that all the public speakers?
Chair Nelson and members of the board that was our only request to speak on this item.
Okay we'll go ahead and close public comment on this item before we get to the other supervisors I want to give Mr. Stokes-Leese an opportunity to comment. I know he's here for questions but if you desired
Yes, thank you Chair Nelson and members of the board. Central Coast Water Authority is pleased that the staff is recommending adoption of amendment number 21 as has been stated it's vitally important that we have the ability to purchase critical water supplies this year. The State Water Project allocation this year is 5% coupled with our local drought that we are experiencing means that I have requests from at least two of our member agencies for additional water supplies this year. And due to the implementation of Amendment 21, which is already in place, the provisions that allowed us to acquire water supplies previously prior to Amendment 21 being effective are not available to us anymore so we need the provisions of this amendment to allow us to go and acquire additional water supplies That being said, we are opposed to any conditions being placed upon the utility of Amendment 21.
We believe the conditions that are outlined in the resolution, the proposed resolution, are unwarranted and we do oppose any of those types of conditions. I'll give you an example of the impact of those conditions. We have jointly entered into a consulting agreement San Luis Obispo County and CCWA have hired a consultant to assist us in analyzing the various ways in which we can maximize our water supplies within Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo County under the provisions of this Water Management Amendment. The provisions that are included in this proposed resolution will greatly limit our ability to utilize the various tools to achieve good water management through this amendment. The consultant is identifying various ways in which we can utilize both purchases, sales and banking and other options that will be available on this contract And these provisions and conditions that are proposed under this resolution will greatly limit the utility of the consulting recommendations.
So again, we are opposed to those conditions but again, we're pleased with the recommendation that will allow us to be able to acquire critical water supplies this year and if things continue to be as dry as they were this year into next year it will be even more critical that we have that ability. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
All right, thank you Mr. Stokes. Is there any questions for Mr. Stokes from the board? I have a question for Mr. Stokes so if you had the choice between us rejecting 21 or 21 with conditions would you prefer the latter?
I would say providing water to member agencies of CCWA that need it, to make sure that they can continue to have water to meet their needs is critically important. But both are equally important as far as good water management is concerned.
So you would prefer for us to reject Amendment 21 than have it with amendments?
2:39 – 2:464 turns
No, I prefer that it be executed so we can acquire additional water supplies. Thank you.
Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hart. I just have a question for Mr. Farrum. It's been weeks since our last hearing on this. We made pretty clear direction to come up with Conditions under which we could agree. So even though I might feel like these are almost too permissive, this does correspond to the direction that we gave you. The other part of the direction was negotiation with CCWA and I know you have put these options out there but Has there been any, has CCWA negotiated back? Or is it sort of just the continuation of the refrain of this is our turf. We want you to do nothing but approve what we want.
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Williams I think we've made several offerings of trying to find a middle ground or something that would work for everybody. I wouldn't mention the agreement that Mr. Stokes said regarding San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara County is something that I think we'd be very interested in discussing with CCWA and learning more, and if there's a sensible solution there, we would be happy to bring that back to your board.
San Luis Obispo County actually reached out to both Mr. McGulpin and I And they illustrated their desire for us to approve Amendment 21 because they wanted to sell us some of their water in exchange for capacity in the pipeline. So that's probably part of the solution that Mr. Stokes was talking about, but it would be helpful to have more in-depth dialogue and be able to have those discussions And we stand ready to do that even after you approve this. There's always room to find innovative and unique solutions to the water supply problems, and we're prepared to do that.
Thank you Mr. Fahyram. You
know I think it's important because there's been some effort to repackage this on some people's part The context that when some of these transactions have been planned, the Board of Supervisors which is the holder of the state water contract has not even been consulted. And when members of the board have asked members of CCWA what are the water transfers that you have planned?
They're told it's none of your business. Well, we've been the holder of the state contract for the entirety of Santa Barbara County's participation in the State Water Project. It is our business. We are the holders of the contract and more than that it's our business because we represent all of the people of the county I fully accept the fact that it might be financially in one agency's interest to maximize the amount of money that they can get for transferring water out of county.
I dispute that it is in the interest of everybody in the county for any agency to maximize the amount of water that they can get by transferring water out of county, unless that transfer out of county facilitates a greater amount of water or at least the same amount of water in replacement. And so, we as the contract holder are a stock gap to prevent short-sighted financial decisions that could make us more at risk as we go into the next drought.
So I have felt like We could not agree to Amendment 21 unless there are amendments to amend the amendment of 21 that allow safeguards to make sure that there's actually water security, that there is actually more water coming from a transaction and also to ensure that there is more of an incentive for intra-county transfers. It's often much more in the interests of people in the county for an agency to make less money by transferring some water to one of their partner agencies here in the same county than to sell it at maximal return elsewhere in the state.
Contrary to some of the mythology out there, there is alternatives Storage in Kachuma for one month does not incur evapotranspiration fees, and so agencies can bring water into Kachuma and then use that state water while they put a pause on using groundwater supplies or other supplies for increasing their reserves. These amendments to the amendment, I think is a compromise. But it's pretty hard to compromise with people who say we want our way 100% of the way and we're not really willing to talk to you about how to meet mutual interest.
So I think I'm a little uncomfortable with the permissiveness of you know, the possibility still have a transfer between San Luis Obispo County and Santa Barbara County but I believe that the amendments reflect what we asked for last time And that I think should either be largely or in part approved.
2:46 – 2:5110 turns
Thank you Supervisor Williams. Supervisor Hart?
Yeah, I think the most important thing to recognize is that CCWA came and said we need these tools to provide water to our customers and we've worked through those issues. There definitely are cultural and institutional relationship issues that need to continue to be worked on but we are successful in getting to this place and that's the bottom line. said, you know this will keep CCWA from making deals in the future. That is not a certainty. What this will do is require collaboration between all the partners to figure out the best deal for everybody and I think that's a good thing. I think more collaboration, more systems that require us to all be talking to each other and working regionally is ultimately in everyone's interest. It may take a little bit more time it may be a little more difficult But the end product is going to be better and will be more sustainable.
And so this us versus them mindset isn't really gonna help us going forward, we need to be doing this together collaboratively like we just did this process. And doing that going ahead is going to make sure that the water needs of all the residents of Santa Barbara County are met.
Thank you Supervisor Hart. Any comments up in Santa
Maria?
I just appreciate the work of staff and CCWA and Supervisor Hart's words express my sentiment exactly.
Yeah, I'm going to piggyback on that as well. Water is for fighting but doesn't mean we have to fight every time we talk about it. So, you know I understand Supervisor Williams passion and he makes a lot of good points but I think I'm gonna fall on although we're probably all voting the same way I'm falling more in the supervisor heart let's all hold hands vote on this and try to make friends as we move forward Supervisor
Williams. Far be it to disagree when we're all ready to vote the same, but you can only collaborate with someone who's actually willing to talk with you and today CCWA doesn't seem to want to present anything else to Mr. Fahram other than we want 100% of the way we want it and so I and Mr. Farrum and other people had to kind of read the tea leaves around their comments to figure out what would fit in the ability in some of these agencies to still be able to make deals that increase the amount of water availability for Santa Barbara County instead of the potential danger of decreasing and it would be a lot easier to have that collaboration without trying to read their minds. It would be easier to have that collaboration by them being willing to negotiate with us
So, I've got a question for mister moving forward. So, if CCWA comes to the county with a project or I guess a sale Criteria that the board has put in place. What's that process going to look like? They're going to they're going to approach the water agency and then the water agency is gonna bring that forward to the board as an agenda item. What does that exactly look like in practice?
Yeah, Mr Chair, and I apologize. I'm getting a reading of my network bandwidth is low. Can you hear me? We can we hear you just fine. Okay, thank you. So as this stands right now that's a good point I wanted to point out on that one by approval of this any purchase you're going to be giving Mr. McAulpin authority to act quickly on that with CCWA under the terms of the conditions of the resolution that would come back to your board for consideration and we would pledge to bring that back as rapidly as possible
Okay, well I guess my feedback and I think we're all moving in the same direction. Here's a board but maybe is those continued negotiations happen with CCWA? Maybe there's two tracks moving forward something where as long as you know the conditions that felt or came under The criteria before the board that Mr. McLaughlin would be able to expedite that on the sale and then something that was outside of that, then it would be on the burden would be on CCWA and their agencies to come to us and make the business case for why that would be a good decision. So that's just feedback. That's not necessarily a motion or direction.
2:51 – 2:5614 turns
Understood.
All right. I think at this time I'd entertain a motion
We have staff recommendation
second. Any further discussion? All right, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll
Roll-call vote 0–0 motion We have staff recommendation second. Any further discussion? All right, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll · 4 under review
Show transcript
Hi
motion passes unanimously.
Alright that concludes our departmental items but we still have closed session so at this time We will recess to closed session. County Council, will you please read the items for consideration today?
Chair and Supervisors, the board today's agenda is to consider five separate items. The first is one matter of significant exposure to civil litigation and this is in the agenda summarized through City of Goleta's letter of October 15th concerning the 2002 Revenue Neutrality Agreement.
The next item is one matter of real property negotiations where the board is sitting as the Board of Directors of the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District involves vacant property On Brookside Avenue in Orkut, parcel number 107-321-013. You next have two separate matters of public employee appointments. One for Director of Department of Behavioral Wellness and a separate item for County Council.
The fifth item is conference with labor negotiators concerning Acting Director of Department of Behavioral Wellness and your negotiator is the County Executive Officer and the Human Resources Director.
Thank you Mr. Casoni and before we break for closed session, we'll be coming back after closed session just to adjourn the meeting but today's meeting will be adjourned in someone's honor so I want to give the opportunity while we're still all together for Supervisor Williams to talk about that important person.
Well today I asked the chair to adjourn in the memory of Art Wayne Nelson Who was a former department head of the county who passed away March 23rd. He and his family are 10 members of the church that I attend, Montecito Covenant Church. Arthur Art we all knew him by art so I'm not gonna say Arthur came to Santa Barbara to attend Westmont College and graduated with a bachelor's degree in social science in 1952 he served as a corporal in the US Army during the occupation of continuing the occupation of Germany this post-world War two in the 1950s He began his career in 1957 with Santa Barbara County Welfare Department, which is now known as the Department of Social Services.
And also held part-time positions at UCSB and Westmont for 30 years teaching classes in social and child welfare. He was a recipient of numerous awards and recognitions including a letter of appreciation by then Governor Ronald Reagan in 1972 Paul Harris Fellow Award, Santa Barbara Rotary and a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition in 2010. During the decades of his dedication to his career and the community he was highly regarded for his professionalism and also known for being an approachable boss, advisor and role model.
Most of all, however he was dedicated to his family, his faith and his friends and was appreciated for who he was. Quiet, kind, thoughtful, patient and abundantly generous And for me as someone who's observed him and his family, he will truly live on because his progeny has followed in his footsteps and spirit. His daughter Catherine Nelson is As a career in social work and his grandson, Corey is serving as a chaplain to our armed forces overseas.
And so it is with sadness but also with great joy in a life well lived to adjourn the memory of Art Nelson.
Thank you Supervisor Williams Mr. Gazzone?
Chair and Supervisors, sidebarring with the CEO I'm estimating closed session at about two hours before we return.
Okay so for agenda management we'll be at 1215. We'll come back together in closed session get our lunches they're running a little bit behind but 1215 will try to get started and it's an hour-and-a-half so two hours so look at 145 to 215 to come back here to adjourn
5:09 – 5:095 turns
Thank
you. Thank you very much for your time and
we will move on to the next item. I
would like to call back from closed session. Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board considered five separate matters. The first was one matter of anticipated litigation which the agenda describes further as city of Goleta's letter of October 15th concerning the 2002 revenue neutrality agreement. The next item was one matter of real property negotiations by There were two separate public employee appointment discussions. One for Director of Behavioral Wellness, one for County Council and the final item was conference with labor negotiators concerning acting director of Department of Behavior Wellness there are no reportable actions.
Thank you and we'll go ahead and adjourn today's meeting our next meeting is May 4th 2021 here in Santa Barbara thank you