Board of Supervisors — 2023-04-04

Racial Equity Grant Program

• The Board considered recommendations for award disbursements from the Community Services Department.
• Public commenters supported the participatory grant-making process and requested information on funds retained for internal programs.
• The Board approved the item.

Home Program Loan Documents

• The Board reviewed loan documents for rehabilitation work on a single-family residence in Santa Maria.
• Supervisor Rodriguez abstained due to the lack of completed neighborhood outreach, though he acknowledged the correct direction.
• The Board approved the item with one abstention.

Flood Control Emergency Response

• The Board reviewed a report on emergency response actions following recent flooding and storms.
• Supervisor Lavenino praised the responsiveness of Public Works and Flood Control teams, particularly in the Guadalupe area.
• The Board approved the continuation of emergency actions with a unanimous vote.

National Poetry Month Resolution

• The Board adopted a resolution proclaiming April 2023 as National Poetry Month.
• Youth Poet Laureate Madeline Miller and Poetry Out Loud winner Lucas Chuen provided public comment.
• The resolution was adopted.

Donate Life Month Resolution

• The Board adopted a resolution proclaiming April 2023 as Donate Life Month.
• Speakers highlighted a 25% increase in organ donation in Southern California over the last two years.
• The resolution was adopted.

National Crime Victims' Rights Week Resolution

• The Board adopted a resolution proclaiming the week of April 23–29 as National Crime Victims' Rights Week.
• The District Attorney and victim advocates spoke in support of the resolution.
• Supervisor Capps noted the connection between victim rights and racial equity.

Week of the Young Child Resolution

• The Board adopted a resolution proclaiming the week of April 1–7 as Week of the Young Child.
• A representative from Children’s Resource and Referral highlighted the challenges faced by early childhood professionals.
• The resolution was adopted.

Healthy People, Healthy Trails Month Resolution

• The Board adopted a resolution proclaiming April 2023 as Healthy People, Healthy Trails Month.
• Speakers emphasized the physical and mental health benefits of access to nature and trails.
• The resolution was adopted.

Commendation for Dinah Perez Lockhart

• The Board adopted a resolution of commendation honoring Dinah Perez Lockhart for over 30 years of service.
• The Community Services Department Director and the honoree spoke in support of the resolution.
• The resolution was adopted.

Employee of the Month Resolution

• The Board adopted a resolution honoring Teresa Curto as the April 2023 Employee of the Month.
• The honoree and a colleague spoke in support of the resolution.
• The resolution was adopted.

Tenant Evictions and Housing Stability

• Public commenters described the impact of mass evictions and "renovictions" on low-income residents and students.
• Speakers requested legal action, including an urgency ordinance to strengthen just-cause eviction protections.
• Staff confirmed the county has an existing relocation ordinance and a contract with Legal Aid for fair housing outreach.
• No motions were made or votes taken during this segment.

Auditor-Controller’s Office Waiver

• The Board considered a waiver and extra help service for a retired payroll employee to address capacity gaps.
• Supervisor Rodriguez expressed concern about the frequency of such requests, while the CEO noted the volume was unusual.
• The Board approved the waiver.

Behavioral Wellness Department Waiver

• The Board considered a waiver for a long-term care therapist who is the sole expert on specific conservatorship cases.
• Staff explained the need for her return to provide training and ensure continuity of court relationships.
• The Board approved the waiver.

Fire Department Waiver

• The Board considered a waiver for an employee managing disaster recovery filings and federal grants.
• Staff stated the employee’s return is necessary to train her successor due to short notice of retirement.
• The Board approved the waiver.

Public Health Department Waiver

• The Board considered a waiver for a former CFO with 30 years of service.
• Staff indicated her return is needed to transfer institutional knowledge regarding program finances and grants.
• The Board approved the waiver.

Treasurer-Tax Collector Continuation

• The Board moved to continue the item to the May 9, 2023, agenda.
• The motion to continue the item passed.

Treasurer-Tax Collector Waiver (Northrop)

• The Board considered a waiver for an LPS investigator in the Public Guardian division.
• Staff explained the division is small and currently staffed by new employees who require training.
• The Board approved the waiver.

Treasurer-Tax Collector Waiver (Urich)

• The Board considered a waiver for another longtime employee in the Public Guardian division.
• Staff noted the same staffing constraints and training needs as the previous item.
• The Board approved the waiver.

Human Resources Department Waiver

• The Board considered a waiver to rehire a retired Employee Relations Division Chief.
• Staff stated this is necessary to close out labor negotiations and assist with the Workday ERP implementation.
• The Board approved the waiver.

Ambulance Services RFP and Contract Negotiation

• Staff recommended authorizing the Public Health Department to negotiate an exclusive contract with American Medical Response (AMR).
• Public commenters were divided, with some supporting AMR's innovations and others advocating for a non-exclusive model with County Fire.
• The Board discussed the risks of switching models and the benefits of local accountability and system integration.
• The Board voted to let the current exclusive agreement expire and enter a non-exclusive ambulance arrangement.

Housing Element Update Status

• Staff presented an update on the Housing Element Update, noting the submission to the state for a 90-day review.
• The update includes 19 new sites that could accommodate approximately 2,151 units and updates to programs for rental housing and ADUs.
• Supervisors discussed the complexity of agricultural land guidelines and the impact of UCSB housing on local communities.
• The Board received and filed the item.

Housing Element Update (Continued)

• Staff explained that the county intentionally identified more sites than necessary to provide choice within the Environmental Impact Report process.
• Supervisors discussed the "no net loss" requirement and the need to prioritize workforce housing in final site cuts.
• Public commenters addressed concerns regarding infrastructure, agricultural land conversion, and the need for affordable housing.
• The Board passed a motion to receive and file the item.

Highway 101 Widening Project Appeal

• Staff presented the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval for the Highway 101 Widening Segment 4D project.
• Appellants raised concerns regarding the removal of sound walls, noise impacts, and the application of the FEMA recovery map.
• Caltrans representatives explained that sound walls were removed because they would increase base flood elevations, violating flood control standards.
• The Board denied the appeal and upheld the approval of the project, adding conditions for landscaping and a chain-link fence.

Closed Session

• The Board entered closed session to discuss two items of existing litigation.
• Staff reported that the Board took no reportable action during the closed session.

Meeting Opening and Roll Call

• The April 4, 2023, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. Roll call confirmed all supervisors were present, and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Minutes Approval

• March 21, 2023 Minutes: A motion to approve the minutes was made and seconded. The motion passed.
• Amendment to January 24, 2023 Minutes: A motion to approve an amendment to the January 24, 2023, minutes was made and seconded. The motion passed.

CEO’s Report and Announcements

• The CEO’s report noted no items for the morning session. The Clerk of the Board provided the following announcements:
• An addendum posted on March 31, 2023, amended the agenda to add Departmental Item 11 (Human Resources Department hearing regarding an extra help service and retirement waiver). Staff requested that Item 11 be heard prior to Departmental Item 8.
• Two continuation requests were received:
• Departmental Item 5 (Public Health Department hearing regarding an extra help service and retirement waiver) was continued to the May 9, 2023, agenda.
• Administrative Item 3 (Behavioral Wellness Department agreement with Idea Engineering, Inc.) was continued to the May 2, 2023, agenda.
• Information regarding public participation methods and Zoom registration for verbal public comment was provided.

Personnel Announcement

• Supervisor Hartman announced that Jefferson Linton, the 3rd District Chief of Staff, is departing after the meeting to serve as the manager of the sustainability program for the City of Santa Barbara.

Consent Agenda

• Items A5, A6, A13, and A22 were identified for consideration. Supervisor Rodriguez indicated he would not pull Item A13 from the consent agenda. A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the consent agenda. The motion passed.

Administrative Item 5: Racial Equity Grant Program

• Description: Consideration of recommendations regarding the County of Santa Barbara Racial Equity Grant Program award disbursement recommendations from the Community Services Department.
• Public Comment: Six members of the public spoke in support of the recommendations and the administration of the fund by the Fund for Santa Barbara. Commenters highlighted the participatory grant-making process, the impact on community organizations, and the need for continued and increased funding. Several commenters requested information regarding the portion of funds retained for internal county programs.
• Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. The motion passed.

Administrative Item 6: Home Program Loan Documents

• Description: Consideration of recommendations regarding the approval and execution of Home Program home loan documents with Good Samaritan Shelter for rehabilitation and improvement work to a single-family residence in the City of Santa Maria (4th District).
• Discussion: Supervisor Rodriguez stated he would abstain because the necessary neighborhood outreach had not yet occurred, though he acknowledged the direction was correct. Supervisor Lavenino asked if outreach was agreed upon and if Supervisor Rodriguez was comfortable moving forward. Supervisor Rodriguez reiterated his position that he could not vote for it without the outreach in place but understood the need to move forward.
• Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. The motion passed with one abstention.

Administrative Item 13

• Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item 22: Flood Control Emergency Response

• Description: Consideration of recommendations regarding a Public Works Director’s report on emergency response actions from the impacts of flooding and storms and continuation of emergency actions from the Public Works Department, Board of Directors Flood Control and Water Conservation District. A four-fifths vote was required.
• Discussion: Supervisor Lavenino thanked the Public Works and Flood Control teams for their responsiveness during recent storms, particularly in the Guadalupe area. He noted strategies to seek state and federal emergency permits for willow thinning and praised the calm demeanor and knowledge of staff during the emergency.
• Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item 49: National Poetry Month Resolution

• Description: Adoption of a resolution proclaiming April 2023 as National Poetry Month in Santa Barbara County, sponsored by Supervisor Williams. The resolution commended Madeline Miller (Youth Poet Laureate), Lucas Chuen (Poetry Out Loud winner), and Diane Peterson.
• Public Comment: Madeline Miller read a poem. Lucas Chuen recited "Invictus" by William Ernest Henley.
• Action: The resolution was adopted.

Administrative Item 50: Donate Life Month Resolution

• Description: Adoption of a resolution proclaiming April 2023 as Donate Life Month in Santa Barbara County, sponsored by Supervisor Capps.
• Public Comment: Scott Burns, a kidney recipient, and Tom Moen, External Affairs Officer for One Legacy Foundation, spoke in support of the resolution, noting a 25% increase in organ donation in Southern California over the last two years.
• Action: The resolution was adopted.

Administrative Item 51: National Crime Victims' Rights Week Resolution

• Description: Adoption of a resolution proclaiming the week of April 23–29, 2023, as National Crime Victims' Rights Week in Santa Barbara County, sponsored by Supervisor Capps.
• Public Comment: District Attorney John Savernock and Megan Rheinschild, Victim Witness Assistant Program Director, spoke in support of the resolution, highlighting the work of victim advocates and the importance of supporting victims. Supervisor Capps noted the connection between victim rights and racial equity, citing FBI statistics on hate crimes.
• Action: The resolution was adopted.

Administrative Item 52: Week of the Young Child Resolution

• Description: Adoption of a resolution proclaiming the week of April 1–7, 2023, as Week of the Young Child in Santa Barbara County, sponsored by Supervisors Capps and Hartman.
• Public Comment: Jackie Banta, Chief Operating Officer for Children’s Resource and Referral, spoke in support of the resolution, highlighting the challenges faced by early childhood education professionals during the pandemic and the benefits of quality early care.
• Action: The resolution was adopted.

Administrative Item 53: Healthy People, Healthy Trails Month Resolution

• Description: Adoption of a resolution proclaiming April 2023 as Healthy People, Healthy Trails Month in Santa Barbara County, sponsored by Supervisor Hartman.
• Public Comment: Mark Wilkinson of the Santa Barbara County Trails Council and Dr. Kristen Hughes, a pediatrician with the Santa Barbara Public Health Department, spoke in support of the resolution, emphasizing the physical and mental health benefits of access to nature and trails.
• Action: The resolution was adopted.

Administrative Item 54: Commendation for Dinah Perez Lockhart

• Description: Adoption of a resolution of commendation honoring Dinah Perez Lockhart upon her retirement from the Community Services Department after over 30 years of service, sponsored by Supervisor Hartman.
• Public Comment: George Chapjean, CSC Director, and Dinah Perez Lockhart spoke. Supervisor Hartman added comments regarding the team's work on homelessness initiatives.
• Action: The resolution was adopted.

Administrative Item 55: Employee of the Month Resolution

• Description: Adoption of a Resolution of Accommodation honoring Teresa Curto of the Clerk Recorder Assessor’s Office as the April 2023 Employee of the Month, sponsored by Supervisor Williams.
• Public Comment: Michael Daly and Teresa Curto spoke.
• Action: The resolution was adopted.

General Public Comment

• The Chair noted there were 38 speakers registered for general public comment and that time limits would be enforced due to the remaining agenda items. The first speaker, Joffrey Wheeler, began speaking regarding landlord documentation requirements for tenancy terminations for renovations. The Clerk of the Board cut off the speaker after one minute. The second speaker, Drea Moreno, was called to speak. The transcript ends before her comment is completed.

Public Comment: Tenant Evictions and Housing Stability

• Public comment was received regarding mass evictions in Isla Vista and other areas of Santa Barbara County, specifically concerning the "Core Spaces" property and the "Sweeps" complex. Speakers, including tenants, students, community organizers, and representatives from the NAACP, Isla Vista Community Services District, and Santa Barbara City College, described the impact of lease terminations and "renovictions" on families, students, and low-income residents. Speakers requested that the Board of Supervisors take legal action to protect tenants, including passing an urgency ordinance to strengthen just-cause eviction protections, updating County Code Chapter 44, and exploring a moratorium on mass evictions.
• Supervisor Capps asked County staff to outline legal options for the county and the District Attorney. County Council staff noted that eviction law is largely state-regulated but confirmed the county has an existing relocation ordinance (Chapter 44) and could potentially amend it, though ordinances operate prospectively. Staff confirmed coordination with the District Attorney regarding enforcement options, including administrative penalties and litigation. The CEO’s office stated that the county has a contract with Legal Aid for fair housing outreach and mediation. Supervisor Nelson asked for clarification on relocation benefits under Chapter 44; staff confirmed the benefit is the greater of three months’ fair market rent or $7,000. No motions were made or votes taken during this segment.

Departmental Item 1: Auditor-Controller’s Office – Extra Help Service and Retirement Waiver

• The Auditor-Controller’s office requested an extra help service and retirement waiver for Barbara Zamora, a retired payroll employee. Staff explained that two veteran payroll employees retired simultaneously, creating a gap in processing capacity and leave-of-absence pay services, particularly during the ERP implementation. Supervisor Rodriguez stated he would vote against the waiver, expressing concern about the frequency of such requests and the expectation that departments should adjust to retirements. Supervisor Capps asked the CEO if this volume of waivers was normal; the CEO stated it was unusual, largely due to employees retiring on March 31 to capture a higher cost-of-living adjustment, and noted that departments were advised to be judicious. Supervisor Capps indicated she would support the recommendation despite discomfort with the process. Supervisor Nelson noted the difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff and the statutory limits on these waivers.
• Motion: Move staff recommendation.
• Second: Seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Departmental Item 2: Behavioral Wellness Department – Extra Help Service and Retirement Waiver

• The Behavioral Wellness Department requested a waiver and extra help services for Leonora Kearney, a long-term care therapist. Staff explained that Kearney is the sole employee with expertise in handling Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorship cases and court testimony for approximately 130 clients. Her departure was sudden, and a replacement is being recruited but will initially work only four days a week. Kearney’s return is requested to provide training and ensure continuity of court relationships.
• Motion: Accept staff recommendation.
• Second: Seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Departmental Item 3: Fire Department – Extra Help Service and Retirement Waiver

• The Fire Department requested a waiver and extra help services for Sonia Thompson. Staff stated Thompson had very short notice of retirement and manages disaster recovery filings and federal grants. Her return is requested to train her successor, with recruitment closing that day.
• Motion: Move staff recommendation.
• Second: Seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Departmental Item 4: Public Health Department – Extra Help Service and Retirement Waiver

• The Public Health Department requested a waiver and extra help for Suzanne Jacobson, a former CFO with 30 years of service. Staff indicated that Jacobson’s return is needed to transfer institutional knowledge regarding program finances and grants to her successor.
• Motion: Move staff recommendation.
• Second: Seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Departmental Item 5: Treasurer-Tax Collector – Continuation

• Supervisor Rodriguez moved to continue Departmental Item 5 to May 9, 2023.
• Motion: Continue item to May 9, 2023.
• Second: Seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Departmental Item 6: Treasurer-Tax Collector/Public Administrator – Extra Help Service and Retirement Waiver

• The Treasurer-Tax Collector’s office requested a waiver for Lisa Northrop, an LPS investigator in the Public Guardian division. Staff explained the division is small (5.5 people) and currently staffed by new employees who require training. Northrop’s return is requested to assist with onboarding and prevent program failure.
• Motion: Move staff recommendation.
• Second: Seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Departmental Item 7: Treasurer-Tax Collector/Public Administrator – Extra Help Service and Retirement Waiver

• The Treasurer-Tax Collector’s office requested a waiver for Tara Urich, another longtime employee in the Public Guardian division. Staff noted the same staffing constraints and training needs as in the previous item.
• Motion: Move staff recommendation.
• Second: Seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Departmental Item 11: Human Resources Department – Extra Help Service and Retirement Waiver

• The Human Resources Department requested a waiver to rehire retired Employee Relations Division Chief Joe Pisano. Staff stated this is necessary to close out negotiations with one of the county’s labor groups and to assist with the implementation of the Workday ERP system.
• Motion: Move staff recommendation.
• Second: Seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Departmental Item 8: Public Health Department – Ambulance Request for Proposal Update

• The Board took up Departmental Item 8 regarding the ambulance request for proposal (RFP) update. Supervisor Nelson noted that due to ex parte communication rules, the CEO would not participate in this discussion. The Board requested a report on ex parte communications since the last round. Supervisor Lavagnino stated he had met with no one. Supervisor Nelson stated he had met with AMR, fire chiefs, and rank-and-file firefighters since the RFP process closed, including meetings on March 22 and March 3.

Agenda Item: Ambulance Services RFP and Contract Negotiation

Staff Presentation and Recommendations

• Staff presented the results of the Request for Proposal (RFP) process for ambulance services, which began in October 2019 and concluded with two responses: American Medical Response (AMR) and County Fire. An independent third-party consultant, Fitch and Associates, managed the process, and a panel of five reviewers scored the proposals. AMR received a score of 2,077.75, while County Fire received a score of 1,760. County Fire filed a protest and a subsequent appeal, both of which were denied.
• Staff recommended that the Board authorize the Public Health Department to negotiate an exclusive contract with AMR, the winning bidder. Staff outlined the benefits of the AMR proposal, including a dedicated behavioral health transport system, a yearly subscription for air transport, enhanced inter-facility transport, 34 new ambulances, and the placement of 10 AEDs in public areas.
• Staff also presented alternative options in case the Board declined to proceed with the RFP award: 1. Start a new competitive procurement process: Estimated to take 12–18 months and incur additional costs for consultants and assessments. 2. Update the current exclusive grandfathered agreement with AMR: Maintains the status quo of three zones (one exclusive AMR zone, one non-exclusive zone, and one exclusive fire zone). 3. Let the current exclusive agreement expire and enter a non-exclusive arrangement: Staff noted concerns regarding loss of leverage for compliance, potential inequities in rural areas, and the lack of robust statewide examples of successful multi-provider non-exclusive systems. 4. Explore other options: Including the "Tualumni model" where the public health department acts as the provider.
• Staff emphasized that the current agreement expires within one year and requested that if the Board chooses an option other than negotiating with AMR, they also consider extending the current contract to prevent service disruption.

Medical Director Input

• Dr. Shepard, Medical Director for Santa Barbara County EMS Agency, stated that the current system is high-performing and that the risk of switching to a non-exclusive model does not justify scrapping the existing system. He noted that an exclusive model allows the Board to set standards of care and impose penalties for non-compliance.

Public Comment

• Public comment was opened, with speakers divided on the preferred outcome:
• Support for AMR/Current RFP Outcome:
• Shelly Huddleston (IAFP Santa Barbara Local 70) urged the Board to vote in support of AMR, citing their 20-year history and commitment to patient care.
• Dave Sherman (Director of Operations, AMR) stated that awarding the RFP is the only option to accomplish system improvements and avoid delaying critical upgrades.
• Mike Sanders (Regional Director, AMR) highlighted AMR’s 50-year history in the county and the innovations included in their proposal, such as nurse navigation and telemedicine.
• Brad Moore (Paramedic) expressed support for AMR’s proposal and opposition to a fire takeover.
• Support for County Fire/Non-Exclusive Model:
• Susan Petrovich argued that local fire departments have a response time advantage and that residents should not pay high fees to a non-local for-profit company.
• Carlos Escobedo (City Council Representative, Santa Maria) supported giving the contract to the Santa Barbara County Fire Department.
• Jonathan Abboud argued against a profit motive in life-saving services and supported the fire district.
• Terry Bailey shared a personal experience regarding high ambulance costs and lack of communication from AMR, stating that the consumer is being hurt.
• Leigh Beardsmore (Eucalyptus Hill Improvement Association) urged the Board to reject the AMR recommendation and vote for Option 3 (non-exclusive arrangement).
• Gordon Seakey supported the Fire Department assuming ambulance services to save money and improve service, citing a letter from his son, an ER doctor.
• Daryll Scheck (SEIU Local 620) urged the Board to choose the local fire department over a private corporation controlled by hedge funds, citing concerns about wages and corporate consolidation.
• Louie Farah (Lompoc Firefighters Association) cited increased call volumes in Lompoc and long wait times for AMR ambulances, urging the Board to award the contract to County Fire.
• Leon Olsen supported the fire proposal, noting that fire stations are strategically located and that integrating dispatch and transport would improve accountability.
• Kevin Taylor (Retired Montecito Fire Chief) represented the Santa Barbara County fire chiefs, urging the Board to cancel the RFP and enter a non-exclusive arrangement with an updated ambulance ordinance.
• Greg Fish (Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District Chief) articulated the benefits of a non-exclusive system, including more ambulances and lower response times.
• David Neils (Montecito Fire Protection District Chief) supported a regional fire-based ambulance transport model, citing interagency partnerships and experience.
• Brian Fallon (Lompoc Fire Chief) noted that Lompoc currently relies on County Fire Medic Ambulance 34 due to gaps in service from the primary provider.
• Brad Dandridge (Interim Santa Maria Fire Chief) supported the fire chiefs’ proposal for a service-first model.
• Chris Mayles (Santa Barbara City Fire Chief and President of the County Fire Chiefs Association) highlighted the upcoming Regional Fire Communications Center and the benefits of a fire-based transport system.
• Brian Fernandez (Fire Captain/Paramedic, Santa Barbara County Fire Department) spoke on behalf of United Firefighters, emphasizing teamwork and commitment to community safety.
• Randy Rouse (Mayor of Santa Barbara) supported coordinated ambulance services with firefighters.
• Mark Ingalls supported the fire department model, noting that it would keep revenue in the community without taxpayer subsidies.
• Brian Borgatello (President, Marburg Industries) pledged support for transferring management to the County of Santa Barbara.
• Gary Giordano urged the Board to choose the County Fire Department for a unified emergency response system.

Board Deliberation

• Supervisor Rodriguez requested to hear from Chief Hartwig regarding how an ambulance ordinance might work if the Board proceeded with the non-exclusive route.

Agenda Item: Ambulance Service Contract and Deployment Plan (Continued)

Discussion

• Staff provided background on the development of the deployment plan, noting that it was created after unsuccessful attempts to secure private partners through two Requests for Proposals (RFPs). Staff explained that the plan supports a non-exclusive service model with multiple providers, supported by financial analysis indicating the system can sustain two permit holders. Staff described a priority-based dispatch system that triages calls to ensure resources are available for Priority 1 emergencies, contrasting this with current aggregate reporting methods.
• Supervisors and staff discussed the implications of a non-exclusive environment, including:
• Service Continuity: Staff confirmed an eight-month ramp-up model is in place.
• Permit System: Staff outlined a proposed ordinance-based permit system that would not be strictly geographic, allowing for redundancy and integration of services. Staff noted financial sustainability concerns regarding more than two permit holders.
• Innovation and Integration: Staff emphasized the goal of integrating ambulance transport with emergency response and dispatch, citing examples of innovation from both the incumbent provider (AMR) and County Fire.
• Community Reinvestment: Staff detailed existing reinvestment mechanisms, including a System Enhancement Fund ($50,000/year) and proposals for an enterprise fund to reinvest revenue into units or community paramedic programs.
• RFP Scoring: Staff addressed questions regarding the RFP scoring process, stating that five independent reviewers evaluated the proposals and that the process followed standard procedures. Staff noted that if County Fire had been the winning bid, the recommendation would have been to negotiate with them.
• Hospital Concerns: Staff addressed hospital concerns regarding multiple providers, noting that a dedicated inter-facility transport fleet could address predictability issues.
• Supervisors expressed varying views on the RFP process, with some questioning the scoring methodology and others supporting a move toward a non-exclusive, integrated system to foster innovation and transparency. Several Supervisors highlighted the importance of local accountability, system integration, and the role of the new dispatch center.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: Supervisor Hartmann moved to adopt Recommended Actions A and C3, which include letting the current exclusive agreement expire, entering into a non-exclusive ambulance arrangement, developing an ordinance with a permit system, and moving LEMSA to the Fire Department.
• Second: Supervisor Nelson seconded the motion.
• Amendment/Addition: Staff suggested adding direction for staff to explore potential amendments to the county’s EMS plan and county code to implement the non-exclusive environment, including exploring moving LEMSA from Public Health to County Fire, and to return to the board with proposed amendments. The motion maker agreed to this addition.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item: Closed Session

Discussion

• The Board entered closed session to discuss two items of existing litigation: Anderson v. County of Santa Barbara and County of Santa Barbara v. Island View Ranch LLC.

Decision

• Upon reconvening, staff reported that the Board took no reportable action during the closed session.

Agenda Item: D9 – Housing Element Update Status and Next Steps

Discussion

• Staff presented an update on the recently submitted Housing Element Update, highlighting new parcels under consideration and explaining the next steps in the process. Key points included:
• Process Timeline: The 30-day public review period ended March 1. The document was submitted to the state (HCD) for a 90-day review. Staff is preparing a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Public comment hearings on the EIR are planned for late summer (one in North County, one in South County), followed by adoption hearings for the Housing Element and separate hearings for required rezones.
• Public Comments: Over 430 comments were received, covering a range of topics including support for agricultural land conversion, opposition to it, infrastructure, traffic, and water concerns.
• Program Updates:
• Added a new program to incentivize rental housing.
• Updated Program 5 to include studying long-term funding for affordable housing.
• Updated Program 10 to increase anticipated Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) production from 100 to 150 per year.
• Updated Program 16 to reduce governmental constraints, including amending the Montecito Growth Management Ordinance.
• New Sites: 19 new sites were identified, including county-owned sites (Cayo Real campus, Hollister, downtown Santa Barbara), sites in Isla Vista (adjacent to Friendship Manor), UCSB faculty/staff housing projects, sites in Eastern Goleta Valley (Montessori School, Tatum property, Baylord property), and sites in North County (Vandenberg Village, Orca). These sites could accommodate approximately 2,151 units.
• Secondary Sites List: Staff identified a local secondary list of properties that could potentially develop housing in the future, which would not be counted toward the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) but would demonstrate efforts to encourage development.
• Outreach: Staff reported meetings with various stakeholders, including cities, community groups, and the Grand Jury.
• Supervisors asked questions regarding:
• Agricultural Land: The complexity of HCD guidelines regarding infill development on agricultural land within urban cores.
• UCSB Housing: The impact of UCSB’s failure to build committed student housing on local communities and potential avenues for pressure or legislative requests to count student housing toward RHNA.
• Goleta Impact: Concerns about adding sites near Goleta and the process for selecting or eliminating sites during the rezone phase.
• Secondary Sites: Clarification on the purpose of the secondary sites list and how it relates to mixed-use development and state laws (AB 2011, SB 6).
• Staff responded by explaining that the broad range of sites provides options for the Board during the rezone process, that student housing counting rules have recently changed, and that the secondary sites list is intended to highlight potential future development opportunities without committing to them for the current RHNA cycle.

Agenda Item: Housing Element Update (Continued)

Discussion on Site Identification and Strategy

• Staff and Board members discussed the status of the "second sites list," noting that while the list is not 100% complete, it includes properties qualifying for specific housing provisions. Staff explained that the county is developing rules to facilitate housing on these existing developed sites, as the Housing and Community Development (HCD) department has rejected similar proposals in other jurisdictions. The goal is to move the housing element through certification while continuing efforts to redevelop these sites for mixed-use developments.
• Supervisor Capps inquired about the former QAD site in District 1, noting that the UC Regents own the property and have expressed interest in housing development. Staff confirmed they have spoken with the Regents' office, who are currently determining their proposal, which may include mixed uses.

Discussion on Unit Counts and Surplus

• Supervisor Capps asked for clarification on the unit numbers, noting the county appears to have approximately 7,000 units against a need of roughly 4,000. Staff clarified that the county intentionally identified more sites than necessary to provide choice and to fit within the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process. Staff explained that the EIR must analyze all possible options to allow the county to choose freely, but adding sites later could impact the EIR schedule.
• Staff directed the Board to Chapter 4 or Appendix D of the document, which contains tables breaking down unit surpluses by income category (lower, moderate, and above moderate) for North and South County. For the South Coast, staff cited a surplus of approximately 1,782 lower-income units, 1,001 moderate-income units, and 2,700 above-moderate-income units. Staff stated they are developing a calculator to model the impact of eliminating or shifting units from specific sites.
• Supervisor Capps emphasized that the process is an elimination process to match the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) plus a 15% buffer, rather than building all identified sites.

Discussion on Commercial Zones and No Net Loss

• Supervisor Nelson raised the issue of the QAD site, suggesting that housing should be allowed in all commercial zones to avoid non-conforming use issues if the site is rezoned for housing. Staff confirmed that overhauling commercial zones to increase flexibility is currently underway and will be an option for the Planning Commission and Board to consider.
• Supervisor Nelson asked for clarification on the "no net loss" requirement. Staff explained that state law requires jurisdictions to monitor sites counted toward the RHNA. If a site develops fewer units than anticipated, the county must find a replacement site and rezone it within 180 days if the total falls below the RHNA. Staff stated that the buffer for lower and moderate-income categories was built in to mitigate this risk.
• Supervisor Nelson suggested that when making final site cuts, the Board should consider the level of affordability and rental units proposed, prioritizing workforce housing.

Discussion on Adding Sites and Process Timeline

• Supervisor Rodriguez asked if sites could still be added to the list. Staff stated that the county has stopped accepting new sites to proceed with the programmatic document and environmental review, aiming to complete rezones by February 2024. Staff noted that while the Board has the prerogative to reopen the process, doing so would jeopardize the February 2024 deadline.
• Supervisor Rodriguez expressed support for the identified sites but emphasized the need for a streamlined process to allow for future additions or adjustments, citing the complexity and cost of the current county process. Supervisor Rodriguez suggested using the EIR as a "breathing document" to allow for additional sites and environmental reviews in the future.

Public Comment

• Sixteen public comments were received. Speakers addressed various topics including:
• Citizens Planning Association: Requested adequate staffing for long-range planning, genuine community engagement, and protection of agricultural parcels. They noted that short-term rentals have not been adequately addressed.
• Community Member (Sunita Beal): Advocated for more workforce housing, noting that current approved projects have low percentages of affordable housing. Suggested partnering with local entities like the Unified School District and UCSB for workforce housing.
• Green Building Representative (Amanda Martin-Bereapston): Encouraged the county to address resilience, carbon sequestration, and clean materials in the development process.
• Medical Physics Researcher (Crystal Smith): Opposed the rezoning of agricultural land, arguing it would exacerbate workforce housing needs by removing agricultural land and increasing market-rate units. Requested the removal of the 10,000 surplus units.
• Multifamily Developer (Autumn Gasparilla): Supported the draft housing element, citing the imbalance in housing supply and the need for affordable and workforce housing.
• Nonprofit Housing Developer (Ken Traguero): Supported the identification of as many sites as possible, noting that many identified sites may not develop or may underdevelop. Expressed support for looking at agricultural sites where viability is marginal.
• Local Teacher (Matthew Kostura): Expressed concern about the burden on schools, infrastructure, and the environment. Questioned how the state would subsidize the needs of new residents.
• Resident (Linda Honickman): Noted changes in neighborhood demographics and supported the need for affordable housing for local residents and workers.
• League of Women Voters (Pam Flint-Tambo): Supported the identification of additional sites, particularly county-owned sites, to ensure affordability. Expressed hope that important agricultural sites would be spared.
• Housing Authority Director (John Polanski): Stated that while "perfect" sites are gone, "very good" sites remain. Requested that the Board not pull projects proposed for rezone, emphasizing the need for mixed-income developments.
• Resident Representative (Matthew Lancaster): Raised concerns about environmental impacts, infrastructure capacity (schools, traffic), and the influence of monetary interests in zoning decisions.
• Firefighter (Brian Fernandez): Highlighted the critical need for workforce housing for first responders, noting that over 40% of county firefighters cannot live in the county they serve.

Board Discussion Post-Comment

• Supervisor Hartmann suggested that if additional options arise before the rezone phase, the programmatic EIR might allow for their inclusion without significant delay. Staff noted the challenge of meeting the February 2024 deadline and the consequences of missing it, including the loss of affordable housing grants.
• Supervisor Lavagnino asked how many sites were actually built based on the last housing element. Staff reported that the county met every category except very low income, which resulted in the county being subject to SB 35 projects.
• Supervisor Rodriguez asked about the formula used to allocate units to income categories. Staff explained that for rezones, a formula is applied: 50% to lower income, 25% to moderate income, and 25% to above moderate income. Staff noted that this formula is based on past development trends and state law, which allows sites zoned for 20+ units per acre to count toward lower income, but actual development often does not meet this threshold.
• Supervisor Rodriguez expressed a preference for accurate current calculations and flexibility to add sites later if the process is streamlined. Supervisor Nelson cautioned against overestimating what will be accomplished, emphasizing the need to produce enough moderate and low-income housing.

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made to receive and file the item. The motion was seconded. The vote was taken, and the motion passed.

Agenda Item: Highway 101 Widening Project Appeal (Departmental Item 10)

Housekeeping and Record

• Staff noted that several documents were received past the noon deadline on Friday and required a vote to be included in the record. These included public comments from Kathy and Bruce Milner, ex parte communications from the First District office, and a public comment letter from Tom Deardorff. A motion was made to include these documents in the public record. The motion was seconded. The vote was taken, and the motion passed.

Ex Parte Communications

• Supervisor Capps reported speaking with resident Paul Didier about the topic generally. Supervisor Nelson reported a Zoom meeting with Scott Spiegel on March 23 and a call with Susan Petrovich on April 3. Supervisor Nelson also reported meeting with the applicant multiple times, most recently the day before the meeting, to discuss language raised by the appellants.

Staff Introduction

• Staff introduced Nicole Liu, Supervisor, and Chris Schmuckel, Planner, who would be providing the presentation on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s December 14, 2022, approval of the Highway 101 Widening Project Segment 4D.

Agenda Item: Smigel & McKenzie Appeal of the Highway 101 Widening Segment 4D Project

Staff Presentation

• Chris Schmuckel, the project planner, presented the Highway 101 Widening Segment 4D Project, a 1.4-mile section from east of the Romero Creek Bridge to the Olive Mill Road overpass. The project aims to increase roadway capacity and reduce peak-hour travel times by adding part-time continuous access high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in both directions, operating during peak periods (6–9 a.m. and 3–6 p.m., Monday–Friday). The project also includes replacing pavement with 40-year long-life concrete, improving drainage, signage, lighting, and barriers, and replacing bridges over San Ysidro Creek, Romero Creek, and Oak Creek. All work is proposed within the Caltrans right-of-way.
• Schmuckel addressed four appeal issues raised by Mr. Smigel: 1. EIR Sufficiency: Staff stated the revised EIR and addenda adequately address the removal of sound walls, with the February 2020 addendum identifying no new significant environmental impacts. 2. Flood Control Requirements: Staff explained that sound walls were removed because all designs including them resulted in increased base flood elevations, violating County Flood Control standards and FEMA National Flood Insurance Program regulations. The 2018 FEMA recovery map remains in effect. 3. Timing of Sound Wall Condition: Staff noted that Condition No. 26 requires Caltrans to coordinate with the County six months after receiving full funding to determine if a new FEMA effective map has been adopted and if sound walls are feasible. If feasible, the applicant must submit an application to include them. 4. Recovery Map Application: Staff asserted the recovery map is applied consistently to all projects in the area, which has unique hydrologic and geologic conditions prone to flooding, as evidenced by the 2018 debris flow and January 2023 storm.
• Schmuckel then addressed four appeal issues raised by Mr. McKenzie: 5. Recovery Map Applicability and Public Health: Staff stated the map was appropriately applied and that omitting sound walls supports public health and safety by preventing impediments to floodwater flow. 6. Noise and Air Pollution: Staff cited EIR findings that the project has no significant adverse impact on noise or air quality. The project reduces congestion, and noise levels will increase by a maximum of 3 decibels at receptor sites, which is below the threshold for significant impact given existing levels exceed 65 decibels. 7. Requirement to Eliminate Sound Walls: Staff stated the project does not include sound walls and is not required to include them under the Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance. 8. Comparison to Carpinteria Segment: Staff explained that the Carpinteria area has different hydrogeologic conditions, concrete-lined channels with greater flood capacity, and access to the Santa Monica Debris Basin, unlike the Montecito area.
• Staff recommended that the Board deny appeals case numbers 23-APL1 and 23-APL2, make required findings to approve the project including CEQA findings, determine that a subsequent EIR is not required, and approve project case number 21-DPP-2221/CDP-76 subject to conditions of approval.

Appellant Presentation

• Scott Smigel, one of the appellants, stated that the environmental review is insufficient regarding noise impacts, arguing that existing levels already exceed 65 decibels and the project worsens them. He contended that the FEMA recovery map is overly conservative and that the conditions attached to the Planning Commission’s approval regarding sound walls are tentative and insufficient. He requested a condition guaranteeing the construction of sound walls once the County determines they are feasible.
• Susan Petrovic, speaking on behalf of Bruce and Louise McKenzie, described the impact of the January flood on their home and the neighborhood. She noted that residents are impacted by noise, air quality, and lack of flood control. She requested that the Board set aside money for future sound walls, require foundations for sound walls to be installed now, install a substantial barrier on the north side of the freeway to prevent vehicles from running off, and enforce strict revegetation conditions. She also advocated for fixing the "dogleg" in San Ysidro Creek as part of the project and removing recently installed K-rails on North Jameson Lane.

Applicant Presentation

• Fred Luna of SBKEG presented background on the Highway 101 corridor project, noting that the Montecito segment is the most constrained. He outlined the construction timeline, targeting a start in June, and explained that the project team has addressed appellant concerns regarding noise abatement, FEMA mapping, and air quality. Luna highlighted noise abatement strategies, including 40-year continuously reinforced concrete pavement and next-generation grinding technology, which have shown a 3–5 decibel decrease in noise in other segments. He also noted that the federal protocol allows for compensation to 15 property owners with existing noise levels of 75 decibels or more, a process already underway.
• Joe Irwin of Caltrans detailed the seven-step federal process for evaluating sound walls. He explained that hydraulic analysis showed all four originally proposed sound walls would contribute to a rise in floodwaters and would not be permittable under the County’s adopted recovery mapping. The team evaluated five alternative options (including staggered walls, breakaway walls, and floodgates), but none met both flood control and freeway safety standards. Irwin stated that the project team has designed enhanced foundations under new retaining walls to accommodate future sound walls if they become permittable. He also noted that Caltrans has agreed to partner with County Flood Control on a watershed-wide analysis for the Montecito area. Regarding air quality, Irwin cited EIR findings of no significant impact and noted California’s move toward electric vehicles by 2035.

Public Comment

• Thirteen members of the public provided comments:
• Sharon Burn (Montecito Association): Expressed shock at the removal of sound walls and requested a specific plan for their future inclusion. She encouraged the adoption of the new FEMA map and the creation of a geologic hazard abatement district.
• William Babbitt (Montecito Association): Supported the inclusion of sound walls now or in the future via foundations and questioned why staggered sound wall solutions were not considered.
• Paige Robinson: Questioned why her property is in a flood zone given its elevation and lack of recent flooding. She requested a review of specific segments to verify flood risk.
• Gary Bradhering: Stated that the promise of sound walls influenced his home purchase. He cited health hazards from noise and pollution and urged the Board to reverse the removal of sound walls.
• Brett Kane: Reported increasing noise levels, including at night, and argued that chain-link fences with plantings are an insufficient substitute for sound walls.
• Tom Deardorff: Argued that Caltrans failed to present two alternatives as required by the State Highway Design Manual. He contended that the recovery map is not the appropriate standard and urged the Board to adopt a resolution to stop using it, citing new infrastructure improvements.
• Unidentified Speaker: Noted that noise has increased since the start of roundabout construction and that the wettest year on record has tested watershed infrastructure. They described the lack of sound walls as a lost opportunity to reduce noise in a tourism-heavy area.
• Sandra Peterson: Requested a sound wall on the other side of the Butterfly Beach underpass, citing noise from motorcycles and muscle cars and the removal of tree buffers.
• Ron Belucci (Former Montecito Planning Commission Chair): Stated that flood control is a more critical issue than the freeway, estimating the cost of necessary flood control work at $150–$250 million. He criticized the flood control model as inadequate and noted that the freeway is less critical than flood safety.

Rebuttal and Questions

• Scott Smigel rebutted, clarifying that he does not intend to eliminate the freeway project but is concerned about the timing conditions for sound walls. He requested assurance that footings are being constructed for all originally planned sound wall locations, not just under retaining walls. He asked the Board to review the conditions of approval to make them more accommodating regarding flood rise and health issues.
• Susan Petrovic, after technical difficulties, provided a brief rebuttal. She reiterated her question about foundations and raised concerns about air quality impacts from tire disintegration, particularly with electric vehicles, which she stated were not addressed in the EIR. She also raised concerns about the longevity of revegetation promises and agreed with the comment that flood control is a major issue.
• Chair Williams asked the applicant and County Flood Control staff several questions:
• New FEMA Map Timing: Jonathan Abboud of County Flood Control stated the new FEMA map is approximately two years out and is not yet the best available information. He confirmed it is less conservative than the recovery map but would not anticipate it eliminating flood rise.
• Alternative Wall Designs: Joe Irwin confirmed that staggered walls, breakaway walls, floodgates, and scuppers were studied but rejected because they either failed to meet sound attenuation requirements, introduced safety hazards, or still contributed to flood rise.
• Flood Rise Amount: Irwin confirmed the analysis showed a rise of 6 inches to 4 feet depending on the property.
• Noise Threshold: Irwin stated the 75-decibel threshold for compensation is a federal standard.
• Foundations: Irwin explained that footings are only installed under retaining walls because they are permanent features. In other locations, there is existing dirt and space between the freeway and frontage road where sound walls could be built in the future without pre-installed footings, as pre-installed footings would stick up and become impediments.

Agenda Item: Caltrans 101 Project Appeal and Landscaping Conditions

Discussion

• Landscaping and Irrigation: Caltrans representative Joe Irwin detailed the project’s landscaping plan, specifying a five-year plant establishment period during which the contractor is responsible for ensuring plant survival and replacing any dead plants. He noted that new irrigation systems will be installed to support watering beyond the five-year period, replacing existing broken infrastructure.
• Watershed Study and Partnership: Irwin stated that Caltrans is partnering with County Flood Control to conduct a watershed-wide study to identify optimal locations for flood control improvements. He explained that Caltrans and County Flood Control are collaborating to seek future funding for construction projects in both jurisdictions to address flooding issues affecting State Route 192 and 101.
• Sound Walls and Federal Process: In response to a question from Supervisor Hartman regarding sound walls, a Caltrans representative explained that the project follows a seven-step federal process for sound wall eligibility. He noted that while proposed sound walls were discussed, all federal, state, and local requirements must be met, and specific caveats regarding flooding were not the initial focus of the sound wall discussions.
• K-Rail Fence and Flooding: Appellant William Babbitt (representing McKenzie) argued that the temporary K-Rail fence installed by Caltrans forces floodwaters into neighboring properties, causing damage. He suggested that moving the bridge and creek should be part of the current project to address the "dogleg" flooding issue. Caltrans representative Joe Irwin confirmed that the K-Rail was an emergency response to the January 23 storm and will be removed soon. He stated that the project includes expanding the capacity of the structure at San Ysidro Creek to handle larger flows in the future.
• Board Deliberation: Supervisor Nelson discussed the conflict between the desire for sound walls and the safety risks associated with potential flood level rises. He noted that independent modeling by County Flood Control confirmed Caltrans’ findings regarding flood risks. He stated that the moral weight of potential life-safety risks outweighed the benefit of sound walls. He emphasized the importance of increasing flood control capacity in the watershed, referencing a commissioned study by former Flood Control Director Tom Fairam.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: Supervisor Nelson moved to deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the 101 project, adding a condition requiring a black-coated chain-link fence and drought-tolerant landscaping between the highway and the south border of North Jameson Lane. The condition specifies that landscaping must be maintained for a minimum of five years, with non-surviving plantings replaced during that period.
• Second: The motion was seconded.
• Vote Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Note

• Supervisor Nelson announced that the Board plans to hold a special hearing on Thursday, April 6th, to consider an urgency ordinance regarding just cause for residential evictions.