UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2023-06-27

Board of Supervisors — 2023-06-27June 27, 2023

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 June 27, 2023

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: Katz, 4-Nelson, 5-Lavagnino, 3-Hartmann, Williams

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

Agenda Changes and Addenda

  • An addendum was posted to add a closed session conference regarding existing litigation with the University of California.
  • Administrative Item A67 regarding a Social Services agreement was withdrawn at the department's request.
  • A new Departmental Item 7 was added to consider an ordinance amending County Code Chapter 44 regarding residential evictions.

County Counsel Salary Adjustment

  • The Board considered a Human Resources recommendation for a 2.5% performance-based salary adjustment for the County Counsel.
  • The adjustment is effective July 10, 2023, resulting in an annual salary of approximately $269,116.
  • The Board approved the salary adjustment.

Events Enterprises Inc. Services Agreement

  • The Behavioral Wellness Department recommended a services agreement for event planning and coordination for two regional conferences.
  • Concerns were raised regarding the contract cost, the vendor's non-local status, and the lack of a Request for Proposal process.
  • Staff clarified that the county serves as the fiscal agent and the costs are largely pass-throughs for venue and coordination fees.
  • The Board approved the services agreement.

Future Leaders of America Services Agreement

  • The Behavioral Wellness Department recommended a third amendment and a new multi-year services agreement with Future Leaders of America.
  • Representatives spoke in support of the organization's role in youth leadership and substance abuse prevention.
  • County Counsel stated they would investigate the applicability of the Hatch Act to the organization's federal funding.
  • The Board approved the services agreement.

Managed Care Solutions SPC Agreement

  • The Social Services Department recommended an agreement for quality jobs, equity strategy, and training services under a national grant.
  • Concerns were raised about the vendor's high cost, non-local status, and "high risk" designation.
  • Staff explained that the "high risk" designation triggers stricter fiscal scrutiny rather than indicating unreliability.
  • The Board approved the agreement.

Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement Hearing

  • The Public Works Department recommended setting a hearing for July 11, 2023, to consider the exclusive franchise agreement for Zones 4 and 5.
  • Speakers from Waste Management requested a postponement, citing the company's long-standing partnership and recent community support.
  • The Board confirmed this item was solely to set the hearing date and approved the staff recommendation.

League of Women Voters Resolution

  • The Board adopted a resolution celebrating the 85th anniversary of the League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara.
  • A representative accepted the commendation, and supervisors commented on the organization's nonpartisan election information.

Good Samaritan Services Resolution

  • The Board adopted a resolution recognizing Good Samaritan Services staff and partners for operating Freedom Warming Centers during winter storms.
  • The resolution acknowledged the service of 496 individuals over 58 nights.
  • Representatives thanked community partners and highlighted the efforts of staff and volunteers.

David Silva Commendation

  • The Board adopted a resolution of commendation honoring Senior Deputy Probation Officer David Silva upon his retirement.
  • The Chief Probation Officer presented a retirement recognition highlighting his 26-year career and leadership in the Juvenile Facilities Division.

Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Plan

  • The Board considered the three-year program and expenditure plan for FY 2023–2026, which totals approximately $89 million.
  • Public comment focused on expanding the Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) program and concerns about budget allocations for crisis services.
  • The Director stated that the AOT team would be doubled in South County and that new programs were added to avoid fund reversion.
  • The Board approved the MHSA plan.
Passed 4–1 · against: Nelson

Patterson Point Apartments

  • The Board considered the issuance of tax-exempt multifamily housing revenue obligations for Patterson Point Apartments.
  • A supervisor expressed concern about the high cost per unit for studio apartments limiting future development opportunities.
  • A Housing Authority representative clarified that the county has no legal or moral responsibility for the repayment of the debt.
  • The Board approved the item.

Perkins Place Apartments

  • The Board considered the issuance of tax-exempt multifamily housing revenue obligations for Perkins Place Apartments.
  • A supervisor noted the project’s location in a high-demand job center area and commended the Housing Authority’s outreach.
  • The project includes the first publicly available electric charging stations in the area.
  • The Board approved the item.

Extra Help Services and Retirement Waiver

  • The County Executive Office requested approval for a limited-term extra help services and retirement waiver for a retired ACO.
  • The request was for a term of six months to one year, not to exceed 960 hours.
  • One supervisor abstained due to a general preference for independent contractors over rehires.
  • The Board approved the item with one abstention.

Local Ballot Measure Supporters/Opponents Printing

  • The Registrar of Voters recommended opting out of the requirement to list supporters and opponents of local ballot measures on the ballot.
  • Staff cited increased printing costs, logistical complications, and potential voter confusion as reasons for the opt-out.
  • The department noted that the information is already available in the Voter Information Guide.
  • The Board approved the recommendation to opt out.

Cannabis Licensing Code Amendments

  • The Board considered amendments to Chapter 50 to strengthen consequences for non-timely tax reporting and payments by cannabis operators.
  • The amendments would result in the denial of license applications or renewals if tax delinquencies are not resolved.
  • Supervisors requested direction to explore allowing taxpayers to prepay taxes and to ensure aggressive notification to businesses.
  • The Board approved the amendments with the direction to explore prepayment options.

2030 Climate Action Plan

  • The Community Services Department presented the draft 2030 Climate Action Plan, which currently targets a 40% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030.
  • Staff presented options to achieve the previously adopted 50% goal, including advancing electrification deadlines and increasing EV adoption targets.
  • The Board directed staff to proceed with a county government cost analysis and to refine the scope for a community cost analysis.
  • The Board approved the draft plan with a 50% reduction goal.

Residential Evictions and Lease Offers Ordinance

  • The Board considered an ordinance requiring landlords to offer tenants a one-year lease and granting tenants the right of first refusal after no-fault terminations.
  • Public comment included requests to cap rent increases and concerns about potential impacts on housing supply and investment.
  • The Board directed Community Services staff to review tenant protections in similar California jurisdictions to potentially strengthen the county’s Tenant Protection Ordinance.
  • The Board passed the ordinance as written.

Closed Session

  • The Board entered closed session to discuss anticipated and existing litigation, including cases against the University of California.
  • The Board also conferred with labor negotiators for the Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff’s Association.
  • No reportable action was taken.

Full summary

Meeting Opening and Roll Call

  • The June 27, 2023, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. The Clerk of the Board called the roll, and all supervisors were present. The board pledged allegiance to the flag.

Approval of Minutes

  • Item: Approval of minutes from the June 6 regular meeting, June 16 budget hearings, and June 20 regular meeting.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes.
  • Vote: Passed.

CEO’s Report

  • Item: CEO’s Report.
  • Action: The CEO reported that there was no report for this morning.

Announcements and Agenda Changes

  • Addendum: The Clerk announced an addendum posted on June 23, 2023.
  • Closed Session: Amended to add a conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation (County of Santa Barbara v. the Regents of the University of California).
  • Withdrawal: Administrative Item A67 (Social Services Department agreement with Karasoff Technology Corporation) was withdrawn at the department's request.
  • New Item: Departmental Item 7 was added, sponsored by Supervisors Williams and Capps, to consider an ordinance amending County Code Chapter 44 regarding residential evictions and right of first refusal.
  • Administrative Item A40: The Clerk provided a verbal summary of the Human Resources Department’s recommendation for a 2.5% performance-based salary adjustment for the County Counsel, effective July 10, 2023, resulting in an annual salary of approximately $269,116. This item was separated from the general administrative agenda approval to allow for specific action.
  • Public Participation: Information regarding methods for public comment and Zoom registration was provided.

Approval of Administrative Agenda

  • Item: Approval of the balance of the administrative agenda.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda, excluding A40 (which was handled separately) and A67 (which was withdrawn).
  • Vote: Passed.

Administrative Item A40: County Counsel Salary Adjustment

  • Item: Consideration of recommendations regarding a performance-based salary adjustment for County Counsel.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the 2.5% salary adjustment.
  • Vote: Passed.

Administrative Item A7: Events Enterprises Inc. Services Agreement

  • Item: Behavioral Wellness Department recommendation for a fiscal year 2023–2024 services agreement with Events Enterprises Inc. for event planning and coordination.
  • Discussion: Initial concerns were raised regarding the contract cost (approximately $630,000), the non-local status of the vendor, and the lack of a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Staff indicated the director was unavailable due to an audit and would respond later. The item was initially tabled.
  • Later Discussion: The Behavioral Wellness Department explained that the county serves as the fiscal agent for the Southern California Regional Partnership. The agreement covers event planning for two conferences: the Southern California Regional Partnership Conference and the Prevention Early Intervention Equity Summit. The Director clarified that the county’s portion of the cost is a pass-through to the venue for lodging, meals, and room rentals, plus a flat fee to Events Enterprises for coordination. One Supervisor raised concerns about the cost efficiency of the Equity Summit, noting high per-person costs for a one-day event. Another Supervisor noted the tight timeline for the upcoming event, stating that changing vendors now would likely result in equal or higher costs.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve Item A7.
  • Vote: Passed.

Administrative Item A13: Future Leaders of America Services Agreement

  • Item: Behavioral Wellness Department recommendation for a third amendment to the fiscal years 2020–2023 services agreement and a new fiscal years 2023–2027 services agreement with Future Leaders of America (FLA).
  • Public Comment: Four representatives from FLA spoke in support of the contract, emphasizing the organization’s role in youth leadership development and substance abuse prevention.
  • Discussion: A supervisor asked about the applicability of the Hatch Act to organizations receiving federal funding. County Counsel stated they would investigate the specific applicability. Behavioral Wellness staff clarified that subcontracts include provisions prohibiting political advocacy funded by these grants.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item.
  • Vote: Passed.

Administrative Item A70: Managed Care Solutions SPC Agreement

  • Item: Social Services Department recommendation for an agreement with Managed Care Solutions SPC for quality jobs, equity strategy, and training services under a national dislocated worker grant.
  • Discussion: A supervisor raised concerns regarding the high cost of outsourcing, the non-local status of the vendor, and the "high risk" designation of the vendor. The Social Services Director explained that contracting out is often more economical for term-limited grants due to overhead costs and staffing flexibility issues. The Workforce Development Board Executive Director explained that the "high risk" designation triggers stricter fiscal scrutiny and documentation requirements rather than indicating vendor unreliability. The vendor was selected through a competitive solicitation process.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item.
  • Vote: Passed.

Administrative Item A67: Karasoff Technology Corporation Agreement

  • Item: Social Services Department agreement with Karasoff Technology Corporation.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to withdraw the item from the agenda.
  • Vote: Passed.

Administrative Item A76: Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement Hearing

  • Item: Public Works Department recommendation to set a hearing for July 11, 2023, to consider the approval of the exclusive franchise agreement for solid waste collection in Zones 4 and 5.
  • Public Comment: Seven speakers from Waste Management (WM) and its employees spoke. They requested the Board postpone the hearing and reconsider negotiations with WM, citing the company’s long-standing partnership, recent community support during floods, and concerns about the transition costs and risks associated with changing providers.
  • Discussion: A supervisor confirmed that this item was solely to set the hearing date and that substantive issues would be addressed at the July 11 hearing. The supervisor acknowledged the contributions of WM staff during recent emergencies.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to move forward with the staff recommendation to set the hearing for July 11, 2023.
  • Vote: Passed.

Administrative Item A77: League of Women Voters Resolution

  • Item: Resolution celebrating the 85th anniversary of the League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara.
  • Action: The resolution was read into the record. A representative from the League accepted the commendation. Several supervisors commented on the organization’s nonpartisan election information and policy research.
  • Vote: Passed and adopted.

Administrative Item A78: Good Samaritan Services Resolution

  • Item: Resolution recognizing Good Samaritan Services staff and partners for operating Freedom Warming Centers during the 2023 winter storms.
  • Action: The resolution was read into the record, acknowledging the service of 496 individuals over 58 nights. Representatives from Good Samaritan Services spoke, thanking the community partners and highlighting the efforts of staff and volunteers. Supervisors expressed appreciation for the work done during the severe weather.
  • Vote: Passed and adopted.

Administrative Item A79: David Silva Commendation

  • Item: Resolution of commendation honoring Senior Deputy Probation Officer David Silva upon his retirement after over 26 years of service.
  • Action: The resolution was read into the record, detailing his career history and contributions to the Probation Department. The Chief Probation Officer presented a retirement recognition for DPO Senior Silva, highlighting his 26-year career, leadership in the Juvenile Facilities Division, and contributions to staff training and youth programming. DPO Senior Silva accepted the recognition and thanked his family and colleagues.
  • Vote: Passed and adopted.

General Public Comment

  • One member of the public spoke regarding national political issues, law enforcement, and the conduct of the current administration. No board action was taken.

Administrative Item A9: Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Three-Year Program and Expenditure Plan (FY 2023–2026)

  • Public Comment: Two speakers addressed the MHSA plan. One speaker, representing NAMI, advocated for expanding the Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) program, citing long waitlists and the program’s effectiveness in reducing incarceration and hospitalization. Another speaker, a member of the Behavioral Wellness Commission, expressed concern that budget allocations favored outreach and advertising over crisis services like AOT and crisis beds, noting that these services were below community needs.
  • Department Response: The Behavioral Wellness Department Director stated that the AOT team would be increased by two positions in the upcoming budget year, doubling the team in South County. The Director explained that AOT is now incorporated into Full Service Partnership (FSP) budgets under MHSA. Regarding new programs, the Director noted that the county had significantly underspent in the Prevention and Early Intervention category; to avoid fund reversion and meet stakeholder priorities, new programs were added for older adults and families. The Director also noted that the MHSA budget increase was a one-time allocation and that annual updates allow for adjustments based on data and need.
  • Board Discussion: Supervisors discussed the scale of the $89 million plan. One Supervisor suggested that future MHSA plans should be treated as discussion items to allow for deeper scrutiny of expenditures and efficiency, particularly regarding costs associated with suicide prevention contracts. Another Supervisor supported the expansion of AOT but cautioned against underestimating the financial impact if the state were to sweep MHSA funds, noting the potential loss of federal matching funds.
  • Motion and Vote: A motion was made and seconded to approve Item A9.
  • Vote: Passed.
Passed 4–1 · against: Nelson

Departmental Item D1: Housing Authority – Patterson Point Apartments

  • Discussion: This item involved a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the issuance of tax-exempt multifamily housing revenue obligations for Patterson Point Apartments. One Supervisor expressed concern about the high cost per unit for studio apartments, stating that while the need for housing is recognized, the costs limit future opportunities for development. Another Supervisor confirmed that the units would count toward the county’s housing goals. A representative from the Housing Authority clarified that the county has no legal or moral responsibility for the repayment of the debt, which is a private placement.
  • Motion and Vote: A motion was made and seconded to approve Item D1.
  • Vote: Passed.

Departmental Item D2: Housing Authority – Perkins Place Apartments

  • Discussion: This item involved a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the issuance of tax-exempt multifamily housing revenue obligations for Perkins Place Apartments. One Supervisor noted the project’s location in a job center area with high housing demand and commended the Housing Authority’s outreach efforts. The Supervisor highlighted that the project would include the first publicly available electric charging stations in the area.
  • Motion and Vote: A motion was made and seconded to approve Item D2.
  • Vote: Passed.

Departmental Item D3: County Executive Office – Extra Help Services and Retirement Waiver

  • Discussion: The County Executive Office requested approval for an extra help services and retirement waiver for a retired ACO with extensive knowledge in health and human services and homeless projects. The request was for a limited term of six months to one year, not to exceed 960 hours. One Supervisor expressed a general preference for using independent contractors over rehires to avoid the appearance of a "revolving door" but stated they would abstain due to the individual’s service. Another Supervisor supported the motion based on the individual’s recent volunteer work.
  • Motion and Vote: A motion was made and seconded to approve Item D3.
  • Vote: Passed with one abstention.

Departmental Item D4: Clerk/Recorder/Assessor/Elections – Local Ballot Measure Supporters/Opponents Printing

  • Department Presentation: The Registrar of Voters presented the item, which concerns the requirement under AB 1416 to list supporters and opponents of local ballot measures on the ballot itself. The department recommended opting out of this requirement. Key points included:
  • Transparency: The information is already available in the Voter Information Guide (VIG), which is mailed to voters and available online.
  • Cost and Logistics: Listing this information on the ballot would likely push ballots to multi-card formats, increasing printing costs, complicating reconciliation, and potentially confusing voters. The department estimated this could double election administration costs.
  • Opt-Out Status: The law allows counties to opt out. Approximately eight counties have already opted out, mostly unanimously.
  • Process: The department noted that the VIG and ballots are mailed separately due to different vendor timelines and state-mandated deadlines.
  • Board Discussion: Supervisors asked questions regarding the number of local versus state measures, the potential for multi-card ballots, and whether other counties had opted in. The department confirmed that no counties were aware of opting in and that costs would be passed to cities and special districts. One Supervisor asked about the process for listing supporters/opponents when there are no submissions or multiple signers, noting that the term "non-submitted" would be used if no arguments are filed. The department acknowledged concerns about the politicization of the ballot and the potential for the system to be gamed.
  • Further Discussion: The County Elections Official explained that determining the list of proponents and opponents for local measures is a discretionary role based on code sections, limited by a 125-character ballot space. The official noted that this process can lead to litigation if parties are dissatisfied with their inclusion or exclusion, which could delay ballot printing and incur costs. The official stated that state measures provide this information directly, whereas local measures require county staff to make these determinations.
  • One Supervisor expressed concern about voter fatigue and the potential for "gaming" the system by organizations with misleading names, suggesting that the information might be better served in the voter guide rather than on the ballot itself.
  • Another Supervisor argued against opting out, stating that the concerns were theoretical and that transparency empowers voters to make informed decisions, especially given the history of misleading proposition names.
  • A third Supervisor suggested a compromise: opt out for the primary election to assess the impact on a smaller ballot, then decide on the general election based on metrics such as whether the additional measures push the ballot to an extra page.
  • Another Supervisor supported opting out to keep the ballot simple and ensure the voter guide is mailed as close to the ballot as possible, noting that complex small print can be intimidating to voters.
  • The County Executive Office noted that the estimated cost for the March primary was a minimum of $200,000 for equipment, excluding staff time, which might require a separate appropriation.
  • Clarification was provided that ballot measures do not pay a separate fee for inclusion in the voter guide; the cost is absorbed by the county or passed to the local jurisdiction sponsoring the measure. The goal is to mail the voter guide a few days before the ballots (29 days before the election).
  • Motion and Vote: A motion was made to approve the staff/elections official recommendation to opt out of the initiative and its corresponding action items. The motion was seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed.

Agenda Item 5: Amendment to Chapter 50 of the County Code (Licensing of Cannabis Operations)

  • Presentation: The Deputy CEO presented proposed amendments to Chapter 50 to strengthen consequences for non-timely tax reporting and payments. The amendment requires timely reporting and payment of taxes as defined in the tax ordinance. Failure to meet these requirements would result in the denial of a business license application or renewal.
  • Key Provisions:
  • Section 5018: Eliminates additional timeframes for applicants to correct deficiencies related to late tax filings or payments.
  • Section 5019: Clarifies that an operator with tax delinquencies is not in good standing and may not continue to operate while a renewal application is processed.
  • Section 5020: Denial of renewal if the licensee has been delinquent in payment or filing at any quarter during the year, rather than just at the time of renewal.
  • Section 5026: Establishes late filing or payment as grounds for suspension or revocation of a license.
  • Effective Date: The changes would apply prospectively, effective after August 10, impacting the first quarter of fiscal year 2023-24.
  • Discussion:
  • Supervisors questioned the severity of the penalty for being one day late, comparing it to other tax penalties (property, TOT, IRS) which typically involve fees rather than immediate license denial.
  • The County Executive Office clarified that the "due date" for payment is the first of the month, but the "delinquency date" is 30 days later. The denial applies if the delinquency date is missed.
  • Supervisors discussed the impact on operators with multiple licenses, confirming that only the specific license associated with the delinquent operation would be affected.
  • The appeal process for a denial was identified as going to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
  • Supervisors requested direction to explore allowing taxpayers to prepay their cannabis taxes to avoid quarterly jeopardy and to ensure aggressive notification to licensed businesses about the changes.
  • The County Executive Office stated they would consult with the Treasurer-Tax Collector regarding the feasibility of prepayment.
  • Motion and Vote: A motion was made to approve the staff recommendation with the direction to explore prepayment options with the Treasurer-Tax Collector and to provide aggressive notice to businesses. The motion was seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed.

Closed Session

  • Purpose: The Board entered closed session to discuss:
  • 1. Anticipated litigation (significant exposure to civil litigation, one case). 2. Existing litigation: Pitski v. Santa Barbara County and Dudley v. Santa Barbara County (Superior Court cases). 3. Anticipated litigation based on facts and circumstances listed in the agenda. 4. Conference with labor negotiators for the Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff’s Association and unrepresented employee managers/executives. 5. Existing litigation: County of Santa Barbara v. Regents of University of California (Superior Court case).
  • Outcome: The Board took no reportable action.

Agenda Item 6: 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Development Update and Financial Analysis Options

  • Presentation: The Community Services Department presented the draft 2030 Climate Action Plan.
  • Emissions Inventory: Identified largest sources of emissions as commercial/personal vehicle transportation, energy use (natural gas/electricity), agriculture, off-road equipment, and solid waste.
  • Process: Included community outreach, workshops, and an Equity Advisory Committee to establish "equity guardrails" ensuring benefits for historically marginalized populations.
  • Structure: Organized into focus areas (Housing/Transportation, Clean Energy, Waste/Water, Nature-Based Solutions, Low-Carbon Economy, County Operations) rather than sectors.
  • Goals: The current draft targets a 40% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 (compared to 2018 levels). The Board previously adopted a goal of 50% reduction.
  • Options for 50% Goal: To achieve the 50% target, the plan would need modifications:
  • 1. Advance the deadline for replacing gas appliances with electric ones from 2025 to 2023. 2. Increase EV adoption targets (passenger vehicles from 25% to 30%; commercial vehicles from 15% to 22%). 3. Set more aggressive targets for active transportation and public transit ridership.
  • Alternatively, the county could procure carbon credits to offset the remaining ~151,000 metric tons of emissions, though this was noted as a high-cost option with minimal local return on investment.
  • Financial Analysis: Additional financial analysis options were presented, noting that while variables make precise cost estimation difficult, the Board could choose to delay CAP adoption to allow for this analysis or proceed with the 40% goal.
  • Staff Presentation on EIR and Analysis: Staff presented the status of the draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
  • Public Outreach: Public comment on the draft measures and plan began in March. Online platforms facilitated engagement from hundreds of participants.
  • Analysis Scope: Staff conducted a qualitative analysis of four specific measures: an accounting ordinance, a natural gas replacement ordinance, a building performance requirement, and an ordinance to phase out light-duty gasoline/diesel off-road equipment. This analysis characterized cost types borne by the community and county, utilizing case studies and funding examples.
  • Additional Analysis Options: Staff offered three optional, more rigorous analyses if requested by the Board:
  • 1. Accounting Government Cost Analysis: Evaluates county-specific costs (capital, operating, staffing) and provides order-of-magnitude estimates. 2. Complete Community Cost Analysis: High-level evaluation of probable costs to the community based on past experience and case studies. 3. Green Economy and Employment Analysis: Estimates green jobs generated by CAP investments.
  • Timeline: The public comment period for the draft CAP and EIR closes on July 27. Staff intends to review comments, make revisions, and release the final draft CAP and EIR shortly thereafter. Staff also plans to present recommendations for the Climate Initiatives Fund, update the energy element, and update greenhouse gas thresholds of significance. The goal is to bring the final CAP, EIR, energy element, and GHG thresholds for adoption before the end of the year.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Stationary Sources and Inventory: Supervisors inquired about the exclusion of stationary source emissions (e.g., oil and gas) from the inventory. Staff explained that while the CAP is CEQA-qualified, the county lacks primary regulatory authority over these sources, making inclusion problematic for CEQA purposes. However, staff stated they could include informational data on stationary source emissions. Supervisors noted that including this data would provide a more complete picture of the county’s inventory and that emissions from these sources have declined.
  • Carbon Capture and Agriculture: Supervisors asked about the role of carbon capture and sequestration projects. Staff confirmed that carbon capture and storage is included as a potential option in the low-carbon economy focus area. One Supervisor expressed concern regarding the measure to phase out light-duty gasoline and diesel off-road equipment (TR 3.2), citing the early stage of electric tractor technology and potential impacts on the agricultural industry.
  • Partnerships and Funding: Supervisors discussed the need for broader partnerships with school districts, tech companies, and other stakeholders to leverage federal and state funding (e.g., Inflation Reduction Act). Staff noted that the CAP focuses on land use controls but has taken a regional approach through the Santa Barbara County Regional Climate Collaborative. Staff acknowledged opportunities to expand outreach to schools for energy reliability measures (solar/storage) and to identify sites for EV charging infrastructure.
  • Permitting Streamlining: Supervisors inquired about streamlining permitting for solar and electrification. Staff confirmed that Planning and Development (P&D) is moving forward with adopting a solar app for online permitting, similar to the City of Santa Barbara’s system. Staff also mentioned a DOE initiative ("Soul Smart") and the potential to advance to higher designation levels to streamline permitting for electrification measures.
  • Goal Levels (40% vs. 50%): Supervisors discussed the implications of adopting a 40% vs. 50% GHG reduction goal by 2030. Staff clarified that both options allow for a CEQA-qualified CAP with tiering capabilities via the programmatic EIR. Supervisors noted that the 50% goal is aspirational and that the 40% goal provides a baseline for programmatic EIR tiering. Staff warned that if the county does not show significant progress in inventory updates every three years, it could impact the ability to continue tiering.
  • Costs and Budget: Staff noted that 73% of the measures in the CAP list the General Fund as the resource. Staff recommended Option A (Accounting Government Cost Analysis) to help identify FTEs and detailed costs for budget planning, noting a 6–8 month lead time for this analysis.
  • Legal Context: Staff provided context regarding the legal challenges faced by the City of Berkeley’s natural gas restriction ordinance, noting that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the policy and that other jurisdictions are pausing similar measures pending further legal review. The County has paused its own policy development process to explore alternatives that meet low-carbon objectives while mitigating legal risks.
  • Cost Analysis Debate: Board members debated the necessity of conducting a county government cost analysis (Study A) versus a broader community cost analysis (Study B). Some members expressed concern that current data for the community study may be speculative or inaccurate, citing past experiences with consulting reports. Others argued that proceeding without comprehensive data would leave the Board "flying blind" on significant policy impacts.
  • Public Comment: Seven members of the public provided comments:
  • 1. Farrah Stack: Urged the county to retain the 50% GHG reduction goal by 2030, include oil and gas emissions in the inventory, cap emissions from high-emitting wells, prohibit flaring, expand EV charging, enforce building performance standards, and collaborate with local ranchers/farmers for climate-smart agriculture. 2. Joey Rogers: Urged the county to retain the 50% GHG emissions reduction goal, citing the county’s history of climate-related impacts (drought, fire, flooding). 3. Michael Chiakos (Community Environmental Council): Urged the county to retain the 50% goal, noting the region is among the fastest-warming in the country. Suggested engaging ranchers/farmers in a voluntary offset market and increasing natural sequestration strategies beyond the proposed 3,000 trees. 4. Larry Bishop: Opposed reducing goals, suggesting an increase to 60%. Advocated for including all stationary sources in the inventory and leveraging federal/state/local incentives. 5. Brady Bradshaw (Center for Biological Diversity): Urged the county to step up climate action, stating it is not feasible to go below 50%. Highlighted the $369 billion in funding available under the Inflation Reduction Act. 6. Katie Davis (Sierra Club): Urged the county to keep the 50% goal, arguing it is premature to give up. Recommended including stationary source emissions in the inventory for transparency, accelerating transportation and building electrification, and raising awareness of Inflation Reduction Act funds. 7. Ramon Elias (Pacific Agritech/LULAC): Expressed concerns about the impact of CAP policies on affordable housing and transportation costs for low-income households. Noted that 58% of county households fall into low-income categories.
  • Board Response to Public Comment: Supervisors acknowledged the public comments. One Supervisor thanked Ramon Elias for his input and noted his service on the Equity Advisory and Outreach Committee. Supervisors reiterated the importance of partnerships, empowering consumers, and facilitating EV adoption and electrification. Staff emphasized the need for ubiquitous charging infrastructure and the role of incentives.
  • Motion and Vote: A motion was made to approve the draft Climate Action Plan with a 50% reduction goal, direct staff to proceed with the county government cost analysis (Study A), and direct staff to refine the scope and methodology for the community cost analysis (Study B) before proceeding with that study. The motion was seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: Passed.

Departmental Item 7: Ordinance to Amend County Code Chapter 44 (Residential Evictions and Lease Offers)

  • Presentation: Staff presented an ordinance sponsored by Supervisors Williams and Capps to amend County Code Chapter 44. The proposed changes include:
  • 1. Requiring landlords to offer tenants a one-year lease (though not compelling acceptance). 2. Granting tenants the right of first refusal to return to their unit after a no-fault termination (e.g., substantial remodel, owner move-in). 3. Clarifying that a "substantial remodel" must be for the primary purpose of bringing the unit into compliance with health and safety codes, excluding cosmetic improvements.
  • Staff noted that the ordinance does not apply to single-family homes with two or fewer units or owner-occupied residences. The recommended action was to introduce the ordinance, waive further readings, set an administrative agenda hearing for adoption on July 11, determine the action is not a project under CEQA, and direct staff to prepare sample lease offer rejection forms.
  • Public Comment: Public comment included requests to cap rent increases upon tenant return after renovations, concerns about potential increases in eviction activity before the ordinance takes effect, and arguments regarding the economic impact on landlords and the housing supply. Some speakers supported the ordinance as a necessary protection for naturally occurring affordable housing, while others expressed concern that such regulations might discourage investment in rental housing or lead to unintended consequences.
  • Board Discussion: Board members discussed the balance between tenant protections and housing supply incentives. Some members supported the ordinance as a reasonable response to displacement issues, while others expressed concern that the regulations might disincentivize property maintenance and investment, potentially reducing the overall housing stock.
  • The discussion focused on a proposed direction for staff to research tenant protections in other jurisdictions. A member clarified that the intent was to pass the ordinance as written and direct staff to examine similar jurisdictions to potentially strengthen the county’s Tenant Protection Ordinance. Staff representatives noted that the ordinance falls under the jurisdiction of the Community Services department, not their office, and expressed concern about unintended consequences due to a lack of full visibility into other housing programs. Staff recommended that any recommendations for changes originate from the Community Services department, which handles housing policy and rental assistance, rather than their office. The member proposing the direction emphasized the need for legal vetting of mechanisms used in other jurisdictions to ensure constitutional and legal permissibility within California. Another member suggested that the Legislative Committee could also track state-level developments.
  • Motion and Vote: A motion was made to pass the ordinance as written and to direct Community Services staff to review tenant protections in similar California jurisdictions to potentially strengthen the county’s Tenant Protection Ordinance in the future. The motion was seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed.

Adjournment

  • The meeting was adjourned, with the next session scheduled for July 11 in Santa Barbara.