BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 February 13, 2024

UnGovr Transcript

iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:038 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.730:24

All right, good morning. I'd like to call to order the February 13th 2024 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk roll call please.

Roll call, called by Unidentified speaker 1
Show transcript
Supervisor Katz here. Supervisor Hartman here. Supervisor Nelson here. Supervisor Williams here and Chair Lavinino here.
Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈17s recited, not transcribed
ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.730:41

Please rise and join the board in pledging allegiance to the flag. Ready? Begin.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:01

Okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:06

at this time I'd like to pass the mic to Supervisor Laura Capps.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:11

Thank you, Chair Levin. You know, I just wanted to take a brief moment to pay tribute to a wonderful renowned artist who has just passed away, Chris Potter. Thousands of people like myself are in shock and sadness over the loss of such a man who inspired awe and wonderment about the natural wonders around us. Our landscapes are seascapes all across Santa Barbara County for so many years And he was a family man. And what I loved most about Chris Potter was you'd see him at Hendry's Beach with his paints and just this big smile, he gave back to the community. He donated paintings to so many good causes and his passing this last week is a real sadness for us all and I just wanted to pay tribute. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:02

Very nice. Supervisor Williams. Well I wasn't planning on saying anything but Chris and I went to high school together and he was just a really beautiful human being, I got a chance to hang out with him just a couple months ago at one of his little shows that is a gallery And then this summer he introduced Yash, my eight-year-old, to painting because we stumbled upon him and his guy crew out in the San Rafael wilderness while we were backpacking out at the Lower Manzana Trail in the 3rd District.

He was just such warm-hearted, seemed to not collapse in the despair of his space and I will miss him.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.733:07

Thank you for that. Okay this time we're going to take

the next item of business which will be the approval of the minutes from the February 6th 2024 meeting.

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction3:16

Move approval.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Joan Hartmann · Seconded by Bob Nelson
Show transcript
Second. Moved by Supervisor Hartman, seconded by Supervisor Nelson. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Next item of business is the County Executive Officers Report.

0:03 – 0:066 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:32

Chair Lavagnino and board members I don't have a report but I know that Supervisor Hartman wanted to acknowledge someone who works closely with our General Services Department who did some outstanding work so Supervisor Hartman

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction3:43

Thank you. I'd like to highlight the heroic efforts of Lou Gibilasco, a contracted project manager with the General Services Department for overseeing the repair and expansion of the septic system at the Bridge House homeless shelter outside the city of Lompoc. Lou oversaw a team of engineers and construction workers who worked tirelessly in December to repair the failing septic system for guests at the Bridge House. The project required an entire new leach field, septic tank and the relocation of infrastructure And the system was fully repaired and expanded just before the Christmas holidays. As a result of Lou's efforts, the shelter has been able to operate at full capacity so thank you Lou for your efforts they will greatly increase the quality of life for the unhoused population in the Lompoc Valley we really appreciate it.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:33

And can I add thank you to General Services they've been working on this project for a long time so we appreciate your work

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.734:41

All right, that takes us to our clerk announcements. Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:47

Chair Lavinino and members of the board I do have a couple quick announcements this morning we received a withdrawal request on Monday February 12th from the district to withdraw administrative item number one from the agenda. Administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Williams it is a resolution in support of peace and respect for human rights in Ethiopia. This withdrawal request can be added to the balance of the administrative agenda Additionally, we posted an addendum to the agenda on Friday February 9th to add administrative item number 18 to the agenda. Administrative item number 18 is from County Council. It is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement for county council services for the Santa Barbara County Local Agency Formation Commission, LAFCO.

This addendum has been posted and made available to the board and the public and can be added to the balance of the administrative agenda. Lastly, for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation And to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda, please see page two of the agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page two. If you have any questions, please contact the clerk at the board's office at area code 805-568-2240 again that's 805-5682240 and that concludes my announcements for today.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.736:05

Thank you very much Madam Clerk. That takes us to our administrative agenda would any board members like to pull any items from the administrative agenda? I'll be pulling a six. Anybody else? Supervisor Nelson, six you got it all good. All right madam clerk do any members of the public request to pull any items on the administrative agenda?

0:06 – 0:1110 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:26

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board we have no requests to speak from the public on the administrative agenda

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.736:31

Okay, I'd now like to entertain a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda except for item A-6. And the motion will reflect the additions to the balance with the addendum of added A-18 and withdrawal of A-1.

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction6:42

So moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.736:44

Seconded by Supervisor Hartman, seconded by Supervisor Williams. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously that takes us to... Gonna start with the resolutions correct? That's how we're gonna do this right on okay so that takes us to The resolution to be presented, which is administrative item number two. Madam Clerk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:07

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, Administrative Item Number Two is sponsored by Supervisor Capps. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of February 2024 as Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Christy Stilwell from the What Is Love program. And if you can please come to the podium and anyone else who'd like to join you.

And I will go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas we recommit ourselves to building a future where all young people feel safe protected empowered and deserving of relationships full of respect and kindness. And whereas more than one in two high school students in the United States report they have experienced physical emotional digital or sexual violence from a dating partner or most never asked for help.

And whereas youth who experience relationships abuse relationship abuse have difficulty learning and feeling safe at school Experience higher rates of depression, anxiety and suicide attempts. And whereas relationship violence is not inevitable prevention works since 2012 what is love has worked to prevent relationship violence with their research All school restorative approach to building healthy relationships. And whereas what is love provides tools to teach young people how to identify healthy relationships and safely leave abusive ones, and whereas what is love works with schools parents mental health providers and partner organizations to prevent relationship violence before the crisis and equip survivors with the resource and care they need to heal And whereas the independent evaluation conducted by UC Santa Barbara for what is love reveals improves capability and recognizing abusive behaviors, improve skills in maintaining healthy relationships and an increase in access to mental health support.

Now therefore be it hereby ordered him resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes and celebrates the month of February 2024 as Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month and encourages young people schools parents And our greater community to raise your voices, spread awareness and actively advocate for relationship education. Our young people deserve a future where healthy thriving relationships are the norm not the exception passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed9:22

Good morning Chair, Supervisors, Supervisor Caps. Thank you so much feel very honored and I thank you for elevating this issue a day before Valentine's Day where unfortunately we see a big spike in relationship violence that happens across our county one in two of our young people are experiencing physical We have to talk about digital, emotional or sexual violence every single day in our county and it's preventable.

So with this resolution this helps elevate this issue helps community to understand and hopefully start talking about something that's uncomfortable to talk about but we have to talk about it. We have to invest in it and invest in our young people so thank you very much. I invited Grace to come today

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed10:17

Hi I'm Grace. I'm currently a UCSB student, I'm a third year and in my free time I volunteer for domestic violence solutions and what is love. I volunteer for these organizations because I think dating violence and domestic violence are really serious problems that affect not only adults but teens personally I've had some of my friends struggle with these Awful relationships because they just don't know that it's abuse because they think it's just, not just but they think it's physical or sexual only when in reality it can be very emotionally based. At a time when teens are facing already high emotions and hormones they're more susceptible to abusive relationships because they're willing to accept love they think is un, that might be unhealthy because they just want to be accepted and loved by everyone else.

That's why teaching our generation is so vital because stopping these problems before they arise is the best solution

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.7311:06

Thank you, Grace. That was awesome.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed11:07

Thank you so much.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.7311:16

All right we'll now take up our administrative items pulled in order. Madam Clerk I guess we only have one that's administrative item number six please read it into the record.

0:11 – 0:1610 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed11:24

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board administrative item number six is from the county executive office it is to consider recommendations regarding appointments to the retirement board of the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.7311:37

Thank you, Supervisor Nielsen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed11:39

Yes I pulled this item because when I first saw it there was a little reaction that I had that we were going to be appointing new members while we had two members that had applied but you know I've been able to reach out a little bit and understand a little that turnover is sometimes good in an organization like this. Trent Benedetti, who's been a North County member for the last two terms was putting his hat in there if it was needed but was okay with if there were some good qualified people which is very apparent that we have two excellent well-qualified representatives.

that have been willing to step up and serve. So I'm happy to support this, but I do want to just put a word out there for geographic diversity. You know we're losing the North County representative. I know that anybody in the South Coast can make good financial decisions just like the North County, but it is sometimes good to have voices up in the north that are in different circles and then our county sometimes we can be South Coast centric. And so having you know representatives or people that are actually living in either the Santa Ana Valley Sometimes adds a different flavor to it. I know that there are other things SPSRS is doing to address those issues, but I think we're going to have to look at that when Supervisor Lavanino eventually retires that we need to make sure that there's a proper representation geographically moving forward up there.

I know he does a great job and I'm looking forward to supporting these two new members.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.7313:03

Thank you very much. Supervisor Hartman?

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction13:06

I had the privilege of serving with Chair Lavinino on the ad hoc committee interviewing the applicants and we were really extraordinarily blessed to have some wonderful applicants. The two we did select, one brings Kern County experience and the other Ventura County experience so we do have tremendous geographic representation even from outside our county which i think will be extraordinary as well

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.7313:34

Thank you Supervisor Hartman and I would just like to chime in as well that it's, this is always difficult whenever you're appointing individuals especially when it's you have more applicants which is very rare for us to have more applicants than there are open appointments. And I think both of us were very surprised at the quality how high the quality was of the individuals who applied I'm looking at it from a perspective of, it's always good. It's a nine member board with two alternates and it's always good to bring in new ideas fresh ideas different looks at things and so having two members I don't think this has ever happened before where we had members that actually have experience in retirement systems outside of Santa Barbara County and both came very highly recommended.

I see our Executive Director of the SPSRS is here today, Greg Levin would you like to introduce Mr. Bianchi and Mr. Delgin?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed14:35

Certainly Chair Lavagnino, thank you for the opportunity. We're joining our board this, for this term we have Robert Bianchi who's coming from Ventura County has moved here to be closer to his family he's got a his daughter has a young and growing family in the community and so that's why he's decided to move up to Santa Barbara County. You have to be an elector of the county in order to serve on this board So that's why that's important. I've spoken to my colleagues down in Ventura and he comes highly recommended, I think he still gets invited to their Christmas parties is what I understand so that's a very good sign. And then we have Mr. Dodgen who has recently joined our community.

Through a bunch of community organizations. His son plays baseball with Santa Barbara Pony Baseball, and he's also involved in AYSO as well. He's a local attorney and came to us from Kern County and he was actually recommended when he moved into town my colleague in Kern County also called and let me know that he was available so when the spots became open I let them know and I'm pleased to be here today I look forward to working with them for the next three

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.7315:43

years. Excellent, and do you mind just touching for a second just touch on the geographic representation maybe not of the makeup of the board but what SB CSRS is doing in North County?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed15:54

Absolutely sure, let me know we have two offices in Santa Barbara County we have one office in Goleta that serves our South County members and then up in Santa Maria we maintain a separate office It's really important to be where our members are. North County and Santa Barbara is a growing employment base for the county, that's where a lot of new employees are adding so it's important that we're up there to meet them and create a situation where they can come in and access our services without having to take a half day off work.

So we maintain a full office in Santa Maria just about two blocks away from the Better Avia Center with about nine employees that Some work remote but a hotel in that office as well, and we're very active and involved We have board meetings up in Santa Maria at least once a year And we do a number of member events throughout the year at departments in Santa Maria In the Better Avia Center where this board meets so very committed to that part of the community

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.7316:49

Excellent. Thank you very much Would either of the new members like to speak?

0:17 – 0:2411 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed17:01

Thank you. Board Members, Santa Barbara County, it's an honor and I look forward to serving this beautiful county that we're in and thank you for your service. Robert Bianchi. Yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed17:15

Dustin. Good morning Dustin Dodge and Mr. Chairman, members of the board thank you for the opportunity to serve as Mr. Chairman has mentioned I've been on the Kern County Board of Trustees for a number of years and it was a great experience and really an opportunity for me to give back to community so thank you again for that opportunity to do here in Santa Barbara thanks. Great thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.7317:38

All right so can I get a motion on A6 please?

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction17:43

So moved.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Joan Hartmann
Show transcript
Moved by Supervisor Hartman, I'll second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you for being here. Okay now it's time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on today's agenda. Madam Clerk are there any requests to speak on general public comment?
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed18:10

Chair Lavinino, members of the board yes we have ten requests to speak on general public comment today.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.7318:16

Excellent so each of our speakers will receive three minutes let's begin oh and let's go ahead and close the roll on public comment thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed18:33

Chair Lavinino, members of the board we will now go to James Silva here in Santa Barbara to be followed by Chuck Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed18:46

Last week I presented evidence that Israel's founders knew genocide would be necessary to create a majority Jewish state in a majority Arab land. Lies would be necessary to justify it, and we have seen a lot of that in Israel's October 7 atrocity propaganda including charges of mass rape. A month-and-a-half after October 7 with public support slipping, Israel kicked off its mass rape campaign with a Jake Tapper CNN report.

It featured Kokaf Elkaya Levy, who in a talk at Harvard showed as evidence of rape quote an image of a woman stripped from the waist down photographed on the side of the Nova Music Festival. But it was proved to actually be a picture from 2022 of a Kurdish woman fighter killed in Syria. CNN brought Elkayah Levy on as an expert in human rights law who formed a committee to collect evidence of Hamas mass rape But they didn't tell anyone she was an Israeli government lawyer, justifying torture and writing their manual for force-feeding Palestinian prisoners on hunger strikes protesting their perpetual imprisonment without trial.

Or that she is the founder and director of the Devorah Institute advising the Israeli Prime Minister's National Security Council, the equivalent of the CIA or that she used to work for the IDF Spokesperson Unit as a propagandist for the Israeli Army. Most importantly in her interview, she presents nothing but justifications for the lack of evidence and facts.

A week later this Haratz interview appeared titled The Scope of Hamas's Campaign of Rape Against Israeli Woman is Revealed Testimony After Testimony. But within the article it states quote thus far the commission has not taken testimony directly Typical evidence that is supposed to leave quote no room for doubt is a woman's voice from someone just identified as a woman on tape presented at an Israeli police press briefing.

They bent someone over and I understood he was raping her, and then he was passing her on to someone else. I saw him chop off her breast, and then he was throwing it towards the road, and they started playing with it." CNN and other media outlets purposely omitted the last part of the testimony. I saw one of them carrying a naked girl on his shoulder while the others were raising decapitated heads like in a kind of demonstration of power.

First of all this is unbelievable But forensic evidence from such a bloody scene would be easy to collect by an independent party and would favor Israel. But they refuse to allow it, and expect us to believe them without evidence as a justification for genocide. Well I won't, and you shouldn't either. The same is true for the rest of the atrocity claims now having been disproved even on Israeli mainstream TV networks.

A month or two ago I sent an email to you with this information and more with links to my references I welcome you contacting me for questions or discussions. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed21:49

We will now go to Chuck Williams to be followed by Effie Banalas. Chuck?

PresenterChuck Williamsan alternate assemblyman for the state of New CaliforniaProposedself-stated21:56

Good morning Chair Lavagnino and Supervisors, I'm Chuck Williams from Old Town Orchid and I am here today representing as an alternate assemblyman for the state of New California. Count Eight Election Treason. The 2018 midterm elections, the 2021 recall election and the 2022 midterm elections were all lost in one-to-one balloting but with the help of a fraudulent electronic system an algorithm and the actions of globalist cartels And a CCP, a dictator was installed to oversee their province of California. Now with the help of the federal courts in the state of Georgia and their unwitting corrupted secretary, the State Brad Raffinger The evidence is clear for the world to see how the selected, treasonous governor of the Providence of California and thousands of down-ballot corrupt selected officials turned the once great state of California into a Nazi communist totalitarian providence.

The election case pits an election integrity nonprofit and a handful of Georgia voters against the Secretary of State's office. They claim that the state's computerized voting system faces an unacceptable risk of being hacked, and infringes on the constitutional rights of the voters. The case has already made history after Judge Tottenberg ordered the state in 2019 to replace its previous voting machines from die-bold election systems. Her ruling came after plaintiffs highlighted the touchscreen machines, vulnerability to being hacked. In response Georgia bought the Dominion machines and began using them in June 2020 presidential election. With the Dominion machines, voters use a touchscreen also called a ballot marking device, a BMD to make their choices.

Then they print out their ballots which have a QR code that a scanner reads to record the tally of the votes. During the six-year case, computer scientists serving as experts for the plaintiffs have uncovered multiple specific ways that both the current Dominion and the previous Diebold voting machines are vulnerable to hacking. Thank you for my time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed24:21

We will now go to Effie Banalas to be followed by Rod Walters. Effie?

0:24 – 0:313 turns

CommentEffie BanalasProposed24:31

Good morning. I was not planning to talk just like Mr. Williams, and one of the things that I have noticed here is that you guys don't pay attention. You're on your phones, you're on your laptop, and I appreciate, Mr. Williams, most of the time you do. You listen, you're there, but although I'm not a fan, but I appreciate your attention, and I hope you pay attention to this too.

I received this which is the Official Border Information Guide. It is long. And it talks about Proposition 1. Have you read that proposition? It is long, it is boring, it is sneaky and it doesn't really go to show what we should do. We should help the veterans. Yes we have to help the homelessness but there's a lot okay for them already. On page number 10 says and I hope I have enough time and I'm shaking to be honest with State bond cost estimate, amount 6.4 billion.

Now what is a bond? What is a billion? If you ask out there to your constituents that I have not seen you there but just in places just taking pictures that is not being with your constituent it's talking to me, it's talking to everyone and you don't. 6.1 billion Prop 1 to be paid in 30 years 310 million per year, time 30 years. 9.3 billion and that doesn't include taxes.

So it's between 10 and 12 billions. Who is going to pay for that? We are. Us taxpayers. Us lower body citizens. Your children you have children. My children. My grandchildren. Their children's children. This is not And also, what is a bond? Do you know what that is? Tell us. In your meeting said this is the preposition we are borrowing money from where? If I'm taking this information from here someone said it's a credit card from Wall Street. Yes, it is.

Yes, it is. We are going to pay for it. You're not because you have a good salary but we're not And this is disgusting. And I hope this proposition doesn't pass. Espero que la gente vote no por esta proposición, porque no nos va ayudar a nosotros y nunca se habla de los veteranos. Ellos son los verdaderos héroes. Muchos de ustedes no saben ni lo que es un veterano. Otros que se dicen ser veteranos nunca fueron a pelear por nosotros.

I am deeply concerned about election integrity.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentRod WaltersProposed27:52

Our nation's future depends on our ability to hold free and fair elections, where the will of the people is accurately and transparently reflected in the results. Sadly there have been numerous instances of voter fraud and election irregularities in recent years which have undermined the confidence of millions of Americans in the electoral process. I believe that it is essential to address these issues in order to maintain the legitimacy of our democracy and ensure that the voices of the American people are heard.

I strongly believe that the use of Dominion voting machines poses a significant threat to the integrity of our democratic process. Here are some reasons why I am against their use. First, lack of transparency. Dominion voting machines are not transparent in their operation. The software and algorithms used are proprietary, making it difficult for citizens and election officials to verify the accuracy and the fairness of the voting process.

Second, vulnerability to hacking. Dominion voting machines are susceptible to hacking and manipulation. The machines are connected to the internet, making them vulnerable to cyber attacks and interference from malicious actors. Third, inaccuracies. There have been numerous reports of inaccuracies and errors in the use of Dominion voting machines. These errors can lead to votes being miscounted or not counted at all, undermining the integrity of our election results.

Fourth, lack of trust. The use of Dominion voting machines have eroded public trust in our democratic process. Many citizens are concerned about the potential for fraud and manipulation and are less likely to believe in the legitimacy of the election results. Threat to national security, the use of Dominion voting machines poses a threat to national security. Some of the machines are manufactured in China raising concerns about potential for espionage and foreign interference in our elections.

The use of Dominion voting machines undermines the integrity and fairness of our democratic process It is essential that we move away from these machines and return to more traditional and transparent approaches to voting. By doing so, we can restore public trust in our constitutional republic and protect the integrity of our elections. There are a number of measures that can be taken to improve election integrity, such as implementing voter ID laws, securing our voting system against cyber threats and ensuring that the ballots are counted fairly and accurately. The key to protecting our democracy is to remain vigilant and demand accountability from our elected officials. We must hold them to the highest standards of integrity and transparency.

We must be willing to speak out against any attempts to undermine Our democratic institutions. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed30:54

We will now go to Leanne Woliver, to be followed by Rizali Hardwin. Leanne?

0:31 – 0:374 turns

CommentLeanne Woliver I'mProposedself-stated31:03

Good morning Chairman and Board. My name is Leanne Woliver I'm the Senator of Santa Barbara County for this great state of New California The significance of America being a constitutional republic is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land Any law, statute, code, regulation, rule or policy made consistently with the enumerated powers of the Constitution are presumed valid. In contrast, any law, statute, code, regulation, rule, mandate or policy which opposes and or violates the Constitution in any way whatsoever is unlawful, null and void.

No bureaucrat, politician or person acting in an official government capacity has any legal authority to restrict the constitutional rights of any law-abiding citizen nor alter the count of the citizens vote. Do you agree? Also foundational to our Constitutional Republic is that the process of voting must be free fair and accurate do you agree The 2020 presidential election and all elections since then were touted by the governments at all levels as free, fair and most secure elections in history.

Since November 2020, little by little the evidence has come out as these elections were not free nor fair nor secure. For example every county registrar in every county in the country represented that the voting machines were not connected to the internet since then it has been universally admitted that the voting machines were connected to the internet either by cable or Wi-Fi While counties maintain a log of those who physically access the individual machines in person, there is no record of unauthorized access of the machines using Wi-Fi during nonbusiness hours nor while actually counting votes. Do you agree?

One, since before the November 2020 elections, registrars of voters in each county nationwide represented the voting machines could not be and were not hacked. Did you or your registrar voters in your county ever make such a representation to anyone at any time? If so whom and when? Two, are you aware that in the Federal District Court in Georgia there is a case named Kerling v. Brad Raffensperger? 1-17CV102989AT, Brad Raffensperger is the Secretary of State for Georgia.

Are you aware that during the trial in the above named case, University of Michigan professor Dr. J Alex Alderman was able to hack an electronic voting machine with only a ballpoint pen and a card and alter the vote totals in open court?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed34:17

Thank you. That is your time. All right thank you. We will now go to Rizali Hardwin to be followed by Michael English.

CommentRizali HardwinProposed34:29

Good morning. I just wanted to make you aware that a federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia is poised to deliver a crucial ruling on the vulnerability of Georgia's Dominion voting machines to hacking and whether their usage violates voter constitutional rights The outcome carries significant implications for the state's election procedures as the 2024 presidential campaign proceeds, injecting fresh uncertainty and fueling debates over any county using these Dominion voting machines and tabulators.

If this judge in Georgia rules with the plaintiff and determines the Dominion voting machines violate Georgia's constitutional law, this case will serve to have significant implications nationwide. Plaintiffs contend that the Dominion system poses a significant burden on voters and presents easy opportunities for fraud. In a courtroom demonstration, as I mentioned to you the last time I was here, Professor Alex Halderman executed a machine hack in under five minutes overriding the machine coding and supporting and swapping the votes This vividly illustrates the vulnerability of electronic voting systems, including Dominion to virtually undetectable election tampering. Importantly during the test observers were only aware of the tampering because it was disclosed to them on Election Day malicious actors whether in person or remotely could potentially hack into these Dominion voting systems and alter election outcomes Without detection, an issue that demands immediate attention and resolution.

For far too long the public has filed complaints and lawsuits when the election results seem extraordinarily inconsistent with polling or historic outcomes. Yet they are burdened with providing evidence that is impossible to obtain because a suspected fraud can be committed without detection. Given the widespread lack of transparency, the absence of neutral third party audits and the unavailability of publicly displayed open source election processes in our current election systems nationwide. The most viable solution is to reinstate conventional hand count paper ballot in person voter ID one day election at local precinct level. We need to follow what Shasta County's model is doing for one day hand count paper ballots with voter ID, in-person voting at precinct level where we get the final results on election night.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed37:07

We will now go to Michael English to be followed by Marsha Wirtz. Michael?

0:37 – 0:433 turns

CommentMichael EnglishProposed37:16

Thank you. 74% of European countries ban mail-in ballots for their citizens living in their countries. Why is this? It's because of massive fraud that has been seen when various countries allowed mail-in voting. France, one of the earliest adopters of mail-on voting completely abandoned it in 1975. This is because of fraud. That's just Europe right? Couldn't happen here in the United States.

Not quite. The United States has a long history of vote-buying, causing the states to move to secret ballots between 1888 and 1950. We can tell how pervasive vote buying was because the efforts led to a reduction in voter turnout by 8% to 12%, since people were no longer being paid to vote. Vote buying continues to thrive in recent times thanks to the use of mail-in ballots.

In 2016, CBS Channel 2 in Los Angeles reported that 256 deceased people had voted year after year using mail-on ballots. In 2020 four men confessed to paying homeless people in Los Angeles for their votes on mail-on ballots resulting in felony convictions These are just a few examples of the sordid history of problems with mail-in ballots. We here in Santa Barbara are not immune to this kind of fraudulent activity, in fact our recent elections show many characteristics of mail-in ballot manipulation.

It's time for us to do away with mass remote voting and return to one day in person ID verified hand counted elections Such elections can be run more securely, transparently and audited ability have same day results and cost a fraction of what it currently costs us to run elections. Many people raise the same concern to this board in the last session prompting the board to ask if it was even responsible for such decisions I have in my hand here a copy of the 2019 service agreement between Santa Barbara County and Dominion voting systems, valid through 2028.

That effectively forms the backbone of our current election system. Note that it is signed and authorized by Steve Lavagnino, the Chair of the Board of Supervisors. Exhibit C in it details the costs, including $769,000 in one-time hardware and training expenses and $80,000 in annual software license and hardware warranty expenses. Total not to exceed $1,600,000.

There is no longer any question that this board is responsible for funding our election system. The contract here does not require the board to continue funding this system through 2028, but it allows the termination of the contract with 30 days written notice simply for convenience. It would be in the board's- That's your time. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed40:20

We will now go to Marsha Wirtz to be followed by Sherry Foster. Marsha?

CommentMarsha WirtzProposed40:37

Good morning, Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and everyone else here today and everyone at home. I'm going to Marcia Wirtz, Santa Barbara County resident. I am just continuing with count eight of election treason. The solution the plaintiffs argue is to have voters mark paper ballots by hand as nearly 70% of voters do in the rest of the country. Not just a QR code would then be scanned and a procedure known as risk limiting audit would be used to verify the results. Georgia is one of a handful of states that uses the same election system for all of its registered voters statewide. That means that any problem, whether due to hacking or human error could affect nearly 8 million votes. Many other states use a patchwork of systems.

In June 2023, the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia unsealed the so-called 96 page Halderman Report. The security analysis of Georgia's image cast ex-ballot marking devices Period. University of Michigan Professor of Computer Science and Engineering J. Alex Halderman, and security researcher and assistant professor at Auburn University Drew Stringall collaborated on the report and demonstrated in court how Dominion machines are hacked and their tabulations are easily altered to select any individual for any office.

In the Georgia courtroom on January 19th, 2024 J Alex Halderman demonstrated in explicit detail to the court and to the world how easy it is to hack into the Dominion voting systems and alter votes following an audit of the elections of 2018, 2021, 2022 excuse me Utilizing data provided by each California county and the Secretary of State's office, it is obvious an algorithm was used to create weighted vote values in the Dominion and other vote tabulation devices by those who facilitated the selection of the governor.

The evidence in the Georgia Federal Court presented by J Alex Halderman Overwhelming support overwhelmingly supports the use of an algorithm to facilitate the corrupt election of the governor. Thank you.

0:43 – 0:505 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed43:20

We will now go to Sherry Foster, to be followed by Lisa Sloan who is our final speaker.

CommentSherry FosterProposedself-stated43:28

Good morning, Chairman Lavinino and Board of Supervisors for Santa Barbara County. I'm Sherry Foster, Assemblyman for the great state of New California. This is a continuation of Senator Leanne Rollover's statement. So I'm going to start with number four. Are you aware that the machines hacked by Dr. Haldeman in the same type of voting machine used in this country Number five, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had joint met with the California Secretary of State Shirley Ann Weber and the Register of Voters from all California counties.

A, did you participate in any way in this meeting? B. Are you willing to discuss with me exactly what was discussed in those meetings? Number six, are there any memos and or emails that mention the meeting mentioned in number five? What was discussed? What if anything was decided? Any task assigned or any plan of action? A. Are you willing to disclose any such memos and email by the demand for information without order of any court? Number seven, are you aware in the federal and state laws there is something called racketeering influenced corrupt organizations?

RICO? Are you aware that voters in this county generally and me specifically have been damaged by the collusion between Mr. Raffensperger, California Secretary of State Weber and one or more registrar voters concerning what we now know has a false narrative of the alleged integrity of the election from November 2020 to present? Now I'm continuing on with count eight treason after Marcia Wirtz. The fraudulent election system does not function without the help and support of state and county employees who either knowingly or unwittingly have worked together to perpetrate the corrupt election system It is also known that the Secretary of State of the state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger had visited Nevada and contacted numerous California County clerks and state officials to support their actions.

To continue a false narrative to the citizens of New California State and California State that the election systems are all fine. We now know that Raffensperger, California County, and the state officials' narrative is a deliberate lie. The fraudulent California election system goes back 30 years. Let the most egregorous area between 2018 through 2022 must be addressed.

This will not be addressed by the current total Terran communist government, of California unless we the people act and demand the decertification of the 2018 through 2022 elections now. Thank you that is your time, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed46:39

We will now go to Lisa Sloan who is our final speaker on general public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed46:56

Good morning Chair Lavagnino and honorable board members. On January 31, 2024 FBI Director Christopher Wray testified during a House Select Committee focusing on China on Capitol Hill. Director Wray warned Congress about a range of threats against the United States from Chinese hackers to heightened terrorist risks after the October 7th attack on Israel. Quote, Chinese hackers are positioning on American infrastructure in preparation to wreak havoc and cause real world harm to American citizens and communities.

If or when China decides the time has come to strike, Ray said. I found that the current contract with Dominion Voting Systems includes a provision for the vendor to provide a minimum of $2 million worth of cybersecurity liability insurance. It's in Exhibit D. In order to address this and other very real threats, for many decades our county relied upon single day hand counting of paper ballots with photo ID required.

In Northern California Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted to discontinue the use of their Dominion voting system machines And moved to hand count paper ballot voting. The people of Shasta County had no confidence in their election system and elected a new board member based on this issue, which gave them the majority needed to make change to paper ballot hand counting.

Since then Governor Newsom signed into law AB 969 prohibiting the use of paper ballot hand counting. And thereby trampling upon the rights of all 58 County Board of Supervisors to decide how they run their elections. This clear question, the clear question here is why would Governor Newsom be so afraid of paper ballot hand counting? Due to the degree that he had to make it illegal.

For their part, Shasta County has decided not to submit to an unconstitutional law and is continuing with their plan to carry out elections without the use of any machines. There are hundreds of counties across the United States currently in the process of moving to paper ballot and counting, and some counties have already transitioned. This nationwide grass movement is building momentum fast because the American people have lost confidence in our election systems.

The use of Dominion voting system machines for which this board has authorized funding With universal mail-in no photo ID proof of thank you. That is your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:00

Thank you And that concludes public comment, okay

0:50 – 1:0016 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.7350:08

Well that closes public comment so We generally don't give up back and forth with public comment even though I would like to I will, maybe in the future we can put something on the agenda to discuss election security. So that takes us to departmental item number one. Madam Clerk can you please read that into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:37

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the Social Services Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding CalFresh program augmentation. And there is a fourth this vote required on this item.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.7351:03

I don't think you're on yet.

CommentMaria GardnerProposedself-stated51:09

We will try that again.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.7351:12

Much better, all right.

CommentMaria GardnerProposedself-stated51:14

Good morning Chair Lavagnino and Supervisors. Social Services Director Daniel Nielsen is not here today because he has jury duty. I am Maria Gardner. I am the Assistant Director over the Economic Assistance and Employment Services Branch. With me today is Amy Krueger, Assistant Director over the Adult and Children's Services Branch Rachel Lippman, the Assistant Director over Administrative Services and AJ Quinoveva our Chief Financial Officer.

We're here today to share some positive developments in our funding from the state for the CalFresh program known at the federal level as SNAP and to seek your approval for additional staffing that is supported by the new funding formula we are also seeking your approval for a small number of staff in the adult and children's services branch For years, our funding in the CalFresh program has been constrained by policies adopted in the early 2000s which only allowed for funding increases based on caseload growth and not for the increases occurring every year for staff salary and benefits and other costs of doing business.

Over time these policies have led us to a place where we are understaffed with a workload which had a very real impact on our timelines of serving clients and our ability to meet state mandates regarding accuracy and timeliness. In 2013, when Director Nielsen joined DSS he focused on improving our audit findings and by 2016 we had zero active questions on the timeliness of application processing of both our three-day and 30 day applications.

And of equal or greater importance is that delays in our processing of semiannual reports and renewals can result in our clients having overpayments that they're responsible to pay a determination made after time consuming and labor intensive hearings As you can see from this chart caseload is projected to increase 69 percent in 2016 through the end of 2024. While staffing levels will be increased just 28 percent without positions being requested today.

The addition of the eligibility worker positions being requested would align staff growth with a case load growth. We are before you today because 8079 signed into law in 2019 mandated that the California State Board of Supervisors meet federal funding for the current budget year and ongoing. This funding requires a local match of 15%, which means that if new funding is fully utilized, the local match is $1.03 million.

An important point of information about this new methodology is that the assumed costs and eligibility worker have been updated from more than 20 years ago. And for the first time, the methodology recognizes our activities with processing applications, quality control efforts and fair hearings taking us beyond a much simpler calculation based just on a number of cases opened.

Our request related to the new CalFresh funds is for 59 positions 50 of which will be eligibility workers, leads and supervisors. We are requesting 9 support staff for the additional organizational needs. As I mentioned briefly in my introduction we are also requesting to add 6 staff in the Child Welfare, Adult Protective Services, In-Home Supportive Services and Public Authority areas.

The funding sources for these positions include unanticipated growth in 2011 realignment, additional funding for IHSS and Public Authority Administration and the overhead cost shift away from these program areas due to staffing added to the CalFresh program area. We are also requested to add some unfunded positions to allow us to be nimble during the year. As you know, we don't have our state budget until after our county budget is adopted. You receive our social services program allocation letters from the state sometime in August, September or October. The CalFresh allocation letter was received in November of this year and counties received...

For the current fiscal year, we anticipate using $1.2 million in state and federal funds from the new allocation requiring $189,000 in general fund Which we have available in our current year budget due to unanticipated 2011 realignment growth and salary savings. For the next fiscal year, new positions will cost us $4.6 million in state and federal funds and $1.3 million dollars in 2011 realignment and local funds.

There is no need for any additional general fund contribution to support the addition of these positions now and moving forward. We are asking that you adopt a salary resolution adding these requested positions Thank you Chair Lavanito.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed55:18

My question comes with as we expand these positions what is our ability in the future to reduce these positions? I believe in the future with AI becoming an evolving technology especially with service delivery especially on these kind of administrative functions, I think that there's a huge efficiency that's going to be seen in this space And so I know when we add positions and we want to reduce them, then there's things with our some of our negotiating groups or unions. So what is our flexibility in this? And do we have some of those?

I don't know, fail safes already built into it so that we can reduce those if that those efficiencies are realized sooner than later.

CommentMaria GardnerProposedself-stated56:02

Supervisor Nelson through the chair in the eligibility series, we lose about two positions per pay period And we do a hiring and training class every three months. So, we would have the ability to through attrition accrue at least two vacancies per pay period so 50 plus vacancies per year and not conduct a training class at any time that we needed to hold that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed56:30

I guess my question is a little bit further, not just with the actual physical people. But actually eliminating positions tends to get some of our negotiating groups upset. So if we actually need to reduce permanent positions on the books FTEs, not actual physical bodies because I understand that we do have that ability. Thank you very much. Can you help me out a little bit more with that? And if we can't resolve that, maybe we could look at doing this for a period of time and then renewing this in the future so it just automatically pulls back and needs to check in back with the board. So it's not a permanent increase as a

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role57:28

policy. Supervisor, through the chair, it's a good question. First of all, the board can reduce positions at your discretion through the budget So the positions, any positions that are added by a department can be reduced in the budget. Regarding our unions we have a layoff or reduction in force process that is required by our MOUs with our labor groups and we followed it in the past and that's procedurally what would happen. Would that cause difficulty? Yes, it's always difficult.

Reduction in force is not something we take lightly and it results in bumping. DSS has done a great job in the past of trying to find positions for people If you recall in 2017 we had, because of the very issue that Maria has pointed out, the state not keeping up to date with the costs of doing business in counties. We had to take major reductions. We had to reduce I can't remember over 100 positions and DSS, we had less than that out the door. I can't remember 50 just 70 people who actually lost their jobs but they did as good a job as trying to find placements for people So one is the human side of trying to ensure people have secured jobs to the degree we can if we have a reduction in force. But your question about, is there another way to do it?

We have a prescribed way of doing it and again any position can be reduced through the budget at your board's discretion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed58:54

Well, I guess if we go move forward with this, I think we should signal to our negotiating groups that we understand that and we're adding positions. And that is a benefit to the negotiating body but understand that we're doing it cautiously because we understand that there may be some changes here in the future and some efficiencies that we may have to look at reducing FTEs. So I just want to have that on the record.

If we can go back to slide 10, I had another question there as well on the local funds. Go into a little bit more detail on what those local funds are. I know you said no additional general fund but what other funding sources are we pulling from there?

CommentMaria GardnerProposedself-stated59:30

Supervisor through the chair, I will defer to A.J. Quinobeva for that answer.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed59:35

Supervisor Nelson through the chair so local funds is comprised of-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed59:40

Oh sorry. So the 1.29 is the number I'm looking at there in local funds and I thought part of the presentation it said there'd be no additional general fund so we capped it at 189. Oh, for next year's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed59:53

budget? Supervisor and also through the chair there will be no additional general fund needed. We aren't requesting any additional general fund we're able to provide the local match using our current allocation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:00:02

Okay and so with those other funds I just want to make sure sorry I just want to get it right in my head. So there's going to be approximately $200,000 in general fund as part of that 1.29 local funds and realignment what are the other where is the other 900,000 coming from?

1:00 – 1:1527 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:00:18

The other 900,000 is within our existing general fund allocation. We receive approximately a little less than $11 million total annually in general fund contribution which we use to provide local match for all of our programs. So the 1.29 million is from our general fund contribution from that total $11 million. So we, part of that 11 million does fund that 1.29 million and we have a very small share from welfare repayments.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:00:52

So I'm going to keep on this for a minute because I really you know I'm a guardian. It's their

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:00:57

old general fund so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:00:58

they get a general

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:00:58

fund contribution but it is within, so they're hiring all these new people with the money we already gave them?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:01:03

Yeah so what would, typically with that general fund money that we've already given you what are we taking away from because typically you know We probably want those dollars back if you didn't need them previously, so there's already an old general fund. They were previously that old general plan was being used somewhere for some other program, so we supplanting another program?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:01:26

Supervisor Nelson through the chair. So we aren't supplanting the general fund, we do have other sources of funds to cover our local shares such as 2011 realignment 1991 realignment and general fund contribution. We use all of that funding to cover our local share which increases every year due to cost increases and we also have other mandated programs such our cash assistance programs which do vary based on need. So we use all of those sources of funding to keep up with our cost increases annually.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:02:06

I'll ask it a different way because I think you're, I know where you're trying to get and we're not getting there so there's a reason why we have an extra 1.29 million in your budget this year through some sort of savings maybe salary savings something and we'r e trying to figure out where that's being identified at.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:02:24

Supervisor, Chair Lavanito. So it's a combination of additional unanticipated growth in 2011 realignment as well as the way that we've budgeted salary savings. Our department has historically had a 9% salary savings and we've budgeted about 3%. So our department is trying to fine tune the way that we budget salary savings so that we can afford more positions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:02:51

So generally most of this is through salary savings and I think Supervisor Nelson's point is that that would be great to, generally that comes back to us so that we make a determination during the budget of what we do with that excess money but understand. Okay thank you. Supervisor Hartman

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:03:10

I just want assurance that the state, given its terrible budget situation isn't going to try to claw this back in some way. We see that already with community benefit projects that were awarded in last year's budget so how can you lay my anxieties to rest?

CommentMaria GardnerProposedself-stated1:03:30

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. The first bit of good news is that the governor's January budget was revealed and there is no cut in there for CalFresh so the new revised allocation methodology stands we'll get another glimpse of that in May and then when the final budget is enacted

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:03:49

So if we see some difference in the May revise, but we've already voted to do this. Do we get to look at it again in our budget workshops or our final budget?

CommentMaria GardnerProposedself-stated1:04:03

Supervisor through the chair, we would have an opportunity to revisit this at any time the board would want to do that. The CEO's office could request that or we could bring that forward. We don't have the ability to fill all of these positions on day one So, training classes are about 25 in size so even if we doubled that it would take us at least two training classes, two training cycles. So a six-month period of time to be able to onboard the eligibility positions alone and so that should provide you some comfort that it isn't instantaneous.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:04:34

Good questions. Supervisor Capps?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:04:37

Thank you I'm gonna zoom out here a little bit because I just appreciate the conversation and attempt to try to right size Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting A lot of our community needs a lot of help, especially when it comes to feeding children. So I just wanted to ask you how this allocation of staff will help us achieve the goal that I know you share. You know we're at right now 71%.

Participation of those eligible for CalFresh, which is slightly above the state average and a lot further than where we were about eight or nine years ago when we were just at 40%. So I commend the department for that tremendous gain. But clearly I know you want to be at 100% as I am committed to. The State of Oregon is at 100%, the State of Washington is at 100%, Nevada is in the high 90's, Texas 85%.

We have other great examples that don't fall on any sort of red, blue lines. So how if you could just talk big picture? How does these these new positions help us get to the goal that I know we share of 100% participation of those eligible because that means we're missing? I believe you said about 22,000 people who qualify for CalFresh have hungry mouths at their table but aren't getting it so please Help us help me understand how these positions will help.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentMaria GardnerProposedself-stated1:06:19

Supervisor through the chair, yes that estimate is correct. The state of California once each year updates a figure called a program reach index and the 2023 figure for Santa Barbara County is that 71.7% of those estimated to be potentially eligible for the CalFresh program are in fact enrolled in the program. That's about 13.5% of our county about one in seven individuals but that number is not 100%.

Right and so it is estimated just under 23,000 people are potentially eligible and not yet on the program. And so how these funds would help how this staff that these funds would allow us to hire would help is that we wouldn't be scrambling to meet those deadlines of getting an application processed in 30 days or three days or renewal done late. We would be ahead of those timelines and we would actually be able to do proactive outreach strategies like we haven't seen your Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If we aren't chasing our deadlines, then we're able to have some capacity to do extended outreach and go into the communities and make people aware of our program. A hundred percent goal is very lofty. We may not reach that but we need to be able to augment our staffing to be able to do more than we're doing today.

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:07:56

Thank you. I realize that staffing is a real challenge in this kind of work because the process is so cumbersome there, I believe this is still correct that you know the form for CalFresh asks you so many questions and your workers have to be trained on how to help people with those questions. In fact one example is that it asks if you own a grave site because there are some income implications I just want to, we are in your department working and my office working with Assemblymember Hart on trying to streamline the process so it isn't so cumbersome for your workers to learn and be trained. Is it three months or six months?

CommentMaria GardnerProposedself-stated1:08:37

Supervisor through the chair, it's a three month classroom training process and about another three months of on-the-job to become Proficient or journey level in the programs. We do train staff in both CalFresh and Medi-Cal because there's a high degree of overlap Yeah, those programs

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:08:52

yeah, and I just again I thank Assemblymember Hart former supervisor because Getting that process shortening. I think this is sort of to the to supervisor Nelson's questions about Utilizing technology, making it so that this doesn't take hours and hours for eligibility workers who then get burned out. And I understand it's hard to retain. We just did an event, a tacos at taxes event on the earned income tax credit and some of The department's workers were there, and I was able to talk to them about how hard it is and how cumbersome and how frustrated people get on the other end of the phone who are just trying to access the benefits that they need. Yet it's this very lengthy process. So the more we move in the direction of streamlining, I imagine will help with the staff retention.

My final question which came into our office was about the pandemic. You referenced the pandemic and how this was somewhat delayed because of the pandemic, can you speak more generally about headlines we saw of food stamps being slashed that were benefits during the pandemic that are now gone? I know it's slightly tangential but I was curious about this as well where are we now with The emergency food funds that were available, where are they now?

So the

CommentMaria GardnerProposedself-stated1:10:11

emergency allotment supervisor through the chair. The emergency allotments that were part of the pandemic relief for the CalFresh recipients expired last February and so that was on average about $180 per month for a household in Santa Barbara County of benefits that were gone and so that definitely eroded their food purchasing power In addition to the emergency allotments, there were programmatic procedural flexibilities that are about to expire at the end of March including waiving an interview if the application is complete. And so that will have another impact for us for adding more work

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:10:48

back. A lot of challenges just to get food on the table. Thank you very much Ms. Gardner and everybody else.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:10:53

Supervisor Williams? Well, first of all I really appreciate you being introspective about caseloads and about both the welfare of the employees of the department and our clients. To ensure that aid that is needed comes to those in need. I also hope as we staff up that there is also proactive outreach that can be achieved. That's one of the things that obviously goes out the window when there is not sufficient staffing and proactive staffing has in the past been able to reach places differently and your folks When I was in the state legislature your folks participated in the Franklin Service Center enthusiastically and there is a location, I think that we would like to have something like that replicated.

And so I hope as staffing goes up that we can do more proactive outreach to communities where some of those 23,000 people might be that are not on CalFresh but are eligible

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:12:20

Supervisor Nielsen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:12:21

Yes, thank you Chair Lavinio. I'm going to go back to slide 10 for a minute and trying to get myself to a place where I can support this but I am still not quite there yet. This question might be for the CEO on the 1.3 million of the alignment funds or local What's the flexibility of those funds. I mean were those funds that if we did not spend them here could they be used for things like general medical or other public safety things that might you know are typically used in realignment areas? You know I'm not against what you guys are proposing it just we make a decision to allocate these funds that means we're not going to be doing something else and question is this is the highest need so I want to answer that question. The other question is if we pull those 1.3 back You have from federal and state funds.

So I guess that's where I'm trying to get to or do we need that 1.3 to be able leverage the 4.6 which I understand is often part of the process as well. So walk me through this.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:13:17

Supervisor Nielsen, if the Chair will have Nancy Anderson who as you know was our former budget director speak to that. But the short answer is the realignment revenue is restrictive and at one point in the local funding we are required to provide a match so I appreciate the department because when this came up I had the same kind of questions and as I said that I could not support this unless they were guaranteeing they would not do They would not require additional general fund contribution, which is what they've committed to. But I'll have Ms. Anderson speak to your other questions

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:13:48

Supervisor Nelson, through the Chair and CEO Miyasato somewhat explained the limitations on that. So the 2011 realignment is very specific to their program. The general fund contribution so you're targeting that $11 million that is built into the budget annually they haven't asked for an increase because what they're indicating is that they get enough growth And typically we're not budgeting that growth, they determine what that's going to be and are able to utilize that in the middle of the year.

So the focus of the general fund contribution I think is 11 million that you're thinking potentially could be in a sense come back to the general fund. So they evaluate that every year there is typically around 15% it depends on the program of obligation That the county has to calculate into what they budget. So they determine that, they have some flexibility as their budget staff has indicated that they are not able to fill all of the positions but we have to obligate our funds to that in order to receive the full amount of funding that they're trying to achieve. So some of that is information Determining throughout the year depending on what their vacancies are at. So it is a leverage, you mentioned that and that's exactly right.

But there is flexibility and they've been very good about as things come up that are a general fund covered need to work with us and say yeah and look at those funds based on the availability and cover those costs for general fund funded programs and projects.

1:15 – 1:2011 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:15:40

Okay, I guess the one question I want to get to specifically though is in realignment are there buckets that are specifically for CalFresh or is that bucket wide enough that it could be pulling in things like some levels of public safety? Like I said jail medical you know something that's on a lot of our minds. So how big is that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:16:03

You know what I would probably look to their staff to answer that because there is some limitations but I don't know about the flexibility on various program structure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:16:15

Supervisor Nelson through the chair. So our 2011 realignment comes through the support services sub-account which we use to fund foster care, adoptions, child welfare services, adult protective services so that pot of funding is restricted to our social services programs.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:16:37

Well, that's helpful too. But that begs another question because those are some other departments or other services that we hear a lot that have funding concerns as well. So again, we're up here allocating funds and when we don't get to print our own money in the county so we have to determine these things. These are finite decisions. I guess I have to trust the department. So you believe this is the best use of those funds? That there is not some other place in the department spent that might be a better source to receive ultimately a greater benefit to your charge as the department.

CommentMaria GardnerProposedself-stated1:17:20

Supervisor through the chair, by increasing the number of staff in the CalFresh program then that program picks up more of the overhead in the department which is how we are asking to add today the six positions in adult and children's services because they're not now having to pick up that overhead. So it's a win across the department for being able to basically find change under the couch cushions for us, so we have a specific need here for the CalFresh program and then we looked globally for what else we could make happen with this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:17:51

Okay thank you Ms. Carter. All

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:17:52

right thank you very much. Two points I'd just like to make is that what Supervisor Hartman Thank you. We are not put in a position where we're attempting to backfill state and federal shortfalls with local dollars, our general fund. So what I just want to make sure is that as the budget changes, as the state budget impacts become more clear That your rollout, that you can come back to us and say okay there was some change now we're going to get shorted this amount of money but we've only hired this amount of people so let's keep that line of communication open.

But I'm in full support here and then I think the other item that was raised by Supervisor Nelson Which I think is a much broader discussion that we do need to talk about. Is, because it's the first thing I thought of when I read this is we've got to talk about at some point what does technology and this new wave of AI bring to the county? We have a lot of positions that are clerical and there's going to be a changing workforce world out there and we just gotta get out in front of that so thank you for all that.

Good team presentation today. Are there any speakers from the public?

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:19:31

Chair Levenino, members of the board we have no request to speak on this item from the public.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:19:36

Well I'll accept a motion on A, B and C.

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:19:39

So moved.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Joan Hartmann · Seconded by Williams
Show transcript
Moved by Supervisor Hartman. Seconded by Supervisor Williams. Do we need a roll call? Okay all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously okay Very good, thank you very much. Madam Clerk can we please read departmental item number two into the record?
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:20:08

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding ordinance amendments to the County Land Use and Development Code, LUDC, Montecito Land Use and Development Code MLUDC, and Article Two Coastal Zoning Ordinance CZO. To comply with recent changes in state housing law these changes include new regulations and development standards regarding the streamlined permitting of supportive housing and low barrier navigation centers The establishment or modification of objective design standards for applicable multi-unit and mixed use housing projects, revisions to the standards and criteria related to state density bonus law provisions, and establishment or modification of standards for streamlined housing review.

1:20 – 1:252 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:20:57

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board as Miss Alexander indicated this is a good sized package of ordinance amendments that bring us into compliance with state law. I have three members of the staff with me today at Lila Spring one of our planners in long range planning Brianna Alamia and who's also a planner and then Alex Tuttle, our deputy director. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Miss Spring and Miss Alamia

PresenterLila SpringBrianna Alamia to present to you the Housing Bill Implementation Project OrdinanProposedself-stated1:21:28

Thank you, Lisa. Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. As Lisa stated, my name is Lila Spring. Excuse me? And I'm here with Brianna Alamia to present to you the Housing Bill Implementation Project Ordinance Amendments. In our presentation today we will cover project background, the new and revised ordinance sections and chapters, policy and ordinance consistency, compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA, and staff recommendations.

Now to provide some background on why we are proposing these amendments, in recent years the state legislature has passed a number of new state housing laws with the goal of increasing the supply of housing particularly affordable housing and housing for special needs groups. This project includes amendments to the three county zoning ordinances, the County Land Use Development Code or LUDC which covers inland areas outside of Montecito The Montecito Land Use and Development Code, or MLUDC, which covers inland areas of Montecito. And Article 2, the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, or CZO, which covers the coastal zone.

The ordinance sections included in these amendments are the Density Bonus Program, supportive housing, multiple unit and mixed-use housing objective design standards, qualifying housing streamlined review, and low barrier navigation centers. The first of the proposed amendments are to the Density Bonus Program, which implements state density bonus laws. This law also provides for concessions or incentives related to development standards.

Recent changes in state law include increased eligibility including the addition of eligibility for moderate income units, increased size of the density bonuses and increase in a maximum number of concessions and modifications to required parking ratios. This brings us to one of the optional provisions. Affordable housing developed under State Entity Bonus Law has a required affordability period of 55 years before conversion to market rate. The county has the discretion to increase this period, and staff are proposing to increase the affordability period to 90 years. The reasons staff are proposing this increase are to maintain the inventory of affordable housing... ...of permanent housing linked to supportive services for occupancy by target populations.

Changes to the content of these sections are relevant to the addition of provisions for bi-rate supportive housing in state law. These changes allow supportive housing bi-rate meaning ministerially without discretionary permit as long as they meet certain requirements. In inland area this means projects would be allowed with a zoning clearance which is not noticed or subject to appeal and in the coastal zone this would be a postal development permit.

Supportive housing that qualifies for ministerial permitting is only subject to objective development standards including objective design standards Our currently effect in the inland area and with the option of these amendments will go into effect in. 50 units, however the county has the discretion to increase this maximum staff are proposing to allow up to 75 units and by right supportive housing projects and the reasons we're proposing this or to increase the available housing for special needs groups and align with the goals policies and programs at the recently adopted housing element Our next set of amendments are to the Multiple Unit and Mixed-Use Housing Objective Design Standards.

These objective design standards were developed in response to an increase in state legislation that only allows the application of established objective design standards, objective meaning no personal or subjective judgment is required to implement the standards. The purpose of these standards is to provide public and planners with clear... And since that time staff worked with representatives from the four county boards of architectural review To refine the standards and apply them to the zoning ordinances covering inland Montecito and the coastal zone. I will now turn the presentation over to Bianca Lamia, thank you.

1:25 – 1:3013 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:25:14

Thank you, Lila. Now I will be talking about the Zoning Ordinance Amendments to implement qualifying housing streamline review. The passage of Senate Bill 35 implemented a streamlined application review process for qualifying multiple unit and mixed use housing projects that contain at least 50% affordable units and are located on urban infill sites. These projects are statutorily exempt from CEQA, require ministerial review and minor revisions to the standards in applying them to the inland zoning ordinances including the Montecito Zoning Ordinance.

On January 1st 2025 these state law requirements will go into effect in the coastal zone at which time staff will propose coastal zoning ordinance amendments. The last set of proposed zoning ordinance amendments are low barrier navigation centers Low Barrier Navigation Centers, or LBNCs are service-enriched shelters serving as temporary housing focused on moving people experiencing homelessness into permanent housing and connecting them to income, public benefits and health services. Low Barrier Navigation Centers apply in mixed use zones and non-residential zones permitting multiple family uses. The proposed ordinance establishes... ...an ordinance consistency with the county's existing codes.

The proposed ordinances implement mandated state laws and are consistent with the county's existing policies and ordinances. They're consistent with a comprehensive plan, including the recently adopted housing elements goals and policies. They're consistent with applicable community and area plans, existing land use designations, and the coastal land use plan. Projects in the coastal zone do not lessen the effect of and must be consistent with all applicable policies and provisions of the local coastal program.

Now to discuss environmental review. The proposed zoning ordinance amendments are exempt from the provisions per CEQA guideline section 15061B3 as there is no possibility of significant effect on the environmental protection act which exempts local government activities involving the preparation and adoption of local coastal program amendments from environmental review.

To conclude, staff recommends that the board take the following actions. Make the required findings for approval. Determine that the proposed ordinances are exempt from the provisions of CEQA and finally adopt case number 21 ORD 1, 21 ORD 2 and 21 OR D3. This concludes our presentation and we're available to answer any questions. Thank

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:27:27

you very much. Are there any questions from the board? Supervisor Kaps.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:27:34

Yeah, thank you. I was particularly interested in the change related to the low barrier navigation centers. You know how important those are and this expiration of 2027 is that problematic for nonprofits and others who run these to plan? It seems kind of around the corner so just curious if you can discuss that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:28:04

Supervisor Caput, through the chair. So obviously that's a state expiration date. I would not be surprised if it gets extended. I believe it's already been extended once. The idea with these is it's a temporary provision to try to address the significant need for homeless and sheltering homeless populations It does allow for a streamlined review process, so projects that are already in the pipeline or conceptual would be able to get through the process before that expiration date without issue.

And as I said, I think there's a decent chance the state could extend that deadline further.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:28:46

Okay,

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:28:48

thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:28:49

Supervisor Hartman?

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:28:52

I had a question about the 90-year extension. Can that be renewed in 90 years or is that an absolute end

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:29:04

date? Supervisor Hartman through the chair, so the 90 year term should be set up so that it's renewed every time the unit transfers. And so essentially it rolls just rolls. Yeah

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:29:23

OK and just so today is exempt from CEQA because its policy but we're actually implementing a policy that the state requires that exempts SB 35 projects from CEQAs

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:29:39

correct

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:29:41

So anyway, it defies logic but

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:29:44

that's okay. Supervisor Hartman through the chair I would agree and and but there are a number of things that we find with the state law that are interesting I did want to add on to something Mr. Tuttle said, I believe and we can work with council on this if the state did not extend that low barrier navigation center requirement for streamlining the county could opt to maintain our own streamlining provisions in our code.

1:30 – 1:3721 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:30:23

Supervisor Nielsen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:30:25

Yes thank you chair let me know. I guess the first question is what happens if we don't support these changes today? Might be for council actually.

PresenterLila SpringBrianna Alamia to present to you the Housing Bill Implementation Project OrdinanProposedself-stated1:30:38

Supervisor through the Chair, these laws are already in effect statewide so what we're doing today is trying to bring our code into compliance with existing state laws with the goal of really trying to make it easier for planners like myself And in development review as well as applicants to understand the law and to read our code and know that it's, you know, reflective of the state laws. So regardless of what we do today these laws are in effect.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:31:08

It's whether we absorb them or not right? Whether we take credit as well I mean because otherwise it's just a state and we can continue to beat up Sacramento for some of these things or whether we embrace themselves and adopt them.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:31:34

Mr. Chair members of the board For the most part these implement state law and they apply to us either way So even if they're not in our code Our recommendation would be that the staff still apply them so it just it just provides transparency There are some changes though that are being proposed and so that's at your discretion of your board You don't you're not required to adopt those changes, and you may want to go with just what the state law says

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:32:02

And that brings me to one of my other concerns, is I know when we started to make some of these changes on the ADUs, we eliminated something from the zoning code, the residential second unit. You know, that was an issue there which residential second units have other uses beyond what an ADU would have the privileges. Are there anything that you was eliminated through this process as well? That might be limiting?

Something we still need to fix but...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:32:35

Supervisor Nielsen through the chair. Nothing was eliminated, it was more additive with these provisions. Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:32:41

so existing policies are still in place? So we didn't reduce like we did at the ADU where an effort to clean up we actually threw out some existing uses?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:33:00

Nothing like that was done as part of this effort.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:33:04

My next question was about the supportive services. And I want to understand that a little bit better because I think that's where that's going to impact all of us and I think we need to be really thoughtful about that. It says wherever multifamily is permittable, that this could be done by right? Is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:33:30

Yes I think if we could return the slide. We can have a slide up and if we can return the screen to the slides that would be

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:33:41

helpful.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:33:43

Supervisor Nielsen through the chair that is correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:33:46

So in any residential zone because we allow multifamily in any residential zone with a permit right whether it's make it be a CUP with an allowable use. Would this not allow for supportive services in residential zones?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:33:57

So in multifamily residential zones Or where multi-family units are permitted, so not in single family zones.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:34:03

Right. Supervisor Nielsen to the chair. So we're looking at not the E1 R1E1, so R2 which is two unit development design residential DR PRD and then our various commercial zones that allow for mixed use because it's multifamily or mixed use are those zones where this could occur.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:34:23

Any DR zoning, this would be allowed? Correct. And the supportive services can we go through the list of what those things are because I've got a case study here in my community that I think we should be thinking

PresenterLila SpringBrianna Alamia to present to you the Housing Bill Implementation Project OrdinanProposedself-stated1:34:36

about. Supervisor through the chair, the supportive services that are offered on site are generally things like case management And you know, there are some folks living in supportive services that can work. So it's help with job applications. It can be computer rooms for with supportive services inside.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:35:01

It also can be a facility for those suffering from schizophrenia right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:35:12

Supervisor Nelson through the chair I'm reluctant to confirm that, but there are people that do have mental health challenges that do live in supportive housing services. And then they have those kind of mental health supportive services onsite for those individuals to help them stay on their medications or whatever else they need.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:35:37

Yeah so and we need more of these supportive housing Throughout the state and throughout our community, and I don't discount that. But it is sometimes the right place at the right time and make sure it goes through a process. And that's why by right versus having some local control over where some of these go are fairly important. I have a senior home in my community that's completely surrounded by residential in all directions for over a mile.

Right next to a school, it's former senior home that they're looking at maybe potentially bringing in a facility where there would be people who are suffering from a non-locked facility from schizophrenia. And so you know those are things that are you know obviously those people need help and we as a county have been very sympathetic but I think my constituents would have some concerns about what that would mean an impact their neighborhood And so, you know signing up for that guys making that buy right. So when you know your constituents come to you and say hey why is this here? Why did I have no say over this?

You know I think that would be something I'd want to have say over. And so that's one reason why I don't think I can support this piece at least at this point even if it's in state law you know I would rather have somebody have to come and try to prove that up that we that is by right to do that than just to hand that over to a developer that wants to potentially severely impact our communities and I understand that these people are in our community anyway But we're looking at concentrations, near sensitive receptors.

And to me it's a huge concern as a supervisor over some of these areas is how does that potentially impact my constituents? You know SB 35 has already been something that's a challenge in my district where they put an SB35 project 61 units on a one acre site You know in an area right next to two schools where traffic is already bad already. So you know I don't want to add more control over it. I don' t want to incorporate some of these things into our county code that is not appropriate. You know that we're giving up local control on these things by embracing some of the state laws that I think are really destructive for our communities.

1:37 – 1:437 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:37:58

Supervisor Hartman.

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:37:59

Yes, in broad strokes I think that we've seen more and more state usurpation taking over of what had been a traditionally local land use authority. So I think all of us are not happy to see that, but I don't think there's any doubt we'll see in the court cases. But so far the state apparently has that right. So where I have difficulty is to target any particular mental illness especially because I have relatives who have schizophrenia and to target them and say, and it's well-managed and it can be well managed. So I think it's really unfortunate to target people with any kind of disease or affliction and say we can't have them in our neighborhood, that really strikes at my heart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:38:55

Can I respond to that? Sure. Yeah and I think what I said was just using it as an example up there and that we do need to have more these facilities. I think I've shown a willingness to support some of them. I was a champion for the Crestwood facility that we put in there and that's in the neighborhood as well My problem is that means every place is a great place. We need to make sure we do this thoughtfully and for this to be done just by right without having any input from us, it's a challenge. It could absolutely still be the right spot.

Supervisor Hartman I didn't mean any disrespect to anybody like that. I've got mental health issues in my own family so it's near dear to my heart as well In that environment, I was just trying to use that as an example. There's some diagnoses that there are other additional concerns and conditions need to be put in place to manage those things. You know these things are by right.

That still could be the right spot but we might want to work on a CUP that has a management plan for how certain issues are going to be addressed in that community. We're not gonna have those abilities anymore. It's not necessarily that they can't be there it's just that we're gonna lose the local control to be able having that and again we can move Thank you.

Somewhere that would potentially be inconsistent with the other zonings or not really even to provide good services, but maybe it lands cheap. So we'll go ahead and put it out there in Sisquauk where they really are going to be isolated from the services that they need. And so again I'm not OK with making supportive housing a buy right use. So I know that we may have to wrestle with a developer that's trying You know, impose that on us through the state law. But I would rather have that fight than embrace this and put my name behind it today.

not transcribed≈23s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:41:09

Well. I guess my take on that is I'm not embracing it, but I'm also realizing its state law. So I think the reason why the state has come in and said we're going to allow things like this by right is because the history of When we do try to, and you bring up great points that we wanna make sure we find the right spot. But you know as well as I do when you try to find the right spot for supportive housing this room's full of people like yeah really love this idea.

This isn't the right spot. And so this is what's driven the state to kind of take the ball away from us and not just Santa Barbara County everywhere. Rich counties poor counties northern southern it doesn't matter nobody wants The majority of people push back when supportive housings plan for their neighborhoods. So I would absolutely love to have the ability to put a CUP or say you've got to have a security plan, or does this work out?

But we have been usurped by the state on this so I don't like it any more than you do. We'll continue to speak out on this, but I also for me. I look at this as this is us matching up our codes with the actual state law so I'm going to be supporting it but Supervisor Hartman

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:42:41

yeah just quick question about the objective standards how much can we insert there?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:42:51

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So the objective standards, we did get a Planning Commission recommendation on them so we would want to make sure that if you did have a change that we didn't have to go back to them for anything but these standards I think were slightly modified by input from members of each Board of Architectural Review to add a few little components to it. I think they approved it for the most part, but I'm interested to hear if there's something that I can assess whether or not that would be something we would have to return to the PCU.

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:43:26

I guess I didn't really focus on the objective standards. I did when we did them last Christmas, but are they mainly design? Or do they get to some of the issues that we're talking about here?

1:43 – 1:4818 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:43:42

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So objective standards include both the design standards, subjective design standards as well as other objective development standards so things like setbacks height limits parking requirements etc those would sort of fall under our standard objective or our objective standards

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:44:02

so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:44:02

as opposed to establishing a We have not taken upon ourselves to establish new standards that would be applicable to these projects. And essentially, I think the way the state law reads and what our code reflects is that you can only apply standards to these projects that would be applicable to other multifamily housing in that zone. sort of prevented from applying new standards that would not be applicable to other types of housing.

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:44:32

So you can't discriminate so then my question is if there is supportive housing I assume there are other standards that apply for the care of people and the security, not through land use but through other statutes?

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:44:49

Supervisor Nelson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:44:50

Yes, thank you Chair Lovenio. I would hope that we could take if this does go ahead and move forward today a second look at that with maybe County Council's help on finding ways to wrestle a little bit more local control back on some of these potential conflicts that might happen. I understand this is by right again not to have any ability Is really, I think it's gonna be frustrating for us all. So you know there's some places here where we can tighten this up to limit this and I understand what Supervisor Lavinio said that you know nobody wants next to them but our board has done some good projects and we have got some things through and we all kind of showed leadership up here to get our communities on board. You know the La Posada project with Supervisor Caps and I when you know we had a community meeting, Crestwood, we have had examples of bringing these into neighborhoods Where we where we did have control.

What's going to be really a lot of heartburn for me is to have no control over that you know if we eventually have to show that leadership and be brave to do the right thing and this board has done that I'm not looking for the state to usurp that from me. And so I'm getting very frustrated by this whole concept.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:46:07

I think we all are, but I also am not frustrated enough to strap on the gloves and fight the 800-pound gorilla for that. So Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:46:15

Yeah, I think it would be just interesting to just have a review of the, I think three elements or two or three elements that are in these that we really have discretion over. One of the reasons why people elect us still in this day and age of acrimony and disbelief is that we respect the law, right? That we're supposed to uphold the law whether or not we agree with a law. So can we just have that review? One is the year limitation, right?

And I would argue we, I mean this is a great opportunity to do something better. Have a longer period of affordability if we don't pass this not only are we thumbing our nose at the law but we're also reducing the protections for affordability and then what are the other two?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:47:21

Supervisor Williams for the chair. So we have it up on this slide here for the supportive housing, the state law establishes up to 50 units that could be processed by right supportive housing. We had proposed going up to 75 but that is certainly somewhere where you as a board have discretion to cap it at the 50 units established

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:47:42

by state law. But the navigation centers That's a

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:47:50

different category.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:47:57

I would argue that not only are we trying to be inclusive, it is also our responsibility to uphold the law. I did also want to thank staff. There is a huge amount of work With the housing element. And so I just know the workload, I know the amount of time that you all have put into it and just want to

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:48:23

thank you for that. Madam Clerk do we have any requests to speak from the public?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:48:27

Chair Lavinino members of the board we have no requests to speak from the public on this item. Okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:48:33

a motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:48:36

Mr. Chair

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:48:37

yes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:48:37

just to address the question that came up early about local discretion The objective standards are really where you would look for what we want to apply locally for these types of projects. And so in the future, if you wanted to re-look at maybe adding additional objective standards that's where I think you would look for local discretion.

1:49 – 1:5511 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:49:02

Supervisor Nielsen, he is ready to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:49:03

vote. I did want to say that maybe we can give direction and first have to come back with some objective standards to give us more control on these things in the future. I'm not going to support it but I think it would make it better for all of us to have those so if they can go you know we're not looking necessarily for an ordinance amendment at this point but maybe some a menu of those things that we might be able to grab in and ask to be included in the future.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:49:30

Supervisors to the Chair, I just wanted to add a comment that just because these developments through the state law which there's disagreement about loss of local control allows for by right placement it doesn't mean by right to be a bad neighbor. And so we would have the normal tools that you do. Sometimes it's laborious and long, but the normal tools that we have in place if these housing developments and these uses, these people are bad developers, the occupants are bad neighbors, and we have the typical tools we would have. So I just want to remember that's always part of our power as a jurisdiction.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:50:10

So can I get a motion with the Supervisor Nielsen's recommendation in there as well.

PresenterMiss SpringProposed · by introduction1:50:19

So I would move A through C of the staff report today and then come back at a future time looking at objective standards.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:50:29

I second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:50:30

Supervisor Kapp seconds with Supervisor Hartman with the motion, Supervisor Kapps with the second all those in favor aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Passes 4 to 1 Thank you very much. We'll now recess to closed session. Will County Council please read the items for consideration today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:50:56

Thank You Mr. Chair, members of the board. The Board in closed session is scheduled to consider one item it's public employee appointment reappointment for the Director of Public Works and the time estimate is one hour. Okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:51:07

why don't we try to get back a little after noon All right, we are reconvening the meeting of February 13th 2024. Will County Council please report out from closed session?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:55:36

Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board met in closed session on one item public employee appointment for Director of Public Works and the board took no reportable action.

ElectedSteve LavagninoChairProposedvoiceprint 0.731:55:45

Okay with that were adjourned to Tuesday February 27 2024 here in Santa Barbara chaired by Supervisor Capps looking forward to it