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.0:03 – 0:0812 turns
Good morning and welcome to this May 3rd, 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Barbara hearing room. Madam Clerk would you call the roll please?
Roll call, called by Clerk of the Board
Show transcript
And we have two sets of minutes today. The first set is April 11th, 12th and 14th from our budget workshops. Are there any comments about these? If not may I have a motion to approve?
I would move approval of the minutes.
And a second?
Second.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Pass unanimously. And we also have minutes from April 19th 2022. Motion to approve?
I have a comment.
Oh, you do have a comment? Okay
Well, I'm gonna go ahead and vote for this so I'll actually even move it I did watch the meeting out of fact Even though I was not present So I just wanted for the record to make sure that that was understood. So I'll go ahead and move those minutes.
Okay Thank you May may have emotion in a second all in favor say aye aye any opposed again passed unanimously CEO report miss Miyasato
Chair Hartman, we have three quick reports this morning. One is just to announce community services. So Santa Barbara County Parks and Cochuma Lake Recreation Area hosted the SoCal Interscholastic Cycling League Mountain Bike Racing Championship this Saturday. The two-day event featured races for middle school and high school division. Local racers competed among 1,100 student athletes. The weekend of racing was the final race weekend for 2022 before the championships which will be held May 13th through 15th, also at Lake Kachuma Recreation Area.
Second announcement is from the clerk recorder assessor and as you know we're coming close to the June 7th statewide primary and they are continuing to look for poll workers. To be a poll worker you must be a registered or pre-registered voter in the state of California or lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, be available to serve election day from 6am to 9pm and be available to attend a mandatory training class during the week of May 23rd. High school students are also encouraged to apply, and for more information people can visit our website and look for the poll worker announcement.
The last announcement is from General Services and it's just to announce that on Tuesday the county newly upgraded our website CountyVespi.org And the rollout was a soft launch of the new site and a more extensive notification to the public will be done shortly The upgraded cloud-based content management system will enhance and modernize our web presence, offering website visitors a new and improved online experience. The county team worked hard to provide the public with an easy-to-navigate website that incorporates the county branding while improving accessibility. The new website includes a redesigned homepage and a multitude of improved department division and program pages.
In all, the Go Live had encountered over 3,000 web pages and removed 500 out-of-date redundant pages. The next phase of implementation will be the intranet redesign, which is internal to the county's organization and standardizing of calendar and forms. So we will do more and if anyone sees broken links or things that should be needed to be fixed on our website you can contact our general services department
Thank you and I did also have an announcement. Every year the Santa Barbara Chapter of the Association of Women in Communications honors exceptional women who use their talents as communicators to improve our community. In 2022, the chapter honored a unique team of six resilient and courageous communicators During the annual event that brings together prominent leaders in our community in celebration of empowered women communicators. The theme of this year was Navigating Uncharted Waters, and this year's noteworthy honorees all representing the County of Santa Barbara epitomized the year's theme, Navigating Uncharted Waters. as they've shared information and helped steer community response through months of unprecedented crises. And so Gina DePinto, Bando Reynoso, Suzanne Grimacy, Terry Mosnissage, Jackie Ruiz and Monomi Asato were honored.
And it was organized by SPCAG's Lauren Bianchi Clemon with assistance from her sister Jacqueline Alexander and emceed by Paula Lopez. It was a really lovely event. So clerk announcements.
0:08 – 0:136 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board thank you I do have a couple quick announcements this morning, I did want to inform the public that we are shuffling a few items around on our departmental agenda today, and we will be taking departmental item number seven first before departmental item number six So departmental item number seven time best time estimate at this time is going to be around two this afternoon and that is from planning and development department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the long-range planning division LRP fiscal years 2025 or 2022 excuse me through 2025 work program.
Our final item of the day will be departmental item number six also from planning and development department It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the PR investments LLC and far-western liquor Inc appeal case numbers 21 APL 62 and 21 APL 63 Of the Planning Commission's approval of the Orchid gas station development plan and minor conditional use permit case numbers 18 DB P1 and 18 C UP 1 and this is in the fourth district and And again, we are estimating that item to be around 340. So the we will take departmental item number 7 first at 210 and then we will end with the Orchid gas station appeal at 340 Additionally, I am excited to announce that we now have closed captioning available on our CSB TV 20 YouTube channel and that information is available on page 2 of our agenda and is also being provided through the TV scroll.
As the board is aware closed captioning for a broadcast cable channel 20 is in the process of being implemented per board direction and more to come on that in the coming months. Additionally, would like to remind the public that the Board of Supervisors meetings are 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 and North County. Members of the public can now view our meetings in Spanish by turning on the secondary audio programming also known as SAP or SAP under their language settings that information is currently being provided through the TV scroll.
Lastly, I would like to remind the public who are participating in our meeting today of the board's updated methods of public participation For the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda, please see page 2 of our agenda. Members of the public can attend meetings in person both in the Santa Barbara Board hearing room chambers as well as the Santa Maria Board hearing room chambers.
Please note the board is following all local and state guidelines and are no longer requiring face coverings indoors. If you attend the board meeting in person, you will no longer be required to wear a face covering but please be advised that Public Health Department is strongly encouraging all county staff and members of the public to mask and socially distance themselves in crowded areas. I would also like to remind the public that if you require any special accommodations, please contact the Clerk of the Board to make that request preferably on the Friday prior to the board meeting.
Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment virtually may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page 2. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing important information about joining the virtual 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.
You'll be placed on mute until it is your turn to speak. The clerk will call you by name. When removed from mute, you will hear a notification that your line has been unmuted. If you're using a touchtone phone, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself again if you're using a touchtone phone, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself 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's office at area code 805-568-2240 again that's 805-5682240 and that concludes my announcements for this morning
Madam Clerk, you said we have closed captioning now for something but we're awaiting it additionally for
something else. Could you repeat that? Yes thank you so we are currently using closed captioning on our YouTube channel so that's CSB TV 20 YouTube channel and there is a direct link on page two of our agenda to direct you to that as well and we are working on our broadcast cable channel 20
Thank you, that's good news. Okay turning to our administrative agenda I have that Supervisor Nelson would like to pull A1 and A4 are there any other items any supervisors would like to pull today? Okay Madam Clerk do we have any public members
who would like to pull any items? Chair Hartman and members of the board we have no requests to speak from the public on the administrative agenda
Okay, so I will close public comment on those items. And Madam Clerk would you read A1 into the record
0:13 – 0:1610 turns
please? Chair Hartman and members of the board administrative item number one is from the Behavioral Wellness Department it is to consider recommendations regarding a second amendment to the service contract with Rich & Famous Inc., DBA Big Green Cleaning Company fiscal years 2019 through 2023
Supervisor Nelson.
Yes, thank you chair Hartman I had some questions on this item that I've been working with the department on and we need a little bit more time to have those answered and so I think that they have agreed to Have this item continued They would not have any effect on their operations But I think we need another week or two to look at that
and was there a date certain? Okay, May 17th. So we'll just include that in the motion with the balance of the agenda to continue A1 until May 17 and A4. Madam Clerk would you read that into the record?
Chair Hartman and members of the board. Administrative item number four is from the Behavioral Wellness Department it is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement with the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District for fiscal years 2021 through 2024
Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes, thank you Chair Hartman I just wanted to highlight this item for Quickly for the public and for my colleagues, you know, we were dealing with Significant issues of youth violence in our communities but also some significant issues with cannabis use among our youth And so this is a grant program working with BSEC and behavioral wellness in our county and the school district to do some education, some peer counseling. And I'm looking forward to watching this program and helping in any way we can to facilitate that. It's something that's been near and dear to my heart for some time. We've had many meetings with our school resource officers and our school districts in trying to find tools that we have the county to assist. And this issue, cannabis is legal for adults but it's still very harmful for our youth and it's really important that We are giving our school districts and our families the tools to address this because it's coming at them a lot faster than many of them can handle, as well as making sure that we're reaching the needs of our young people.
So just wanted to highlight that briefly. Thank you. Well good
for bringing that to our attention and I hope that as it proceeds you'll report back and let us know when this could be something we could do elsewhere as well.
Absolutely thank you.
Okay, so I'd like a motion then to approve the balance of our administrative agenda with the continuation of A1 till May 17th.
0:16 – 0:214 turns
So moved second
all in favor say aye Any opposed passes unanimously? so turning then to our resolutions Madam clerk, would you read a 24 into the record please
Chair Hartman and members of the board. Administrative item number 24 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Senior Deputy Probation Officer Dwayne Erdmann upon his retirement from the probation department after over 24 years of faithful and distinguished service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County, and joining us in person today we have Probation Chief Heitman and Dwayne Erdmann. And I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Whereas Dwayne Erdman was born and raised in Santa Barbara, California. He attended and graduated from Santa Barbara High School and later graduated from Santa Barbara City College with an Associate of Science degree in Administration of Justice. He was subsequently hired by the Santa Barbara County Probation Department as a Juvenile Institutions Officer, JIO, in 1997 and was assigned to Los Prietas Boys Camp. In 2000 he was promoted to a Senior JIO And whereas in 2007 he was promoted to a Senior Deputy Probation Officer, Senior DPO assigned to the Professional Standards Unit PSU for over 14 years. Senior DPO Erdman oversaw training requirements for the department and served as the department range master.
He was an instructor for several courses and worked diligently to mentor and train many juvenile institution and Deputy Probation Officers, positively impacting their professional development. And whereas Senior DPO Erdman received several accolades during his career including the 2006 CAPIA Moratoria Service Award for Line Staff, the 2011 STAR Award, the 2011 Deputy Probation Officer of the Year award The 2016 Santa Barbara Citizens Council on Crime Superior Performance Award, as well as receiving letters of commendation in 2011 from Chief Probation Officer Patty Stewart for his work on a statewide special training project. And in 2013 from PSU Manager Brian Smith for his duties as Range Master.
And whereas Senior DPO Erdman is looking forward to spending time with his wife Julie, traveling, spending more time practicing karate and shooting sports and continuing to teach self-defense classes at Santa Barbara City College. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Senior DPO Duane Erdman for over 24 years of dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County And the Santa Barbara County Probation Department can extend to him best wishes for a fulfilling, enjoyable and rewarding retirement. Passed and adopted today.
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, I'm Tanya Heitmann, Chief Probation Officer. And it is my honor to be here this morning to recognize Senior Deputy Probation Officer Dwayne Erdmann. As chief probation officer every day I entrust deputy probation officers to make life-changing decisions on my behalf. Regarding those under our jurisdiction, one of the significant decisions that I make myself is related to the arming of officers.
Unlike police or sheriff's deputies not every probation officer is required to carry a gun to carry out their duties however when they do request to be armed I need to be confident in their training not only the safe handling of the firearm but in de-escalation techniques and unarmed defensive tactics. When faced with a situation that could lead to the use of force, good judgment regarding when not to use their weapon is as important as good judgment about when to use it.
I share this because Duane Erdmann for 14 years has served as a Probation Department Rangemaster During this time, he has overseen our firearms training program. He's been tasked with the enormous responsibility of training officers, assessing their readiness to be armed, ensuring their skills are up-to-date through quarterly qualifications as well as assessing when it's time for them to turn their weapon in.
In addition to ensuring they receive updated and relevant training related to firearms, Duane also was the department expert and trainer on unarmed defense tactics. This included preparing our officers to protect themselves in an attack, retaining control of their issued gear in a struggle or how to successfully escape the grasp of another while preserving one's own life or to save the life of another.
One of the reasons I can sleep at night is that I have confidence not only in our staff but in the training that we provide and the invaluable role of our department range master. I want to thank Dwayne for all he has done over the years to ensure our officers were well trained and prepared to do their jobs with professionalism and confidence. I also want to thank him in advance for helping us transition the range master role, and the training program to a new range master in the coming months.
He has carried this enormous responsibility and with the significant oversight it cannot be passed like a baton to anyone but rather a warm handoff to another staff that can provide the same level of trust and needed competence. Congratulations Dwayne and thank you.
0:22 – 0:274 turns
It's like I feel emotional up here right now. It's been a great run, worked for a great department. The great department has great people and they do great things every day. Amazing stuff that our community doesn't see all the time that they do and they care about their jobs. And I just wanted to tell them it's been a great privilege to work with you guys and other departments, and having the backing of admin if I come to them with some weird question and get back to me.
It's a great relationship. It is a great noble profession as Chief Heitman has told me before in the past. Really appreciate it. Just had a good run. Thank you guys so much
for everything. Madam Clerk, Administrative Item Number 25.
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 25 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of May 1st 2022 through May 7th 2022 as National Correctional Officers Week in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have a lovely crew of custody deputies from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office.
And I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas the week of May 1st through May 7th represents a period of time where correctional officers across the United States are recognized for their service and dedication to their local communities. And whereas custody operations of the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office consisting of the Main Jail, Northern Branch Jail Administrative Unit, Health Services Unit, Inmate Programs Resources Unit and Transportation Unit are highly regarded professionals working in concert with other local criminal justice and public safety entities.
And whereas 49 years ago, the Sheriff's Office and this board recognized the need to create a sheriff's correction officer rank structure that would best serve the duties of a correctional officer specifically trained in the unique needs of a detention facility responsible for the housing security and transportation of all inmates incarcerated in Santa Barbara County.
And whereas, correction officers reporting for duty ready for the challenges of an ever-increasing overcrowded jail system are faced with danger in their work environment on a 24-7 basis. All the while maintaining order security and preserving the care custody and dignity of those individuals charged to their care. Citizens of Santa Barbara County can rest assured that these men and women are dedicated to their service and perform their duties in a professional and ethical manner while displaying integrity, courage, and fairness thus ensuring the safety of the community, their fellow officers, and incarcerated individuals.
Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes the week of May 1st through 7th 2022 as National Correctional Officers Week and takes this opportunity to thank the men and women of the Sheriff's Office who have chosen the field of corrections as their service to our community past and adopted today.
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, I am under Sheriff Saul Linver. Sheriff Brown apologizes for not being here but he is in a Project Opioid Planning meeting. On behalf of Sheriff Bill Brown and the members of our agency, I would like to thank you for this resolution honoring National Correctional Officer Week. The women and men of our custody branch are the behind-the-walls unseen heroes of our agency.
As an example, our custody staff work within a facility that had several coronavirus outbreaks exposing themselves to the virus. Also, when due to a COVID outbreak the need came to open the North Branch Jail early. The custody branch along with General Services rallied to prepare the new facility and move over 150 inmates in one day. Just this year five custody deputies will be receiving awards from the agency for saving lives of inmates under their care A memorandum Sheriff Brown sent out to our employees in part stated, corrections is a tough business under any circumstances but it was especially so during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Jails throughout the nation were hard hit by the virus requiring extraordinary disease prevention and response efforts in addition to the security and rehabilitative duties that are the hallmarks of corrections professionals. Our local response to the challenges of the coronavirus was and continues to be superb Despite infections of staff, contract staff and inmates protocols were quickly enacted and refined to keep our jail our people and inmates safe.
A big thank you to our custody staff for your consistent dedication and professionalism. We salute you and appreciate what you do. I'm also going to take this opportunity as I have in the past, so those watching and listening would like a rewarding and challenging career where you can make a difference in people's lives we are hiring. Go to sbsheriff.org and click on join us. I would now like to present the custody deputies to you who are with me in the room
0:27 – 0:336 turns
Would anyone want to speak? Okay. Well, it is a tremendously demanding job the law enforcement piece of it but you're also role models and mentors to the people in your care so we thank you enormously for the job that you do. Madam Clerk item number 26
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Administrative Item number 26 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of May 2022 as Wildfire Community Preparedness Month in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have Fire Marshal Rob Hazard and I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record Whereas the threat of wildfire is becoming increasingly prevalent and dangerous, posing greater risks to people and property than ever before.
And whereas Santa Barbara County has a well-documented history of wildfire risk which has increased in both probability and severity by long term drought and climate change. And whereas residents in areas with the potential for wildfires can take proactive measures to reduce the risk of injury and property loss by maintaining defensible space around their homes and proactive action by a single individual or entire neighborhood contributes to a safer, more resilient and fire adapted community.
And whereas the County of Santa Barbara Fire Department works closely with operational area partners to respond to and reduce the risk of wildland fires. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims May 2022 as Wildfire Community Preparedness Month and encourages everyone to participate in fire prevention and preparedness activities at home work school and all locations marking the beginning of a year-long effort to improve wildfire awareness and safety passed and adopted today.
And this is a man who's not at a loss for words
Well, thank you Chair Hartman and members of the board. My name is Rob Hazzard. I'm the fire marshal for Santa Barbara County Fire Department. Chief Hartwig apologizes that he can't be here. He's attending a wildfire preparedness event with our CAL FIRE partners down in Camarillo. So we all know that in this last decade, California has experienced some of the largest and most destructive wildfires in the state's history. And Santa Barbara County is no stranger to these events.
Multiple historic fires we've experienced just in the last five years. Amid intensifying climate impacts, California and much of the West continue to experience wildfire seasons that are longer, more extreme And record dry conditions have left most of the state in moderate to extreme drought. Again, Santa Barbara County is at the forefront of these drought conditions.
All of us every winter are crossing our fingers that we get more rain and once again this year we've seen very dry conditions. So what we know is that wildfire preparedness is really a year-round effort. It's steps that homeowners, residents, agencies, businesses even visitors to our county can take to be prepared for wildfire which is an inevitable part of our environment.
But the month of May is particularly significant because of our vegetation and our climate. This is when it's most important to get out into your homes, into your properties and take significant steps to decrease the fire risk. We all remember the Haysa Cedar Fire started May 5th 2009 at the very beginning of the month again due to very dry conditions that year By the time the fire was contained on May 18, it had consumed 8,733 acres and destroyed 80 homes, damaged 15 more, and resulted in six different engine company entrapments up in the Mission Canyon community.
All of us have an essential role to protecting ourselves, our loved ones, and our communities from wildfire. It's the little steps that we all take, whether it's putting screens on your attic vents, weed whacking the dry grass around your yard, raking away dry leaves from around the foundation of your home. These steps can significantly protect you from adverse impacts of wildfire. It's not just what the agencies around you do but it's all of the efforts that we take collectively One of the most important things you can do is to educate yourself about wildfire. There's multiple different ways that you can do that here locally in Santa Barbara County, the Santa Barbara County Fire Safe Council provides huge amounts of educational material on its website and make a little plug for An event this weekend, Direct Relief International in Goleta.
A free event for the residents of Santa Barbara County and our visitors. There will be all day on Saturday a wildfire preparedness exposition featuring exhibits. There'll be fire trucks. Finally we'll get to have our kids run in and out of the fire trucks and have some fun with the firefighters. Possibly might be a visit from our new Firehawk. So please come out attend the event Now is the time to take action and you can learn more about wildfire preparation on the Santa Barbara County Fire Safe Council website. And you can also go to the state website readyforwildfire.org to get information on keeping your family, your property Your home, your loved ones safe from wildfire. Thank you.
Thank you. I would just like to add that we serve together on the Board of Higher Safe Council and one thing we know is that the Insurance Commissioner in the state of California has proposed new regulations that would reduce insurance rates for those that are engaged in Defensible space and hardening of your individual home as well as community Actions, and we're eager to have more fire wise communities in our county so you can learn more from the Fire Safe Council website Thank You
Rob
0:33 – 0:384 turns
Madam clerk administrative item number 27
Chair Hartman and members of the board, administrative item number 27 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of May 2022 as Community Action Month and celebrating 55 years of ComUnify service in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Patricia Killeen, Chief Executive Officer for ComUnify.
And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas, ComUnify part of the Nationwide Community Action Network has made essential contributions to individuals and families across the United States by creating economic opportunities and strengthening communities. And whereas, ComUnify formerly Community Action Commission was incorporated in May 1967 as a private nonprofit organization devoted to creating opportunities for Santa Barbara families to achieve economic stability as an essential aspect of enabling and enhancing a stronger and more resilient Santa Barbara County.
And whereas since its inception, ComUnify has continued to provide vital services for the most vulnerable members of our community, expand its programs, and add locations throughout Santa Barbara County to make assistance available to all of our neighbors who might need it. And whereas ComUnify serves thousands of low-income residents of all ages, offers prenatal services for pregnant women, high quality child care and preschool programs for children through age five and medical and dental and mental health screenings. Parenting education workshops, mentoring and tutoring programs for teens, job training programs, home energy programs to reduce utility expenses, weatherization services and programs to keep our seniors safe in their homes.
And whereas, ComUnify has improved countless lives and continues to work toward ending poverty in Santa Barbara County. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors proclaims May 2022 as National Community Action Month and celebrates ComUnify's 55 years of serving the residents of Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today
Good morning. Thank you so much, Chair Hartman and Board of Supervisors. We appreciate this recognition this morning. Communify was established from the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which really kicked off the war on poverty That same year the Head Start program was legislated at the national level. In 1965, the County of Santa Barbara formed the Community Action Commission an actual task force which was then incorporated in 1967 as a non-profit Since then, we have grown into one of the largest non-profits with the largest countywide footprint serving all of Santa Barbara County.
Every year, we touch the lives of over 8000 disadvantaged residents here in Santa Barbara. Including teens, children, families and seniors. Providing services that educate and support them on their personal journey to being economically stable and self-sufficient. We provide early education tutoring, mentoring and help to make homes more energy efficient assist with rent and utility bills. And yes we also manage the Santa Barbara County's 2-1-1 information and referral helpline of course we could only do this with the support of Santa Barbara County you All of our partners, our partner organizations and the other municipalities that help to support the work that we do in their communities.
We look forward to serving this community for another 55 years and thank you for all of the support that you've provided throughout these 55 years. We look forward to the next 55. Thank you.
And administrative item number 28.
0:38 – 0:467 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Administrative Item Number 28 is sponsored by Supervisor Hart and Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of May 2022 as Mental Health Month in Santa Barbara County and joining us to the podium in person today we have our Behavioral Wellness Director Tony Navarro and Valerie Cantella, Behavioral Wellness Commission Vice-Chair.
I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas this resolution proclaims May 2022 as Mental Health Month to enhance public awareness of mental health and dispel the stigma surrounding it. And whereas mental health challenges are one of the most common health conditions in California, affecting one out of every six adults and impacting both the person experiencing mental health challenges and those persons who care and love them. for the person facing the challenge.
And whereas one out of every 24 Californians with a serious mental illness have difficulty functioning in everyday life and if left untreated, have life expectancies 25 years shorter than the general population. And whereas every day, millions of people face stigma related to mental health and may feel isolated and alone going years before receiving any help.
And whereas recovery can and does happen in all Californians should know that support and help is available regardless of any individual situation. And whereas creating a community where everyone feels comfortable reaching out for the support they deserve is crucial to ending the stigma around mental health. And whereas access to support and ending the stigma is of paramount importance. And whereas, the Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness wishes to enhance public awareness of mental health now.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim the month of May 2022 as Mental Health Month And calls upon all Santa Barbara County citizens to fight stigma associated with mental illness and reaffirm a commitment to supporting the mental health of all people in Santa Barbara County past and adopted today.
Thank you Chair Hartman and members of the board for raising awareness on this important topic of mental health. I want to share a few facts, I can't pass up the opportunity as a public information officer to use this for public information so... One in five adults in the U.S. experiences mental illness each year, one in six youth age 6 to 17 experiences a mental health disorder each year and nearly 400,000 California teenagers have depression and as we know this has worsened during the pandemic I want to share a few of the symptoms of depression that I wish I would have known when my children were going through this as teenagers.
Common ones include isolation, loss of interest in hobbies and activities, previously enjoyed experiences, trouble focusing and being irritable which is very common to teens which makes depression hard to discern. If you or a friend or loved one are experiencing this, please call 211 for resources or call the county's access line at 888-868-1649. And as the resolution mentioned, we as a community can really help to end the stigma by accepting people diagnosed with mental illness as we would any other disease.
Everyone deserves the support to thrive. For example, I have a 22-year-old daughter with severe mental illness and her struggles are often very real and visible in the community. Whereas I have type 1 diabetes. I've had it since I was 10. None of you would know that unless I told you. And I want my daughter to be treated with dignity compassion and support as I am.
So finally, a plug for getting involved in the Behavioral Wellness Commission. We're a group of individuals serving the county appointed by each of the Board of Supervisors and we have an interest in serving and understanding the programs and services provided by behavioral wellness and mental health and substance abuse You can go on the county's website, behavioral wellness website to learn more. But we would love to have more commissioners who have experience as a person with mental illness or loved one with mental illness who wants to get involved. So thank you so much for raising this important issue. We really appreciate it on behalf of the Commission extend our gratitude.
Thank you, Valerie. So good morning Chair Hartman, Supervisors. Just thank you so much for this resolution and allowing us this time to uplift awareness of mental health issues and the importance of early detection and diagnosis so that people can get the help they need to live the lives that they were meant to live and thrive. in our communities. I just want to also announce that you all have your green ribbons on, thank you very much. Wanted to give you all a thank-you for your daily service and supporting Be Well and making a difference in lives throughout our community. The green ribbon signifies mental health awareness and your ribbons are nice and big. You see I have my little lapel pen but the ribbons that we're passing out to all of our staff and the thank-you cards for the hard work they do every day is in hopes that they will wear them for the whole month of May And start conversations wherever you go, whether that's when you're in the line at the coffee shop or in the grocery store or at your dentist office.
That when someone says what is that all about? That you will share with them the importance of mental health awareness and reducing stigma. I also want to say that on the back of the card you'll see that it is the 60th anniversary of Be Well this year and it was on September 4, 1962 That the then Board of Supervisors appointed the first director of the first behavioral health, mental health department it was called back then in Santa Barbara County. So this year especially in May is Mental Health Month is also of further significance to that department and we really look forward to the next 60 years and helping our community with wellness and overcoming challenges severe and persistent mental illness so that they too can thrive and live their best lives.
Thank
you. Supervisor Hart?
Yeah, I just want to thank Director Navarro for those comments and particularly being such a transformational leader at such a critical time for the department. 60 year anniversary is an important milestone to recognize and we just really appreciate you coming home to Santa Barbara County and lending your considerable talents to do the important work that you're in charge of And I want to thank Ms. Cantella for her wonderful comments, you know, you described the challenge so beautifully that mental health and mental illness are just the same as any other physical illness that anybody would experience and that we need always to remind people that that's the goal is to reduce the stigma to where folks feel comfortable getting in the treatment that they need and deserve and then we have that for them.
And to that point, I am the liaison to the Behavioral Wellness Commission and your request for us to consider appointing younger members to the commission. Teenage youth who are suffering from mental illness. I know that's something that the commission is really trying to lean into and this is an opportunity for the board to kind of reflect that with our own appointments to the commission. So I'd urge you when you have a vacancy to think about that we can help by connecting you with some folks who are interested in serving so thank you for that.
Thank you.
And I just want to say thank you all for your appointments to the commission. I'm really enjoying my relationship with Vice Chair Catanella and Chair King-Condos, true partnership between the Commission and Behavioral Wellness to improve services throughout the county. Thank you.
0:46 – 0:516 turns
Administrative item number 29, Madam Clerk?
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 29 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Gus Mejia, Nancy Hansen, Jeannie Slay and Dan Trowbridge of the Public Health Department as the May 2022 Employees of the Month for Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Gus Mejia, Assistant Deputy Director for Finance, Nancy Hansen, RN Staff Nurse Supervisor for Communicable Disease COVID-19 Dan Trowbridge, Senior Systems and Program Analyst. And joining us via Zoom today we have Jeannie Slay, MS Lompoc Health Center Administrator.
And also joining us to the podium it looks like we have Dr. Vonda Renoso and Dr. Ann Sorg and a few other members from Public Health. And I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas Gus Mejia has been unwavering in his dedication to the financial aspects of the department's COVID-19 response actions, as the finance section chief is intelligence professionalism experience and attention to detail has ensured sound practices And systems for optimal financial reimbursement and audit defense of pandemic related costs.
And whereas Nancy Hanson's resilience, dedication and leadership have allowed her to successfully lead robust covet 19 teams for contact tracing investigation isolation and quarantine testing and mobile vaccination. These teams continue to play critical roles to the Public Health Department's efforts towards preventing the spread of COVID-19 and restoring the health of our community.
And whereas Jeanne Slay has been consistently inventive, thoughtful and bold throughout the pandemic at the Lompoc Healthcare Center and as chief in the DOC operations section She boldly accepts every opportunity to be at the forefront of implementing essential COVID response services such as community testing and mass vaccination pods for the benefit of the Lompoc community and the entire county.
And whereas Dan Trowbridge served as Logistics Chief throughout all phases of Public Health Department's COVID-19 response, And ensured the success of a critical operations, including DOC isolation and quarantine PPE supply community testing and vaccination pods. Dan's commitment organization in partnership has served the county well and benefited our community as a whole. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved on behalf of all Public Health Department employees that work each day toward the department's mission and vision, we honor Gus Mejia, Nancy Hansen, Jeannie Slay, and Dan Trowbridge as Santa Barbara County's Employees of the Month for May 2022. Fastened adopted today.
Good morning Chair Hartman, members of the board and CEO Miyasato. I'm not going to lower this because we know what happened the last time. I am Vonda Renoso, Public Health Director. Thank you for honoring our public health team this morning and it is my honor to present to you our employees of the month. This was a very difficult decision on our part because We wish that we can recognize everyone in the public health department for their tremendous effort during these past two years. With me this morning to recognize our staff are members of the executive team on Zoom, are Darren Eisenbarth and Paige Batson. In person are Suzanne Jacobson, Dana Gamble and our interim medical director Dr. Henning Ansorg. We are honoring for best of the best from each division in the public health department, the employee of the month from fiscal is Gus Mejia from primary care and family health division is Jeannie Slade, who's receiving this honor via zoom.
And from Community Health is Nancy Hansen and from Administration is Dan Trowbridge. These four are outstanding members of our team, and we are recognizing them for their commitment to our mission to protect the health of our community. They are the amazing leaders who've taken tactical actions to implement our strategic plans and policies. Thank you.
I just want to say thank you to your board and also Dr. Do Re No So and our public health department leadership for this recognition, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Nancy. I'm the nurse that leads the COVID-19 team and I really want to thank you so much for this very great honor from our executive team and to let you know that our COVID-19 team which are all extra help really worked hard to protect this community and did a great job in isolation and quarantine contact tracing All those parts that we needed to help the community get through this pandemic. So I think my team, who are the hardest working people I've known and they're all from this county so thank you very much and thank you for this great honor to lead them.
0:51 – 0:569 turns
It's an honor to work for a department with a mission that I believe in and I just wanted to say thank you.
Thank you for all your work during this terribly difficult time. The county and I, when I'm out have heard nothing but praise for the COVID response and all the work that you've done so really reflect brilliantly on the county as a whole.
And I'm not sure but Jeannie on Zoom if you have any words to share?
Yeah, I just want to say thank you to the Board of Supervisors for this recognition. I'm humbled and I would be remiss if I didn't say that. I believe this recognition also goes to my team at the Lompoc Health Care Center and the PhD expanded testing team and my colleagues who have worked tirelessly on this effort and to our administration for allowing us to put our focus where it needed to be so thank you all very much.
Thank you.
So now is the time in our agenda when there's an opportunity for members of the public to speak on matters that are not on today's agenda. Madam Clerk, do we have any requests to speak?
Chair Hartman and Members of the Board, we have one request to speak on general public comment this morning, and we are going to Zoom with Maria Kessler.
Good morning, Board of Supervisors. I would like to start with quoting Glenn Greenwald, a German journalist who brought us Edward Snowden. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian. It bars majorities from enacting laws that infringe on the fundamental rights of minorities. Thus in the U.S., it does not matter if 80% Or 90% of Americans support a law to restrict free speech or ban the free speech exercise of a particular religion, or imprison someone without due process. Or subject a particularly despised criminal to cruel and unusual punishment. Such laws can never be validly enacted. The Constitution deprives the majority of the power to engage in such acts regardless of how popular they might be.
This gets me to the newly announced Disinformation Governance Board created by the Biden administration under leadership of the Department of Homeland Security and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. With other words, in 1984 George Orwell-style Ministry of Truth this board is not part of the State Department or any other agency focused on threats from abroad The Disinformation Governance Board is part of the Department of Homeland Security and DHS is a law enforcement agency designed to police the United States, and by the way has a large stockpile of ammunition.
DHS' Alessandra Amiorkas and I quote, we have just established a disinformation governance board in the Department of Homeland Security in order to effectively combat the threat not only to election security but to our homeland security. We have so many different efforts underway Local communities to identify individuals who very well could be descending into violence by reason of ideologies, hate, false narratives or other disinformation and misinformation propagated on social media and other platforms.
Secretary New York has just however not defined the term disinformation. This is directly out of Kafka's The Trial, a fiction book where a man is brought to trial without knowing the crime committed A concept that happens daily under dictatorships around the world. And I think it's extremely concerning because who determines what is disinformation? This is a direct violation of First Amendment, when there is disinformation we do not need censorship, we need more speech to debate what is wrong, not less speech and hope the public is watching and paying attention That this is totally unconstitutional and that this is a frontal attack on the First Amendment of the United States of America.
And yeah, I think I will conclude my comment with that. Thank you very much. Thank you Ms. Kessner.
And that concludes our public comment for today.
All right then turning to our first departmental item would you read that into the record Madam Clerk?
0:56 – 1:0010 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the first five Santa Barbara County Children and Families Commission. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an amendment to chapter 41 of the county code children and families commission.
Good morning, Ms. Simms-Moten. Good morning Chair Hartman and members of the board. I'm here along with I believe Maria Novak who may be joining us by Zoom. I am here to talk about why we are asking for this amendment and she will talk about the high and what we need to do to implement it. On November 1st, 2021 public health officer Dr. Henning Ansorg notified me that due to pressing issues that has prevented him from regularly attending monthly commission meetings and the relentless COVID-19 pandemic he would not be able to fulfill his obligations as county health officer representative on the first five commission and therefore requested to be relieved of his duties. Additionally, he is recommending that Dr. Von de Reynoso Director of Public Health be considered to take his place A vacancy on the commission shall occur automatically if any of the following events occur before the expiration of a member's term.
Removal of the incumbent by the Board of Supervisors for any reason, death or resignation of the incumbent, ceasing to be a representative from the various categories specified in section 41-4. Staff feels that public health representation on the commission is integral to the commission's strategic plan. Dr. Von de Reynoso has a decade of experience and service as a previous First 5 Commission in a previous county. Her vast experience and expertise will elevate the First 5 Santa Barbara Commission's opportunity to partner with First 5 California's health initiatives.
First, first five staff believe that the appointment of Dr. Bond don't renege. So we're nice. We're nice. So we know so as a public health member is in the best interest of first five Santa Barbara County's mission vision and will ease the transition and maintain continuity of leadership and representation. However, the appointment of Dr. Von Del Renaso does require an amendment to an ordinance. The current language in the ordinance states the commission shall consist of nine regular members appointed by the Board of Supervisors and shall be composed as the followings. The first member shall be a member of the Board of Supervisors. The second, third, and fourth members called county members shall be from among the county health officer and directors of the following county functions.
Social services, alcohol, drug, mental health, in this case behavioral wellness And probation. So what we need to do is amend the ordinance to keep it being so narrow, only focusing on the county health officer to be the public health representative. So in order to do that and to appoint Dr. Vondal-Renoso, we need to amend the ordinance to broaden out to public health department to be among the public health departments to be able to appoint from those areas.
So that's what we're asking for today. And the legal aspects of it, again I believe Maria is on Zoom to explain if you have any additional questions.
So do any members of the board have any questions? Supervisor Williams?
I don't have questions. I just wanted to report that this was discussed at the commission because there had been some ideas thrown out of folks but most of them wouldn't qualify under the rules currently so...
Right. We brought this on February 28th and it's the county members, and those are by statute so we're limited by those in order to be able to serve in that particular position.
I don't see any other lights up here. Madam Clerk do we have any members of the public who'd like to speak?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we have no request to speak from the public on this item.
So I guess we can bring it back for a motion.
Move recommendation. Second.
Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Madam Clerk, departmental item number two.
1:00 – 1:266 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, departmental item number two is also from the first five Santa Barbara County Children and Families Commission. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding American Rescue Plan Act ARPA discussion regarding child care sector survey results and recommendations.
Thank you. And Ms. Simms-Moten once again
Actually Ms. Robertson will be leading this presentation.
All
right, thank you.
Good morning board and senior administration my name is Michelle Robertson I'm the assistant director of your Children and Families Commission, also known as First Five. And we are very happy today to be presenting you with some data and options for consideration in use of ARPA dollars to support the child care sector. I know that in your board letter, you were given the background of how this presentation came to be. But just for the public's knowledge, I just wanted to briefly go through it in June of 2021.
The Board of Supervisors heard from county staff around the eligibility of ARPA dollars. At the same time, the Emergency Child Care Initiative came forward to express their concerns over the state of the child care sector in navigating the pandemic. They were asked to come back on October 19th of 2021 to consider an allocation of $2 million of ARPA funds set aside to work on the child care needs.
And I wanted to also take the opportunity to thank our CEO's office, specifically Terry Nisich, Assistant County Executive Officer and Lindsey Walter, our CEO and Principal Analyst in really helping us to prepare this presentation and narrow it down for the considerations. So with that, I am going to delve into some data. It was our intent after the October meeting to bring back Considerable data for your consideration so that you could make good data driven decisions around the ARPA dollars.
With that, first five stepped up to collect some surveys and conduct some interviews with families in our county and the child care sector and look at what is really occurring post COVID. So, today we're going to be reviewing those results and presenting the board with options for you to consider. You should have received in your packet the ARPA Tronch 2 Considerations Child Care Sector Survey Results and Recommendation Report.
Hopefully you enjoyed reading that, and I invite you to refer to that during the presentation today. So I would like to start by giving some context to how many children live in Santa Barbara County and the need for child care prior to COVID. These numbers were generated by the Child Care Planning Council, which is a body appointed by this board and can be found in their needs assessment report, which I also believe you received in the last couple of weeks. We made sure that you got that.
As you can see, we have just shy of 72,000 children ages 0 to 12 that reside in our county. And based on employment statistics, we estimate that 64% of those children and I want to repeat that, 64% of 72, 000 children need someone other than their parent to care for them sometime during the week. With an average of 5,000 children born into our local hospitals each year there are give and take about 20,000 children age zero to five that need care at any given time.
While we presently have just over 18,000 licensed and known license exempt spaces, these spaces are used by various age children including after school care. So even though that we have 18,000 spaces not all of those are dedicated to ages zero to five and the most dire statistic is seen at the bottom of the slide. The biggest gap in supply and demand is with infants and toddlers which is defined as under the age of three with just over 1,600 spaces existing for almost 15,000 babies.
This is a gap of over 8,000 spaces for this age group. Child care system is very complex. For any of you who have tried to delve into it to understand I live and breathe it and it's still complex for me It is comprised of family, friend and neighbor care, publicly funded programs, privately run for profit businesses and employer and faith-based sponsored care.
While there are strong subsidized options for families who economically qualify, middle income earners tend to struggle with the high cost of this mixed delivery system. The average monthly cost for a full-time infant is about $1,481. A toddler is about $1346 and a preschooler is about $1194. In our survey of families that was conducted in February of 2022 the least expensive care reported was at $500 a month for a preschooler and the most expensive $2560 per month for an infant. For comparison, in 21-22, an undergraduate student at UCSB pays $1271 per month in tuition For each of the nine months of the regular academic year.
That totals $11,439 for college tuition and between 6,000 and 30,720 dollars per child. So how did we gather this data for you? This is what we did. To try and give some qualitative perspective to the numbers presented, we looked together firsthand accounts of how families, child care providers and employers are navigating the caring of our children during and post COVID.
First Five received 1,056 family surveys back in both English and Spanish. We sent out surveys to over 30 of our most prominent employers, basically our largest employers in the county. We received back 10 so not as many as we wanted back but we did conduct 22 personal interviews with child care providers 11 that ran center-based programs and 11 family childcare In addition, we looked at data gathered by United Way and the Santa Barbara Foundation and closely watched and are still watching the California budget as the May revise will come out next week.
For more information on the data and reports from United Way and the Santa Barbara Foundation I am sure they will be happy to provide you with any of their written publications. So what are our families in Santa Barbara County saying? Of the 1,056 families that responded to our survey it was very clear that the cost and lack of accessible spaces for young children has had a direct effect on their career decisions.
For those that had stopped using child care during COVID there were a handful of reasons such as a family member taking over the childcare role A change in family finances, meaning they could no longer afford to pay outside childcare tuition because of a job loss. And the inability to find affordable care for their specific age child in the region of which they lived or worked.
We know that many families do qualify for subsidized support but there is a lack of coordinated effort to promote the programs And a misunderstanding my parents on how they can access that subsidized support. It was suggested by many that an infrastructure is needed to help link families, families to services. That is easy to navigate on a bright note. With more parents being home with their children during the pandemic, 141 respondents stated an interest in learning how to become a licensed child care provider.
If all these parents served just infants and toddlers there could be a potential of 1,100 to almost 2,000 new spaces in our county with just those of interest. What are our employers saying? Childcare and the lack of plays a significant role in the employment rate and the economic stability of businesses. The two really cannot be separated. In a recent article in Fortune magazine, 48% of those polled listed childcare issues as one of the top reasons why US workers left a job in 2021.
The new normal requires businesses to offer remote work, hybrid models and flex scheduling in order for employees to balance the demands of the office and home. During the pandemic it was reported by employers that many employees exhausted their PTO or sick time in order to care for a family member. And 70% reported employee burnout from balancing those work and home expectations.
In general, businesses were interested in learning ways they could support their employees with finding child care and learning about subsidies for their staff. So as you can see in the bullet points of this slide, child care is directly correlated to recruitment and retention and that businesses who cannot fully staff struggle with meeting their business Objectives so along with housing costs in our county, child care also contributes to bringing our workforce and.
Our child care providers had a lot to say, but I do want to state that when the Emergency Child Care Initiative first came to you in June of 2021 and again in October of 2021 there were several programs on the brink of closing their doors permanently. With almost an entire year passing since that initial call for help came Said programs have now either weathered the storms or those programs are gone.
So as of today, the sector has mostly stabilized for the time being. However I say that with caution because there continues to be a need for business support for the industry to prepare for the next emergency or unexpected disruption of services. There is a quote that reads, infrastructure is invisible until it breaks down. What has become visible through COVID is the lack of infrastructure in the child care sector as there is currently no centralized organized entity to oversee and track trends and needs for this industry.
The interviews conducted through our data collection were with private providers serving mostly preschool and school-age children. Most were able to access the federal and state loans, for example the Payroll Protection Program. And so that effort was successful in saving many of the businesses. We also were very much anticipating the Build Back Better plan to come to fruition, but as we know that has been stalled in Congress.
On the horizon is Universal Transitional Kindergarten which is great for parents but will cause a tsunami of change, and the sector is not well prepared. There has also been a significant influx of child care subsidies through expansion of state preschool and alternative payment programs. It is going to be imperative for private providers to shift their business models to include options for families.
As mentioned in the previous slide, the new subsidy dollars that have come into our county have been significant. Through the Alternative Payment Program alone we have seen an increase in $18 million and an adjustment of the eligibility criteria so more families can now qualify. I know that we have a speaker in the audience who directly works with the Alternative Payment Program and I know she'll be happy to answer any questions if you have them.
While this is good news, it also causes some new challenges and highlights what is known as the subsidy dilemma. This dilemma includes families not being able to find providers to take those subsidy vouchers, providers not wanting to participate in accepting vouchers due to either delays in payment, the complicated paperwork associated with subsidies or the payment gap that exists between subsidized reimbursement and full fee tuition.
Additionally, the rollout of the universal transitional kindergarten that I mentioned before will allow more four year olds to access one year of early childhood programming prior to kindergarten free of charge. But we'll also put added strain on the child care sector to piece together extended or after school care while also shifting to serving younger children.
This is just one of the challenges of childcare being met through a free market approach. So in our data collection, we analyzed and came up with two continued problem statements. First, the childcare sector needs a coordinated system that will support stable business practices when an unexpected disruption in services occur or there is a major shift in demand for services.
And two, families struggle with finding affordable high-quality infant and toddler care And there is a need to support the system in offsetting the gaps in availability and affordability. So I can't go by without telling a little story, of course. So as we prepare for the next—prepare the sector for the next disruption, there's a little analogy that comes from the business world from a book called Our Iceberg is Melting, which is what is listed up here.
The story relates to a colony of penguins within the Antarctic region. The penguins had been living together peacefully for a long period and did not perceive the need for change. One day, a curious penguin by the name of Fred identified a shocking phenomenon that would threaten their existence. The iceberg which was their home was melting He went straight to the leadership council, who began to brainstorm what to do next.
Some members denied that the iceberg was melting. Some members saw the cracks but could not agree on which approach to take. But finally after much debate they decided on eight steps to deal with the disruption. So while I'm not going to go into detail about all eight steps, I'm gonna consolidate them into three. Steps one through four are fundamentally challenging the status quo.
So someone has to say out loud that things are changing in this industry and that we need to prepare. Steps five through seven are about making that change happen. This is about someone taking the lead to help the industry prepare, and the final step is making it stick Helping the change be the new normal and striving for a win-win for all. For the childcare sector, the crack in the iceberg of the last two years was COVID.
Moving forward, the new crack in the iceberg is universal transitional kindergarten with multiple cracks. The inhabitants on the iceberg will need to react and plan. So we'd like to present you with a few options for the board to consider. How are we going to address the melting iceberg? As indicated in the report, using ARPA dollars for family and parental support would be eligible under the category of assistance to households.
The performance measures associated with this option is to increase the affordability of infant toddler care in Santa Barbara County by expanding scholarships for families who do not qualify for full subsidy, thus relieving some of the financial burden for those returning to work. There are currently two established scholarship programs for middle income families in Santa Barbara County. The Santa Barbara Foundation through the William and Lottie Daniel Fund and a newly established fund through United Way.
This would include depositing dollars into these existing funds, tying some of those scholarships to the infant-toddler spaces that are needed and designing and implementing a communication and outreach plan for families on how they can apply for the state and federal subsidies as well as the middle income scholarships. The second option is to look at the infrastructure of the child care sector.
This would be eligible under the categories of assistance to small businesses and aid to impacted industries. There are multiple performance measures associated with this option. One is to create a coordinated system of business support for the child care sector that braids various funding streams, thus helping providers recover from economic gaps due to loss of revenue during the pandemic and just a little bit more context to that is that private for profit programs typically run off of tuition base only So this would be working with them to build a business model to accept more of the subsidies.
Second is to create an enhanced infrastructure initiative to support the child care sector in meeting the need for infant toddler spaces in the County of Santa Barbara, thus helping the sector meet the supply and demand challenge for parents returning to work. Most of our private preschools serve children ages three and up, and we would like them to consider going into the zero-to-three space.
Third is increase the available infant toddler spaces by a minimum of 10% to address the change of accessibility. 10% may seem low But if you know anything about the infant-toddler space, you are either bound by licensing regulations of no more than one adult for every four children. So the numbers are hard to get high. This would be to establish maybe a fund to help programs start up and consider expansion to their current license, require applicants to participate in some business and technical assistance training.
I already mentioned the encouragement of rated funding for tuition-based subsidy vouchers. Really look at the permitting and licensing fees, perhaps waive those. And then also explore the capital projects through a facilities study Look at where our child care deserts are in the county and maybe focus dollars that way. Several years ago, the County of Santa Barbara housed an Office of Early Care and Education so there's a possibility to maybe revisit bringing something like that back.
And then finally, option three is to put it out there to the community. Really develop a comprehensive request for proposals, a partnership between First 5 and the CEO's office. This will look or do deeper diving into the analysis and data gathering So that community organizations can propose for the board how to address the ARPA focus areas or connect them to the previous two options.
Regardless of which option or combination of options decided upon today, the release of funds must be a competitive process with strict accountability criteria established as part of the ARPA framework. So finally, next steps and this is for your board discussion. You could look at putting a percentage of allocation of the $2 million towards the options presented today or you can combine it with other options yet to be considered.
You could put full allocation towards one option or another You could allocate $400,000 per supervisorial district to be determined at the discretion of a regional team that includes an extended facility study in each of the districts to look at potential properties for new or expanded spaces. Identify child care deserts as I mentioned before and look at local strategies that may be unique to different areas of the county We can also look at our county-owned properties.
For example, there's a Cayo Real property redesign going on. Could we look at some buildings that maybe aren't going to be used and offer low cost or no cost rents to child care providers? And we can partner with our other community organizations such as the Low Income Investment Fund and local philanthropy to design some projects and leverage some dollars.
So with that I'm here to entertain any questions prior to your discussion.
1:26 – 1:4133 turns
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Harmon. This might be a question for the CEO's office since these are ARPA dollars we do we also have a limited time to get these out? Should we do it because I think that's also one of the concerns as we look at this with RFP and things like that at some point we have to have these dollars spent as far as I understand or what is their flexibility in timeline?
Supervisors to the chair, the answer is yes. So we have three years basically and there's some flexibility after that for reporting but basically we've been using that three-year time frame but there are because Michelle mentioned there is a competitive process we have to follow regardless so whether it's the RFP or giving the money to existing fund that then does some sort of selection process.
Supervisor Hart?
I see on slide three you have sort of the world divided into the subsidized programs and then the private tuition based programs. Can you give me an order magnitude delineation at this, the number of slots that are available through those two different paths? Doesn't have to be precise just you know is it 2-1 or something like that
Yes, thank you. Supervisor Hart. For early Head Start and Head Start, I want to say there is 500 and less slots.
I know that your report speaks and I think it totals about 4,000 slots on the subsidized side of the equation so what I don't know anything about the numbers on the other side of the equation that's what I'm really looking for in comparison to the 4000 subsidized slots what is the private sector providing?
So if we have 18,000 slots, 4,000 of them were subsidized. Some of those are after school program through the 21st century programs.
So if we did an apples to apples to the 4000 regular?
I could get those numbers and break that down for you if it would help.
Thank
you.
Supervisor Lavanino.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well this is really sobering because I think this is one of the benefits of being a boomer at this stage is that I mean I have not had to deal with this and I see my grandchildren and my kids dealing with this but it's shocking that it costs more to go to preschool or to go to daycare than it does go to college. But then when I started running the numbers I was like because it did seem like an exorbitant amount $60 to $70 a day when you do the math and to take care of a toddler for an entire day.
I would charge you quite a bit more than $75, but I was curious first off about outcomes. So you mentioned there's family, there's public, there's private for profit and employer. Do we see significant outcome differences based on where the child goes?
It would be based on quality your instructional framework There's many quality factors including adult to child ratios, group sizes. That's where it gets even more
complicated. It gets even more complicated there. One of the statements I saw in the survey that said that one of the problems or one of the, I guess, the hurdles to opening more spaces that people's fear of working with younger children. Could you kind of expand on that a little
bit? Sure, we had one provider in particular really worried about young infants and SIDS and having that fragile of a child in their care for that long a time especially when they're responsible for watching other infants at that age.
And then it looks like when I'm looking The subsidies that people could qualify for, which I guess one of the bright spots in the report was that there are a lot of people that you spoke to that could qualify but don't participate. And I guess we just got to figure out a way to connect those people with those subsidies, which seems doable. But our subsidies, pretty much it looked like it might be around half of what the cost is a month. Is that what would cover
generally? Again to add to the complication so to qualify for a subsidy it's based on your family size and income which can vary. So while minimum wage has gone up That has priced out some families to the subsidies even by a dollar. So there's one thing if they do qualify for a subsidies, but their current child care provider does not accept subsidy vouchers. They will tend to turn down the subsidy because they are in love with their child's caregiver. So there's many, many reasons but it can be full coverage of the care or it could be partial again depends on the family income and qualifications.
Okay well I appreciate that. I'm really torn because I guess it just seems like you know two million dollars is a lot of money but when you look at the scope of this problem it's dropping the bucket so You know, I'm interested in where what's the most effective way to spend this money. I'm a little worried about the breakdown by supervisorial district because I don't think that's very representative of of where the kids are.
So I think I'd be more interested in and I would also be more interested in directing the money to actual families than 2 businesses. And I guess I kind of want to hear How effective those agencies are right now that are in this business, are at actually moving through. Would this create a significant increase in workload for them? Or is this not that much money and it's something that could be easily handled?
And I'm just trying to figure out what the most effective way is. You gave us a lot of options which is nice but I also kind of need to hear you're the expert what your recommendation would
Oh man, I was really hoping you weren't going to do that.
Well, I could tell with this long of a report with no recommendations there was a reason for
that. Yes and and I can tell you that we went back and forth on giving a recommendation and the reason why you don't see a recommendation is because First 5 really does want to remain neutral in this and honor our community partnerships with everybody involved and that we know that we are going to be part development of the RFP process, so we are trying to remain neutral. But I will speak from experience on someone who did used to run preschools in our area that the scholarship foundations are a very successful and established program that I would trust as a partner in this work.
It will not go very far. And it will be short lived because of the 3 year. Timeline
well, I appreciate the trust factor that was big to me and yeah, I just was looking at. You know, a $400,000 per supervisorial district and at a cost of $15,000 a year. And that's if they covered the entire cost you're really talking about 25 kids so that money burns very quickly. So thank you for that recommendation though slight recommendation in quotes
Supervisor Williams
can you put up the slide with the options again? Because you know I think This is the hard part that we know option one will get used, right? And so I think we should build in some kind of thing for option one if especially and maybe even if option two does not get fully subscribed that money could go to option one. Okay but I think Without making a recommendation, I'll tell you sometimes you gotta take a hint. Half the presentation is about the fact that there's gonna be a bunch of kids zero to three that don't have any place to go and there's gonna be a bunch of businesses fighting over kids three to four And a bunch of programs fighting over kids three to four.
We've got to address that mismatch and I can't tell you it's really not making them any friends, it's not going to make us any friends because people don't want to make the transition but somebody is gonna have to right? Because we're gonna There's not gonna be enough kids for the preschool programs, and there's gonna be way too many kids for the infant and toddler programs. The relatively small number of infant and toddler programs. So I hope that we will put, can you put up option two? At least some money into option two knowing that it might not be fully subscribed because I don't know even if But if the programs are ready for this challenge yet, but if nobody makes the investment in the transition. The transition is much Leslie less likely to happen.
That maybe we split the money and anything between option one and option two, and whatever doesn't get used in option two. We could put more money into option one but if we don't address this, we're really not taking care of the future problem. You know, and look a little option one was what I was advocating for originally. Right? So I get that. I think it's useful and I think we could get probably other jurisdictions to baby step up and pony up too. I think the city of Goleta is probably interested in partnering with us on option one so I think we should put something in there but I really want to advocate that we do something on option two
I'll just chime in that I believe we have a structural problem and we have $2 million. And if it just goes to individual family support, that money will be gone but we will not have addressed a major structural problem that faces All employers and families in this county. So I'll say more later, but Supervisor Hart and then Supervisor Nelson.
Yeah, I think that's the key point is that we don't have enough money to solve this problem and it's one-time money so we would need to be very strategic and smart about what we do with this money to have the maximum benefit over the long term And I think we just need to work a little harder on being more precise about that you know maybe first five isn't the right venue to do that, but I think we need more precise direction from the community about how best to spend these dollars and you know the reason why there isn't more infant care is because.
It makes sense that the state requirements for staffing ratios is higher for
infant care.
And so you don't get back every dollar in tuition that that additional staff investment requires to take care of infants, and it's much more challenging and it's much higher risk. And it makes business sense for people to not be in the business to take care of infants which is a terrible public policy outcome, and that's what we have to fix. And, you know, giving folks money isn't going to even begin to fix that. So and it isn't easy to fix so I don't know we're gonna solve the problem up here today but I'm happy and glad that we have two million dollars to devote to this challenge And it's good news, you know to hear from the survey results that providers feel more stable today than they did a year ago. That's good but that is also probably missing the transition that's occurring which is scary.
That things are going to get radically more difficult for them as things get better system wide with TK. That's that'll be great. That's what we need to do, but that's going to be tremendously disruptive to the private providers who are relying on that tuition from those older kids to make their business model work and it's a little concerning that the operators don't recognize that understand that in our planning for that not that they have many good options for planning for that So, I think I'd like us to hit the pause button on this honestly and have a little more community work because I think we just be throwing two million dollars at a dartboard today. And I don't know that's the most strategic decision to do.
CEO Miyasato?
Supervisors, just first a little bit more information to that. You know the Senate and the Assembly are working through their budgets with the governor and we received something from Cliff Berg our legislative advocate on the Senate's budget plan And they are proposing a billion dollars going towards providing reimbursement rates To providers to help offset that as additional funding to support improved benefits for child care workforce So, there are things happening at the state. We'll have to wait and see what makes it through the Governor's budget but it sounds like the state is also looking at how to increase provider reimbursement.
Before we go to Supervisor Nelson I did have a question. Who in our county is responsible for trying to increase child care slots? I know that the United Way has worked on this, the Santa Barbara Foundation Child Resource and Referral. Those are the ones that I know about that have a responsibility and have taken this on.
1:41 – 1:4611 turns
Thank you, Chair Hartman. The Local Child Care Planning Council is the entity responsible for tracking the number of slots, the need, so conducting a needs assessment. The needs assessment is currently only updated every five years and a lot happens In that time period so when state subsidy dollars become available The Planning Council reports on which areas of the county Receive a priority priority one two three So that those dollars can be released but there's no single entity who's really Overseeing it all
yeah, that's one child resource and referral They're all because because what you described is more tracking. It's not really working with those hundred and forty-one You identified that would be interested And I know United Way in North County was was doing exactly that some years ago in conjunction with the North County Econ Alliance
Children's Resource and Referral does receive dollars for a startup of new providers. So they do walk them through the licensing process and give them technical support. Again, I know that there are both representatives from Santa Barbara Foundation and R&R here in the audience who are going to be Taking advantage of public comment, so I'm sure they think
good So we're just getting some of our questions out that you'll be able to answer for a supervisor Nelson.
Yes Thank You chair Hartman Um you mentioned in one of the goals here was maybe increasing by 10% Right so what were the strategies to increasing that by 10 percent?
First we would have to really identify those providers who are willing to shift their business models, right? So by 10% of those 8000 slots were looking at 800. That's still significant, right? Because like I said the ratio of adult to child is one to four. High quality is actually one to three so that would be what we would recommend because we're all about quality.
So once we would identify those providers who are interested in providing infant and toddler care, whether it be family child care providers, family friend and neighbor or center-based programs. We would design a plan to work with them.
Is there any movement on the ratio with legislation at all? Or is that just an industry standard and that's you know Are there other strategies to compound that, you know? Is it maybe multiple adults having two in some ways can make that a different number or what else is out
there. It's determined by state Department of Social Services so California has one of the higher standards There are other states who do have higher ratios, and that is not what we're recommending though. We do appreciate a standard setter set. Just because I wanted to piggyback on the shift with the four-year olds is those programs who have considered infants and toddlers because of the high cost They have relied on their three and four-year-old children as offsetting that because you can have more.
So with not having those four year olds available, it's gonna be even more challenging for them to shift.
Right. Thank you.
Supervisor Williams and then Hart and then we'll go to public comment.
I do wanna ask a question about the timing. You put up that We're going to lose a significant number of these kids. In a matter of months. So I kind of think that yes, there's more to do if we want There is time of the essence in that, the programs that are relying off of five and four-and-a-half year olds in order to subsidize their other parts of the program because they're going to start going away.
And the programs that only have those folks, those are also going to start going away.
1:46 – 1:5822 turns
Yes, and if I might add so we're looking for where we might be able to put this money that will create more spots and deal with that. Supervisor Hart? Just
three thoughts that I had number one is that speaking with Lori Goodman at the Isla Vista Youth Projects she said her biggest problem is that she can't get staff to expand that she has the resources she has facilities she just literally cannot get the people to do the work and your report explains a lot of why you know the pay isn't adequate Conditions are very difficult. You know, we ask people to do extraordinary things and there's not even the respect for the profession that would encourage people to get into it so that that's just a tough infrastructure challenge right there separate from what we'd like to see happen you know putting out money to providers if they can't get staff is not going to result in New slots, I am intrigued at the idea supervisor Williams mentioned about partnering with other cities so that we could leverage these dollars and that takes time But that I think that makes a lot of sense.
There's certainly City of Goleta has been a great leader in this area Councilmember Kiriakou particular and I think we can do something there And the other thing then did the report that stuck out in my mind was the point you made? That many parents aren't aware of the subsidies that are available to them and And even when they do, they're faced with the dilemma that the subsidy gap presents them, you know, Sophie's choice. What do I do? Stay with the person that I love who takes great care of my kids or move to a subsidized slot that I don't know at all? Maybe there's something we can do to help bridge that gap with this money. Maybe we can fill that subsidy gap at a private center and enable those parents to not have to make that choice.
And maybe we could create some infrastructure that enables those parents to understand about those resources as well. So, you know, we can't fix all these things with this $2 million but which to me makes it more and more imperative that we be really strategic with these limited $2 million.
Ms. Robertson I see you nodding your head did you want to expand on that?
I'm just agreeing.
Okay, if we might okay. Yeah,
you don't mind Thank You chair Hartman and I just wanted to make the comment that you know, I'm really interested in here for the Resource Center about what? Tools that they have that they're already implementing and what how those things can be expanded for additional capacity It seems to me we're gonna do something that is long lasting this we need to be Promoting more care providers and you know most businesses close up in the first year to year-and-a-half And so whatever we can do to help subsidize and get them off the ground and stable with services, and obviously we have Something that already exists, but how can that? additional funds towards their services really expand The opportunities
madam clerk public comment
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we have two requests to speak on this item. And we are going to remain in Santa Barbara and begin with Pedro Paz to be followed by Jackie Banta.
Pedro?
Good morning Chair Hartman, members of the Board. My name is Pedro Bas, Director of Policy and External Affairs with the Santa Barbara Foundation. New title is Director of Grantmaking. Now I get to interact with you all a little more often than other elected officials. I wanted to follow up the comments that were made by and submitted on behalf of Christian Patterson. And I believe you have a copy of, and also the comments are presented by First Five to provide a little more context to what's happening right now with families that need childcare. Recent survey conducted by the Brookings Institute found that 38% of respondents listed dependent care as a top job market concern Fortune Magazine recently published an article citing that the fourth leading reason why adults leave the workforce has to do with child care.
The impacts and disruption to schools and childcare are substantial, and continue to affect Santa Barbara County's economy. As of April of the last year, 2021, of households with children that require adult supervision four out of five almost 80% reported at least one adult had taken on additional child care duties. As a consequence of an additional child related duties these parents and guardians 75% of which are women face workforce disruptions 42% reported altering their work schedule and another quarter reported leaving their job entirely.
More than half, 56%, reported that these impacts are still ongoing. That was as of April 2021. These data suggest that substantial portions of the workforce are reducing their hour or leaving the labor force entirely, diminishing the pool of potential workers in the region, decreasing household incomes and lowering the economic appetite for regional spending.
I know Supervisor Hart mentioned that it's really difficult to find people who want to work in child care. Well, some of those same childcare workers are also mothers and fathers who also need care so they're in a pickle and dilemma in that regard. Locally here, we have never stopped having a need as you've all recognized even during the height of the pandemic. Through that whole period of time through two years, the Emergency Child Care Initiative has been working on this topic meeting regularly as a dedicated group of individuals and organizations focused on the needs of the sector.
We at the Santa Barbara Foundation continue to support working families in our community. We have just closed out our Daniel Child Care grant cycle, and in fact just as a point of reference we had a little over $300,000. We were able to provide 84% of the requested funds to cover a total of 90 1⁄2 spots. That's 90 1⁄2 for 315,000 41.5% went to North County, 49% went to South County.
We had 11 infant, 9 toddler and we had 18.5 preschool slots and 52 school-age slots. That's what, 300 some odd thousand dollars. But you have to remember that each of those organizations that applied for that funding have a different rate. Some cover half of their cost. Some cover only a small portion of their costs. So that varies across the board and that's one thing to consider as one of the other things that you have to continue to think about is that it's not a one size shoe approach. It is really regional, it is dependent on each provider as to their cost and what they need to cover.
The last point I want to mention is that we at the Santa Barbara Foundation are here to continue to partner with the county. We have done this in the past with a variety of other programs that you've supported during the pandemic and even before that. We're happy to continue to partner with you and even use our current grant programs as a mechanism to utilize this $2 million. Thank you very
much. Mr. Paz, could you explain exactly what the foundation does vis-a-vis the child care providers?
We do two different programs that are most significant. One is the Daniel, William and Molly Daniel Grant Scholarship Program that goes directly to providers and they provide a scholarship to parents. And the second program that we have is our child care grant program. And that really is intended to do three things. One is to increase the quality of care that is provided to children for whoever applies.
The second thing is to increase the capacity of that program to do their work. That capacity could be directly in terms of numbers, finding ways to increase their numbers through Training through professional development and the last thing that program tries to do is to build greater family relationships with the Families they work with To provide that service
and does the foundation partner with others in that program the latter program?
No, we do it ourselves But we do it in partnership with all of the providers who apply for that funding
Supervisor Williams
Well, I'm really intrigued by this. And if you're sort of already engaged in trying to incentivize that expansion of slots do you think the foundation would consider partnering with the county if we were to make a significant move and option two to try to subsidize the movement towards infant toddler slots? You know is it possible that You know, say we put 1.2 million in it that you guys would put some money in it
too? We would definitely do that. We have the ability to do that. We have a staff that is dedicated to doing grants to nonprofits or community. We've also done for-profit grants through small business loans with the county did so we have the ability to do at all and we are very capable of doing that and ready to do that if you so choose
And the sentence that really stood up to me in Mr. Patterson's letter was that providers would consider converting existing spaces or adding spaces for infant and toddler if there was a subsidy to support the change, so that's the conclusion of your, you know, Air survey, air analysis of the American Community Survey.
Correct and as you've all stated that is that's the tough one that's the nut to crack is the infant toddler spaces that is the hardest one to deal with yes
Thank you. Chair Hartman, I wanted to make sure we remind you that we have the RFP process that we were proposing. That would then get at the question as to how do you propose to answer that and that would ask those questions from those entities who would be coming to apply through the RFP process to bring the data back What are you doing and how do you plan to do this in that sense?
That's another way. If we were recommending anything, it was through the RFP process from the community to tell us how they're going to do that.
But one of the things we could put in the process as a criteria is how much money are you willing to match with the county's money as a criteria thereby giving a couple entities incentive to put up some of their dough as well.
Right, that language should go as we would develop along with the CEO's office. The input today would go into that RFP language so they would know exactly what we're asking.
1:58 – 2:049 turns
Madam Clerk?
And our final speaker is Jackie Banta.
Good morning. Is it afternoon? Well, we can still say good morning. I'm Jackie Banta. I am the Chief Operating Officer for Children's Resource and Referral of Santa Barbara County. Also known as CRNR. RNR has been in this community and supporting this county for over 50 years, particularly in two different sectors one being in family services through our alternative payment programs and the other in our provider services department where we support family child care providers in obtaining a family child care license We help in anywhere between technical assistance, training. We address the barriers such as licensing fees things like that. In addition to that once they are licensed they enter the child care network in which they are mentored by seasoned providers.
We provide professional development over 30 hours of professional development every year free of charge all of our services are free of charge to the community and that professional development leads them through We were awarded the National Accreditation for Family Child Care Award, recognized nationally for having the highest number of family child care providers who are nationally accredited in our county, in the nation. And so we were really honored and they flew us out to Chicago to honor Santa Barbara County. So I was going to share you're usually used to me sharing globally because we cover the entire county and our real focus is on creating spaces and family child care providers are often those who are caring for those who are infants and toddlers, and those children who are special needs.
That's because the ratios are smaller, and it's premium hours. Family child care providers know that people don't work 8 to 5. They know that there are farm workers that need very early hours. They know that there are paramedics and firefighters and doctors, and that became very prevalent and known throughout the pandemic. Family child care was the backbone in the pandemic in those first few months And they remained open, serving essential workforce. So you're used to me speaking globally today. I'd like to share just something a little personal about me. On a typical day we special needs parents and families struggle. We wonder if we are getting it right. We dream and worry about the future. We stay awake at night and process the trauma from the day.
We pray others will love our children just as much as we do. We worry if we're getting our children the right amount of support, too much support or even if the kids are going to make it without us one day. I happen to have a child with milder challenges, but still a different kind of journey finding childcare and educational options that don't require an absolute fight to get to ground zero.
Throughout the pandemic, we saw children with disabilities regress and skills that took months and even years to develop. A child who is that delayed in learning is underwater gasping for air. That is what it can feel like as a special needs parent without strong support systems in place. We are left gasping, grabbing, and fighting for our lives. Between IEP's OT, SLT, PT, RSP, and the many more commitments of special needs parents, we are also expected to hold down full-time jobs If you don't know what those acronyms mean, be grateful.
COVID-19, for most people sent parents over the edge. Special needs parents were now in an impossible situation hanging upside down and praying for someone to catch us. Without access to safe inclusive affordable childcare and a flexible schedule I would have lost my job and I would have had to start my career all over again. Family child care was my lifeline throughout the pandemic from distance learning to safe socialization my family survived because we had reliable safe quality childcare We have seen a mass exodus of women in the workplace over the past two years because they didn't and continue to not have access to safe, affordable quality child care. We have one space for every six infants and one space for every two preschoolers in our county.
When you add special needs into that ratio, the access diminishes even further. I plead with our county to see families like mine and women like me, and to invest in the child care sector. And help us simply get to ground zero. Thank you
Thank you. Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Hartman. First of all thank you Jackie for telling your story with us. You know what you guys are doing with resource and referral is exactly what I want to invest in so where are you guys at? Obviously you have a funding source that existed before ARPA came along and will exist afterwards. What can we do to help maximize what you're doing because at some point there's a diminished return With your organization, so where are you guys at? What more would you need to be able to expand upon your outreach and bringing in additional families and businesses.
Children's Resource and Referral has partnered with First 5 in the past, County Santa Barbara to provide expansion services to either license new spaces or expand those spaces into larger spaces. And so we are prepared to continue that work. We do have a state contract called Child Care Initiative Project otherwise known as CIP, C-C-I-P So we model all of our services based off of that. And then any local funding, we've received local dollars from Santa Barbara Foundation every single year to also feed into that expansion effort. So we would simply just grow that already existing well-oiled machine and serve more providers thus serving more children. Every provider that we create a license for creates eight spaces
So if we went down the RFP model here, if we move forward with that you guys would be submitting some type of proposal going forward?
Yes. And if we avoided the RFP process and simply went and deposited into Santa Barbara Foundation then we would work closely with them on that so either way.
Understood thank you.
2:04 – 2:1111 turns
And Madam
Clerk does that complete our public comment? Chair Hartman and members of the board yes that concludes public comment on this item.
Thank you, Jackie very much. So we're back to the board. Supervisor Williams?
Well I was this is a little bit different of a direction than I envisioned when we first looked at this because I definitely see the value in directly subsidizing parents. I still think if we had enough money that would be another good use of it, but I do want to concentrate on the need to prepare the industry for expansion of infant-toddler slots you know. The math is This is pretty compelling and while the existing problem there remains an existing supply problem in preschool, the number of kids arguably looking for preschool slots is going to go in half.
And it's all for a good reason. I mean, this is kind of like we were talking about it like it's doom and gloom and terrible but the K through 12 system you know is good right? And especially in a lot of our districts they're really good and it's good to have only some of these programs are accredited only some of them teach to kindergarten readiness Uh, the TK expansion will teach to kindergarten readiness because they'll be right next door.
But so it'll be a good thing for the kids but I just think that it really compels us to try to make the investment obviously staff has said We would have to have a process, but the input I think we should give today is that the majority of the money should go to option two. And if not enough facilities use it, we could repurpose it to option one. Especially if we can get a foundation to match some of that money, right?
So I think we should put that criteria in any process.
Supervisor Nelson and then heart
yeah, thank you supervisor Hartman or chair Hartman You know I'm great with you supervisor Williams. I think that you know investing the infant toddler is our It's where the need is we see coming we have opportunity so whatever way we can do that. I mean all in favor of Again expanding with the services are resource and referral very important. I do want to briefly touch on The distribution of the funds based on Supervisor District as Supervisor Lavinia brought up. Again, I agree that's not necessarily the most equitable way of doing that. Also don't think it's the most equitable way is counting on cities having a match.
Some of our cities are very willing to be partners in things. Some of our cities are not but the needs are still in those cities. They're still our constituents so I just want to kind of caution us as we go down that route. There's cities we've tried to partner with on homelessness they have no desire to move forward And so, but these impact all of us. So I would really want to you know yes let's leverage with cities where they want to partner with us at the same time I don't want to hold back funding from a part of the county that may not have a partner One with one of their municipalities and then also there's our under corporate areas that don't have that opportunity as well. So I just want to be thoughtful when we start sending out these dollars, you know, I think the most equitable is looking at you know the age demographic, you know where are we trying to hit?
And then spreading out along those lines and whatever that is what we should be trying to stay faithful to so those are just my thoughts at this point.
CEO Miyasato, I just had a question about the competitive requirement in ARPA and whether that would require an RFP or whether the money could be funneled to a foundation with directive.
I'm going to answer a short answer and then Nancy can answer a longer answer. The answer is yes, we can deposit money with the foundation. We just have set criteria they would need to follow and they would be a sub-recipient which means there's some other regulations that they would have to follow in order for them to use the funds but there'd be specific criteria they have to follow
And Supervisor, Chair Hartman. To add on to that it would be a sub-award of our ARPA funds so it does add more work for us from a sub recipient monitoring perspective And they have to be willing and understand what they're committing to for record keeping and documentation. Because there's so much money out there in ARPA, typically those who are applying are already understanding how that needs to be worked.
Thank you. Supervisor Hart?
Well I think, I'm glad the consensus is emerging about how to best use these dollars and it's wonderful that we have willing partners that are ready to go. And I don't, I think that Supervisor Nelson's point about you know how do we find the balance point between getting the municipal governments to help us and not punishing those who can't is an interesting dance.
But let's try to dance that, and try to get the best of both worlds. And get some additional resources and still be fair and allocate money to others that can't meet this need. I guess I think the RFP can be done quickly and succinctly and probably doesn't slow down the process but we're probably going to end up with our most capable partner after doing the RFP process so.
2:11 – 2:1618 turns
And could I just add on to that part too? Just as we know that things are changing, we certainly can and have done and made RFPs to make it succinct and simple to get it to the point so we're not further delaying. But also want to make sure that we are as a county putting ourselves in position to potentially draw down federal dollars. So how we write the RFP where we're putting the dollars that we want to be able to have. We want to be that match if we need to have when those dollars are here. And so it's really important to create a strong infrastructure to be able to do that as well. That's a great, excellent extra point too. Thank you.
Yeah so if I might ask your recommendation really would be the RFP for that other benefit that you're describing it might be a match or help us get additional funds?
Exactly because the other thing is setting us in a place of the fact that it's gonna take more flexibility You know, and this is gonna be this one time may take care of one time thing But we know the ongoing issue is the is the structure the infrastructure as we've seen through Kovat what happened? We didn't have a strong system And so we also need to keep that in mind as we're building toward the future What is sustainable and then I'll have us be in a position To respond quickly because we have a good infrastructure in place. So
And could you elaborate a little bit more on what the RFP process would look like, how long it would take, who you would work with developing it, who would evaluate if you've had an opportunity to think that through?
Yeah, I'll start it out and then I'll have Michelle. She's usually leading that part but essentially what we've done just in terms of first five we're putting on RFP What's the need out there? How do we address it the problem statement that is out there and what do we need for evaluation? I know there are certain criteria with ARPA funding meeting Evaluation outcomes so certainly they would be in there And again being clear on what we're expecting the person who's going to be providing a service to do and it's clear to them And we would be taking input as we've heard today. What are they looking at? What's on the ground? So it would be a very collaborative effort in terms of what we need as a county and as an entity that would be providing the RFP, as well as what we're hearing from the community.
Ms. Robertson?
Yeah, I will add it will in just a partnership with the CEO's office. It will depend which department the RFP comes out through because we as a Children and Families Commission are restricted to zero to five whereas if we opened it up to two others it would need to come from a different office but it takes us approximately a month to put together a good RFP if it does go through Commission we do have to take it to our commission first, but I see Terry's gonna speak
CEO Miyasato.
Let me ask Terry because this is the first time I've heard my office would be doing an RFP so Terry
Yes, good morning chair and members of the board. We've been working with First 5. I mean our goal was to evaluate the data and then based on the data determine how to best release the RFP if our office did need to be in that partnership role Mona I believe we could work to determine that but we would really look to First 5 to provide the leadership they have extensive expertise with releasing RFPs as well as the monitoring component But we could certainly work in support of them in order to make sure that the data was appropriately identified and the RFP was released appropriately
Miss Sims Moten was there and first five can take this on if the board went that direction
Provided we didn't get outside our perimeters And what we were able to do in terms of that we can be in collaboration with that So we couldn't do that because it would be limited to zero to five Because that's my statute, but we certainly are here to collaborate to ensure that it serves everyone
Right, and our goal is really infant care so I think that fits.
We'll just need to be specific on that.
Any other questions comments from the board? Are we ready for a motion?
Make sure we're clear on the motion because either it's Bruce 5 taking the lead or Terry helping out. It sounds like what you want to fund to be clear is infant toddler. That's clear among the board That's what you want for expansion and support of those slots. So it could be someone who is struggling in doing that now, but we know there are not very many. So the what is expansion and support for infant-toddler spaces.
You do not want district based. That was something we ruled out. And we would explore other city participation because I know Goleta has been helpful and we've worked with them actually on the business loan program through Santa Barbara Foundation so we'll explore city participation. The how is through an RFP that the county would be issuing. That has all the requirements that first five lays out, ARPA requirements, all of that. That would be done quickly because we want to get the money out but the how is through an RFP to find out who could do what matched to the data that was provided today.
And CEO Miyasato I believe if foundations could match or bring in additional funding that would be a benefit as well. Supervisor Hart flagged that for
us. Yes and we can find it foundations could match But it wouldn't be through a foundation. You're saying the county would be doing it We would be doing rather in some models we've used Santa Barbara Foundation where again, we've given them funding I think I don't know if our preference is for the county to do it because of the sub-recipient issues or not Nancy's saying it doesn't matter but from what I'm hearing you said the county would be issuing the RFP and holding the funds Yes, okay
2:16 – 2:315 turns
Supervisor Williams
So I'll move that summary as provided by CEO Miyasato of the direction for first five to prepare an RFP on our behalf. And I'll second the motion.
All right, and Madam Clerk this is so important would you call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 motion. All right, and Madam Clerk this is so important would you call the roll?
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously
okay ten minute break So after a short break, we are reconvening the May 3rd 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors turning to departmental item number three. Madam Clerk would you read that into the record
2:31 – 2:464 turns
please? Chair Hartman and members of the board departmental item number three is from the Probation Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2022 through 2023 Public Safety Realignment Act plan.
Chief Heitmann
Good morning Chair Hartman and Supervisors. I'm Tanya Heitmann, Chief Probation Officer and Chair of the County's Community Corrections Partnership. With me today are Deputy Chief Holly Benton and Administrative Deputy Director Damon Fletcher who will present on our fiscal year 22-23 realignment plan. They're bringing forth another plan that emphasizes a balanced approach evidence based treatment in case management designed to address the complex needs and challenges of the populations being served.
The CCP and its workgroup focused on many of the same challenges your board has been interested in. Diversion, jail population management, mental health treatment and housing. I want to thank Supervisor Hart for his engagement as a member of the CCP. He has represented your board well. On behalf of the CCP, I also want to express appreciation for CEO Miyasato and your boards efforts to understand and support our work.
I know at times it may seem like the criminal justice system is designed to intentionally confuse and baffle those outside of it. But you have each persevered and leaned in to understand the nuances as well as the big picture. Lastly, I want to thank Deputy Chief Benton. This will be the first year that she presents to your board on behalf of the adult division and as chair of the CCP workgroup.
However, you know her work well from our juvenile division where she led our reimagining Juvenile Justice Initiative. She's had a steep learning curve in adult but she has quickly gotten acclimated and is building off of the exceptional work and collaboration that our county realignment plan is recognized for. With that I'll turn it over to Holly and Damon for their presentation.
Thank you, Chief Heitman. Good morning Chair Hartman and Supervisors I'm Holly Benton Deputy Chief Probation Officer over Probations Adult Division and chair of the Community Corrections Partnership Workgroup on behalf of the Community Corrections Partnership also known as the CCP and the work group I'll be presenting this year's 22-23 realignment plan summarizing accomplishments from this past year and new items for the coming year I'd like to thank the workgroup members, probation staff and community partners who contributed to the development of this robust and comprehensive plan over the last several months.
We are entering into our 11th year of highly collaborative work through the CCP which was brought about as a result of the passage of AB 109, the Public Safety Realignment Act in October 2011. AB 109 transferred the responsibility for specific inmates and parolees from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to the counties. Realignment planning in Santa Barbara County is overseen by the CCP, a collaborative interagency partnership of representatives who maintain shared goals.
Further support is afforded by the workgroup which meets on a monthly basis to review performance data related to funded strategies to ensure anticipated outcomes remain aligned with the five overarching performance objectives detailed in the plan. Through additional opportunities and partnerships with the California State Association of Counties and California Policy Lab, along with support from the Reentry Steering and Quality Assurance Committees, all agencies have had opportunities to expand their capacity to understand and implement evidence-based practices and benefit from technical assistance.
Subsequent to passage of AB 109 in 2011 a plan for implementation of realignment in Santa Barbara County has been brought before the Board of Supervisors each year for approval and adoption. Realignment brought two additional populations under the supervision and responsibility of local county jurisdictions. The Post-Release Community Supervision, or PRCS population are individuals who exited from prison after serving a commitment for a nonviolent, nonserious felony and who are deemed not to be high risk sex offenders.
The non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offender population known locally as Post Sentence Supervision or PSS are individuals who serve their prison sentences locally and are subject to a mandatory period of supervision as ordered by the Superior Court. In Santa Barbara County the combined number of PRCS and PSS clients decreased 26% in the one year period between October 2020 and October 2021 from 503 individuals to 371 Although our pre-trial population is not a realigned population, pre-trail supervision is one of our realignment strategies and we felt it was important to highlight the growth of that population over the last year. From 238 in January 2021 to 524 in January of this year, a 120% increase.
The realigned population is only 17% of the overall supervised population in the county and remains a relatively small population in comparison to the number of clients on standard probation supervision. However, realigned clients are at a much higher risk to re-offend comparatively 85% of PRCS and 69% of PSS clients as compared to 40% of standard probationers.
It is for this reason that realignment funding is provided to ensure targeted services interventions and supervision to this population In Santa Barbara County, 59% of the realigned population is Hispanic and 33% is white. And the population is predominantly male with just 6% of PRCS and 16% of PSS clients being female. The majority of these clients are also between 25 and 44 years of age.
Our county has been successful in taking a balanced approach to the use of realignment funding by allocating funding across jail population management, community supervision, and treatment programs. This ensures funded programs and activities are aligned with the goals set forth by the CCP, including the reduction of recidivism, the enhanced use of alternative detention where appropriate, successful and equitable reentry into the community, the elimination of duplication and inefficiency, and systemic examination of racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system.
Jail population management includes sheriff's office custody staff. It also includes deputy probation officers functioning as assessors at the jail facilities, GPS services and funding for a reentry coordinator which I'll speak about shortly. This area also includes funding set aside for discharge planning and diversion activities and programs. Numerous programs fall within the scope of treatment funding among them are cost for the behavioral wellness mental health services to the realigned population The Sheriff's Treatment Program staff and curriculum, and victim witness services through the District Attorney's Office.
Also in the treatment realm are services and staff at the Probation Report and Resource Center including probation officers and a contract discharge planner and social worker through the Sheriff's office. Under community supervision, our probation officers providing supervision services as well as their supervisors and support staff. This area of the budget also funds regional response team staff from the Sheriff's Office and Probation and a collaborative courts district attorney.
The realignment plan also details housing efforts funded with these dollars, which includes sober housing, supportive housing and housing specialist staff from the public defender and probation. Under innovations you will find the Public Defender's Holistic Defense Program including the social workers, recovery assistants and transportation staff as well as dollars set aside for community engagement. For pre-trial, the plan includes supervision officers and pretrial services navigators.
Funding is also set aside for analysts and account in time for data evaluation. Program descriptions detailing all of these approaches are highlighted in the plan document. This past fiscal year, as the county weathered the second full year of the COVID-19 pandemic, agencies serving the realigned population continued to adapt their work to the changing circumstances displaying a high degree of flexibility in approach and services.
Agencies looked for opportunities to reach deeper and assist one another and some changes made out of necessity during the pandemic became routine ways of doing business. Some examples, probation officers working as jail assessors broadened their efforts to assist attorneys in the court with signing and release of information paperwork. Sheriff's custody staff and attorneys worked to increase ease of scheduling Zoom interviews with inmates.
The sheriff's office and probation began discussions of shifting the supervision portion of alternative sentencing to probation in order to provide those clients with better access to supports and services. Rapid pretrial expansion required the internal shifting of probation resources, including demand staffing and reallocation of existing positions in order to meet the workload requirements.
Pretrial staff were also asked to take on a pre-arraignment release pilot looking at individuals in the jail with low level warrants to determine if they were suitable for release in order to further reduce the population at the jails during the COVID outbreak in early 2022. The Santa Barbara County Public Defender's Model of Holistic Defense is a team-based reentry model in partnership with multiple agencies.
These teams work to address socially rooted problems beyond simple criminal risk, such as homelessness, unemployment and addiction. For fiscal year 22-23 the CCP approved funding for three additional positions one licensed clinical social worker, one client services specialist and one recovery assistant. These positions will expand capacity for additional support for justice involved clients reentering the community The Criminal Justice Data Committee has continued to tackle challenging projects as more members have come on board. The CJDC is currently a collaboration of six county agencies working in partnership to facilitate cross-agency data sharing.
To varying degrees, this includes probation, the sheriff's department, district attorney, public defender, the superior court and behavioral wellness. Using the infrastructure and collaboration of the CJDC and the integrated justice information system developed by the group, the Probation Department launched a public-facing data dashboard in July 2021 allowing for greater transparency of criminal justice data.
Since that time, the Sheriff's Office has launched its own dashboard and both the DA and Public Defender have posted statistics on their website in an effort to keep the public informed. The coming fiscal year will see further expansion of pre-trial services. Pre-trial officers supervise those released on pre-trial supervision, reasonably assuring attendance at court hearings while maintaining the presumption of innocence and providing protection to the public.
The number of defendants receiving supervision is projected to continue to increase into the next fiscal year. The CCP approved the funding of two contracted pretrial services navigator positions to provide supportive services to the pretrial population. Two additional positions were added through the use of departmental resources. Two additional deputy probation officers were also funded to supervise the increase in the pretrial population.
Discharge planning has been an area of consistent focus now and for the coming year, The current discharge planning team takes a multidisciplinary approach, which allows the team to use their skills and knowledge as they collaborate in the assessment of inmates' needs and subsequent discharge planning. In addition to the efforts of the team and the PRRC staff Multiple county departments and agencies participate in their own distinct re-entry and discharge planning efforts.
To reduce barriers, enhance coordination and collaboration between agencies, and remove this work from silos the CCP funded a multi agency assessment case planning and re-entry coordinator position. Through collaboration amongst the partner agencies and the leadership of this coordinator, the county will ensure individuals entering the jail receive multi-agency assessments and case planning that will assist in successful release at the earliest stage possible based on their risk and needs and the statutorily available options.
This approach will assist in ensuring all diversionary options are maximized and individuals exiting the jail have a more robust discharge plan and a warm handoff as appropriate. Housing continues to be an area of opportunity, and in 2022 it is anticipated that the Sanctuary Housing Project, sometimes called the Brick-and-Mortar Project will be back before your board for approval to proceed.
This project which will bring supportive housing for high and medium risk justice involved individuals to a site in Santa Barbara is anticipated to be completed in 2024. $1.65 million remains set aside for this project to be augmented with other funds by sanctuary centers. In April of 2021, the CCP approved a proposal to use funds from the ongoing operational Mental Health Rehabilitation Center budget to fund two reserved mental health rehabilitation beds at the Lompoc Champion MHRC as pilot project to divert clients that are misdemeanants incompetent to stand trial.
These beds are distinct from non-forensic MHRC beds in that they provide services for individuals referred by the Superior Court that require a greater level of staffing and services while pending resolution of their legal matters. During the past year, a subcommittee of the CCP workgroup convened to explore what data elements are required to support the acute non-IST individuals and how to serve them if they are decompensating at the jail.
Ultimately, the subcommittees recommendation was a two pronged approach to expand the pilot from 2 to 4 guaranteed beds and to define data to be collected about the population in need The passage of Senate Bill 317, which requires diversion and outpatient treatment of MISTs will impact the use of these beds. Discussions are ongoing between CCP partners including behavioral wellness, the public defender and probation as to how best he used this resource and ensure individuals requiring a bed for mental health treatments or restoration are afforded that opportunity.
Partner agencies are working toward a rapid diversion model, which would allow early access to and assessment of inmates at the jail and diversion into the correct type of treatment. The CCP has also set aside funding to support continued expansion of co-response teams in the county, which has proven a successful model. In addition, the CCP set aside a sum for future diversion activities and programs as agencies and community partners explore new models and approaches which may require funding.
These items were recommended by the workgroup after discussion and deliberation. More discussion will be taking place in the workgroup on these items in the coming months.
2:46 – 3:0115 turns
The CCP approved ongoing AB 109 program budget totals $18.1 million. This includes 15.9 million in estimated allocation, which is the current year allocation and 2.2 million in fund balance consisting of the 2021 growth. It is anticipated that the revenue growth in future years will be sufficient to ensure that this doesn't create an ongoing structural deficit.
There is currently $22.2 million of unspent prior year realignment revenue in fund balance, however a portion of this balance has previously been allocated by the CCP and your board. $1.86 million remains unspent from one-time allocations approved in 2017-18. This includes $1,500,000 for the expansion of the Santa Barbara Report and Resource Center which is included in the new probation building. Those funds will be transferred to general services when we get closer to constructing that facility.
$1.83 million remains unspent from one-time allocations approved in fiscal year 18-19. This is primarily related to the development of the brick and mortar facility to provide permanent housing to justice involved clients. In addition, $333,000 of match to the pretrial felony diversion program remains. Finally, $1,200,000 has been earmarked as a prudent reserve This leaves $17.3 million of fund balance available to be allocated by the CCP to address limited term and one time needs. The fiscal year 2223 plan presented to you today for approval includes $150,000 of funding for the district attorney and second districts two-year neighborhood restorative justice program in the city of Goleta and $40,000 for data needs and support associated with the Criminal Justice Data Committee.
As mentioned on the prior slide, an additional $2.2 million of 2021 growth will be released to balance the proposed 22-23 budget. Assuming your board approves the plan as presented, $14.9 million of unallocated fund balance will remain. The CCP is considering how to expand a remaining, how to expend the remaining fund balance while not generating a structural deficit in the future years.
In closing, we have a quote from Mother Teresa. I alone cannot change the world but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples. It is a reminder that each agency brings its own unique mandates to the work with a realigned population but each portion of this work is connected to the rest. It is through our collaborative work that we make the greatest amount of change and are able to ensure a safer community and better client outcomes.
This year, the realignment plan approved by the CCP continues the county's commitment to a broad spectrum of treatment supervision in jail population management programs to ensure supervised clients receive necessary supports while ensuring accountability. Thank you and we are happy to take any questions you may have.
Supervisor Hart.
I don't have any questions, just want to thank the probation department for really taking the lead through the CCP process in this presentation. What's very gratifying to me as one of the members of the CCP is the really collaborative work that goes on between all the criminal justice partners. You know we don't have a big contentious hearing here today to talk about The difference agreements about what's in this plan because this is data driven. This is supported by evidence and facts, and this is the result of a lot of work at the staff level initially and then through the partners that attend the CCP meetings to really come up with a plan that is sound and fiscally Sustainable, that meets the goals of the state and also protects our community in the best way possible by reducing jail population and providing treatment and assistance services to folks who need help.
And so I think this is just a big success story.
And I'd just like to add that your leadership on the data dashboard and the transparency, and I think that goes a long way to leading to broader collaboration because people can agree or test. And you can figure out where the disagreements might be and how to resolve them. I did have a question, and it relates to early diversion. I have a friend who has a child who ended up in jail with mental health issues.
And I just want to understand better what happens if there is an incident and law enforcement or a co-response team respond, and it's obvious that there's a history of mental health problems with this individual an adult, then what happens? Does it turn on whether it was a felony or a misdemeanor? It still seems like we have a lot of people sitting in jail with mental health issues.
Chair Hartman, thank you for that question. And I would have to note this is one of the areas that I think appears to confuse and baffle intentionally. There has been a lot of change in the law around how we handle mentally ill individuals within the criminal justice system. And the dust has not by any means settled to a point where there's any assurance about how they're going to be handled. It does vary depending on whether it's a felony or misdemeanor, but also the type of felony and whether it's a violent felony or violent misdemeanor. There are nuances to the different statutes and how they can be handled.
There is a greater probability for diversion, whether it is a misdemeanor or felony though. The court has more discretion currently granting diversion than they have previously. However, every case is different and there's a lot of variety in terms of how attorneys might approach it based on the clients individual needs we are hoping that with our reentry assessment case coordination effort that will be able to Get that assessment at information at the earliest stage possible to try to Ensure that all of those diversion options are on the table and and are considered in advance but quite honestly You'd have to look at each case and apply all the different statutes to determine whether there is a viable diversion opportunity for them. We want to continue expanding those options, not only once they've been arrested or in the jail but also as you know through the co-response and pre filing opportunities The additional funds that the CCP work group has set aside for diversion, we're really hoping will end up being a pre-filing diversion that would allow individuals either not to go into the jail at all or if they do go into the jail to be released early on in the process and diverted.
So we do have some local discretion in adding additional diversion beyond what is available through the statute.
Well, thank you and thank you for your entire department in the entire criminal justice partners working on that. It's one of the most difficult things I hear as parents of adult children with mental health issues that end up in jail.
You know, I would add as a parent myself that probably one of the more frustrating aspects of it is the confidentiality and the rights that the individual has, and the parent doesn't have. Oftentimes parents don't have access to all of the information that would help them understand their child's circumstances. And that can be very challenging for the system that wants the help of the parent as well as the parent that really needs to and wants to understand better.
One of the factors is trying to prepare in advance for the possibility that there might be a mental health crisis. I think there's increasing focus on pre-planning and having some decisions made with the individual while they're stable, that will allow more information sharing and a parent or someone else to come in and help make some of those decisions. So we would encourage any relative or caregiver or a loved one of a mentally ill individual to do that pre-planning with the individual while they are stable.
That is really good advice, thank you. Supervisor Williams?
So I thought the slide on number of clients and from the different sources was really very interesting to see how much the department is changing in the clientele that it serves. Tell me the relationship of those different populations to staffing, you know, is the pretrial Take more staffing per client, less staffing per client or about the same. Just so I understand the challenges of the department and what the future holds.
Supervisor through the Chair, the staffing for the different populations is a combination of factors. One of them being risk and one of them being the nature of where they are within in the justice system and the actions that need to be taken. Our realigned population as Deputy Chief Benton indicated earlier has a much larger concentration of high-risk individuals, so those caseloads tend to be a lower ratio. Our pretrial is similar in the sense that we base it off of their risk levels as well. It's a different risk tool looking at different factors but it is tied to their risk—their risk to reoffend, their risk to fail to come To court as well as their mental health or other specialized needs. So we do have some pretrial clients that receive a much more intensive level of supervision and then some that receive a lower level of supervision are general probation population.
which is our largest population still, has the greatest number of low-risk individuals in it. So although it too is based off of risk level and some individuals receive a lower ratio client to officer caseload, A good portion of them still are on what we call an administrative or a bank caseload where there's very high ratios, but that is an evidence-based practice. It's by design that because they're low risk to reoffend they don't require as deep a reach so we supervise them differently. So when you look at our resources, our pre-trial population is the growing area. It is the one that we're shifting a lot of our internal resources to. Deputy Chief Benton spoke of the additional staff that we're getting from CCP funds, as well as you know that we've asked for some through general fund over the years.
So we're expanding that area and it is indeed growing but it continues all of our populations are based off of their risk level and the numbers within that group. Does that answer your question?
Thank you. It does yeah thorough as usual
Supervisor Nelson
yes, thank you chair Hartman comforts all great presentation and I appreciate the small tweaks that you guys are going through to really refine this and I Know that you guys are working through Changes in laws that require you guys require you to adjust Your strategies, but then the day really comes down to recidivism right? So where are we seeing that at what point are we going to have numbers that come back to us to say okay these new strategies are working.
We're able to deal with them at the front end of the justice system and they're not reoffending or is you know if they are you know when does that reassessment take place?
Supervisor through the chair, we have a evaluation that's going on right now through California Policy Lab. But it is very much focused on what happened during the pandemic and how those changes impacted our criminal justice population. I wouldn't describe it as a general assessment of how the system overall is working. Because of the many changes within the system, I think it would be very difficult for us on a local level to really make that type of deep analysis of how things are working when the population has changed so much.
AB 1950 if you recall is the legislation that moved us from typically a three-to-five year term of probation to oftentimes a two year term There needs to be a time of settling to determine how that legislation is going to impact our work. And if we were to do a comparison right now, I don't know that we would be able to draw any real conclusions from it because we would be comparing a population right now that's under supervision for a much smaller amount of time and you'd be looking at a different recidivism window to our prior population It is an effort that we continue to explore not only locally but statewide.
in terms of what are the best approaches. We can provide recidivism data, we do track that data and we can provide that to the board I just you know I don't know that I would want to go so far as to say if you're seeing an improvement in some areas that you could define it as success or have you seen you know decline in some areas failure because It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison at this point.
3:01 – 3:0412 turns
Yeah, I just think at the end of the day the public sees you know in the news there's somebody that commits a crime and then they talk about all the different things that they've already been charged for. And so I think that's where the public struggles with this and with the changes that we're making not on a local level but the state level and adjusting to those changing circumstances.
I've got a couple fiscal questions for Mr. Fletcher if you could go to slide 7 So the growth funds that are added to the 22-23 was so that's those are help me with that. So those are past year growth that we had in this account, so there was some growth there. We held that back and now we're going to spend it in 22- 23
Supervisor through the chair, that's absolutely correct. The state provides a AB 109 allocation to all of the counties at the beginning of the year and so they will pay assuming we meet that sales tax revenue they will pay up to the allocation and the moment we hit the allocation any additional state sales tax it would be allocated to AB 109 gets held in reserve and then in October they allocate that money out as growth So, our tradition in our county has been to develop our next year's budget off of the current year actual amount plus last year's growth. And so and that's what we've done this year.
Perfect. That takes me to slide eight where my question was about You know, using that same exact amount that we're going to growth funds for are ongoing for 2223. So you guys are really looking at revenue previous year then we're budgeting that forward for the next year so we have some more certainty. So again thank you for a very fiscally responsible decision making process here that makes a lot of sense I was concerned that we might be running a Running these funds down and you know at some point We will no longer have a fund balance, and if there might be structural deficit But now I understand it a lot more so thank
you You don't have to worry about that with Damon Fletcher. I
know I was just checking his math
And madam clerk any public comment
Chair Hartman and members of the board we have no requests to speak on this item today
Okay, bring it back to the board for a motion On recommended actions A through C in today's board letter.
I'll move the staff recommendation, A through C. Second.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Madam Clerk would you read number four into the record please.
Chair Hartman and members of the board, departmental item number four is from the Community Services Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara County Home Consortium and Community Development Block Grant CDBG urban county fiscal year 2022 through 2023 annual action plan.
And
3:04 – 3:125 turns
Mr. Chapman, you're
online
today okay?
I am thank you. Good afternoon Chair Hartman and members of the Board of Supervisors. Community Services Department's Housing and Community Development Division is here today to present the annual CDBG and Home Funds Action Plan and recommended funding allocations. The Annual Action Plan to HUD reflects the annual allocations made to qualifying non-profit organizations operating in Santa Barbara County In addition to CDBG and Home Funds, staff will also provide a report on the three-year Human Services Commission's recommendations for funding. This is separate than the CDBG and Home Funds. These are general fund dollars that you as the board allocate to the department to regrant.
With that I'd like to introduce Dinah Lockhart and Lori Baker from our Housing and Community Service Division to present the action plan and the human services allocation report.
The speaker. Thank you, George. We can advance to slide 2. So this slide shows the recommended actions as included in the board letter which George just summarized for you slide 3. On November 9th, 2021 the Division of Housing and Community Development HCD published a notice of funding availability to solicit funding proposals for the community development block grant home investment partnerships and human services general fund programs.
We received 17 applications for public services funds for just over $200,000 available. We received four application for capital projects for the over 1.2 million dollars available And we received 44 applications for Human Services General Fund programs for the $960,000 available. The CDBG and home allocations are estimated as HUD has yet to announce them for fiscal year 2022.
However, HUD is allowing jurisdictions to proceed with their action plan local approvals provided that a contingency plan is considered on how funds will be awarded if allocations are different from the estimated amounts. The county's Human Services Commission reviewed CDBG public services and Human Services General Fund applications, and made funding recommendations for consideration by your board today.
And CDBG capital project proposals were reviewed by HCD staff and the county's Capital Loan Committee, and made funding recommendations for your board's consideration today. Next slide. The county is a lead agency of the CDBG-Urban County Partnership which includes Unincorporated County in the cities of Carpentria, Buellton, and Solvang CDBG funds may be used for public services programs, capital projects, economic development and other activities.
Each city may identify projects or programs for the respective sub-allocations or pool their funds with the counties for inclusion in the annual NOFA. While the county NOFA included Carpentries, Sub allocation the city selected applicants funding from their pool of $16,000 in CDBG for public services programs via its City Council process. Next slide These are the funny recommendations made by the Human Services Commission for CDBGs Public Services Programs The italicized font shows the City of Carpentria selected programs For the remaining funds, the Commission worked with the estimated CDBG allocation and made a contingency plan should the actual allocation be more or less than estimated.
Therefore, if the actual amount of funds available exceed the estimate by $15,000 or more, the Commission recommends that the extra funds be awarded to Wheelbridge of Santa Barbara. If actual funds exceed the estimate by under $15,000 then it recommends that the extra funds be divided equally between People's Self-Help Housing's Homeless Prevention Program and PATH's Housing Navigation Program.
If the actual funds are less than estimated, the Commission recommends equal funding deductions from Domestic Violence Solutions Emergency Shelter Program and PATH's housing navigation program. A full list of the applications received is included in the board letter. Next slide. The programs being recommended on the next few slides utilizes County General Fund dollars in support of the programs that provide a variety of services to low-income persons and families, and special needs populations.
Pursuant to Board direction in 2015 these general fund human services programs are three year grants subject to annual budget appropriations by your board. The list on this slide and the following slide shows the funding recommendations made by the Human Services Commission for the general, for the human services basic services programs which provides grants for the provision of basic safety net services such as food shelter transportation and freedom from abuse for low-income persons of family.
Next slide This list of basic services programs is continued from the prior slide. A full list of the applications received is included in the board letter. Next slide. This list shows funding recommendations made by the Human Services Commission for best practices programs. Best practices are similar to basic services programs, but with added outcome measures that demonstrate meaningful life changes. A full list of applications received is included in the board letter. Next slide.
This list shows the funding recommendations made by HCD staff and the Capital Loan Committee for CDBG capital projects, which include replacement of an aging septic system at the Goleta Neighborhood Clinic with a connection to Goleta's sanitary system. Habitat for Humanity's home repair program for low-income households that supports seniors to remain in their homes. Paths upgrades to their emergency shelter Unity Shop HVAC upgrades at two locations.
There are over a million dollars available, therefore every project can be funded. The balance available may be used for other non-public services projects as public services is capped at 15% of the CDBG allocation. Next slide. The county is the lead agency of the HOME Consortium, which consists of unincorporated counties and the cities of Carpentria, Goleta, Buellton, Solvang, Lompoc and Santa Maria.
Each city may identify projects for their respective suballocations or pool their funds with the counties for inclusion in the annual NOFA. Home funds may be used for affordable housing projects and programs, including multifamily housing development, homeownership programs and tenant-based rental assistance. Next slide. The cities of Lompoc and Santa Maria generally advise the county on the uses of their respective home allocations. The other cities pool their funds with the counties to be awarded through the county process.
HCD staff maintains a list of potential housing projects Staff will return to the board at such time that projects are ready for a funding reservation or award. Staff also will prepare amendments to the action plan for board approval that include the funded projects. Next slide and this concludes the presentation we're available to answer any questions
3:12 – 3:2416 turns
Do any board members have questions? I did have a question about the Meals on Wheels program. I know the Human Services Commission makes these decisions and I'm not going to second guess, and very appreciative of the work that they do but I noticed that Meals on Wheels in Santa Maria and Santa Barbara are funded Central County and Isn't and so I just wonder how that can be addressed going forward
Good morning chair or good afternoon chair Hartman members of the Board of Supervisors Yes We we did talk with our commissioners representatives of the Commissioners yesterday, and you know We do understand that they had a very difficult process. They reviewed over 60 applications. They initially scored those applications on a numeric score looking at nine different factors.
Once they had reviewed the applications, they also looked for geographic distribution making sure that they all met commission priorities. Also the number of beneficiaries by program and so after that deliberative process I think that the Commissioners Believe that they had met the geographic distribution of resources and then they also identified a new program which was the teen legal clinic, which they.
We're also recommending funding for and I think it was after that point that You know the the concern about the Bulton Senior Center came up. So that was the process that they went through We do also have representatives of the Human Service Commission if you would like to speak with them as well But we'd certainly like to hear more input from the board on that and perhaps we can provide some feedback on that
Also Chair Hartman if I may, I know that there's some movement on the state front. There's senior nutrition as well as general food assistance throughout the state proposal so i think that could be one possibility you also allocated ARPA funding for senior nutrition specifically that Daniel is going to be looking at and that could also potentially fill a void where we see it So there's also a possibility meal service will be a factor in funding with the CalAIM via CENCAL. So there's lots of moving parts and I think there may be some opportunities to fund some of those with those moving parts.
And if I might just ask a further question, would the county be helping identify these sources so that we could match make or it's sometimes hard for small organizations to be in the kitchen cooking all the meals and then also applying to all these different sources. So is there anything we can do to let people know when these opportunities arise?
Absolutely, we'll be working with the CEO's office to monitor some of these programs and will also look and help as much as possible. I agree that sometimes nonprofits don't have the capability or the bandwidth to do that so well.
Thank you so much. I don't see any other lights on up here so Madam Clerk public comment.
Chair Hartman and members of the board, yes we have five requests to speak on this item. And we are first going to remain in Santa Barbara with Pam Niko to be followed by Marisol Alarcon.
Good afternoon, Chair Hartman and Supervisors. My name is Pam Niko. I'm the CEO of the San Ynez Valley Senior Citizen Foundation. I just wanted to first of all thank the Human Services Commission. They did a great job. They had a daunting task of looking at all the agencies trying to figure out where the funds go and what happens. With that being said, with all the agencies there were only six agencies that were not funded. So I came today to ask the supervisors if possibly there could be allocations made or funding made available to fund those six agencies that were not funded on this CDBG grant. They're very important, all the agencies are important.
Chairman Hartman just said about the Meals on Wheels in the central county where we're the only Meals on Wheels The county on this or human services grant that did not get funded. So I would like to like if we could just review that this is very encouraging to hear that there may be some other possibilities. In June, the San Ynez Valley Senior Citizen Center will no longer be funded by any county grant and I know that that's not what we want. We certainly Service a lot of the county residents that can't help theirselves. We lost in these, um, in the CBDG grant we lost two programs that were funded before our nutrition program as well as the transportation program.
Transportation program is the only on-call transportation service in the valley, in the Central Valley that takes seniors and veterans to all medical appointments from Paso Robles down to Los Angeles. So it's a really important program to be funded. I just really appreciate any consideration that you can have in reallocating funds to help the Human Services Commission do this for us. We really appreciate it, thank you.
Thank you and thank you for all the work that you and your organization does.
We will now go to Marisol Alarcon here in Santa Barbara and then we will go to Zoom for Sarah Grasso.
Hello, everyone. Thank you County Board of Supervisors. My name is Marisol Alarcon. I'm a volunteer attorney and board member of the Santa Barbara Teen Legal Clinic. So the Human Services Commission has recommended that $20,000 be granted through their general fund for the Tara Holland Ford Restorative Justice Project. Long title, I know. But funding our project will give us the opportunity to have a transformative impact on our current juvenile justice systems and procedures The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, whose multidisciplinary membership collaborates on identifying local needs and gaps in services have identified limited diversion opportunities for youth and families particularly youth and families not yet involved in the justice system, as well as diversion services in each Santa Barbara County regional area.
So with your support, the teen legal clinic will offer Santa Barbara County youth and families an alternative to the traditional juvenile system through a pre-filing diversion program. Once a youth takes responsibility for a crime, completes the restorative justice program and makes reparations they will be successfully diverted from the juvenile justice system.
We're also collaborating with the Santa Barbara County Probation to divert cases away from these traditional systems for referrals and are in the final stages of completing an MOU. Our goal is to start receiving referrals in the next few months. Our program is geographically focused throughout Santa Barbara County and will benefit all youth, but especially youth of color in moderate-to-low income residents who historically do not have the resources that other families may have when faced with a juvenile justice system.
We're also collaborating with the Santa Barbara Colleges of Law by offering a summer law school course for restorative justice. So when successfully completed, the law students may apply for school credit internship to become restorative justice facilitators with the Santa Barbara Teen Legal Clinic. This will not only allow the program to be sustainable but will also impact and improve the legal community through more caring well-rounded innovative and creative attorneys.
It's also our goal to expand our program, to offer restorative justice to the school districts. So with your approval of the funding we will see some real sustainable change to the juvenile justice system so thank you for everything that you do and for your consideration.
And I just had a question. You said that it's countywide my understanding was though it was starting first with a pilot in Santa Barbara City?
I believe it would be starting in Santa Barbara City but I don't think that we would limit So thank you.
Thank you. Chair Herman and members of the board, we will now go to Zoom for Sarah's Grasso to be followed by Arcelia Cencian. Sarah? And Sarah, we have unmuted you on our end if you can please unmute and proceed. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Hartman, members of the Board and County of Santa Barbara Housing and Community Development staff. My name is Sarah Grasso and I'm serving as the Homeless Services Director for New Beginnings overseeing the Safe Parking Shelter and Rapid Rehousing Program in our Supportive Services for Veteran Families program. We want to thank you for your consideration of the recommended funding that will allow our agency to continue assisting the most vulnerable in our community.
We are so very grateful for the recommendations for the 2022-2023 County Human Services funding. We would like to thank the County of Santa Barbara Human Services Commission Allocations Committee and county staff for all their time and effort that went into the entire process. The Safe Parking Program is the only program in the county that provides safe overnight shelter nightly for over 150 families and individuals who live in their vehicles.
Our SSVF Veterans Program is one of the leading service providers for homeless veterans and their families across Santa Barbara County, and since the program's inception in 2013 we have served over 1,000 veteran families and individuals in addition to providing over $2 million in financial assistance. Our Community Counseling Center is one of the leading training sites for our community's future social workers, therapists and psychologists. With your funding we'll be able to continue to provide assistance to these populations in need that are being served by our safe parking SSVF and counseling center programs. We are depending on your continued support of our efforts to end homelessness and address behavioral health service needs throughout Santa Barbara County.
We are grateful to the staff and all departments of the county's housing and community development department for their tireless efforts and consistent support of our work. Thank you again for the committee's recommendations and for your consideration.
Thank you. We will now go to Arcelia Cencian, to be followed by Nancy Tilley who is our final speaker
3:24 – 3:3110 turns
Good day Chair Hartman and Supervisors Williams, Nelson, Labagnino and Hart. My name is Arcelia Sancion. I am the Associate Director at Standing Together Transsexual Assault, STESA. First, I would like to thank the staff and the Community Services Department for providing the support and technical assistance through the Human Services Commission to effectively do their job to review the many proposals and make funding recommendations.
Stessa has been recommended to receive human services funding. We are pleased to continue our partnership with the County of Santa Barbara to provide safety net services to survivors of sexual assault, their friends and family through our 24-hour hotline crisis counseling advocacy and accompaniment and mental health services. We hope that the full Board of Supervisors will approve Stessa's recommendation to continue to provide these essential services to the community. Thank you.
Thank you. And we will now go to Nancy Tilley, who is our final speaker.
Thank you and thank you Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors for your support and the Human Services Committee for supporting the Santa Barbara neighborhood clinics in various projects with Community Development Block Grant funds. We were able to finish our east side parking lot this year, and it's a wonderful project we are looking forward to having our Goleta sewer connection being done in the following year, which is what we have submitted our application for.
And we have been able to obtain a consultant to be able to help us with the small grant funds that we have for this year moving this project forward. This is really an environmental concern and we are serving over 6,000 unique patients at the Goleta facility currently The individuals and families that we serve are mostly under the poverty guidelines for the federal poverty guidelines, and it's really important that we create safe affordable access to health care. So I thank you for your previous support and ask for your continued support in our projects I also want to thank staff, they've done a great job and the committee of really looking through grant applications and helping us work through the administration of these grants. Thank you.
Thank you. And that concludes public comment.
So it's back to the board are there any additional questions comments? I would like to say that again, appreciate the work of the Human Services Commission and all who've had to sift through these very competitive applications and make strong decisions. I believe as a matter of policy we shouldn't disturb those unless there's some overriding reason but I will be shaking the trees trying to see that Meals on Wheels in the central part of our county Lompoc, Los Alamos and all the Santa Ynez Valley communities have Senior Meals on Wheels available so I'll be looking. Ms. Lockhart did you have anything to
add? Chair Hartman I really appreciate your thoughts on that. I think the one thing I would just perhaps offer to the board and we show it on one of our presentation slides is that the CDBG grant that we are Allocating funds toward at this point. It's the estimated grant amount and we should know the actual CDBG grant amount on May 11th or thereabouts And so one thought is if our grant came in higher and there were additional public service ones available That we could distribute those additional funds to the built-in Senior Center right now the contingency that the Human Service Commission came up with was that they would divide that additional amount above the estimated grant. They would divide that between two existing funded agencies, but we could make a designation toward the Buellton Senior Center.
We just don't know how much that will be and it all depends on what the funding comes in on the 11th.
That at least is a glimmer of hope and I would ask my fellow board members to consider that. Supervisor Williams?
Well, I mean you know. I think that I tend to go by your what you articulated with that we shouldn't mess with these recommendations because it takes the volunteers and staff a lot to sift through them but even the funding the two that were talking about that's recommended is basically doing what we resolved not to do Last time we talked about these programs, which was to try to look at them all together. We tasked Daniel, gave him a pot of money and said, we want you to look on all these together at how much they each cost?
Who's delivering at what level of efficiency? Some of these programs can't means test whether or not their means testing. I just want to remind the board that that's what we decided to do like a while ago was to try to look at these as apples-to-apples comparison and you know it's good great as this process is and as needed is this funding. This is not the predominant stream of funding that we were envisioning for those programs
I did have an opportunity to speak with Mr. Nielsen and I think he will have a proposal going to our CEO's office on a comprehensive look, I think initially we had $200,000 just to try I think he'll be coming with a proposal to do that, but that's going to take a while to unfold. So again if there were, if we do have surplus and maybe we could direct that to the Buellton Senior Center.
So, we need a motion on A through H possibly with a slight amendment.
Just one question was that this program the next one that was rated by the committee?
3:31 – 3:3516 turns
No, in fact there were others that scored higher so it was not necessarily a higher ranking application.
I'll just make a little slightly different suggestion which is if the money comes in larger why don't we decide After Daniel brings us so that we're not like part of the reason why this is weird is because then we're funding something from two different streams of money and and when we're not able to compare it as apples to apples which provider can provide.
things at what cost, because we're giving money over on this end and that end. And so maybe it would be wise to if the grant money comes in more that we look at it either concurrently with Daniel bringing it to us or subsequent to it. And just say, you know, not spend the money yet.
What are the two streams of money? I mean, I think the money that he had has been spent and so if he gets authorization would be doing an analysis to look where are the gaps and how much are we paying for senior meals in different parts of the county But I don't think that comes with a stream of funding So, I'm just not clear what you're referring to so
you're so so it you're saying when he comes He's just gonna report on to us on why he did Dispersed where he did is that?
Supervisory messages in the audience. Can you come and remind us what Daniels bringing back?
Good morning again Supervisors. Yes, as we mentioned previously the 200,000 was part of the COVID experience and then with the ARPA funding 600,000 was allocated by your board, and our intention is to come back with really a two pronged approach. An RFP that gets a look at where some of the critical gaps are and some of the structural issues with overall provision of food delivery. And then also once we have that identified, and we truly have not identified exactly how much money that will cost to prepare, we hope to do it in-house so that we can preserve funding to actually direct to close any of those service gaps in food delivery. So it really is a multi-pronged approach.
Okay, and any idea timeframe? I was just texting Daniel on that. I
haven't seen him return it. I would hope within the next couple months we would have that RFP done because obviously the money goes is becomes available to us as of July 1 with a budget so we hope you will get it on the street very quickly
So that would be the request for proposals to do an analysis of where the gaps are And so, the time for when the analysis might be done would be six months?
I would say maximum. That is a timeframe we did discuss. We're trying to do it as quickly as possible.
Okay, thank you. So there is money in that...
Okay. $600,000 correct, yes.
All right, need a motion.
I'll move staff recommendation with the addition that we that you return for additional direction concurrent or subsequent to Mr. Nielsen's presentation if there is excess money allocated.
I'd second that.
And all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that takes us through our morning business and time to recess for closed session. County Council what is in store for us?
3:35 – 5:042 turns
Madam Chair, members of the Board. In closed session today you have two cases of existing litigation under Government Code Section 54956.9. The first is Southern California Fire Cases. The Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding Case number 4965. Which includes Southern California Edison Company versus the county. It's a Los Angeles Superior Court case and the second is K so Colbeck Versus cuff and the county which is a Santa Barbara Superior Court case, and we have one item of anticipated litigation it's a significant exposure to civil litigation one case And there's more detail on that in the agenda and the time estimate Is that we could return in about an hour?
At an hour so we'll be back sometime between one thirty and one forty five. Good
5:04 – 5:219 turns
afternoon.
We're reconvening the May 3rd, 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and county council would you report out from closed session?
Thank you Madam Chair. The board met in closed session on three items Two cases of existing litigation, the Southern California Fire cases. Coordination proceeding which includes Southern California Edison versus County of Santa Barbara. Caso Colbeck versus Cuff in County of Santa Barbara and anticipated litigation significant exposure to civil litigation one case and the board took no reportable action.
Thank you. And this afternoon we have three items and we're switching items six and seven, so seven will go before six. Right now we're on number five and Madam Clerk would you read that into the record
please? Chair Hartman and members of the board departmental item number five is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a presentation on the bipartisan infrastructure bill
Good afternoon, Chair Hartman and members of the board. Today we will be giving a presentation on the bipartisan infrastructure law that was signed into the law by President Biden on November 15th 2021. The presentation is for informational purposes and it's going to highlight various different funding sources Thank you very much, Chair Hartman. Members of the Board, I'm Don Gilchrist, President of Thomas Walters & Associates
Really good to be with you again today to talk about the infrastructure legislation, this bipartisan bill was signed into law last fall and provides $550 billion of new spending. I would like surface transportation programs. And those programs received hefty increases, but in addition to transportation there is funding for a lot of different infrastructure ranging from water projects to broadband and a lot in between. I wanted to start out by acknowledging the very important role that our own representative Congressman Carbajal played in helping to bring this about He as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was really at the center of this as they drafted the House bill, which set the bar very high in terms of what infrastructure investment should look like.
And it was a, it was a bill that provided momentum to this that helped us to finally get this done after so many years. The county has been working on this for several years. A lot of people have invested in this advocacy and just want to thank Representative Carbajal for his role in helping to finally get it done. I have to say That he and his entire staff were so attentive to the county's priorities so supportive of what we are trying to do as we worked on this from introduction, all the way to enactment. And so it was a great experience.
And now we're at the implementation stage. I'm going to be available throughout this briefing if there's any questions that I could help with, and I'm going to circle back towards the end with a few slides to talk about implementation. But I think right now what I want to do is ask that we advance to the next slide, and I'm going to hand it off to Representative Carbajal's staff who's going to provide some additional information about the legislation.
Ms. Reyes? Yes, thank you Dawn. Good afternoon Supervisors and CEO Miyasato. My name is Erika Reyes, the She District Director with Congressman Slude Carbajal's office. First on behalf of the congressman and myself I want to thank you for your service to the County of Santa Barbara during National Public Service Recognition Week. Ten years ago, I was before this body accepting a recognition on behalf of AmeriCorps and today it's an honor to be here again to present the funding opportunities available with the bipartisan infrastructure law on behalf of the United States Congress.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law represents the largest investment in our nation's infrastructure with $550 billion in new spending, as Don mentioned. Addresses the needs in transportation, climate, energy and environment, water resiliency and broadband. I will be referencing slides to review the highlights within each of these investment areas and the funding opportunities, particularly the new ones that Santa Barbara County can consider when planning and applying for these funds. I do want to note that the funding opportunities presented today in the slides are accounts that the county of Santa Barbara could be eligible to apply for directly. There are additional opportunities for regional transportation organizations special districts, private businesses, research institutions, tribes and local governments that are not included in the advanced slides.
And if any specific questions comes up about the accounts particularly the new ones I'd be happy to take those back to each of the relevant committees and get those answers for you for both your offices and county staff So with that, we'll begin with the transportation highlights. So over $40 billion is being provided for bridge funding to renovate and rehabilitate our aging bridge infrastructure.
We have a number of bridges here in the 24th Congressional District in Santa Barbara County that would be eligible for that $12.5 billion in investment. We also have some programs that have just been added to, so $8 billion for the infra program and 7.5 billion for our raise grants. A new project that came in was five billion dollars for the national infrastructure project assistance or mega projects that take on a more regional emphasis And that is going to be a really pivotal program here for Santa Barbara County In addition to that the five-year reauthorization of the Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation and we'll go on to the next slide to go into some of the specific new funds that you'll see already mentioned the bridge investment program Raise program and infra as well as those mega projects Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation act the rural surface transportation grant program that comes in at 1 billion dollars National Culvert Removal, Replacement and Restoration Grant an additional $1 billion.
Advanced Transportation Technologies and Innovation Act, $900 million. State Incentives Pilot Program, and that's a set-aside for Infra, $750 million. Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects, $275 million. Congestion Relief Program, which is a new one, $250 million. Grants for Planning Feasibility Analysis and Revenues Forecasting. This is specifically set aside for the bridge investment program for doing feasibility projects, and that's in the amount of $100 million.
And lastly, strategic innovation for revenue collection in the amount of $75 million. And that's doing feasibility studies if you're interested in road usage fees in the area. So it covers transportation. Next slide we're going to overview what's included in climate energy and environment So $6.2 billion for Transportation Carbon Reduction Formula Program, $7.5 to support charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, transit increases to support zero-emission vehicles for public transportation including a $5.25 billion program dedicated to no and low cost emission buses, $8.7 billion for the new PROTECT grant program 4.7 billion for capping orphaned oil gas wells to reduce GHC and I just want to say this highlight does not include or is inclusive of all of the funding opportunities so it doesn't necessarily reflect the Actual accounts that are available for county to apply to so just generally this is overview of Everything that was included in climate energy environment, but specific to the county go on to the next slide So eight billion dollars for regional clean hydrogen hubs The idea is to have four regional clean hydrogen hubs throughout the United States Five billion dollars for program upgrading our electric grid and ensuring reliability and resiliency So it's kind of a response to what happened in Texas last winter, the winter before.
Making sure our electric grids are up and operational. $3 billion for battery manufacturing and recycling grants. $ 3 billion for battery materials and processing grants. $ 937 million for carbon capture demonstration projects. Carbon Dioxide Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Account. $550 million for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Programs. $355 million for Energy Storage Demonstration Pilot Grant Program.
$310 million for Carbon Utilization Program, and this is a grant program for state and local to procure and use products delivered from carbon capture specifically. Long Duration Energy Storage Demonstration Initiative and Joint Program, $150 million. And finally through Department of Agriculture, $118 million for Watershed Rehabilitation Program. Water resiliency, $555 billion targeted towards clean and safe water projects.
$15 billion specific to lead pipe replacement and $10 billion for polyfluoroalkyl cleanup. $ 15.75 billion for flood control navigation ecosystems and programs through the Army Corps of Engineers. More specific to the County of Santa Barbara
Moving on to the next slide. Those first four are already programs that you're pretty familiar with But I did want to highlight the promoting resilient operations for transformative efficient and cost-saving transportation The protect act or program and that's 1.4 billion dollars for resilience planning And it can be used for at risk coastal communities specifically 3.5 billion flood mitigation assistance grants one that also is Timely considering all of the cyber attacks that communities are experiencing is 1 billion dollars for the state and local cybersecurity grant program For both cyber risk resiliency and security We have 1 billion set aside for building resilient infrastructure in communities one It's particularly close to home here with the Communities Wildfire Defense Grant Program for at-risk communities.
It's a grant program in total amount of $1 billion to revise or develop community wildlife protection plans. Five million set aside for watershed and flood prevention operations, 492 million in flood and inundation mapping 492 million National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund. This is for conservation projects 491 million habitat restoration aquatic ecosystems restoration and protections projects 250 million I was still under development right now, so I don't have any specific details on that 245 million for Department of Interior wildfire management and preparation preparedness 234 million emergency preparedness grants. 200 million for ecosystem fish passage, direct funding for spending foreign bases, ocean and coastal observing systems and 100 million for multi-benefit projects to improve watershed health 88 million in state fire assistance, 60 million for the national seed strategy and 50 million ecosystems specifically sagebrush.
50 million for contracts and agreements for restoration on federal lands. 50 million for wildfire. 50 million for ocean and coastal observing systems and then finally 20 million for volunteer fire assistance. And our last large group is within broadband. We all experienced the need for reliable broadband through health COVID-19 pandemic and so this offers $65 billion for broadband programs, 42.45 billion for equity access and deployment 2.75 billion for digital equity grants, 5 billion for grants to state for middle mile broadband projects and the emergency broadband benefit program extending beyond what was the public health emergency in order to make broadband more affordable for families who are continuing to struggle with making that a part of their home.
That would change the monthly stipend that would be lowered from currently $50 to $30 and there's some additional funds in there to do education outreach To communities at both a city and local level as well as county level to make sure that families are aware that that Funding is available. And that program is available, and that is TBD when that will be rolling out But to go into the county eligible ones So the distance learning telemedicine and broadband program reconnect that we're familiar with that's Almost two billion dollars in there one point nine to six billion That could potentially be eligible The new middle mile grants program to close those more rural areas and connect them for 1 billion dollars Distance learning, telemedicine and broadband program for $74 million.
And then as previously mentioned the Affordable Connectivity Program funds to educate the public about the program itself and that will be TBD on when that funding comes out But that goes over kind of the highlights of what's included in the bipartisan infrastructure law but the county would be eligible potentially to apply for and again happy to Take any questions back to any committees Or agencies as we are learning how these programs are going to be actuated, especially the new ones. Thank you Turn that back over to Jasmine
5:21 – 5:302 turns
Great, thank you Erica. So I just wanted to update your board a little bit on the Santa Barbara County Broadband Strategic Planning process as we do know there is a lot of funding that is coming through this legislation on broadband so through ARPA funding your board approved $200,000 to participate in a broadband strategic planning process which is well underway and as a part of this project the broadband consortium is currently in the process of convening the mapping and funding advisory group So this group will include a representative from each jurisdiction that's involved in the broadband strategic planning process. And together, this team will coordinate efforts of identifying potential broadband funding and collaborating on how the group should best proceed in applying for these grant funds.
So those include some of those that are in the federal legislation. The group is currently in the process of being formed and staff will update your board when the group identifies funding in which the county will be eligible, and we'll be applying for at the further we get in the process. Lastly, I wanted to talk a little bit about waterfront infrastructure and included in the federal legislation there is money set aside for port infrastructure.
In particular, Erica mentioned the MEGA program which is the National Infrastructure Project Assistance Program that can be used for poor infrastructure funding. In March 2022, REACH proposed a Waterfront Infrastructure and Emerging Industries Feasibility Study which your board supported in the amount of $100,000 to go towards that study. Once the waterfront feasibility study is completed if waterfront infrastructure is deemed feasible in the county and the region staff can then begin to explore Funding such as the mega program that Erica mentioned that could be used for potential port infrastructure.
So, that covers the waterfront infrastructure and at this time I would like to turn it back to Don and he's going to talk a little bit about the implementation steps and what all of this means for the county and we also have public work staff available that will update your board on their efforts on the matter as well so Don i will turn it over to you.
So looking at the What we're talking about here is the goal of helping the county access as much of this funding as possible for infrastructure investments right here in Santa Barbara. And so I'm going to review some of the implementation steps that we've been doing, just start off by saying that this is a five year process. This bill has funding that goes over five fiscal years. In many cases, there'll be five separate distributions of funding or in the case of grant programs, though it might be five individual competitions for that program over the course of this legislation. So we look at from that perspective, the first year is a hard year. It's a difficult year for the agencies as they roll out the programs and it's a difficult year for us stakeholders who are trying to figure out what programs are going to work So what we've done is right from the start, we took a very close look at the legislation read through it and studied the programs structure the funding amounts of the eligibilities to try to get ahead of the curve on what the county might find helpful in the legislation.
And we've also been participating in briefings put on by the agencies and various webinars where they're talking about how they're going to roll out these Programs and that's been helpful for us to help see what might be useful to the county and what we should be focusing on. But to a large degree, we really have to wait for the agencies to put up notices of funding opportunity in order to really understand the details.
And so we're watching those very, very closely and we review them and pass on to the county staff the ones that we think look promising. As we go through this process, we want to make sure that we're coordinating with our state and our regional partners because quite a bit of this money will be coming down through the state. And so they're going to be an important partner.
And also, we want to coordinate with our senators in our representative, because they're very motivated to help the county make this a success. They really want this to work for the county. Set over and over again, let us know how they can help if it involves expressing political support for your applications or as Erica said contacting the committees or the agencies to get information that you need. We want to make sure we stay in touch with them. Next slide please.
This slide deals with the point that a lot of this money is going to be coming down through states. For some of the most important programs for the county, you'll be wanting to work with state partners to access it. This lists a few of the ones that we're tracking. In particular, I'd like to call out the bridge formula program which you've already heard about today but there's $570 million going to California for this program each year for five years and the state through Caltrans And through the state budget process is making decisions right now on how they're going to allocate this money. And so that's when you want to work very closely with Caltrans on this year and over the next five years.
Also, the broadband money is very important for the county And the key partner there is the state PUC. We're expecting the federal agency to put out a notice in mid-May that will provide some more information about what the next steps are, but this is taking a long time for them to roll out as it is a new program and so we just have to watch and see as this information comes online.
The EPA water money is available for drinking water and clean water programs, and this is being done through the state revolving fund programs. And so the key partner there is the California State Water Resources Control Board. The SRF programs are really focused on credit assistance But this legislation has an interesting provision that says 49% of the money must be allocated to grants or forgivable loans in disadvantaged areas.
And so that's a very powerful provision that we want to investigate thoroughly, we want to work closely with the state on this program. Erica mentioned the Protect Program I think that's a great one for us to keep a close eye on. This is being run as a formula distribution through the state, but there will also be a grant program that you can apply directly for to try to get a competitive grant.
So let's look at the next slide please. These are some of the competitive grant programs that you could apply directly for. I think these are the ones that we want to be taking a close look at As I said, as the notices of funding opportunity become available we take a look at them and try to help get the information to the county staff who need it. Several of these are going to be coming out from the Department of Transportation in the next little while but they will continue to roll out throughout the year and into the fall.
I put the FEMA Building for Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program on the list because that deals with hazard mitigation, which is extremely important to the county. There's an additional billion dollars going into that program. And that funding notice is expected to come out in early fall. The flood mitigation program that Erica mentioned will be coming out right around that time. And that's another $3.5 billion pot of money that we want to take a close look at.
There's other notices that I'm keeping an eye on it. I'm not listening here, and these are for instance Department of Transportation is going to be issuing a notice later this month on the safe streets program I think that could be helpful to the county it might be something that you'd be interested in so I'll be looking at that and possibly sending it out to the public works folks.
Department of Energy has some very interesting programs. I think these are all going to be starting to roll out over the next six months or so they're new programs, in some cases and they're taking them a while to get on line. Also watching the Bureau of Reclamation to see if there's any money for water recycling or reclaimed water projects that might be helpful to the county. So as we go through this, I'm adding or dropping these programs as we learn more and as we see what the county needs and what the agencies are willing to do.
But for all of these, the goal is to stay in close touch with the County Executive Office staff with Public Works With anybody that needs the information that to help the county succeed in this process. And so that's what we're doing on the implementation I'm going to hand it off to public works director, Scott McAuliffe and now who has a couple of comments.
5:30 – 5:4013 turns
Thank you, Don. Good afternoon Madam Chair and board members. I think I just opened by saying I feel like a kid in a candy store, you know? I've been in this business a long time and I've been trying to educate across the country about our needs and it's really Awesome, just to see a piece of legislation like this that considers infrastructure and the needs across this nation. This is the most money we've ever seen in a federal bill and you know I talk a lot up here about the three-legged stool local funding state funding and federal funding and the federal government's filling their leg which is very helpful for us at the local level counties and cities across America There's not a whole lot of money in here for pavement preservation, but there is money for culvert replacement.
There's resiliency funding so we don't have to use our precious local funds or our state gas taxes to attack those projects if we're successful through the competitive federal process to get the federal money to do those projects It allows us then to use the 18% that your board has given to us for deferred maintenance and SB 1, to actually attack our deferred backlog. So this gives us a tremendous amount of flexibility thanks to Ms. Reyes for her presentation I haven't heard it put that way and she Did a really good job of detailing how much money was in each one of those programs. And certainly thanks to our boss, Congressman Carball and his experience on transportation and infrastructure because he spent a lot of time like Supervisor Labadino did at NACo.
I remember when he got on the Transportation Committee and he actually authored a resolution just like Supervisor Labadino did And it was back around 2008-2009, I think when the FAST Act collapsed like 24 different federal programs into six and we lost the highway bridge program. He authored a resolution at the time to save funding for off system bridges. So we had a federal fiscal year 2009-2010 apportionment that just went to our local bridges so that was extremely helpful.
Very encouraging to see the numbers on the bridge side We have about five structures right now that are below a sufficiency rating of 50 same scale as PCI Zero bad hundred good. We have about five bridges there that we can capitalize on The new monies that are coming out. We have another 32 bridges in the 50 to 80 range So those are rehab type bridges so we could go out and do deck maintenance We may have to do new rails that type of thing So we're going to go after all of those programs, certainly on the bridge side and any other infrastructure we're responsible for in public works aggressively. Our priorities don't change. We just have to figure out by working with Don and the Congressman's office what's the most appropriate program to apply for?
So and as you heard from Don, the next few months are going to be big months. May is a big month. There's a lot of applications that are coming out so we're going to aggressively go after different funding sources. We do have some applications lined up for the COVID program. We did put an application in for BRIC through the Congressman's office for Old San Marcos Road.
And then we do have some ideas for that new bridge funding that's out there And recall the legislative committee allowed our state lobbyist, Cliff Berg to send a letter of support on AB 2120. So we're trying to work out a distribution formula in the state for that money when it comes in so if that passes 55% of that new money will go to local bridges state and county. So we'll use the old historic formula for the DOT type funding that's coming in for bridges which is a 60-40 split with the state I think we're gonna be in good shape when it comes to bridges Your board's been very supportive and the CEO's office has been very supportive with advanced construction funding Unfortunately, the federal programs been so underfunded local agencies have to put the money up for three to five years To build bridges and get the money Later our hope is with a new slug of bridge money coming in that program goes away But that's still yet to be determined.
So we'll see where that goes I put this information up and I mentioned Supervisor Lavanino's work at NACO. I think it was about four or five years ago, Supervisor Lavanino authored a resolution for direct federal funding to local governments for the improvement of maintenance of local roads in America. The goal behind that was to see more money in federal programs for cities and counties across America We also, the second piece of it was to see it cemented to cities and counties across America. That's a little more complicated than what we see in California today with the state gas tax.
So we got half of the loaf if you will I think in this bill there's a lot more money for cities and counties which we appreciate so and that's you know the congressman's background as a former supervisor and he understands what's going on here at the local level. So we have more work to do on that resolution One of the other resolutions that was approved around the same time was support of eliminating regulatory impediments for effective delivery of federal aid projects. A couple years ago, NEPA was reformed to a two-year maximum for an EIS so you'd either get a thumbs up or a thumbs down on whether you had a project or not or you had to go back and rescope it.
I understand that may have just got overturned. So we still need to kind of figure out what's going on there because in our business Process time is money, right? So the more time we spend in process The more expensive the project will be down the road, right? so we want to get through the paperwork process as quick as possible and get the project on the street because when you're in a situation with an inflationary economic periods Your construction costs are gonna go up so and it's gonna cost more to build the project So so our goal is to do whatever do whatever we can to shorten the process And then one other resolution that we do have on the skyline now, and I think it'll go to NACo in In July at Colorado is where you know Our hope is as local agencies cities and counties across America.
We could help FEMA become a little more customer service and help them with their efficiency a bit because The reimbursement rate across the country is pretty low, and I think there's some work that we could do to kind of help FEMA as well. So those are kind of what's on our skyline if you will with the infrastructure bill and other things we're working on around the nation now. So I'm available for any questions so I'll turn it back to Ms. McGinty.
And Mr. McAulpin, you were the president of NACE?
In 2020, yeah the COVID president.
Yeah so you didn't get to travel much are you still on an executive committee or?
Thank you for asking Madam Chair I was in Buffalo for our first in-person conference last week and I've left the leadership role now I was past president for the last year so now I'm not even in the back seat anymore I'm on the curb but I'm still available to help and I want to kind of get involved in the FEMA resolution see what we can do
I'm sure that your leadership, you're well positioned to be tracking all of this. And this is really one of the main organizations to be watching the infrastructure money, right? It's
big. Thank you.
Supervisor Lavinino.
Thank you Madam Chair. Yeah and like Scott said it feels like the kid in a candy store. To me everything is lined up just perfectly with former supervisor Carbajal and Congressman Carbajalt. We have to say Salud would not be happy if we didn't say this is a win-win, right? And also BLAM. That was his big thing was BLAM something happens so Big shout out to him really appreciate that and then having Scott moving Through the leadership of NACE right at the right time has all the connections there and then also Don Gilchrist I mean this is really gonna fall on dawn quite a bit as far as him identifying specific grant opportunities or places where we can make some hay.
So, we're going to be relying on Don quite a bit but for me it's the congressman and his staff with Don with Scott I think Santa Barbara County is very well positioned to capitalize on this huge investment in our infrastructure and it couldn't happen at a better time with us As you said, there may not be money in there for road preservation, pavement preservation. But our backlog is not just pavement like you mentioned. We've got culverts, we've got bridges all that stuff counts into our and somebody's gotta pay for it at some time so glad to see the federal government step up in a big way and appreciate Erica being here today and helping us walk through this.
Supervisor Hart
yeah, I think supervisor Lavanino had it exactly right. We've got a great team here at the table Thank you miss Reyes for the wonderful presentation that was really clear and your bosses support through this whole process His granular understanding of our needs is really positions as well and mr. Gilchrist and mr. McAuliffe and Miss McGlinchey make for the rest of the team that's going to help us take the the backlog of projects and turn those into things that we can accomplish and enjoy having ribbon cuttings on and having a public Enjoy the benefits of it
Supervisor Williams,
that was a helpful presentation. Thank you to miss Reyes and salute your boss for Breaking that out because it's this has been a little Confusing to me with all the funding streams about what we should be thinking about at a local perspective But this was really helpful
5:40 – 5:4512 turns
Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes, thank you Chairman. Seeing and realizing the work that we've done with REACH and how that's going to be able to allow us to take advantage of some of these opportunities I think is really important and needs Recognized by our board, but at the same time there were some other programs up there like carbon sequestration that we have a lot of potential opportunities in Santa Barbara County for that. And making sure maybe our zoning is and whatever else we need to do from on our end is prepared for those dollars you know it seems like higher priorities go to things that are shovel ready.
Things that are ready to move forward so. That's something that jumped out at me that I think we should begin to look at. I think that might be maybe our next item, that we start to talk about long range planning and making sure that we have the tools in place to take advantage of some of these programs.
Supervisor Lavanino?
Thank you. I did have one question about the broadband strategic plan and forming that subgroup. Who can apply for that subgroup or how far along are we on that if we've got people that are interested, or how's that forming?
Absolutely. And we also have Maria Kelly with the Broadband Consortium on Zoom to answer that specific question as she's working directly to form that group.
Hi, thank you for having me here today. So right now what we're looking for that particular group is representation from each of the cities SB CAG and the county just as we start to wrap up the project, we can start identifying some specific potential funding priority areas look at digital inclusion priority areas so it really is more of the staff were looking for city staff at this time to formulate out that
Perfect, and I know we've all participated. I'll be in Guadalupe tomorrow evening doing a broadband town hall so looking forward to that.
Well, I just want to thank the Congressman too. He actually proposed the idea that Erica come and help present this and I think it's been an extraordinarily successful cooperation with Mr. Gilchrist and the Congressman's office and our staff. The one question that Struck me during ARPA and now once again is that County government has Capacity to be able to monitor these complex programs because we have Don Gilchrist And and congressman Carbajal, but but there's a lot of money in these programs as you said for independent districts and also For businesses. And so my concern is always how what can we do to help?
Those members of our Santa Barbara community access these funds. I know Supervisor Hart was working with some commercial fishermen who need some infrastructure support along the harbor, and that would be hugely impactful to their industry. How do they have an opportunity to learn about this? Don't have Don Gilchrist. So that is a question that that is Continued so if anybody has good answers to how to approach that I'd sure like to hear it because I'd like to get as much money for our county For our cities, but also for our businesses and special districts Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item?
Chair Hartman and members of the board. We have no request to speak on
this item Okay, and I see no other lights up here But a lot of gratitude to everyone and a lot of hopeful expectation about what this will mean for the future so may I have a motion to Receive and file this and provide any additional direction and determine that it's exempt from CEQA
So moved second
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously and thank you once again. Okay, turning now to our item number seven
5:45 – 6:083 turns
Madam Clerk, would you read that into the record please? Chair Hartman and members of the board, departmental item number seven is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Long-Range Planning Division LRP fiscal years 2022 to 2025 work program. Good afternoon Director Plowman
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Board. As Ms. Carbajal indicated we are here today to talk to you about the three-year work program for the Long Range Planning Division. We gave you a little bit of a highlight of some of the things that were doing in our budget hearing that was back at the beginning of April But today we're going to go into greater detail about what we have planned for the remaining portion of this fiscal year, next fiscal year and then ideas about what we will be working on in future fiscal years. So with that I'd like to turn over to Mr. Dan Clemon who's our Deputy Director and he will be making the presentation.
Yes, good afternoon Chair Hartman and members of the board. So today we're going to very quickly go through a few items I'll be summarizing the accomplishments we've achieved thus far in this year and then the remaining work for the remainder of this fiscal year followed by what we consider when we're making our recommendations to your board And of course will provide our recommendations and then summarize the Planning Commission's recommendations for you So with regard to the accomplishments this year, first we submitted our accessory dwelling units or ADUs ordinance amendments to the Coastal Commission for certification. They started that process. I'll get to the status of it in just a bit.
With regard to Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance Amendments Project, we completed the public outreach on the project description and initiated the environmental analysis for that project. With regard to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans or ALUCPs, as you're aware from your participation in SBCAG those plans are intended to be presented to you this summer. So we're working with SBCAG staff and we've been working with them on the amendments and the draft environmental document for that project.
We completed our Capital Improvements Plan, Comprehensive Plan Consistency Report the other week at the Coastal Commission and Director Plowman is conducting negotiations with the California Coastal Commission staff with regard to our coastal resiliency LCPA. I'll have more on that later on in this presentation. We completed the comprehensive plan, annual progress report. And with regard to our environmental justice element project we've conducted background research to figure out the requirements. We've mapped the disadvantaged communities. We're now working on a memo that outlines our methodology for that. It's going to be published here soon and we will be conducting public outreach that will be continuing through the remainder of this fiscal year.
And then for the farm stays or in spend minutes we conducted the public outreach on the project description and initiated the environmental review. Requiring a substantial amount of work on our part. And today we've already conducted a substantial amount of background research, we conducted housing inventory to see where housing opportunities exist. We are currently conducting a rezone analysis and we have brought together a team of consultants to help us with a number of activities including outreach which we've begun.
And then with regard to the LAFCO report backs, we've processed eight so far in this fiscal year. And I should say we just received one which will be our ninth just last week. And related to housing element update, we completed the RENA process which was primarily sponsored by SB CAG that completed in August of last year and that established the housing demands that we need to satisfy as part of the housing element update process We also received 26 notices of various projects in other jurisdictions to which we organized five responses on behalf of the county.
And as you heard about with regard to the safety element update earlier this year, your board adopted a climate change vulnerability assessment, which was phase one of that project and then we've now begun phase two. We received a grant from the California Fire Safe Council an amount of $375,000 to map the evacuation routes, which is one of the requirements of the adaptation plan process.
We also processed a time extension for the coastal development permit for the Santa Claus Lane project that Public Works and CSD departments are implementing at this point. And then we also began work on three state housing density imposed laws that we'll get back to further in this presentation. And with regard to the Utility Scale Solar Ordinance Amendments Project, we've done all the research for that, scoped out the project description and are now ready to initiate work in the next fiscal year as I'll be describing in a moment.
And we are planning right now to present the draft ordinance amendments which would change the permitting requirement from a land use permit to a conditional use permit for cannabis cultivation to your board on May 24th. Also pursuant to the CEO's invitation, we embarked on an InnovateSBC process improvement project during the first two quarters of this year.
The two general goals of the project were one, to just identify where we can implement more efficiencies and improvements in our development of our work program process. And then second, though our goal is just to try get more work through the process more rapidly. So one metaphor that kept coming up throughout this project was if you think about our process as a cylinder, through which all of our work flows. This project was intended to clean out the cylinders so we can get the projects flowing more quickly through the cylinder. We're not asking for an expansion as a part of this project.
It's more just to get things more efficient. There were a number of subject matter experts who participated from the departments, including County Council, the CEO and then from P&D and there were a number of recommendations that came out of this process. Some of the highlights are right here on the screen. The first is a new process for fairly straightforward zoning ordinance amendments. These would be those over which your board has very little discretion, they don't require an environmental document or they don't involve public outreach because there's just not much to discuss with regard to those. We have created a process by which we can get those to your board more quickly separate from the ordinance amendment packages that we present to you roughly annually.
We also identified opportunities to use technology for things like public outreach and project management. Indeed, we're already using these. We developed a lot of these skill sets while we were in the COVID situation conducting outreach virtually so we saw a lot of potential with that and want to enhance those. And with regard to third bullet point, what we want to enter into is something like service level agreements or an equivalent with the advisory committees with whom we work in order such that when we're engaging them at the times where we get timely feedback from them such that it's useful and we can integrate that into the process.
And we are definitely relying more on consultant services these days in order to try to make things more productive overall. And we do find that the use of on-call consultants is the most efficient way of using consultant services because that way, we don't have to one off contracts for each of them. And as I mentioned earlier, related to technology. We want to use that technology for project management but specifically we're implementing, I should say we're deploying Microsoft 365 as a part of the county's rollout of that and we are seeing opportunities to use those tools for project management and outreach and things of that sort.
So for the remainder of the year, what do we have ahead of us? We are supporting the Public Works Department with regard to development of the Active Transportation Plan. There's going to be a small amount of work on our behalf with regard to that project I mentioned that we initiated the environmental analysis for the Farmstays Ordinance Amendments Project. And what we discovered was that the farm stays ordinance amendments are likely to have a significant impact with regard to vehicle miles traveled, thereby warranting the preparation of an environmental impact report. We initially anticipated preparing an MND for that project but with this impact we cannot do so.
What we're proposing to do is fold the Farmstay Ordinance Amendments Project into the project description for the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance Amendments. That way it gets evaluated as part of that EIR. The Farmstays Ordinance Amendments originated from that project, so it's kind of like you're folding it back into its original project. It will not substantially delay the Ag Enterprise Ordinance Project overall. It will just delay the publication at EIR by a couple months.
I already mentioned the support we're going to be providing to SPCAG and the ALUCPs. Similar for any support that the Community Services Department needs with regard to the Climate Action Plan, we'll be providing that. We also became aware of a non-competitive California Coastal Commission grant program available for the Coastal Resiliency LCPA. We could apply for grants in the amount, all the way up to $100,000. It's not competitive so we're definitely interested in that. So if your board is interested in reengaging work on that project, we definitely want to apply for that grant.
For environmental justice, we are going to be continuing with public outreach and we're actually gonna start drafting the amendments. I already discussed farm stays. With regard to housing element update this is where the lion's share of our attention is going right now so we are doing a number of tasks concurrently and consists of everything from data analysis. We're wrapping up a rezone analysis.
We want to develop project descriptions, which will consist of project alternatives for your board's consideration. And then we'll be, well, we've already initiated outreach. We'll continue with that and we're going to be initiating the EIR here very soon. I already mentioned that we're going to be deploying MS-365 and then with regards to the REC Master Plan update, it will just be coordinated with CSD with regard to any support that they need from us to keep that project moving.
For the safety element update, we'll be conducting public outreach and beginning the drafting of the adaptation plan. For the zoning ordinance amendments, I already mentioned the CEP for cannabis cultivation is coming to you at the end of this month and then we'll be continuing to work on the ordinance amendments package. Currently your board's prioritization for those topics include first childcare facilities and then followed by telecommunications facilities ordinance amendments and then oil and gas facilities ordinance amendments.
And then finally, we'll be assisting the clerk of the board with publication of the zoning ordinances with the county code online. All right, I've bored you enough with that. With regard to recommendations, so what do we consider when we're making our recommendations? First, we always want to keep those multi-year projects going, so we're gonna make recommendations so that the resources are there available to make sure they're successful.
I would say out of state and federal mandates, state mandates are playing a significant role in establishing the priorities for us and our recommendations. And it comes in two forms legal mandates and then grant funding which I'll get to in a minute. There are a number of programs in the comprehensive plan that are designed to actualize the goals and objectives of those plans. So whenever we see an opportunity to fund those or get those into the program, we will do so.
And we always want to support the projects that our colleagues in the other departments are working on such that they're successful so that we're successful. And there are a number of non-mandated board requested projects, which I'll get to in a sec, and which we're always trying to integrate into the work program once we get capacity. And then ultimately the budget considerations define a lot of what I recommend to you. We are currently staffed with 14 FTEs that includes myself.
We have primarily four sources of funding historically as a fee on building permits Mention grants, we have in the past received cannabis tax revenue and of course County General Fund. With regard to grants I've been hearing a lot lately about there's been a lot of attention afforded to state mandated programs so of course the legal mandates establish that as a priority but also I think it's important to keep in mind that Very often when the state establishes these mandates on local jurisdictions, what they also do is they'll concurrently pass a grant program to help fund us meet these new mandates. So clearly we're gonna go after that because we're not gonna go to you and say hey use the general fund money to do this when there's grant-funded money.
So what that does is if we receive that money and we were pretty good at getting it, it just reinforces that hey now we've got to prioritize those programs because now we have grant funded deadlines that we have to meet yada yada yada. It reinforces that emphasis on state-mandated projects, if that makes sense. So some other considerations with regards to the budget particularly when it comes to staffing we're always looking at ways to source the findings of ongoing is gonna be one time funding and then once again those deadlines for grants are very important So with that said, here are our recommendations. With regard to the services that we provide, nothing has really changed a whole lot with regard to these services. We are always looking at 10-year trends to see how the workload is changing and see if we can free up capacity for other items.
It consistently comes in just under about two FTEs worth of work from year to year. I'd say that each one of these items will fluctuate One of them in and of itself is not a whole lot of work, but when combined they do add up to like I said just about two FTEs worth of labor. Similarly for business operations we have about three FTEs worth of work per year. I would say that the majority of that work is actually for me and my two supervising planners. The remainder of that time is scattered throughout their remaining 11 FTE.
And these are your standard business operations that you see in any business. Okay, so what people most often think of when they're thinking of the work program are special projects and you can dump those in two general buckets. The first bucket would be the mandated and grant funded projects that you see here on this screen. And then there are non-mandated projects which I'll get to in a second.
So with regard to the mandated projects for the ALUCP consistency amendments, we're going to support that through to completion this summer and then we'll resume the amendment's work in a later fiscal year. For the circulation element update, this is really dictated by Public Works progress on active transportation plans so we don't foresee a whole lot of work next year being required on our part.
And then for housing bill implementation, we're proposing that we hold on that because there's so much attention being afforded to the housing element update itself which you can see on the screen. It is about 4.8 FTEs worth of labor with a lot of consultant services to assist us with that. We also are focusing on the environmental justice element to complete it within the next year in anticipation of two elements being amended next year, thereby requiring that element to be adopted. And then finally we have the phase 2 safety element update project activities for which we have received grant funding which comes into about just a little over eight tenths of an FT with consultant services.
Now getting to the other bucket of projects that is the non-mandated projects for the local coastal program amendments we are recommending that we hold on those for the next year. For the ADU's LCPA, that was funded by grant funding that has run out so unless we can find more grant funding We do have the grant potential for the coastal resiliency LCPA and with regard to short-term rentals, there are no grant funds of which we are aware currently but we can resume work on that in the future.
To complete the Ag Enterprise and Farm Stays Ordinance Amendments, that is the environmental review submitted to your board for consideration and then submit the LCPA to the Coastal Commission staff next year. We're looking at about 7 tenths of an FTE plus consultant services. And then with regard to utility-scale solar, we're actually proposing to rely more on consultant services with regards to the task for that project and less on staffing resources because we have so many staffing resources committed to other projects.
And then as I mentioned earlier, we'll be continuing with these zoning ordinance amendment packages. So when you add it all up, it's a little over two FTEs worth of work. Okay, so we were informed that there is the possibility for funding for at least a limited expansion of long-range planning and in past fiscal years the Planning Director has proposed two different options. One was more robust expansion that included creating an entirely new division to take on A number of tasks to a more limited one and that is what you're looking at here.
If there is funding available, we are proposing that use those funds for this expansion which would consist of hiring a supervising planner and then relying upon consultant services for about it for a three year period to process zoning or in some amendments and the amendments would consist of amendments to allow more development and uses with ministerial entitlements The second category of amendments would consist of fairly significant changes to our certain residential and commercial zoning regulations. More specifically, we would look at things like the design residential development standards to modifying them to allow for more densities particularly for very low and low income categories We'd also be looking at allowing more mixed-use residential and commercial zones throughout the county.
And then finally, we've received a number of requests to modernize our commercial zoning regulations particularly with regard to our shopping center zoning regulations so we either be doing an overhaul of those or just rezoning them to general commercial and then looking at the sign regulations. So the cost to the county we're estimating would be $550,000 per fiscal year for a period of three years Okay, I don't expect everybody to be able to see this in this room. But this is the schedule which is provided in attachment 2 to the board letter. I'm not going to spend very much time on this. The point to this is that within the next fiscal year, the majority of our attention will be spent on those mandated element updates We'll be working on the expansions.
As we complete those, we could then integrate the other projects that have been suspended like the LCPAs that I discussed earlier and then in fiscal year three, that's when we see more capacity open up for entirely new projects. So for future projects, we are recommending that you continue supporting the LCPAs. See those through to completion as well as the active transportation plan related circulation element amendments. There's gonna be even more programs that are gonna be coming out of these element updates that you could add and continue implementing.
With regard to housing bill implementation there's a lot of attention afforded to SB9 right now You hear about that in a sec with regard to the commission's recommendations. But there is a litany of bills that exist out there on which we could work. Some of the ones that have gained attention recently are things like creating a specific type of housing entitlement for all these various types of specialized housing projects we're seeing from the state and then coming up with the objective design standards for projects that are eligible for those.
We have, if there are amendments required related to the Recreation Master Plan we will process those. And we also have a number of ideas that were presented by your constituents when we were presenting the Ag Enterprise Ordinance Amendments and Farmstay's Ordinance Amendments. They had a lot of ideas which were out of the scope of the current project but they're definitely ideas that you should consider when considering the other rec master plan-related ideas.
We have a number of comprehensive plan elements that are now dated, again over 30 years old. And we are always open to suggestions if you have any other ideas. All right, I made a very similar presentation to this one to first the Montecito Planning Commission and then the County Planning Commission. After receiving the presentation, the Montecito Planning Commission had five recommendations. The first was that they suggested that your board can create an ad hoc committee to assist the Director in her negotiations with the California Coastal Commission. I would say that with regard to this recommendation, they specified ADUs and short-term rentals but they also intended, I believe, to include the Coastal Resiliency LCPA in the subject matter of the Ad Hoc Committee.
They also, with regard to the Housing Bill Implementation Project wanted to elevate SB 9 and 10 in terms of priority. SB 9 is already in effect we just rely on state law to implement it. SB10 it's a voluntary ordinance not required so For what it's worth, they also want your board when considering options for a housing to not look at necessarily increased density but look at more creative solutions like reusing unused commercial and industrial space.
And then number four, they are not supportive of the ordinance amendments package that would be looking at allowing more development with ministerial entitlements. And then finally this one is more directed to the CEO than it is a planning issue but what the Montecito Planning Commission wanted to do is somehow create a fund Using Montecito property taxes to pay for Montecito specific projects and in doing so they wouldn't be taking away funds from countywide Projects or slowing down those countywide projects as they understood that those are priority. They want to keep this going They want to come up with some other way have Montecito projects to occur So when the County Planning Commission considered this, their actions, well the recommendations excuse me were in support of the first three actions that the Montecito Planning Commission took which are on this slide.
All right, so that concludes it. Sorry to bore you with that one but the specific actions are on the first page of your board letter summarized. You receive this report and can provide any direction to us on the work program and of course find that this is not a project subject to environmental review under CEQA. Thanks.
6:09 – 6:146 turns
So do we have any questions for Mr. Clemon? Or Director Plowman, does this board have to make a decision about the Planning Commission Montecito and County Planning Commission recommendations?
Yeah Chair Harmon those are recommendations to your board. You don't have to do anything in response to them as they're for your consideration when making your actions or providing us with any direction so
Okay, I don't see any lights. I gather we have some public comment madam clerk
Chair Hartman and members of the board we have one request to speak here in Santa Barbara We will now go to Paul Alice My apologies that is for a different item we have no requests to speak on this item
All right, so Supervisor Nelson.
Yes thank you Chair Hartman. So you know long-range planning and the work program that we have here I personally struggle with it. I think I've expressed that to the director so it's not a surprise in that jumping her with that today. I didn't support the expansion at the budget workshop in part because I'm concerned that long-range planning has been getting gummed up with state programs and other things.
My vision of what long-range planning should be is it should be the policy arm for land use of this, the five of us. And I don't see a lot of that. I see a lot of state programs here. I see our priorities. Might be able to work in there, and I also don't see the opportunity for us to actually have some of those discussions It seems that long-range planning here is some things here and there if it's set together brings up to us I think that we as a board in the future should be looking to have conversations about you know Some of these pieces of it. You know the items on here that I see that we actually kind of initiated You know the ag enterprise zone What else on here Farmstays, I mean these are programs that we've initiated years ago.
Utility scale solar which I think DAS has been working on for six years and we might finally get actually a scope this year and so you know I don't know what the answer is necessarily maybe have a more streamlined process where all we do is recognize some of the state legislation and don't go grab all these grants that kind of slow us down. I mean grants are great But sometimes it creates work for work sake. There's other pathways that we can take or we can reference and say, We will comply with state law and we don't have to go through the whole entire excessive process. I also think even the innovative SBC process helped narrow the time frame for some of these projects but I still think there's other opportunities. I think the amount of public outreach that we do The time that we take to do that is more than necessary.
CEQA, by its very nature has a public process when these things come to hearings with the Planning Commission and us also a public process and ultimately decision makers are decided through a public process so we have plenty of public process in the way that Santa Barbara County moves forward I think for one reason or another, this culture has changed and I'm not pointing fingers that there's bad.
I understand that comes from good intentions but we aren't getting a lot done. And maybe that's good for some people. I like this to be able to do more, have robust land use discussions, make decisions that really do drive jobs to areas that need it, make sure that we can chase tourism, federal dollars because we can go move forward with a carbon sequestration ordinance amendment.
Right now if we were going to go do something like that, I think the time frame we'd be looking at is probably about five years before we could come Ordinance for us and that means that we've missed this whole entire Funding cycle that comes from federal government because we're not prepared to move forward those types of projects because we're not nimble enough And so I don't Know if that means you know maybe trying to pull some of these projects out and maybe have a general package amendment like We used to that was outside of long-range planning, so we can get some of the stuff. That's You know gummies it up I don't you know, I don't think just more money fixes it. Um I think that we have some structural problems and direction and I would prefer Work on that together as the five of us to figure out a way to Shorten those time frames to get through some these projects much quicker It's a very frustrating thing as a supervisor And I and I think that it's shared by others That it takes so long to do things, and I know some of that's California and CEQA totally understand that there's some of its also self-inflicted gun wound here, so I'm really interested in this going back to drawing board and Coming up with a new model
6:14 – 6:2517 turns
Supervisor Hart
I think supervisor Nelson said something that really clicked in my head about You know and mr. Let's see, the presentation also is highlighted. We have these state mandates and then we have the other things that the board has tried to direct us to do. And we have people that are moving back and forth between these two efforts and the state priorities become the priorities because that's the law. But if we were to firewall the people and say those people can't go over there, we would then be limited to addressing the state mandates with the available people and resources that we had in the planning department. That's a harsh choice but if the board is going to actually try and have these things happen at parallel That's probably something we need to think about is that we don't take people I don't believe from development review and bring them into long-range planning.
We keep those things separate, and that's a policy choice And if we were to do that when it comes to long-range planning and had board directed Long-range planning projects with staff dedicated for that and funding dedicated for that purpose Funding and staff that are attending to the state mandated programs You know I think we would make more progress on the board appointed agenda And we probably go slower in the statement at state of stuff, and we'd have to you know Probably deal with the legal risk that comes from that But I don't know how we're ever going to get out of this box with the current structure
Director Plowman did you want to reply
or? Madam Chair, members of the board I think what I would like to say is we do try and create teams that are static. That are working on specific programs and so that we don't have people moving in and out Of them. They may work on another type of project as well because you know there are down times with certain projects, and then they would work on another project So you have to have multiple projects going on a particular team so I mean there is we could say that You have one team that only does state mandated projects And the other teams do the other team does all the other projects That's something we could consider. I think what I do want to say, and maybe I should wait till the rest of the board speaks but I do have some responses to some of the comments that I've heard today and I understand the frustrations that the board feels.
We feel it too. Because we constantly have things coming from the state that we have no control over and And sometimes the mandates are stronger than others. And so we can go more slowly on some of them But some of them we have to take care of right away like the housing element there just isn't a way around that But I'll wait and then hear the rest of the comments and I can provide some reflections
supervisor Williams
Well, I You know I've also been Frustrated for some time about the pace of progress But I think this is a step in the right direction. I also think that The department needs to consider, you know The partnerships that they have with County Council's office to use all the tools at their disposal to move projects faster You know and there are times in which I'll give you a perfect example, the SB 9 things where the public is more dissatisfied because we are waiting to do public outreach. You know like that the city did almost no public outreach on their SB 9 ordinance they just pushed through an ordinance and In general the public, at least my constituents would be far happier if we had pushed through something with very little public comment like the city did.
In fact most of the comments I get from the public is why don't you do what the city did? And so sometimes we attach a value to public outreach like an end in and of itself. And I don't know if it's a good end in and Obviously, some of these things are sticky enough and difficult enough of issues that needs to happen. But I think we need to be more judicious about it.
Supervisor Lavinino?
Thank you. So, I'm just kind of curious how do other... Well two things. First off, how do other smaller counties with much less planning resources How do they deal with these state mandated updates?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Loving, you know while I did attend the County Planning Directors meeting in February and I can tell you they are drowning in it. And they are really struggling so they have had a hard time keeping staff and they have a hard time keeping up with the state mandates. So it's a problem all across the State of California. Cities and counties are dealing with it and it is a challenge.
It is a challenge. And so you have risk that you can take by not proceeding with some of these things. Or in some cases like housing bill implementation, we have decided to postpone that and that basically means in some cases that we have to follow the state law and we don't have it in our code or in some cases That new state law isn't in effect in Santa Barbara County until we do adopt amendments to our code. So it just depends on how the bill is written, some bills like the ADU Bill was written you have to follow the state law whether you change your code or not but not all of them are written in that context.
And I was wondering if you could just touch on quickly because I think it's important for the public to understand Some of the reasoning behind moving to more ministerial permits and if you could just touch on that for a second.
Yeah, certainly. We have been talking about this for some time in the county, and when I returned to the county it was something I had wanted to advocate for because right now the way our code is set up almost everything except for a limited list of things that are exempt require a land use permit or a coastal development permit. And those are appealable permits which essentially makes them Quasi-discretionary.
And my opinion is that there are a lot of things that we require those types of permits for, that really should be truly ministerial. Whether they're a pool or a single family home of a certain size and lots of jurisdictions have those ministerial permits for single family homes. So in my view it I think Creates a more streamlined process for people. to get permits, so it's ministerial on the planning side. They still have to get their building permits of course but it creates a streamlined process for the public. It makes it less expensive for the public to go through the process. It allows the development review staff that works on discretionary cases to really focus on the discretionary cases that need their attention and allow these projects to move small projects to move through the process.
So I think there's a real advantage to it and I think it's an important change to our code
Thank you.
Yeah,
I don't know if and then I think it was Supervisor Harder, Supervisor Nelson were talking about a split of folks that just worked on mandates and others worked on direction from the board. And you know what? Maybe it is a good thing that I know this sounds bad But that sometimes you don't like people will talk about how long it takes anything to get through Congress. And I'm like, I think it's built in that way for a reason. Like it was, it's convoluted for a reason so that we don't get these knee jerk reactions to thing and they happen all the time. That's the way I kind of think about long term planning. It's like, you know, you get three votes up here to send us off, send the county off in a certain direction by the time we get down there, we're like, hey, you know, maybe that wasn't such a good idea.
So maybe we should rethink this. So I'm not one of these people. I'm for a slow, steady move towards changing policy in the realm of planning. But you've heard that now from two different people. I'm just kind of curious what your take is on that, of having like a dedicated workforce for mandates and then others that work on kind of policy direction of the board?
Yeah, Madam Chair, Supervisor Levin, you know, I feel like I need to give that a little bit more thought My gut reaction is I'm not sure it will make a significant difference. But, I need to analyze it a little bit more because like I said we do you know we have a housing element team now we have had to draw people in from other teams because it's such a heavy lift within the time frame that the state is requiring We can no longer get extensions to extend the process for that.
So I just really would need to think about whether it would be meaningful in any way for the division. Chair Hartman?
CEO Miyasato.
Supervisors to the Chair, just a couple of things that I know there's been an ongoing frustration with the throughput and long-range planning and Mr. Klayman and Director Plowman certainly know that and acknowledge that. A couple of things I just want to point out that when we did the KPMG study, I'm looking at it right now, when you looked at long range planning they noted Santa Barbara's Long Range Planning Division operates with significantly less employees and lower budget on average as compared to comparable benchmark counties And in some cases it was half.
And so what you've done in the past, just to remind you, you have added positions. We used cannabis revenue to add positions in the prior year and this year in a recommended budget you directed me to fund a supervising planner and consultants to help out. So we are trying to build back our capacity but I think the frustration is some of the things that Supervisor Nelson talked about and it's also just having the staff because I've been in city and county government for a long time. And really over the last five, six years there's been a lot more mandates and element changes in everything that the legislature has put on planning. And we haven't really significantly increased our staff. We have ongoing incrementally but I'm looking at the numbers right now and the average for the comparable counties in 2019 was 25 staff and at the time we had 12.
6:25 – 6:3612 turns
That puts things in context. Supervisor Nelson?
I'll defer.
Oh, I just had a couple of questions. Telecom was one thing we were thinking about if we could get that. We're working on a range of things that will help free time up and make things flow more quickly. That was one. And could you just give an update on that?
Sure madam chair so that is in our work program. We are, we had four amendments that the board directed us to move forward one was the cannabis. One was for child care you know simplifying the process for childcare facilities telecom. You know small wireless facilities and then The last one was for oil and gas. Okay, so it is in there and we are We recognize that it's important to get to that particularly with the change in the FCC rulings on some of the small wireless facilities And so I think that's what will be focused on when we move on that particular project
And then I didn't want to ignore altogether the recommendations from the planning commissions, but I would like to get your take on the recommendation for an ad hoc committee. Would that be helpful to you in any way?
Madam Chair, It's useful to talk about it to see if we think there would be some benefit there. We may, it may be more important on one of the items than others so I am open to having that conversation and I have started that conversation internally and then I think what I'd like to do is talk with the CEO's office a little bit about it to see how it worked with cannabis and whether or not we think this would be effective
in the long term. And the Gaviota Coast Plan was another example Okay, super. Well when I see the range of things that are on your plate, I understand why some things have to move more slowly than others. I know that you're working really hard on process improvements with the KPMG, with technology, with the internal assessment that you've done and I really appreciate that And I've heard really positive things about the Ag Enterprise Ordinance. That was something where there was a lot of public interaction, and I think that's of a stature it involves so many Interests across the county that I'm I think it was worth that and So going broad to start and then narrowing it down if that's required.
I don't know if it is possible for some projects that maybe there is Less public process or you take more direction from the board up front If on a project by project basis, if there is any efficiency that could be realized Did you want to comment on that? Director Palman
Yeah, Madam Chair. So I agree and I think that was part of the process that we went through with SB Innovate was talking about what elements of the process are flexible and where does the board have discretion to shorten up the process? And public participation is one of them. And so I think it's a good approach to look at each project and make a decision about how much public involvement we think is important because some Topics will be more controversial than others, and the board will have more discretion over certain topics than others.
So where the board has very little discretion when we're implementing state law it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a lengthy public input process because it won't be able to affect much change. So I think that's a great idea to handle it on a case-by-case basis. And we are certainly open to the board's direction on that. I think there has been a long history of extensive public outreach on a variety of different projects, and I think targeting it is the right approach.
And perhaps you can come back with ideas about how we could do that better, how up front you could get some read from the board. You know there are things where we have a lot to learn from the community and there are others as you mentioned where it's pretty well already determined and so it's really a futile exercise. Supervisor Nelson. Yes,
thank you chair Hartman I think you're right I think it's try to find that balance and how we can help you And I know you meet with this all on a regular basis so we kind of give you individual feedback But I think sometimes also collectively You know these check-ins with with the board might might be helpful. I want to get back to another piece that supervisor Williams mentioned Was utilizing other legal resources to see what are what's the proper dose?
Planning right you know I think I don't know if it's appropriate to have a board legal opinion on every single item But it does seem like a menu Hey, this is what a short. You know You know we're gonna go write this just over the next month and bring it back to the board or you know? I've seen other counties right at mid hearing ordinances you know we already do that here but You know some type of that and what risk that creates for us versus you know the very extensive, you know multi-year projects. Supervisor Lavinia talked about yes things go slow and that's a good thing for you know gridlocks always not a bad thing especially somebody who might be on the sometimes ideological minority but At the same time, you know it takes away our ability to be innovative and take advantage of things.
And I'm not asking or desiring a process where we get things done Just a couple months, but I do think it's reasonable that an ordinance can get done in one supervisor's term. So to me that seems like to be the complete longest possible. If it takes four years to get through a process, I think we need to take a look in the mirror and imagine better way to do it. So anyways, thank
you. Madam Chair I just had a few, unless there are other questions, I just had a few reflections on what I've heard today. I think SB Innovate was a real step in the right direction of answering that question about where we can cut out process and how we can shorten things. And where it's appropriate to shorten things so that was quite a bit of work that went into that, and so I really want to acknowledge the staff for putting in so much effort when they had a full plate And so, and then all the contributions from the other divisions and county council and the CEO's office. It was a lift and they did a great job and they came up with some recommendations that I think are meaningful. So we will be implementing those. We hear all of the board's thoughts about that and take them seriously.
I do, I just have to say this The division has a lot of work. It has a lot of work, and when you have a lot of work and you have small teams this is sort of in line with what CEO Miyasato was saying it takes longer because you cannot apply focused effort to all of them so that's just something to keep in mind and I constantly have it in my mind it's something I observed when I returned to the county and I still see it And so trying to either develop a more manageable workload, or if at some point the board decides we want to add another team after we go through this next three years is something to think about because I think that will help.
move things more quickly. I think what I'd like to also say is that we are, oh I'm sorry with respect to the targeted ordinance amendments so that used to happen outside the LRP division but what the board did last fiscal year was give us a planner three that is focused on that. So we don't use that planner three as a resource for other projects. We keep that individual focused on these ordinance amendments We're implementing that desire that the board has right now.
And then I think what I would also like to say is we are We want to work closely with the board to make sure that we are implementing the board's goals and objectives. I mean, that is really the role of the division is to you know, we do have to respond to state mandates but we're here to serve the board and make sure that we are looking at projects and programs the board is interested in. And so I'll be looking at ways to engage the board on those things before we come back with the work programs So that we can make sure we have your objectives and ideas for projects integrated in.
And then I think we can also address this question about where we need to strategically limit public input and where we need to have it expanded when we talk to you about the scope of workforce projects. We can have that conversation, and you can give us direction on that. So I do want to really thank the team in LRP. They work very, very hard, and they've got a heavy lift in front of them this next fiscal year with the housing element, and I greatly appreciate everything they do And I'm happy to answer any further questions.
Well, I just wanted to add that when we can recruit and retain really good planners they develop an expertise and then they can work more efficiently. And it's a very difficult job and I'm just very grateful to the planners who work for our county and I think we all appreciate how difficult that job is. So with that we're ready to
6:36 – 6:507 turns
That's
never happened before an interloper So we did not have any public comment and I think we were ready for a motion here Well,
I think we've all You know had our say and so I'm just gonna move staff recommendations I think receiving file
may have a second
second
all in favor say aye. Aye any opposed passes unanimously and we will take a 10-minute break and while we get ready for the appeal and Supervisor Lavinino So after a short break, we're reconvening the May 3rd 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We're turning to departmental item number six. Madam Clerk would you please
read that into the record? Chair Hartman and members of the board, departmental item number six is from Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the PR Investments LLC and Far Western Liquor Inc. appeal case numbers 21-APL62 and 21-APL63 of the Planning Commission's approval of the Orchid Gas Station development plan Minor conditional use permit case numbers 18 DVP 1 and 18 cu P1 And this is in the fourth district.
6:50 – 7:0010 turns
Thank you, and now any board members who've had ex parte communications? Supervisor Labonino
Thank You madam chair well I need to Read something real quick I just wanted to tell you folks that although I do not have a legal conflict of interest on this project my planning commissioner appointee Was the previous advocate for one of the appellants of this project to avoid any appearance of bias. I'm going to recuse from hearing this project today
and Supervisor Nelson
Yes, thank you since this isn't a district. I do have extensive ex parte In regards to this so I've met with the applicant or their planner to discuss this project multiple on multiple occasions December 6 2017 and the 4th district office at the barrier government center. Same location on July 15 2019 as well as June 30, 2020 I've also met with the. The appellant, Paul Prather and his partner Dan Ringsmeyer on November 10th 2021 and February 7th 2022 discussed the location some of the challenges. I've also had a meeting which will come into play later on with the City of Santa Maria to discuss that intersection in the interplay between County Caltrans and the City of Santa Maria with regards to traffic.
And Supervisor Williams, have you had any ex parte?
We went through our schedule and we didn't have record of any.
Supervisor Hart? And I do not either so with that we're ready for staff presentation and Director Plowman would you introduce your team? Madam
Chair, members of the Board. Today as Ms. Carbajal announced we do have the appeal of the Orcutt Gas Station. It's been through a long process it first went to the Zoning Administrator and then was appealed to the Planning Commission and now has been appealed We have with us today Gwen Beiler, who is the planner on the case and she will be presenting. We also have Jo Dargle who is her supervisor and Travis Seward's the deputy director for the division. With that I'd like to turn it over to Miss Bailer to be able to make the presentation.
Thank you Director Plowman Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Gwen Baylor and I will be presenting the Pray Their Investments and Far Western Liquor Appeal of the Orchid Gas Station Development Plan and Minor Conditional Use Permit. As Director Plowman mentioned, the appellants filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval on October 6th, 2021. The County Planning Commission granted approval of the project on October 15th. The appellants filed an appeal of the commission's approval The .82 acre property is located at 3616 Orchard Road in the Orchid Community Plan area of 4th District.
The site is about one mile west of Highway 101, Highway 135 Orchid Expressway is west of Orchid Road and the project site. The parcel's vacant and is surrounded by commercial development to the north, residential development to the east and south, and Lakeview Junior High School to the south And agriculture and commercial in the city of Santa Maria to the West.
The subject property is zoned neighborhood commercial and service stations such as the gas station proposed are allowed use in this zone district. Here are photos of the site that were taken recently from four different locations along the sidewalk. The site is located on the corner of Lakeview Road and Orchard Road. These photos show a concrete masonry unit wall on the east and south edges of the property.
The project includes construction and operation of a service station consisting of 5,054 square feet, 23-foot tall commercial building comprised of a convenience store and an 851 square foot general retail space. A detached 2,814 square foot 19-foot tall fuel canopy will have four fuel dispenser islands underneath. Hours will be from 5 a.m.. To midnight Grading will include 440 cubic yards of cut and 430 cubic yards of fill there will be 10,000 92 square feet of new landscaping on this site plan The commercial building and retail space is outlined in orange the loading area is outlined with the red dash line The existing concrete wall to remain along the south and east property lines as shown by a yellow dashed line The fuel canopy is outlined in pink and the four fuel dispenser islands underneath are shown as small black rectangles.
A trash enclosure is outlined in green, the locations of three underground fuel storage tanks are outlined with a purple dash line and three storm water retention basins are outlined in a blue dash line. Access to the site will be from one driveway from Orkett Road and one driveway from Lakeview Road. Here are the north elevations of the commercial building and fuel canopy.
The design is in keeping with the Orchid Community Plan Design Guidelines, with elements drawing from Old Town Orchids design standards. The landscaping will be planted along sidewalks and retention basins with some trees and shrubs planted near the parking area. The proposed trees will provide shade for pedestrians and visual relief for the corner lot. The project including the landscaping has been reviewed by the North Board of Architectural Review and final approval will be required prior to permit issuance.
A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared, noticed and circulated and comment letters from a community member, Caltrans and the Air Pollution Control District were received. Mitigations were identified for aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, fire protection, geologic processes, hazardous materials, land use, transportation and water resources.
All mitigations in the final MND are included in the conditions of approval. The appellants raised three appeal issues. Staff responded fully to these issues in the board agenda letter, and here I will summarize the issues and staff's responses. For Appeal Issue 1, the appellants allege that approval of the project was inconsistent with the Land Use and Development Code, was an error and abuse of discretion, and was not supported by evidence.
In response, the project meets all LUDC requirements for and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Including the Orchid community plan The Planning Commission approved the project with a 5-0 vote at a fair and impartial hearing The project is supported by evidence in the record including the project plans mitigated negative declaration condition letters from other departments and agencies staff report and board agenda letter all Findings for approval of a development plan and minor conditional use permit can be made For appeal issue 2a The appellant argues that traffic will exceed the acceptable level of service.
The project is inconsistent with the Orkut Community Plan circulation policies and standards, and staff attempted to amend the Orkut Community Plan. In response, the applicant will be required to pay into the Alternative Transportation Fund in keeping with the Orkut Community Plan which allows projects to exceed that level of service with a contribution to the fund.
The project is consistent with the Orkut Community Plan. No amendments to the Orkut Community Plan have been initiated. Instead, analysis by Planning and Development and Public Works staff clarifies the project's impacts to circulation. For Appeal Issue 2B, the appellant argues that the project is inconsistent with Orchid Community Plan land use policies and standards.
That turn restrictions benefit the applicant by diverting traffic away from nearby businesses and the traffic study assumes illegal left turns across double lines on Lakeview Road to enter the Evergreen Shopping Center. In response, the project is consistent with the Orchid Community Plan. Turn restrictions were identified as a mitigation measure in the mitigated negative declaration and will result in right turn only movements onto Lakeview Road during peak hours and cars can turn into Lakeview Road driveway to enter the Evergreen Shopping Center.
Turning left over double lines to enter a driveway is not illegal. The traffic studies were reviewed by County Public Works, the City of Santa Maria and Caltrans. For Appeal Issue 3, the appellant alleges that the project must comply with Visual Resource Policy 5 and Board of Supervisors resolution that requires existing utilities to be placed underground and that compliance would be consistent with the requirement that was applied to the Evergreen Shopping Center.
In response, the applicant has withdrawn their request to waive undergrounding and will underground all required utilities including existing power lines In conclusion, staff recommends that the board deny the appeal. Make the required findings for approval. Adopt the mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring program in the conditions of approval and grant de novo approval of the project subject to the conditions.
This concludes staff's presentation. Staff and the applicant are here and available to answer any questions. Thank you. And do we have any questions
for staff at this time? Seeing no lights, we go first to the appellant Mr. Prather on Zoom.
7:00 – 7:104 turns
Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board my name is Conrad Stevens I represent PR Investments. The members of PR Investments Paul Prather and Dan Ringsmeyer are here via zoom today as well First, PR Investments and Far Western Liquor Inc. are the agreed parties in this matter as they are both neighbors whose business and properties will be negatively impacted by this project.
PR Investments owns Evergreen Shopping Center across Lakeview Road. Far Western Liquor is a tenant in Evergreen Shopping Center. The intersection of Lakeview Road, Orchid Road And highway 135 is a very dangerous combination of intersections. And it is not going to become any less so with the development of this project and the actions recommended by the mitigated negative declaration.
This project impacts 3 different jurisdictions on Skyway Drive to the West, it is under the city of Santa Maria jurisdiction. As you traverse and move through highway 135, that is Caltrans jurisdiction. And once you get to Lakeview it was under this jurisdiction of the county here without all the government entities involved proposed conditions only create more traffic and safety problems.
The proposed modifications to the intersection will exacerbate these existing problems by creating another level of complexity and confusion for drivers and pedestrians with restrictions on left turns and through moves at certain times. Moreover, if the left turn restrictions are a part of the project it will result in Spencers and the project parking lots becoming ways to bypass the restrictions by drivers turning into and out of those properties in order to gain access to Lakeview Skyway and Highway 135.
As the Lake Commissioner Dan Blau said at the October Planning Commission appeal this is the worst intersection he has to drive through. He also recommended not creating the turning prohibitions Turn movements and contravention of the signage and the rules that are being put in place is going to occur. As detailed in the written appeal, the project is in violation of the Orkut Community Plan for at least two reasons.
Orkut Community Plan Policy LUC-0-5 states all commercial and industrial projects shall minimize impacts to adjoining residences businesses and open space. This project does not. Policy SERP-0-3 of the Orchard Community Plan states that the county shall maintain a minimum level of service, C or better on roadways and intersections within the orchid planning area.
Except that minimum level of service shall be D for Lakeview Road and Skyway Drive intersection among three others. Orca Road has been unilaterally changed from a secondary to a primary road without an amendment to the Orca Community Plan and in violation of the Orca Community Plan. The final mitigated negative declaration states that the project will generate traffic that exceeds the design capacity of Lakeview Road.
In particular, it states, the Orca Community Plan states the project will be inconsistent if estimated traffic volumes will exceed the roadway design capacity on secondary roads. According to the Orchard Community Plan, Lakeview Road is a secondary roadway which is designed to carry 10,500 average daily trips and currently estimated to carry approximately 10,300 average daily trips.
The analysis concludes that the project will be inconsistent with the Orchard Community Plan because the project will generate 254 average daily trips to Lakeview Road east of the project site therefore exceeding the 10,500 average daily trip design capacity However, the County Department of Public Works has deemed the Orchid Community Plan incorrectly classifies Lakeview Road as a secondary collector roadway.
The County Department of Public Works and I quote deemed that the Orchard Community Plan incorrectly classifies Lakeview Road is a secondary collector roadway however in order to do that to reclassify Lakeview as a secondary primary that requires an amendment to the Orchard Community Plan I'd like to take this opportunity to open the floor to Mr. Prather and Mr. Riesmeier at this point to make comments.
Mr. Prather?
Yeah, thank you supervisors. My partner Dan and I are the owners of the Evergreen Shopping Center. We purchased that about 18 years ago and we had 78 conditions of approval in regard to getting our project approved and completed. We're not against development, that's our bread and butter. However we're against development that penalizes existing businesses who've made major investments so that another business can enjoy access and take that access away from our property.
And basically, that's what this is going to be it's going to be a taking in the concerns that we have have to do with access and ease of use in regard to commercial property One of the things that I'm very concerned about is in regards to the two driveway cuts of 40 foot, that is proposed is a queuing concept. And when we have major time events, i.e., the start of school at Lakeview and the end of school at Lakeview along with the five o'clock crush in regard to normal commuters both an AM and PM You're going to have several vehicles in front of these access points on both Lakeview, pardon me, on Orchard Road and on the turning movement of vehicles coming into the service station as was cited to you that it's not illegal to go across these double yellow lines.
So you're gonna have cars wanting to come into this service station and get out of it. Well if you had queuing, Vehicles in front where they can't exit or they can enter. It's going to block traffic up even more and create all kinds of problems. Also, one of the solutions is that you can go around and go through the dispensers parking lot on his two drives across the street.
Well, one of them is a blind drive right next to our residential fence You have to poke your nose out very, very slowly so you don't get clipped. And it's not a highly used entrance. Potentially it's used as an exit but very rarely is used as an entrance. At least one more entrance that comes straight into John Spencer's parking lot right behind the tire store and it's just gonna exacerbate a very, very bad traffic and congestion situation that presently exists.
So, that's the reason we feel that the Planning Commission made a mistake. Dan Blau recognized the severity of this flow here and we've had conversations with our supervisor and talked about it at length. And what is the solution? We've attempted when we first built the shopping center at the county's behest To negotiate with Caltrans to install a decel lane exit into our property further to the north.
The shortest meeting I've ever had in my life, we went down to San Luis talked with the Caltrans people and the statement to us was We will never ever grant a decel lane off 135. And by the way, we've never seen the Orchid community plan. That fiasco cost us well over $100,000 in drawings, planning, engineering, et cetera. And our planner John Zarovich was one of the folks that insisted that we go down and try and get this as an accomplishment.
Well, we don't wanna go to war with the county, the city and Caltrans That is a zero sum game for us. But we don't want to be penalized for making major investments in regard to creating a very tax friendly, job friendly, service friendly shopping center that caters to the needs of the local community and that's our feeling. Thank You Mr. Prather
that will conclude the Neal Collins presentation
thank you and turning then to the applicant and mr. Tetley
7:10 – 7:217 turns
good afternoon madam chair and supervisors I'm Brian Tetley with Urban Planning Concepts, the land use agent for the owners, the proponents of the project. Realizing as they do as I stand between the board and dinner and adult beverages, I'll try to be as brief as I can. We're pleased to represent the applicants for the Orica Fueling Center. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the county staff who's been very helpful in getting us. To this point in the process. Mister will Robertson with public works and especially to miss Byler Thank you very much.
So the first slide, I just wanted to set the stage for what this project really represents for ORCA and for the owners. It's a reestablishment of a previous over 30 years land use as a service station on a prominent corner in ORCA zoned for commercial uses. I was talking with Commissioner Farini about it and he said, I really miss that gas station. They had the best coffee. I had to go there every morning.
The site would serve a community need for nearby source of gasoline and I'll show you a map that shows the existing situation there. Additional revenue to the county, nearby gas stations are all located within the city of Santa Maria and really relieve a blight of an empty lot that stood this way for over 20 years since the previous gas station was demolished And it really truly represents an independent locally owned business. So not be one of the major oil company outlets, so it would be an independent gasoline station run by locals.
Quickly this is just a rundown of the timeline of the project. I mean the basic summary of this is that we've been at this since January 2018. Today's hearing represents four years and two months in the process Including two approvals first by the zoning administrator in 2020 and a unanimous approval by the Planning Commission this past October. 15 full months of this process under appeal by nearby competitors in the wine and beer business Quickly a map of the Santa Maria Valley showing Orca Fueling Center here, nearest gas station to the east over three quarters of mile away.
The rest of the yellow icons much further away it just represents the need for a local fueling place and the rationale why they had a gas station here so long ago for many decades Now to the key elements of the appeal, really the crux of the appeal as we've heard from staff and the appellant is traffic and circulation issues. And anyone who's been through ORCA for a period of time has experienced issues with this intersection They really predate the Orca Community Plan, I mean just the geometry of the frontage road system and the amount of traffic that goes through Lakeview. And it certainly is an issue although the issue isn't with the project The issue needs a regional solution.
It's the confluence of City of Santa Marina, County of Santa Barbara and Caltrans jurisdictions and there's nothing the applicant can do other than satisfy the policies that are in place which they've done to improve this situation. Thankfully since the construction of Union Valley Parkway that situation has made things quite a bit better because you have that other outlet And this was really recognized by late Commissioner Blau when he continued our hearing to the October hearing in order to try to work with the jurisdictions, seeing if there was a way to get improvements outside of the project scope in a reasonable amount of time. Having proved futile, Commissioner Blau voted with the rest of the commission to approve the project.
And the other issues wasn't mentioned by the applicant today, but utilities undergrounding is one of the requirements that the project is agreeing to. Those existing overhead utilities will be undergrounded. The additional pole that's required between Highway 135 and Orca Road, the location of which will be determined by the County Works Director as conditioned by the Planning Commission, we'll make that a functioning system and we will meet all those standards.
So in summary, the proposed project meets all the policies and development standards of the county including the Orca Community Plan. Meets all provisions of Land Use Development Code and we certainly recommend denial of the appeals again by nearby competitors in the beer and wine industry and grant de novo approval with the project. And the entire team is here in the hearing room or on Zoom if you have any questions. Thank you.
And that concludes your presentation. OK. Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Hartman. I have a question Mr. Tetley about the undergrounding. So that was something you guys were asking originally to not have to do but now you guys are going to go ahead and take responsibility on that. I think originally the problem was there might be requirement to have the undergrounding happen from all way across 135 is that still what's gonna take place or has there been a modification
Yes, so in the evolution of the project it's recognized that there is a large number of utility poles across Highway 135 and Caltrans is adamant that they will not allow touching those or boring for underground utilities under the highway. So the compromise was with the Planning Commission to Take all of our on-site Utilities that are above ground and underground those including our new service for the new service station And so that's what we agreed to the only kind of last piece remaining is that?
Through the conditions process and getting final permits will work with a public works director to locate The additional above-ground pole that's necessary to connect the underground system to the existing Caltrans overhead
Gotcha, thank you. I have a question also for staff. Is this okay time to do that? Mr. Robertson so you're the traffic planner for Public Works can you speak a little bit to These mitigation measures because it doesn't know why this sounds like it's around traffic is the concern So I think everybody recognizes that these mitigation measures there are formulas Engineered studies that go into this can use can you speak to that for a moment?
Yes, Madam Chair, Supervisor Nelson. So this project as you well know has been around for quite a while. I'm just pulling up here three revisions to the traffic study all for various reasons and obviously for the sole problem of the intersection between Orchard Frontage Road and Lakeview. The problem we were having with this project was that no matter how we looked at this It just appeared to be the wrong project for the area because the intersections kept exceeding our our standards so with this project.
I think existing is right now is level of service C at the intersection and everybody thinks that it's a nightmare at level of service C. With this project, it would bring that to a level of service F which we can't approve planning and development can't move it forward so we were forced to look at various mitigation measures. Originally, we looked at putting a raised median across it to prevent left and through movements northbound And that obviously leads to problems with school buses being able to come to school and reroutes the school circulation. So that was deemed infeasible.
Generally, Gary Smart, the County Traffic Engineer does not like to do turn restrictions based on time. So no lefts, no throughs 5 to 7 p.m. Very similar to things you find down here in Santa Barbara but in this case we all agreed that there was just no solution for this intersection and the only thing we could do in order to get this project to move forward past the policy hurdles or at least one of the policy hurdles was to implement the turn restrictions based on time so it I understand that it's not something that some people are going to like, but it is only for two hours out of the day in the evening and two hours in the morning. And then the rest of the day it will operate free flow exactly like it operates now If it's not acceptable then I guess Public Works could look at other alternatives But just to be frank ever since I've started with the county over 20 years ago this intersection has been on the radar We wanted to fix it We can never come up with a solution, and any solution that does work requires the City of Santa Maria and Caltrans to be part of the project.
So that was kind of the unique hurdle here with this project. We have a developer that has every right to move forward with his project, and if there's a solution that can move him forward then we're willing to accept that. And then if the goal for the county is to move forward with a bigger project And a better solution, so be it. Public Works is on board to do that but it would impede the time frame for this developer to move his project forward if the county waited to get all the agencies together and work on
a separate project. So we're at a C today. Turn restrictions go in and the gas station goes in. What's our rating at that point? Does it remain a C? Does it go down to a D? What's the impact?
7:21 – 7:2610 turns
So, it's existing as a C. I've got it. Yeah. Existing as a C, existing plus the project tanks the intersection to an F. Right. With the implementation of the term restrictions we go back to a C Okay
thank
you Seeing no other board members with questions do we have any public comment Madam Clerk?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we have one request to speak here in Santa Barbara. And we will now go to Paul Aulis. Mr. Aulis?
Again thank you for allowing me to speak I've been in sales for almost 30 years, so I consider myself pro-business. I served the Orchid community for 10 years. I was the vice president and the director of coaches for the Orchid United Soccer League. So child safety is important to me. In my first discussion with then Santa Barbara County planner Eric Gomez he confirmed to me that they did not send a letter to Lakeview Junior High because it was more than 500 feet away Years ago, I witnessed a vehicle lose control and hit the backyard fence of a house on Lakeview and Miller.
The driver was texting. After witnessing the accident, I called the Santa Barbara County Traffic Engineer Hotline. We spoke about a number of things but at one point something came up about a pedestrian crossing light. Later, Joni Gray got involved and did her part to make it happen. During COVID, I canvassed as best I could and got 20 letters from the community.
These were people with daily firsthand knowledge of the dangers of this intersection. One letter was from Lakeview Junior High School PSTA President Laura Richardson requesting you deny the proposed gas station. I brought a copy of that letter with me today and with your permission, I'd like to submit it to the board. I sent emails to Dr. Joe Dana and Dr. Holly Edds, the latter of whom emailed me and told me she would speak directly with Bob Nelson on the subject. I hope something went well there.
It is my opinion that there's not enough consideration that has been given to Lakeview Junior High School. It's already a dangerous corner. Yet the decision to allow the project go on in object of the Orchard Community Plan is based around the specifics of the corner. I've listened more than three times to the traffic engineer sort of salamander his way through an explanation of the exception of the Orchard Community Plan and frankly, I don't ever get it.
The truth be is that we're gonna be adding 1,700 more trips a day. That's more than a car a minute but we all know that these trips will all be compressed into the peak hours of the day which also coincide with the school so I ask why are we doing this? All these pre-existing conditions were there before Good planning requires good vision. Now that there is a cottage hospital urgent care center adjacent and across the street, a supporting doctor's office would be good planning. It's not too late. Maybe someone could work with the owner to come up with a new vision. Less traffic, no junior high school temptations of a convenience store with a possible liquor license to come and of course, a whole assortment of tobacco products. No cars that they will be jaywalking through while they're talking on their cell phones as those driving their two ton vehicles try Many maneuver their way up to the pumps.
So I hate to be redundant here, but I too heard Dan Blau say what he said and he said it is the most dangerous intersection in all of Santa Barbara County that I have to deal with so don't take my word for it take that of your colleague Dan Blauw. Thank you.
And
that is our final
speaker.
Thank you. So, going back then to appellant rebuttal for five minutes Mr Stevens or Mr Prather?
Yes, this is Mr Stevens via Zoom. I would like to comment on the necessity of the gas station There's multiple gas stations in the area, some other ones that are within a mile. The necessity of gas station now and going forward is obviously getting diminished as electric vehicles take a further hold. We don't think it's necessary that a gas station be at that location.
And finally, unless Mr. Prather has anything else to add the mitigation efforts of adding turning timelines are going to harm the existing stakeholders including local businesses and most importantly, the school and the parents and trying to access a school and potentially create a much more dangerous situation it's already got that at those multiple intersections Unless Mr. Prater has anything else to add, that will conclude our event.
7:26 – 7:326 turns
Mr. Prather?
I hope you can hear me in terms of what the planners have presented as far as this being a hometown business. We are also a hometown business. I've been an Orchid resident since 1982, and my partner's been in Orchid residence since 1989. We're St. Joe's, Regetti, Lakeview. We have all the DNA of local residency in our veins. And what we have created I think trumps what the service station is going to add to the local area in regard to tax base number of jobs services to the community, etc, etc. So I want to make sure that we're not viewed as outsiders if you will.
We are orchid people. Thank you.
Thank you so Mr Tetley You have five minutes
Thank you madam chair. I think we're going to be here for questions for the board, but I think the key thing we heard about the traffic is Mister Robertson's testimony about And with the proposed mitigations by the county ending up back at LOSC. The fact that the proposal will bring this kind of blighted site back to an operating commercial center I think is only positive for Orcutt. Any other result, I think would be a detriment to the area and the community. Thanks so much.
Board members are there any questions for staff after what you've heard? Seeing no lights, Supervisor Nelson.
Yeah thank you Chair Hartman. I've got a lot of history with this site. You know my story is well known. I grew up in Orchid. I ride my bike on a regular basis to the shopping center that Paul and Dan now own. I went to Lakeview Junior High so much of my misspent youth, to borrow a term from Supervisor Adam was spent right around where this was at This has a challenging intersection. I am a father of three young drivers and You know, and this is something that I have to traverse on a regular basis So I take it all really seriously when we look at this. This isn't an easy decision I have heard from some members of the community that are concerned about Traffic and the safety at this intersection But when we come forward with this project, there's different criteria that I use to make my decisions.
And especially on a land-use project because what we're doing here is using again our judicial hat not legislators. We're going through this and taking a look at the project and seeing does it fit? And there are various criterias and there are things that can be circumstances that can lead to a denial but we first start off with the zoning And the zoning is consistent. This was a gas station previously, I'm not exactly sure if the gas station went away during the middle of the community plan process that's right about the same time frame but there would have been an opportunity at that point to rezone it. The property set empty for many years, the county had an opportunity to purchase it they chose not to so you know it does check the first box that it's an appropriate use on that corner So that satisfies that part for me.
But the next part comes to what about the impacts, right? So you know right now we've heard testimony there's been an admission by everybody involved on it's a bad intersection but at the end of day we listened to the engineers and experts that say it's a C now and there are mitigation measures that are being put in place with this project that would allow it to stay a C The other side of that, of course, then goes, does that end up disadvantaging PR investments?
Paul Prather, Dan Ringsmeyer, John Spencer, that shopping center. And that is a concern of mine because they're there and they're operating. They are strong members of the community. Went to school with some of their kids. And so looking at this moving forward, it's not an easy decision. But I believe that this project does meet the requirements. I don't think the appeal criteria gives me grounds to grant the appeal and deny the project. So at this point, I would vote to again deny the appeal and approve the project.
Whether we go down that route or not, The community and to the businesses in that area that this is intersection. That still needs work whether it's these These improvements happen Prior to the project or in the future, you know I've committed I've actually met with City leadership in the city of Santa Maria to talk about the things that they can do To improve it they were not things we could tie to this project specifically because there are things that we have to work on between our public works department Caltrans and City of Santa Maria, I think we all know trying to get all those three jurisdictions on the same page as well as try to move a project forward is nearly impossible So I'm satisfied that the applicant has gone through the proper process To make their project approvable and I'm comfortable with approving it But I'm also making the commitment to continue to work on making sure that that intersection is as safe as possible for the future
7:32 – 7:368 turns
Any other board members have anything to add? Supervisor Hart.
Well, I agree with Supervisor Nelson and I appreciate his commitment to working with the community and all the different agencies to try and find some global solutions to what's a challenging traffic situation but you know there was a gas station there before it is zoned for that purpose and the transportation staff and public works staff are saying that this proposal meets our zoning criteria so I will be supportive as well.
Supervisor Williams.
Roll-call vote Moved by Lawson
Show transcript
And I agree with my colleagues, this is really a lightning rod project for longstanding problem and doesn't seem fair to deny them because of something that's existed for such a long time. So ready to entertain a motion.
Thank you Chairman. I'll go ahead and make a motion, but one other thing I wanted to put out there is I do think because that is a bit of a gas island for the Santa Maria Valley in this section here. You know we have about 35,000 people in Orchid and all three of our gas stations happen within about a mile along Clark So, between the last gas station and the next one to see Santa Maria I think is about four or five miles. So I mean that's a pretty significant distance for people to travel.
helping traffic congestion because I think people you know, I do on a regular basis. I have to run to the gas station and make sure I have gas for the next day or whatnot so I do think that this is ultimately going to lead to better services provided for the community of Orchid South Santa Maria as well as You know it's my hope that actually drives traffic to the Evergreen Shopping Center in Spencer's you know many people choose to do multiple shopping trips at once trying to get things done And I think that that might be create some synergy and you know I understand the concern but I have hopes that in the end it will be a better outcome for everybody. So with that, I make a motion to deny the appeal and make the required findings for approval adopt the mitigated negative declaration and grant the de novo approval of this project.
May I have a second?
Second
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes four votes so with that we are adjourned for today we meet again next May 10th in Santa Maria