Meeting Summary
Present: 3-Hartmann, 5-Lavagnino, Williams, 4-Nelson
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Employer and Member Contribution Rates
- The Board adopted fiscal year 2021–2022 contribution rates for the Santa Barbara County Employees’ Retirement System.
- Discussion addressed concerns regarding the unfunded actuarial liability and the assumed rate of return.
- Staff clarified that pension sustainability is a long-term metric with historical average returns exceeding the assumed rate.
Reallocation of HEAP Funds and Pallet Shelter Project
- The Board approved the reallocation of Homeless Emergency Assistance Program funds to the Bridge House Shelter in Lompoc.
- A third amendment to the license agreement with Good Samaritan Shelter Inc. was included in the approval.
- Staff confirmed that concerns regarding transportation, accessibility, and population mixing at the new site had been addressed.
Resolution Honoring Allan Hancock College
- The Board approved a resolution honoring Allan Hancock College for its 100th anniversary.
- Supervisors and college representatives commented on the institution's impact on community education and the local economy.
COVID-19 Update
- The Public Health Director reported that the county remains in the orange tier with zero patients in the ICU due to COVID-19.
- Vaccination rates reached 62.1% for at least one dose and 48.6% for full vaccination among the eligible population.
- A new vaccination site opened at Santa Maria Fair Park, and the FDA authorized the Pfizer vaccine for ages 12 and older.
Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MECOs) Ordinance
- The Board adopted an ordinance authorizing microenterprise home kitchen operations under state law with specific operational limits.
- Staff outlined restrictions including a cap of 30 meals per day, annual sales limits, and mandatory health permits.
- Discussion focused on enforcement responsibilities, insurance requirements, and potential impacts on local wastewater systems.
- The motion to adopt staff recommendations passed with a 3-2 vote.
Failed 2–2 · in favor: Hartmann, Williams
2020 and 2021 Coastal Resource Enhancement Fund (CREF) Grants
- The Board allocated funds for coastal acquisition and general projects, including a conservation easement for the Aurelia Ranch.
- Funding was approved for various educational and conservation initiatives, such as the Cabrillo High School Aquarium and NatureTrack.
- The Board deferred a decision on the Goleta Bay kelp restoration project to allow for further scientific validation and coordination.
- Funds originally designated for deferral were reallocated to support the conservation easement and aquarium projects.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
Closed Session
- The Board recessed to consider public employee appointment and labor negotiations regarding a County Counsel candidate.
- The County Counsel reported that there were no reportable actions taken during the closed session.
Full summary
Meeting Start and Roll Call
- The May 11, 2021, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. The Clerk called the roll, and all supervisors were present. The Board pledged allegiance to the flag.
Closed Session
- The Board recessed to closed session to consider two matters: public employee appointment for the County Counsel and a conference with labor negotiators concerning a County Counsel candidate. Upon returning, the County Counsel reported that there were no reportable actions from the closed session.
Approval of Minutes
- The Board considered the approval of the minutes from the April 29, 2021, special meeting and the May 4, 2021, regular meeting. A motion to approve was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Announcements and Agenda Changes
- The Clerk announced that Board meetings are now interpreted and broadcast live in Spanish via Cox and Comcast cable. Procedures for public participation via Zoom were reviewed. The Clerk noted an addendum to the agenda adding Administrative Item 20, regarding the reallocation of Homeless Emergency Assistance Program (HEAP) funds and the Pallet Shelter Project. Additionally, a request was made to continue Departmental Item 4 (Sheriff’s Annual Truth Act Report and Community Forum) to the June 22, 2021, meeting.
Continuation of Departmental Item 4
- A motion was made to continue Departmental Item 4 to the June 22, 2021, meeting. The motion was seconded. Discussion noted that the continuation was due to scheduling conflicts regarding an afternoon presentation. The motion passed.
County Executive Officer’s Report
- The County Executive Officer reported no items for the morning session.
Passed 4–0 · unanimous
Approval of Administrative Agenda
- The Board considered the approval of the administrative agenda. Supervisor Lavinino requested to pull Administrative Item 6, and the Chair pulled Administrative Item 20. A motion was made to approve the balance of the administrative agenda, excluding Items 6 and 20. The motion was seconded and passed.
Administrative Item 6: Employer and Member Contribution Rates
- The item, sponsored by the County Executive Office, concerned the adoption of fiscal year 2021–2022 employer and member contribution rates for the Santa Barbara County Employees’ Retirement System (SBCERS).
- Public Comment: A member of the public expressed concern regarding the unfunded actuarial liability exceeding $1 billion and the reliance on a 7% assumed rate of return, noting that historical returns have often been lower.
- Discussion: Supervisor Lavinino explained that the data reflected was from the previous year (FY 2020) and noted that current returns are significantly higher. He emphasized that pension sustainability is a long-term (30-year) metric rather than a year-to-year one, citing an average return of 8.32% since inception.
- Action: A motion was made to accept Administrative Item 6. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Administrative Item 20: Reallocation of HEAP Funds and Pallet Shelter Project
- The item, sponsored by Community Services and General Services, concerned the reallocation of HEAP funds for the Pallet Shelter Project from Isla Vista to the county-owned Bridge House Shelter in Lompoc, and a third amendment to the license agreement with Good Samaritan Shelter Inc.
- Discussion: The Chair stated that concerns regarding transportation, accessibility, and population mixing at the Bridge House site had been addressed by staff and partners, allowing for acceptance of the item. Supervisor Hartman noted the success of the previous Pallet Shelter model in Isla Vista.
- Action: A motion was made to approve Administrative Item 20. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Administrative Item 19: Resolution Honoring Allan Hancock College
- The item, sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino, was a resolution honoring Allan Hancock College for its 100th anniversary. The resolution was read into the record.
- Discussion: Supervisor Lavinino, Supervisor Hartman, and the Chair commented on the college’s impact on the community, its role in providing accessible higher education, and its economic value to North County. Representatives from Allan Hancock College and a college trustee expressed gratitude for the recognition.
- Action: The item was approved as part of the administrative agenda.
General Public Comment
- Live Oak Trail Project: A member of the public provided an update on data collection issues for the Live Oak Trail, stating that current methods do not accurately count all trail users. They noted that the County Riding and Hiking Trails Advisory Committee agreed to hold a special meeting to form a working group for the trail.
- Cannabis and Public Records: The County Counsel addressed a public comment letter regarding cannabis storefront retail in the Santa Claus Lane area, confirming that a Coastal Development Permit is required. The County Counsel also stated that the County is timely in its responses to Public Records Act requests.
Departmental Item 1: COVID-19 Update
- The Public Health Director presented an update on the county’s status regarding COVID-19.
- Metrics: The county was expected to remain in the orange tier with an adjusted case rate of 3.5. The testing positivity rate was 1.4%.
- Vaccination: 62.1% of the eligible population (16+) had received at least one dose, and 48.6% were fully vaccinated. The county had 15,730 doses in reserve.
- ICU Status: For the first time since tracking began in April 2020, there were zero patients in the ICU due to COVID-19.
- Vaccination Sites: A new vaccination site was announced at the Santa Maria Fair Park Pavilion, starting May 16, with walk-up appointments available.
- Eligibility: The FDA granted emergency use authorization for the Pfizer vaccine for ages 12 and older. The county was preparing for school-based clinics.
- Discussion: Supervisors discussed the significance of the vaccination rates, the importance of reaching herd immunity (80%), and the role of Cal/OSHA regulations regarding masking for vaccinated individuals in the workplace. The Chair shared anecdotes from local healthcare providers regarding the benefits of vaccination for family gatherings.
- Public Comment: A member of the public commented on vaccine mandates, questioning the necessity of masking for vaccinated individuals and expressing concerns about vaccinating children.
- Response: The Public Health Director clarified that while children can contract the virus, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks. The County Counsel explained that masking requirements for the Board stem from Cal/OSHA regulations applicable to employers.
- Action: A motion was made to receive and file the report. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Departmental Item 2: Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MECOs) Ordinance
- The item, sponsored by Public Health, concerned an ordinance amending Santa Barbara County Code Chapter 16 to authorize microenterprise home kitchen operations pursuant to California Assembly Bill 626.
- Staff Presentation: Environmental Health Services (EHS) staff presented a report on public outreach and operational limits. Key points included:
- Outreach: EHS conducted three additional public meetings, including a Chamber of Commerce event, and posted a stakeholder presentation in English and Spanish.
- Operational Limits: MECOs are limited to a maximum of 30 meals per day or 60 per week, with annual sales capped at $50,000. They may not use third-party delivery services, sell alcohol, or slaughter animals.
- Regulation: Operators must obtain an annual health permit ($391 fee), hold food safety certifications, and undergo initial and annual inspections. EHS noted that Riverside County has permitted approximately 100 MECOs with limited reported community impacts.
- Enforcement: EHS stated that city code enforcement agencies typically handle initial complaints, which are then referred to EHS for health code violations. EHS noted that current enforcement resources are limited due to the lack of permit revenue.
- Legal Constraints: County Counsel indicated that under state law, the Board has broad discretion to opt in or out of the program but limited ability to impose additional restrictions beyond the state framework. The ordinance applies to the entire county, including incorporated cities, and cannot be applied selectively to only unincorporated areas.
- Insurance: Staff and County Counsel noted that EHS does not regulate insurance, and the Board has limited statutory authority to mandate insurance requirements for MECOs.
- Board Questions:
- Supervisor Lavagnino inquired about the division of enforcement responsibilities between city code enforcement and EHS, the volume of referrals from cities, and how the program is funded given the low permit fees. Staff responded that referrals are currently low, and the permit fee is intended to cover permitting and enforcement costs.
- Supervisor Hart raised concerns regarding a letter from an insurance broker alleging difficulty in insuring these operations. Staff and County Counsel stated that insurance is not within EHS’s regulatory purview and that the Board’s discretion to mandate insurance is limited by state law. Supervisor Hart suggested EHS could educate operators on the importance of obtaining insurance.
- Chair Nelson questioned whether charitable feeding operations (e.g., churches preparing meals for distribution) and private supper clubs would require permits. Staff clarified that charitable feeding operations generally require permits if food is prepared in a home kitchen and distributed to the public, whereas private functions are not subject to the California Retail Food Code. Chair Nelson also noted the current suspension of temporary food facility permits due to pandemic restrictions.
- Public Comment:
- The Clerk of the Board noted 17 requests to speak. The following public comments were received:
- Andy Caldwell (CoLab): Opposed the ordinance, citing concerns about unlicensed food service, lack of enforcement, food safety risks in non-commercial kitchens, and the financial burden on the fee-funded EHS department. Argued that the program creates an uneven playing field for commercial restaurants.
- Peter Ruddock (Cook Alliance): Supported the ordinance, stating that MECOs are insurable and that regulation is preferable to prohibition. Argued that permitting encourages compliance and reduces nuisance issues compared to unregulated operations.
- Alice Patino (Mayor of Santa Maria): Opposed the ordinance, citing concerns about sewer system capacity, fats/oils/grease (FOG) blockages, lack of pretreatment requirements for MECOs, and the burden on city code enforcement resources. Noted that the city has old sewer lines and limited capacity.
- Akshay Prabhu: Supported the ordinance, citing data from Riverside County showing no increase in sewage blockages or food safety issues. Argued that MECOs provide economic opportunity for marginalized communities and that operators are trained and certified.
- Alvin Salehi (SHAP): Supported the ordinance, sharing personal and client stories of economic hardship. Argued that regulation is safer than unregulated home cooking and that MECOs provide a lifeline for communities of color and women disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
- Terry Strickland: Opposed the ordinance, citing opposition from county and health associations regarding food safety risks. Suggested that home chefs should rent commercial kitchen space instead.
- Roberta Thompson (Cook Alliance): Supported the ordinance, stating her intent to provide meals to senior citizens. Argued that permitting ensures food safety standards and provides economic opportunity for underserved communities.
- Tracy Baird (Southern Chamber of Commerce): Opposed the ordinance, citing impacts on wastewater treatment, lack of grease interceptors, and the burden on city enforcement. Requested an Environmental Impact Report and questioned the CEQA exemption.
- Kari Sosa: Supported the ordinance, noting the difficulty in finding commercial kitchen space and insurance. Suggested improving information availability for commercial kitchens and insurance providers.
- Xenia Bradford (City Manager, Solvang): Opposed the ordinance on behalf of the City Council, citing concerns about tourism impacts, code enforcement burdens, sewer system capacity, and the exemption of MECOs from 21 of 25 health and safety provisions in the California Retail Food Code.
- Griffin Hall: Supported the ordinance, citing personal connections to the community and the potential for economic growth and entrepreneurship.
- Isaac O'Leary (FoodGnome.com): Supported the ordinance, citing data from Riverside County showing zero foodborne illness cases or nuisance complaints among permitted MECOs. Argued that MECOs serve as a stepping stone for entrepreneurs and provide economic opportunity.
- Roya Bagheri: Supported the ordinance, stating that it legitimizes existing underground home cook operations and ensures food safety through mandatory training and inspection.
- Mark Infante (Solvang City Council): Opposed the ordinance, citing the financial burden on the city for code enforcement and fire safety without corresponding revenue.
- Carlos Escobedo: The Clerk attempted to call on this speaker, but no comment was recorded in the transcript before the section ended.
- Continued Discussion:
- The board continued discussion regarding the ordinance. Public comment from a Santa Maria City Council member raised concerns regarding the enforceability of the $50,000 revenue limit, particularly with cash transactions, the burden of complaint handling on city staff, and potential parking issues associated with on-site consumption.
- Supervisor Lavagnino expressed opposition, citing inconsistencies with previous decisions restricting short-term rentals in residential zones. He argued that the ordinance is unenforceable without significant additional funding, noting that the permit fees and review costs are prohibitive for the low-income entrepreneurs the bill aims to assist. He highlighted that many existing informal food sellers would not comply, creating an uneven enforcement landscape, and raised concerns about liability for property owners and the lack of zoning restrictions.
- Supervisor Hartmann supported the ordinance, distinguishing it from short-term rentals by noting the presence of the principal resident. She emphasized the bill’s intent to provide economic opportunities for women, immigrants, and people of color who lack access to capital for brick-and-mortar businesses. She argued that the ordinance promotes equity and provides a pathway for culinary entrepreneurs to test concepts.
- Supervisor Hart supported the measure, stating that it provides a modest opportunity for economic development and skill-building for aspiring chefs. He noted that while enforcement is a challenge for local governments, the county’s Environmental Health Services indicated readiness to respond to complaints. He viewed the ordinance as a beneficial incremental change that brings some informal operators into the permitting system.
- Supervisor Williams characterized the issue as an incremental policy change rather than a revolutionary one, suggesting that the current divisiveness stems from broader economic insecurity. He believed the competitive impact on the restaurant industry is overstated and that the ordinance serves a different niche.
- Supervisor Nelson took a land-use and CEQA perspective, expressing concern that the ordinance effectively allows commercial activity in residential zones without adequate zoning controls, such as parking restrictions. He argued that the potential for up to 30 meals per day could have significant traffic impacts and that the board cannot make a CEQA exemption finding that the activity has no significant environmental impact. He stated he could not support the motion based on these zoning and environmental concerns.
- Staff clarified that the CEQA exemption is defensible and that the board has broad discretion in its decisions. Staff also noted that while the county can opt out of the program, doing so may require an amortization period for existing permit holders.
- Motion and Vote:
- A motion was made to adopt staff recommendations A through F. The motion was seconded. The motion passed 3-2.
Departmental Item 3: 2020 and 2021 Coastal Resource Enhancement Fund (CREF) Grants
- Staff presented recommendations for the allocation of 2020 and 2021 CREF grants. The fund is supported by annual fees from three oil and gas projects, with guidelines stipulating that 50% of funds go toward coastal acquisition and 50% toward general allocation projects (capital improvements and education). Staff noted that the board has broad discretion and has previously deviated from the 50/50 split.
- Staff Recommendations:
- Acquisition: Staff recommended a partial award of $175,000 to the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County for a conservation easement on the Gaviota Coast. The remaining 2021 acquisition funds, along with the current fund balance, would be deferred to the Fund Deferral Program for future coastal acquisition projects.
- General Allocation (Full Funding):
- 1. NatureTrack: Purchase of beach-friendly wheelchair track devices for student field trips. 2. Channel Islands Marine and Wildlife Institute (CIMWI): Development of marine conservation education content, including videos and lesson plans. 3. Santa Maria Natural History Museum: Upgrades to coastal exhibits.
- General Allocation (Partial Funding):
- 1. Santa Barbara Wildlife Care Network: Purchase of conditioning pools and enclosures for oiled birds. 2. Santa Barbara Channel Keeper: One-year pilot program to reduce trash pollution in South Coast watersheds. 3. County Community Services Department: Erosion control and irrigation upgrades at Lookout Park. 4. City of Santa Barbara: Restoration project at Arroyo Burro Open Space Park. 5. Lompoc Unified School District: New coastal splash zone exhibit at Cabrillo High School Aquarium.
- Not Recommended: Staff did not recommend funding for Proposal 6 (Sea Cave Project), citing that it is premature as required permits from the Coastal Commission and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have not yet been submitted. Staff noted that if the board chooses to fund it, specific contingencies should be attached.
- Discussion and Presentations:
- Supervisor Williams asked for clarification on the relationship between the Sea Cave Project and previous kelp replenishment research devices, noting the complexity of permitting and funding cycles. Staff deferred the answer to the applicant’s presentation.
- Supervisor Williams inquired about the flexibility of the 50/50 allocation rule. Staff confirmed that the board has broad discretion and has previously adjusted allocations, such as directing funds to the Hollister Ranch Access Program.
- Applicant Presentations:
- 1. NatureTrack: Presented the "Freedom Track" program, which converts manual wheelchairs into all-terrain vehicles for beach and trail access. The request is for matching funds for three additional units. 2. Santa Barbara Wildlife Care Network: Described their work caring for 4,700 animals annually, including oiled birds. The request is for funding to build shorebird and mallard enclosures and purchase conditioning pools to reduce the need to transport birds to Long Beach for rehabilitation. 3. CIMWI: Presented their mission of marine mammal rescue and education. The request is for funding to create marine conservation education content, including videos, lesson plans, and distribution of children’s books to elementary schools. 4. Santa Barbara Channel Keeper: Described their "Watershed Brigade" volunteer cleanup program. The request is for funding to purchase cleanup supplies and hire contractors for trash hotspots. 5. County Community Services Department: Presented the Lookout Park bluff erosion mitigation project, which involves relocating irrigation systems and installing erosion controls. The request is to offset county general funds used for park maintenance. 6. Sea Cave Project: The presentation was interrupted as the speaker was muted; the transcript ends before the presentation could proceed. 7. City of Santa Barbara (Arroyo Burro): Presented a plan for a 21-acre open space restoration project in the lower Royal Borough watershed. The proposal includes restoring the Campanile Tributary Drainage, formalizing trail routes, installing a pedestrian bridge over Royal Borough Creek to connect with the Las Vecitas multi-use pathway, and relocating a water main. The project involves planting approximately 2,600 native plants, including 350 trees. 8. Cabrillo High School Aquarium: Presented a proposal to replace degraded tanks with a new "Coastal Splash Zone" exhibit featuring a nine-foot rock tower and wave simulation to demonstrate the surf zone environment. The total budget is $125,000. The applicant requested $110,000 from the CREF program, noting that $50,000 had already been recommended/allocated. The applicant highlighted the educational value of the program, including virtual tours and in-person visits. 9. Land Trust for Santa Barbara County (Aurelia Ranch): Presented a proposal for a conservation easement on 277 acres of open space on the Gaviota Coast, including 55 acres of native habitat and 200+ acres of historical agricultural land. The easement would limit future development to protect scenic views, native riparian/coastal habitat, and wildlife corridors. The applicant requested funding to leverage state and private funds, noting that the landowner is willing to sell the easement now. The applicant stated that a grant of approximately $300,000 would help secure the remaining funds.
- Public Comment: Doug Kern, Executive Director of the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, supported the project, noting the importance of permanent protection for agricultural lands and coastal views. He disclosed a relationship with the landowner’s son, who is a board member of the GCC, but focused his comments on the project’s merits.
- 10. Natural History Museum: Presented a proposal to refurbish and expand exhibits at the Natural History Museum in Santa Maria. Projects include creating a Channel Islands Garden, installing a faux fountain, refurbishing whale/shark/dolphin models, adding a gray whale exhibit with water spout and sound, and creating a steelhead trout exhibit demonstrating migration. The applicant thanked staff for their support.
- Kelp Restoration Project (Goleta Bay) Discussion:
- Although not listed as a numbered proposal in the same manner, significant discussion occurred regarding a kelp restoration project in Goleta Bay (referred to as the "Sea Cape" or similar device deployment).
- The applicant presented a patent-pending design for kelp restoration structures, citing the loss of the kelp bed in 1983 and the need for substrate. They requested $200,000 for permitting, construction, and deployment of a two-acre pilot study.
- Supervisors discussed the scientific validity and coordination with other similar projects (e.g., Beacon-funded projects).
- Supervisor Hartmann cited input from the UCSB Marine Science Institute suggesting that small structures may not be cost-effective and that natural sand flow might cover them.
- Supervisor Williams expressed support for the concept but suggested allowing more time for due diligence and coordination with other projects.
- The board discussed the option of deferring a decision on this specific project to allow for further scientific validation and coordination, rather than funding it immediately in this cycle.
- Motions and Votes:
- Aurelia Ranch Funding: A motion was made to allocate the $118,212 previously proposed for deferral to the Coastal Acquisitions Fund Deferral Program to the Aurelia Ranch Conservation Easement instead. The motion was seconded.
- Kelp Project Timeline: A motion was proposed to return to the board in one year to entertain the concept of the kelp replenishment project, with Beacon potentially serving as the recipient to determine the specific entity involved, and the funding source to be determined at that future time. It was clarified that no funds are being committed immediately; rather, the board is committing to a future presentation of options. The motion was seconded. After further discussion regarding the clarity of the motion and the non-commitment to immediate CREF funds, the roll call was taken. The motion passed unanimously.
- Reallocation for Aquarium: The board discussed staff recommendations regarding the reallocation of $118,212 from the balance dedicated to the Arella Ranch conservation easement and a reduction of the $40,000 allocation from Lookout Park. These funds were to be reallocated to the Cabrillo High School Aquarium project, bringing its total to $90,000. Supervisor Williams suggested taking $40,000 from the CSD Lookout Park Bluff Top Erosion Project to increase funding for the Cabrillo Aquarium. The CAO (Xenia Bradford) offered to direct the Parks Department to include the $40,000 for the Lookout Park project in the upcoming budget to safeguard those funds, allowing the CREF funds to be redirected to the Aquarium. Supervisor Williams agreed to this arrangement, trusting that the Lookout Park project would be funded in the future budget. A motion covering these adjustments was made and seconded. With no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
- Remaining Recommendations: The Clerk noted that the previous motion did not explicitly include the remaining staff recommendations. A separate motion was made to approve the remaining staff recommendations, which included direction regarding the budget. With no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment
- The meeting was adjourned to May 18, 2021.