UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2022-05-10

Board of Supervisors — 2022-05-10May 10, 2022

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 May 10, 2022

Click any transcript line to jump the video there.

Meeting Summary

  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

Present: Williams, 3-Hartmann, 4-Nelson

This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.

At a glance

CEO’s Report and Announcements

  • The Public Works Department received a National Association of Counties achievement award for its Resource Center.
  • An agenda addendum was posted to include a closed session item regarding existing litigation and a second reading of an ordinance amendment.
  • Administrative Item 2 regarding the Behavioral Wellness Department and Telecare Corporation was withdrawn from the agenda.

Human Resources Workforce Provisions

  • Supervisor Williams requested to pull the item to discuss alternatives to rescinding vaccination or testing policies.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino moved to approve the item despite the request for further discussion.
  • The motion to approve the modifications to Coven 19 workforce provisions passed.

Resolution of Commendation for Leroy Scolari

  • A resolution sponsored by Supervisor Nelson was read into the record to commend Leroy Scolari for his contributions to agriculture.
  • A representative of Scolari thanked the board for the recognition.
  • The resolution was adopted by the board.

National Nurses Day and Week Proclamation

  • A resolution sponsored by Supervisor Lavagnino proclaimed May 6, 2022, as National Nurses Day and the following week as National Nurses Week.
  • Representatives from the Public Health Department spoke via Zoom regarding the contributions of nurses in the county.
  • The resolution was adopted by the board.

Compost Awareness Week Proclamation

  • A resolution sponsored by Supervisor Lavagnino proclaimed the week of May 1–7, 2022, as Compost Awareness Week.
  • The intended recipient, Mr. Bob Angle, was unavailable to attend the meeting.
  • The board agreed to trail the item to a later time if the recipient appeared.

Laguna County Sanitation District Rates

  • Staff proposed a 1.5% increase in wastewater service charges based on a five-year rate study and plant upgrades.
  • Public comment expressed opposition to the increase, citing concerns about cumulative impacts on property taxes.
  • Supervisor Nelson supported the increase as a fiduciary responsibility to maintain public assets and avoid larger future costs.
  • The motion to approve the FY 2022-2023 charges passed unanimously.

Mission Canyon Sewer District Charges

  • Staff proposed no change to existing rates but noted the annual requirement to adopt the resolution.
  • The board agreed to waive the detailed presentation due to the lack of rate changes.
  • The motion to approve the staff recommendation passed, with Supervisor Williams absent for the vote.

North County Lighting District Assessments

  • Staff presented a resolution to establish benefit assessments for FY 2022-2023 with no changes to existing rates.
  • The board agreed to waive the presentation as no rate adjustments were proposed.
  • The motion to approve the recommended actions passed unanimously.

Ambulance Service Contract and RFP

  • Staff presented a policy resolution and RFP update for ambulance services, emphasizing clinical compliance and patient outcomes over response times alone.
  • Board members expressed concern regarding the timeline and the lack of a finalized short-term extension with AMR.
  • The board directed staff to negotiate a 10-month contract extension with AMR and continued the RFP discussion to a special meeting on May 31.
  • The motion to direct staff to negotiate the extension and continue the item to the special meeting passed.
No decision 1–0

Family First Prevention Services Act Overview

  • Staff presented an overview of the FFPSA, which allows federal funding for evidence-based prevention services to reduce foster care entries.
  • Local data indicated that 74% of children in care are Latino/Latinx, with referrals rising in 2022.
  • The county received approximately $2 million in state block grant funding to prepare a local comprehensive prevention plan due in January 2023.
  • The motion to receive the file and approve the item passed unanimously.

SB Clark, LLC Residential Subdivision

  • Staff recommended denial of the 119-unit residential project due to the inability to make required findings regarding secondary access.
  • The applicant argued that the Housing Accountability Act compels approval and that Chancellor Street is a viable secondary access route.
  • The board initially failed to deny the project, then passed a motion to approve the project conceptually with specific revisions.
  • Final revisions included clarifying access routes, adding trailhead parking, installing a sound wall, and making a good-faith effort to secure Oak Brook Lane access.
  • The final motion to approve items A through G passed with a vote of 3 to 2.

Sheriff’s Office Military Equipment Use Policy

  • The Sheriff’s Office presented a policy to increase transparency and accountability regarding the acquisition and use of specialized law enforcement equipment.
  • The policy defines military equipment per Government Code 770 and outlines duties for a designated coordinator, including annual reporting.
  • Board members discussed de-escalation priorities and the origin of the equipment, noting most is new rather than military surplus.
  • The motion to approve the adoption of the military equipment use policy passed unanimously.

Closed Session

  • The Board discussed public employee performance evaluation under Government Code Section 54957.
  • The Board conferred regarding existing litigation in Christopher Anderson v. County of Santa Barbara concerning encroachments on East Mountain Drive.
  • County Counsel reported that the Board unanimously authorized seeking appellate review of a preliminary injunction and filing a cross-complaint.

Full summary

Meeting Overview

  • The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors held a meeting on May 10, 2022, in Santa Maria. All supervisors were present for the roll call. The meeting included the approval of minutes, administrative and departmental agenda items, public comment, and a closed session.

Approval of Minutes

  • Item: Approval of the minutes from the May 3, 2022, meeting.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes.
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

CEO’s Report and Announcements

  • CEO Report: The CEO announced that the Santa Barbara County Public Works Department received an achievement award from the National Association of Counties (NACo) for its Resource Center.
  • Agenda Addendum: The Clerk announced an addendum posted on May 6, adding a closed session item regarding existing litigation (Christopher Anderson et al. v. County of Santa Barbara) and Administrative Item 26 (Second Reading of an ordinance amendment to Chapter 41 of the County Code regarding the Children and Families Commission).
  • Withdrawal: The Clerk announced the withdrawal of Administrative Item 2 (Behavioral Wellness Department) regarding the First Amendment to the Agreement for Services with Telecare Corporation.
  • Public Participation: Reminders were given regarding Spanish interpretation, live broadcasting, and updated methods for public participation, including virtual comment procedures via Zoom.

Administrative Agenda

  • Item 8 (Human Resources): The item concerned modifications to Coven 19 workforce provisions. Supervisor Williams requested to pull the item for discussion, expressing disagreement with rescinding vaccination or testing policies and suggesting bi-weekly or bi-monthly testing as an alternative. Supervisor Lavagnino moved to approve the item, which was seconded.
  • Decision: The motion to approve the item passed.
  • Balance of Administrative Agenda: A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda, including the withdrawal of Item 2 and the addition of Item 26.
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.
  • Item 23 (Resolution of Commendation): A resolution sponsored by Supervisor Nelson was read into the record, commending Leroy Scolari for his contributions to agriculture in Santa Barbara County. A representative of Scolari thanked the board.
  • Decision: The resolution was adopted.
  • Item 24 (National Nurses Day/Week): A resolution sponsored by Supervisor Lavagnino was read into the record, proclaiming May 6, 2022, as National Nurses Day and the week of May 6–12 as National Nurses Week. Representatives from the Public Health Department spoke via Zoom regarding the contributions of nurses in the county.
  • Decision: The resolution was adopted.
  • Item 25 (Compost Awareness Week): A resolution sponsored by Supervisor Lavagnino was read into the record, proclaiming the week of May 1–7, 2022, as Compost Awareness Week. The intended recipient, Mr. Bob Angle, was unavailable. The board agreed to trail this item to a later time if the recipient appeared.
No decision 1–0
No decision 1–0

General Public Comment

  • Two members of the public spoke in Santa Maria: 1. Erica Kelly: Spoke on behalf of the Domestic Workers of America union, thanking the board for its leadership and decisions to invest in the in-home supportive services (IHSS) workforce. 2. Norma Alonso: Spoke in Spanish, thanking the board for supporting domestic workers and emphasizing the importance of investing in the care economy and supporting vulnerable populations.

Departmental Agenda

  • Item 1 (Laguna County Sanitation District):
  • Discussion: Staff presented the FY 2022-2023 wastewater service charges, connection charges, and trunk sewer fees for the Laguna County Sanitation District (serving the Orchid community). A 1.5% rate increase was proposed based on a five-year rate study, compared to a 3.8% Consumer Price Index increase. The presentation detailed current plant upgrades and cost comparisons with other agencies.
  • Public Comment: One speaker, Chuck Williams, expressed opposition to the increase, citing previous promises to remove automatic increases and concerns about the cumulative impact on property taxes. He questioned the board's trustworthiness regarding previous rate discussions.
  • Staff Response: Staff clarified that the speaker’s specific bill might reflect multiple units or commercial rates. Staff reiterated that the increase is based on inflationary indices and debt service for the current plant replacement, noting that other agencies have faced larger increases.
  • Board Discussion: Supervisor Nelson supported the increase as a fiduciary responsibility to maintain public assets, noting that the 1.5% increase is lower than the inflation rate and necessary to avoid larger future costs. He addressed the concerns of mobile home park residents, noting their specific rate increase is approximately $1 per month.
  • Action: A motion was made to approve the item.
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.
  • Item 2 (Mission Canyon Sewer District):
  • Discussion: Staff presented the resolution to set charges for CSA 12 Mission Canyon Sewer District. Staff proposed no change to existing rates but noted the annual requirement to adopt the resolution. The board agreed to waive the detailed presentation.
  • Public Comment: No public comment was received.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the staff recommendation (Actions A through C).
  • Decision: The motion passed. (Note: Supervisor Williams was not present for the vote).
  • Item 3 (North County Lighting District):
  • Discussion: Staff presented the resolution to establish benefit assessments for CSA 331 in the Santa Barbara North County Lighting District for FY 2022-2023. Staff proposed no changes to existing rates. The board agreed to waive the presentation.
  • Public Comment: No public comment was received.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the recommended actions (A and B, covering items 1 through 5).
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.
  • Item 4 (Ambulance Service Contract):
  • Ex Parte Communications: Supervisors Lavagnino, Hartman, Williams, Nelson, and the Clerk reported various ex parte communications with fire chiefs, union representatives, AMR representatives, and consultants regarding the ambulance service contract and RFP process.
  • Staff Presentation: The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Agency Director, Nick Clay, and Medical Director, Dr. Danny Shepard, presented the ambulance service contract policy resolution and RFP update.
  • AB 399 Compliance: The presentation covered the new state statutes requiring a written policy for ambulance agreements. The proposed resolution includes issues such as employment retention, disaster response, minimum qualifications, diversity and equity, financial requirements, and emergency takeover provisions.
  • RFP Timeline: The RFP was designed over three years with an advisory committee. The timeline includes release by the next day, responses due July 11, 2022, intent to award August 24, 2022, and board approval of the contract November 1, 2022. This allows for an 11-13 month ramp-up period, with new service delivery starting October 1, 2023.
  • AMR Extension: The current agreement with AMR expires December 31, 2022. A short-term extension is needed to bridge the gap until the new provider starts. Staff indicated confidence in reaching an agreement with AMR by June.
  • Key RFP Elements: The RFP aims to improve patient experience, population health, and system costs. It standardizes response times (shifting to a 9:59 standard), consolidates three operating zones into one contiguous zone, and includes requirements for innovation in inter-facility and mental health transports, diversity and inclusion, and provider safety.
  • Clinical Excellence: Dr. Shepard discussed the focus on clinical excellence, maintaining high-functioning stroke, heart attack, and trauma systems, and improving on-scene care and outcomes.
  • Discussion: Staff presented an overview of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for ambulance services, emphasizing patient outcomes and clinical compliance over response times alone. Staff described a new clinical compliance tool to evaluate provider performance in real-time, noting that this tool allows for incentives for good care and accountability for poor performance. Staff also addressed the status of negotiations with American Medical Response (AMR) regarding a short-term contract extension, stating that initial discussions were ongoing but authorization to officially renegotiate had not yet been received.
  • Board Discussion: Board members expressed concern regarding the timeline and the lack of a finalized short-term extension with AMR before proceeding with the RFP. Several members noted that the current RFP draft required significant changes and that the timeline for state review and potential revisions was uncertain. Members discussed the need to establish a definitive timeline for the AMR extension to ensure service continuity and to allow sufficient time for the Board to vet and modify the RFP. There was debate regarding the duration of the extension, with staff suggesting that a 10-month extension might be insufficient if significant RFP changes are required, potentially necessitating a 12-month extension or more to accommodate state review times.
  • Public Comment: Eleven speakers addressed the Board. Comments included:
  • Support for fire-based EMS from medical directors and fire chiefs, citing quality, transparency, and community integration.
  • Arguments for direct assignment of ambulance services to County Fire, highlighting financial transparency, workforce development, and the ability to reinvest revenue locally.
  • Legal analysis suggesting that the County could directly contract with County Fire for exclusive ambulance services without a competitive RFP, citing specific statutes outside the EMS Act.
  • Statements from labor unions and city council members supporting fire-based EMS for community benefit and efficiency.
  • Motion and Decision: Supervisor Hart moved to direct staff to work with AMR to draft, conclude, and sign a contract extension of 10 months, with discretion for the Executive Director to extend that period by a couple of months. Supervisor Williams seconded the motion.
  • Discussion: During discussion, Supervisor Nelson expressed concern that delaying the RFP discussion by three weeks (to the next meeting) would result in lost time for addressing RFP issues. Supervisor Williams emphasized the need for a faster process to avoid elongating the timeline. Staff recommended continuing the consideration of the policy and RFP to the special meeting. Supervisor Hart added the special meeting to the motion.
  • Special Meeting: The Board set a special meeting for Tuesday, May 31, at noon in Santa Barbara to continue the discussion.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion to direct staff to negotiate the AMR extension and to continue the RFP and policy items to the special meeting on May 31 passed.
  • Conclusion: The Board concluded the discussion regarding the Request for Proposals (RFP) and associated policies. A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. The motion passed unanimously.
  • Item 5 (Child Welfare Services – Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) Overview):
  • Presentation: A representative from the Social Services Department presented an overview of the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) and associated child welfare data. The presentation covered the following points:
  • Vision and Context: The 2018 creation of the Child and Family Enrichment Cabinet aimed to shift focus from child protection to family well-being, emphasizing equity, cultural responsiveness, and cross-system collaboration.
  • FFPSA Mechanics: Enacted in 2018, FFPSA allows states to opt in to Title IV-E federal financial participation for evidence-based mental health, substance abuse, and in-home parent skill-based services for children at imminent risk of foster care entry. The goal is to redirect savings from reduced congregate care placements into prevention services. California established its program as an opt-in for counties and tribes in July 2021, pending the completion of a five-year prevention plan.
  • Local Data:
  • Referrals: Child Abuse and Neglect (CAN) referrals declined in 2021 due to the pandemic but are rising in 2022, with a first-quarter average of approximately 540 referrals per month, on pace to exceed 6,400 for the year.
  • Entries into Care: Entries increased in 2020 due to pandemic-related factors (substance abuse, mental health, family violence) but have slightly decreased since 2021.
  • Current Census: As of March, 422 youth are currently in care.
  • Demographics: As of July 1, 2021, 74% of children in care were Latino/Latinx, 21% were White, and smaller populations were African American, Native American/Indigenous, and Asian American/Pacific Islander. Data indicates disproportionate representation of Black, Latinx, and Native American children in the system, attributed to factors including poverty, economic inequities, and structural racism.
  • Eligibility and Implementation:
  • Eligible populations include children at imminent risk of foster care entry, their caregivers, pregnant/parenting youth in foster care, and kin caregivers. Other potential categories include probation youth, homeless/runaway youth, children with at-risk guardianships/adoptions, and substance-exposed newborns.
  • California’s draft five-year prevention plan is under review by the federal Association of Children and Families.
  • The state identified 10 evidence-based programs (EBPs) eligible for FFPSA funding. Locally, four or five of these programs are already being delivered in the county.
  • Implementation involves two pathways: the traditional child welfare pathway (voluntary/court-ordered family maintenance) and a new community-based pathway involving local service providers and CBOs.
  • The county received approximately $2 million in one-time state block grant funding (available through 2023-2024) to prepare a local comprehensive prevention plan, due in January 2023.
  • Q&A:
  • Board members inquired about the eligibility criteria, specifically regarding children in transition of guardianship or parentage, and the nature of the evidence-based programs.
  • The presenter clarified that eligibility is determined on a case-by-case basis based on imminent risk and safety.
  • Regarding EBPs, the presenter noted that certification is rigorous, expensive, and requires ongoing monitoring. Some local providers use loosely based models due to cost and staff retention challenges. Block grant funds are intended to help local providers achieve certification.
  • Board members asked about strategies to address racial disparities in allegations and entries. The presenter cited ongoing efforts, including staff training on implicit bias, county self-assessments, and the use of cultural brokers/parent partners.
  • A question was raised regarding geographic disparities (North vs. South County) in case outcomes. The presenter noted that since the pandemic, all cases have been heard by the same judge in North County due to virtual proceedings, and no specific analysis by court location has been conducted.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to receive the file and approve the item.
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Closed Session

  • The Board entered closed session to discuss two items: 1. Public employee performance evaluation under Government Code Section 54957. 2. Conference regarding existing litigation: Christopher Anderson v. County of Santa Barbara (Superior Court Case No. 22-CV-01299), which challenges the county’s plan to remove encroachments and restore the right-of-way on portions of East Mountain Drive.
  • Upon reconvening, the County Counsel reported that the Board unanimously authorized County Counsel to seek appellate review of the court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction against the county and to file a cross-complaint in the pending litigation.
  • Item 6 (Planning and Development – SB Clark, LLC Residential Subdivision (Key Site 3)):
  • Overview: The Board heard a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the SB Clark, LLC residential subdivision project at Key Site 3. The item includes a General Plan Amendment (13 GPA 5), Rezone (13 RZN 1), Tentative Tract Map (13 TRM 1), Development Plan (13 DVP 10), and Road Naming (17 RDN 5).
  • Ex Parte Communications: Board members reported communications with the applicant, Mr. Matt Manzi, and planning staff regarding the project, site visits, and efforts to secure secondary access.
  • Staff Presentation:
  • Project Overview: The project proposes 119 single-family dwellings on the mesa area of the 138-acre site, preserving open space. It includes the dedication of 91 acres of public open space to the county and 22.5 acres of private open space.
  • History: The Planning Commission recommended denial in May 2021 based on findings regarding community welfare, population density, and compatibility with surrounding areas. The Board continued the item in October 2021, directing the applicant to seek secondary access via another route to avoid a General Plan Amendment.
  • Secondary Access: The applicant attempted to secure an easement through Oakbrook Lane. They contacted all 13 property owners; seven responded, none were supportive, and two signed a petition in opposition. Four did not respond. The applicant proposes using the existing 80-foot wide non-exclusive easement over Chancellor Street for secondary access.
  • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended denial of the project, consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, citing the inability to make required findings for approval.
  • Applicant Presentation:
  • The applicant reiterated that the project is confined to 28 acres of the 138-acre site, with the remainder dedicated to open space and trails.
  • The applicant argued that Chancellor Street is the preferable secondary access route because it is wider, in better condition, and affects only five homes directly, compared to 14 homes on Oakbrook Lane.
  • The applicant cited the Housing Accountability Act, arguing it compels approval and prohibits conditioning approval on reduced density.
  • The applicant noted that staff, fire, and water utilities have indicated Chancellor Street is an acceptable secondary access road.
  • Q&A:
  • Board members asked about the maintenance requirements for the 91 acres of open space. County Parks indicated that the space would be left in natural open space with dirt trails, requiring minimal maintenance after an initial two-year period by the applicant.
  • Board members inquired about cost comparisons and appraisals for acquiring easements on Oakbrook Lane. The applicant stated no engineering cost comparisons or appraisals were conducted, and no compensation was offered to Oakbrook Lane neighbors, who were adamant against granting the easement.
  • Public Comment:
  • David Hassett (Sunny Hills Mobile Home Park): Spoke in opposition, citing traffic concerns, safety for seniors, and the belief that the project is over-dense relative to the original easement grants intended for lower-density ranchettes.
  • Gary Crabtree: Spoke in favor, citing the severe housing shortage, the affordability of the proposed homes compared to existing inventory, and the need for new housing supply.
  • Catherine Sheehy: Requested denial of the project, citing concerns regarding traffic impacts on Chancellor Street and surrounding neighborhoods, loss of habitat, and disturbance to Orchard Creek. She suggested the developer reconsider the east side of the site to avoid the Chancellor Street neighborhood and save the creek.
  • Bill Brown: Opposed the project, noting that the Planning Commission had previously denied it for valid reasons. He stated that no community members had supported the project and questioned the lack of easement access through Oak Brook.
  • Unidentified Speaker 29 (Applicant Representative): Stated that supporters of the project were unable to attend due to work commitments and cited a specific resident who supports the project.
  • Discussion and Staff Presentation:
  • MRO Status: Staff clarified that a zoning clearance application for 160 units in the Mobile Home Residential (MRO) portion is on hold pending the outcome of the current application. Staff noted that the MRO zoning is approved and the permitting path is ministerial (by right), meaning no additional discretionary approval or environmental review is required for that specific portion. However, the applicant lacks the necessary access easement over Oak Brook Lane required by the Orchid Community Plan to proceed with the MRO.
  • Access and Community Plan Conflict: Discussion centered on the conflict between the current project’s proposed access via Chancellor Street and the Orchid Community Plan’s designation of Oak Brook Lane as the preferred access route. Staff and legal counsel explained that while the MRO development is ministerial, it still must meet specific standards, including secondary access consistent with the community plan. The applicant currently lacks the easement for Oak Brook access.
  • Fire and Safety: Staff noted that fire safety regulations require secondary access. The Fire Marshal has discretion regarding single access points for certain unit counts, but the current configuration requires secondary access.
  • Traffic and Density: Staff and board members discussed traffic impacts, noting that the majority of traffic would likely use the main entrance via the freeway connection, with a smaller portion using the secondary access. Board members expressed concern about the density of 287 clustered units in this location, contrasting it with other areas in the county.
  • Trail and Open Space: The applicant’s proposal for trail access and parking was discussed. Staff noted that the trail advocacy group had not incorporated their suggestions into the project. The applicant estimated 120 parking spaces available via public roads and designated spots.
  • Motion and Vote (First Attempt):
  • Motion: To deny the project based on the recommended actions from the Planning Commission.
  • Outcome: The motion failed with a vote of 3 to 2.
  • Motion and Vote (Second Attempt):
  • Motion: To approve the project conceptually, create new findings for approval, and direct the applicant to work with staff on revisions regarding the trail network, parking, and access easements.
  • Outcome: The motion passed with a vote of 3 to 2.
  • Action: The board took a 15-minute break to allow staff and the applicant to finalize the specific revisions and findings.
  • Staff Presentation of Revisions:
  • Staff: Presented slides detailing changes made during the break:
  • Clarified that primary access remains over the existing easement from Clark Avenue unless a renegotiated easement is recorded.
  • The applicant agreed to provide an additional 15–20 trailhead parking spaces in the landscape buffer area, subject to engineering constraints.
  • The applicant agreed to install a 6-foot sound wall between the primary access road and Highway 101.
  • The applicant agreed to incorporate decorative fencing and native landscape screening around the basin.
  • The applicant will make a good-faith effort to offer monetary compensation to gain secondary access over Oak Brook Lane and improve the road if acquired.
  • The General Plan Amendment was revised to reflect secondary access from Oak Brook Lane or Chancellor Street.
  • Motion and Vote (Final):
  • Discussion and Procedural Notes: The Clerk of the Board noted that no public comment was received. The board took a brief pause while additional materials were posted online. Upon resuming, the Clerk confirmed for the record that two additional attachments (Attachment 11 and 12) had been posted, consisting of revised slides with findings and recommended actions, and a departmental memo dated May 10, 2022.
  • Motion: A motion was made to approve items A through G as the recommended actions displayed on the slide.
  • Decision: The motion passed.
  • Vote Outcome: Passed (3 to 2).
  • Item 7 (Sheriff’s Office Military Equipment Use Policy):
  • Presentation:
  • Sheriff Brown: Introduced the item, explaining that Assembly Bill 481 requires a public hearing and the adoption of a military equipment use policy by ordinance. The policy aims to increase transparency, accountability, and oversight regarding the acquisition and use of specialized law enforcement equipment.
  • Commander Rainey: Presented the policy, which defines military equipment per Government Code 770 (e.g., drones, battering rams, kinetic energy weapons). The policy outlines duties for a designated Military Equipment Coordinator, including inventory tracking, annual community engagement meetings, and annual reporting. He stated that the equipment is already in use and the policy formalizes oversight without impacting public safety.
  • Lieutenant Schmidt: Provided examples of equipment use, including the deployment of MRAP and Bearcat rescue vehicles during the Montecito debris flow to rescue trapped residents, and the use of Bearcats and distraction devices in a 2019 hostage rescue in Buellton. He noted that most equipment is new and purchased from vendors, with only the MRAP vehicle being military surplus.
  • Discussion:
  • Supervisor Hartman: Commented on the importance of de-escalation and community engagement, asking about mechanisms for communicating with the public after tactical incidents.
  • Commander Rainey: Responded that the Sheriff’s Office has a use-of-force policy prioritizing de-escalation and uses public information officers to communicate with the community after significant incidents. He noted that the new legislation provides an opportunity for annual reporting to the Board.
  • Supervisor Nelson: Asked about the origin of the equipment and whether it is retrofitted. Lieutenant Schmidt confirmed most is new, with the MRAP being the only military surplus item, which is an armored rescue vehicle.
  • Supervisor Nelson: Expressed support for the policy, noting that while the term "military equipment" can be unsettling, the policy ensures judicious use and transparency.
  • Motion and Vote:
  • Motion: To approve staff’s recommendation (A through D) regarding the adoption of the military equipment use policy.
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Adjournment

  • The meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, May 17, in Santa Barbara.