Meeting Summary
Present: 4-Nelson, 5-Lavagnino, Williams, 3-Hartmann
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
Excessive Heat Warning
- Emergency Management reported an active heat warning for August 31 through September 5.
- Staff coordinated with partner agencies to distribute safety tips and service listings via ReadySBC.
- Approximately 14% of the county is currently registered for ReadySBC emergency alerts.
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Update
- Supervisor Nielsen requested the item be pulled for discussion to address concerns about housing supply impacts.
- Supervisor Williams suggested a future data-driven review of target income levels for affordable housing.
- The item was included in the bulk administrative agenda vote and adopted.
Non-Congregate Isolation Sheltering Agreement
- Supervisor Nielsen questioned the budget increase despite the transition from pandemic to endemic conditions.
- Staff confirmed the model is used for other diseases on a case-by-case basis.
- A report on ARPA-funded expenditures is expected in September or October.
Satellite Tracking Contract Extension
- The Sheriff’s Office reported 72 offenders currently in the program with rare violations.
- The Probation Department will take over monitoring duties starting July 1 to free up Sheriff’s staff.
- Supervisor Hart requested quarterly reports on program progress and participation.
National Preparedness Month Resolution
- Emergency Management staff presented resources for personal emergency planning and disaster kits.
- The board emphasized the importance of registering for alerts and preparing for individuals with disabilities.
- The resolution proclaiming September as National Preparedness Month was adopted.
Elected Department Head Salaries
- HR presented seven options for salary adjustments, noting the elimination of the previous compensation pool structure.
- The board discussed parity issues among the District Attorney, Public Defender, and County Counsel.
- The board approved a 2.5% increase for most elected heads and a 3.5% increase for the District Attorney.
- Staff prepared a resolution reflecting these increases, effective September 5, 2022.
Passed 4–1 · against: Hartmann
FY 2021-2022 Fourth Quarter Budget Status Report
- The General Fund ended the quarter with a net positive variance of $22.4 million.
- Cannabis tax revenue finished the year under budget by $10.3 million.
- Staff outlined upcoming financial commitments, including pension increases and litigation reserves.
- The board received and filed the report and made the CEQA determination.
Matkins Parcel Map and Zoning Amendments
- Staff recommended approving a subdivision of a 3.36-acre parcel into three lots in Montecito.
- Public commenters requested buried power lines and preservation of an informal trail easement.
- The applicant noted that undergrounding offsite utilities is not required by existing conditions.
- The board unanimously approved the tentative parcel map, general plan, and zoning amendments.
Passed 3–2 · against: Lavagnino, Hartmann
Closed Session
- The board authorized the filing of a cross-complaint in the SJ Amoroso Construction Company case.
- The board voted to initiate litigation against the UC Regents regarding UCSB housing obligations.
- The board discussed two existing litigation cases and one anticipated litigation case.
Full summary
Meeting Start and Roll Call
- The August 30, 2022, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order at 9:00 a.m. The Clerk of the Board called the roll, and all five supervisors were present. The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
- Item: Approval of minutes from August 23, 2022.
- Discussion: None.
- Motion: A motion to approve the minutes was made and seconded.
- Decision: The minutes were adopted unanimously.
No decision 0–0
Passed 3–2 · against: Lavagnino, Hartmann
CEO Report: Excessive Heat Warning
- Item: Update on the National Weather Service excessive heat warning.
- Discussion: J.D. Saucedo, Emergency Manager with the Office of Emergency Management (OEM), reported that an excessive heat warning is in effect from August 31 at 11 a.m. through September 5 at 8 p.m. for much of the county. OEM coordinated with partner agencies, including Social Services, Public Health, and the Agricultural Commissioner, to inform partners and the public. A webpage at www.readysbc.org provides safety tips and service listings in English and Spanish.
- Q&A:
- Chair Hartman asked about wind conditions. Saucedo noted expectations for "sundowner" winds, particularly on Wednesday, focused between Point Conception and San Marcos Pass, but no extreme wind conditions were forecast.
- Chair Hartman asked about Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) announcements and ReadySBC registration rates. Ynairis Muniz, OEM, stated that approximately 14% of the county is signed up for ReadySBC alerts.
- Chair Hartman encouraged the public to sign up for alerts, noting the importance of emergency communication.
- Decision: No action taken; informational report.
Clerk’s Announcements
- Item: Public participation guidelines.
- Discussion: The Clerk reminded the public of updated methods for providing public comment, including in-person attendance in Santa Barbara or Santa Maria chambers and virtual participation via Zoom. The board noted that face coverings are no longer required indoors, though the Public Health Department encourages masking in crowded areas. Special accommodations should be requested by the Friday prior to the meeting. Verbal public comment is limited to three minutes per person.
Administrative Agenda
- Item A5: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Update
- Discussion: Supervisor Nielsen requested the item be pulled for discussion. He noted that while the item involves an annual adjustment of affordable housing in-lieu fees, it is not an approval of the inclusionary housing element itself, which will be addressed in the upcoming housing element update. He raised questions about the impact of inclusionary housing fees on overall housing supply and development costs. Supervisor Williams commented on the potential benefits of inclusionary housing and suggested a data-driven review of target income levels (e.g., 160–200% of Area Median Income) in the future.
- Item A15: Non-Congregate Isolation Sheltering Agreement
- Discussion: Supervisor Nielsen raised concerns about the budget allocation for fiscal year 2022–23 being higher than 2021–22, despite the transition from pandemic to endemic conditions. He urged staff to review ARPA-funded expenditures for sustainability and potential recapture. Chair Hartman asked if the model would be used for other infectious diseases. The CEO’s representative confirmed the model is used for other diseases on a case-by-case basis but is currently being reviewed for transition. The CEO stated that a report on ARPA expenditures is expected in September or October.
- Item A17: Satellite Tracking Contract Extension
- Discussion: Supervisor Hart asked about participation numbers and violations. Lieutenant Salmada of the Sheriff’s Office reported 72 offenders currently in the program (65 on electronic monitoring, 7 in the work alternative program). Violations are rare (2–5 per year). The contract is for four years, not to exceed $900,000. Participation has declined due to lower jail populations and the cancellation of E4. Starting July 1, the Probation Department will take over monitoring, freeing up Sheriff’s staff to recruit more participants. Supervisor Nelson asked about pretrial electronic monitoring; Chief Hartman clarified that pretrial GPS is at the court’s discretion and is used for specific safety concerns, such as domestic violence cases. Supervisor Williams expressed support for the program as a fiscal and public safety strategy. Supervisor Hart requested quarterly reports on program progress.
- Bulk Administrative Agenda Vote
- Motion: A motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda (including items A5, A15, and A17) was made and seconded.
- Decision: The administrative agenda was adopted.
Item 18: National Preparedness Month Resolution
- Item: Adoption of a resolution proclaiming September 2022 as National Preparedness Month.
- Discussion: The resolution was read into the record. Stacey Silva and Ynairis Moniz from OEM presented preparedness resources, emphasizing the importance of registering for ReadySBC alerts, creating personal emergency plans (the "Six P's"), and building disaster kits using available household items. They highlighted resources for individuals with disabilities and functional needs.
- Decision: The resolution was passed and adopted.
General Public Comment
- Comment: One member of the public, Gretchen Murray, spoke regarding CDC revisions to COVID-19 guidelines. She noted that some county entities, including Santa Barbara City College, still require vaccination for entry, causing enrollment drops. She requested that the board direct Public Health to align with new CDC guidelines.
- Response: The CEO’s representative noted that the county follows State Department of Public Health guidelines, which differ from CDC guidelines. Staff offered to follow up with the commenter regarding options.
Departmental Item 1: Elected Department Head Salaries
- Item: Hearing to consider recommendations regarding elected department head salaries and parity among attorney department heads.
- Presentation: Maria Elena de Guevara, HR Director, presented the history of wage structures for elected department heads, noting that the current resolution tying increases to the "comp pool" is no longer applicable because the comp pool structure was eliminated in December 2021. She presented seven options for the board’s consideration, ranging from a 2.5% general increase to market-based adjustments or no action. She also addressed the parity issue among the District Attorney, Public Defender, and County Counsel, noting current salary gaps and the lack of legal authority for retroactive pay.
- Q&A:
- Supervisor Nielsen asked about past salary surveys mandated by a 2016 resolution. Staff indicated records would need to be reviewed.
- Supervisor Williams asked for comparison with general employee wage increases. Staff noted non-safety groups received 2.5% and safety groups 3% in 2022.
- The County Counsel confirmed that retroactive salary increases are generally prohibited by the California Constitution, with no applicable exceptions in this case.
- Supervisor Nelson asked about merit increases for appointed department heads. The CEO confirmed that 2.5% performance-based increases were granted to all satisfactory or better appointed department heads.
- Public Comment: The District Attorney, Joyce Dudley, spoke in favor of parity, stating that the current salary disparity between her office and the Public Defender and County Counsel is significant and unwarranted given her responsibilities, experience, and tenure. She requested a 5% raise to match the increase given to appointed department heads.
- Board Discussion:
- Supervisor Nielsen expressed support for Option 1 (2.5% general increase plus 2.5% commensurate pay) as a short-term solution, while advocating for a long-term strategy (Option 3) to establish a clear, non-politicized compensation structure for elected officials.
- Supervisor Williams questioned the public purpose of large increases for elected officials, noting that general employees receive 2.5%. She suggested tying increases to employee wages or board salaries (CPI) rather than appointed department head increases.
- Supervisor Hart agreed with Supervisor Williams, arguing that elected positions are public service roles and do not face the same market pressures as appointed positions.
- Supervisor Lavenino focused on the parity issue, suggesting a 2.5% increase for all elected department heads, with an additional adjustment for the District Attorney to bring her salary closer to the County Counsel’s level (approximately 3.4% total increase for the DA).
- Chair Hartman expressed support for Option 2, which provides parity between elected and appointed department heads, citing the need to attract and retain qualified candidates. She emphasized the importance of a unified "one county" approach.
- Motions and Votes:
- Supervisor Williams moved for a 2.5% increase for all elected department heads for the current year; Supervisor Lavagnino seconded. The Board voted on this motion, and it failed.
- Supervisor Nelson moved for a 2.5% general wage increase for the Auditor-Controller, Clerk-Recorder-Assessor, Sheriff, and Treasurer-Tax Collector, and a 3.5% general wage increase for the District Attorney. Chair Hartman seconded. The Board voted on this motion, and it passed 4-1.
- Long-Term Policy Discussion:
- The Board discussed the need for a long-term policy to avoid annual negotiations, with suggestions including tying increases to CPI or conducting salary surveys. Supervisor Nelson expressed a preference for a data-driven, long-term solution involving salary surveys to ensure retention and fairness, noting that the current measure is a one-year stopgap. The Board agreed to continue the discussion on long-term policy before June of the following year.
- Resolution Adoption:
- County Council and HR staff prepared a resolution reflecting the conceptual direction approved by the Board. The Clerk of the Board read the required Brown Act announcement summarizing the recommended salaries, effective September 5, 2022:
- District Attorney: ~$257,406 (3.5% increase)
- Sheriff: ~$248,930 (2.5% increase)
- Auditor-Controller: ~$235,256 (2.5% increase)
- Treasurer-Tax Collector: ~$233,829 (2.5% increase)
- Clerk-Recorder-Assessor: ~$232,829 (2.5% increase)
- Supervisor Nelson moved to adopt the resolution; Chair Hartman seconded. The Board voted on the motion to adopt the resolution, and it passed 4-1.
Passed 4–1 · against: Hartmann
Departmental Item 2: FY 2021-2022 Fourth Quarter Budget Status Report and Cannabis Taxation Compliance and Enforcement Update
- Item: Fourth-quarter financial report for the General Fund and cannabis program update.
- Discussion:
- Staff presented the fourth-quarter financial report for the General Fund, which ended with a net positive variance of $22.4 million, exceeding the third-quarter projection by $8.9 million. General revenues came in over budget by $16.2 million, driven by higher-than-expected revenues from TOT, property taxes, property transfer taxes, and sales taxes. Cannabis tax revenue ended the year under budget by $10.3 million. Staff noted that four General Fund departments experienced salary and benefit savings due to staffing vacancies. The Sheriff’s department balanced its budget using $438,000 in Prop 172 funds to cover overtime costs.
- Staff outlined upcoming financial commitments for FY 2023-2024, including estimated pension cost increases of $6–8 million, a $5 million litigation reserve, $3 million in cash advances for debt-funded capital projects, $2.5 million for capital project cost inflation, and $2.2 million for partially funded one-time projects.
- Regarding the cannabis program, staff reported that $2.4 million in taxes were recorded in the fourth quarter. The Sheriff’s department conducted six enforcement actions, confiscating 1,701 plants and nine pounds of cannabis product. Nineteen new cannabis business licenses were issued, bringing the cumulative total to 55. In the unincorporated inland area, cultivation acreage has exceeded the cap, with five operators on a waiting list. In the Carpinteria area, approximately 20 acres remain available under the cap. All six legal non-conforming operators in the inland area ceased operations by the June 30, 2022 sunset date.
- Public Comment: Mark Shatillo of the Coalition for Responsible Cannabis requested that the county focus on compliance tools, such as odor source identification, and suggested a community advisory committee for odor control. He also urged the Board to consider the long-term impact of cannabis on the agricultural economy.
- Q&A:
- Supervisor Williams asked about demolition costs for master plan projects and the need for spectral imaging cameras for leak detection. Staff indicated these items would be considered in the December budget policy discussion.
- Supervisor Nelson inquired about operational acreage in the inland area; staff stated approximately 500 acres are state-licensed and assumed to be cultivated, with some operators not currently growing.
- Motion: Supervisor Lavagnino moved to receive and file the report and make the CEQA determination that the item is not a project; Supervisor Nelson seconded.
- Decision: The Board voted on the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Departmental Item 3: Matkins Parcel Map, General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Map Amendment
- Item: Approval of a tentative parcel map, general plan amendment, and zoning map amendment for a 3.36-acre parcel in the inland area of Montecito.
- Discussion:
- Staff presented a proposal to subdivide the parcel into three lots (1 acre, 1 acre, and 1.36 acres), change the land use designation from SRR 0.5 to SRR 1.0, and change the zoning from 2E1 to 1E1. Staff recommended approval, noting the project is consistent with the Montecito Community Plan and that the previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Montecito Community Plan is sufficient for environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
- The Board called for ex parte communications. Supervisor Williams reported conversations with a neighbor and the applicant’s advocate. Supervisor Hart reported a conversation with the applicant and advocate.
- The Clerk of the Board noted two late public comments from Dean Given that required a vote to be added to the record. Supervisor Williams moved to add them to the record; Supervisor Nelson seconded. The Board voted on the motion, and it passed unanimously.
- Public Comment:
- Scott Soulage, representing neighbors who supported the development, requested that power lines be buried as a condition of approval to reduce fire risk and improve access.
- Steve Boddy, a neighbor, supported the development but requested that an informal trail easement be preserved for access to Westmont College and hiking trails.
- Applicant Response: Charles Landy, the applicant’s representative, stated that the applicant would consider the trail access request during specific lot planning but noted that undergrounding utilities is an expensive proposition. Staff clarified that existing conditions require undergrounding of onsite utilities but do not require applicants to underground offsite utilities. Staff also noted there is no recorded trail easement on the property, though an unofficial pathway exists.
- Motion: Supervisor Williams moved to approve the tentative parcel map, general plan amendment, and zoning map amendment as recommended by staff; Supervisor Nelson seconded.
- Decision: The Board voted on the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Closed Session
- The Board met in closed session to discuss five items: two existing litigation cases (County of Santa Barbara v. Rosser and SJ Amoroso Construction Company v. County of Santa Barbara), one anticipated litigation case, one public employee performance evaluation, and one conference with labor negotiators.
- Upon reconvening, County Council reported that the Board authorized the filing of a cross-complaint in the SJ Amoroso Construction Company case, with a unanimous vote. The Board also voted unanimously to initiate litigation against the Regents of the University of California regarding UCSB’s failure to comply with housing obligations under the 2010 UCSB Long-Range Development Plan Mitigation Implementation and Settlement Agreement.
Agenda Item: UCSB Long Range Development Plan Mitigation Implementation and Settlement Agreement
- Discussion: A statement was read on behalf of the board regarding the 2010–2025 University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) Long Range Development Plan Mitigation Implementation and Settlement Agreement. The statement noted that the agreement, signed by the UC Regents, allowed UCSB to grow from 20,000 to 25,000 students contingent on constructing on-campus housing. It stated that the County of Santa Barbara asserts UCSB has failed to construct the required housing beds and has not provided a timeline for completion prior to the agreement’s expiration in 2025. The statement concluded that litigation was pursued to compel UCSB to fulfill its obligations.
- Decision: No specific motion, second, or vote outcome is recorded in this transcript segment.
Adjournment
- The meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, September 13th, in Santa Barbara.