BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 April 21, 2026

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 – 0:058 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role0:17

Good morning everybody. Good morning, I will call to order the April 21st 2026 regular meeting in the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk please call the roll.

Roll call — called by Labadino
Show transcript
Supervisor Lavinino? Here. Supervisor Lee? Here. Supervisor Caps? Here! Supervisor Hartman? Here and Chair Nelson? Here
Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role0:37

Please stand and join me in pledging allegiance to our flag

The next item of business is

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction0:49

approval of the minutes from the April 7th, 2026 regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Can I get a motion?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:16

Second. Okay, we got a motion and a second all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously Next item of business, our CO report. Ms. Miyasato do you have a report this morning?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction1:32

I do thank you Chair Nelson good morning chair and board members. I just want to highlight an event held by the Ag Commissioner recently more than 40,000 pounds of legacy and unwanted pesticides were safely collected and disposed of during a recent free commercial pesticide disposal event hosted by the Agricultural Commissioner's Office in collaboration with the Public Works Department Held at the end of March at the San Yanez Transfer Station in Los Olivos. The event served local farmers, ag professionals, pest management businesses and pesticide dealers. The event was funded by a $200,000 California Environmental Protection Agency grant and the strong participation I think underscores the success of the program and reinforces the county's commitment to environmental protection and public safety as well as means to help our farmers.

So congratulations to the Ag Commissioner for a great showing and a great event.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:24

All right, thank you and our Commissioner is second to none. Moving along Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:33

Mr. Nelson and members of the board, I do have a couple quick announcements this morning. We received a continuance request from the department to continue administrative item number 27 to the May 5th 2026 Board meeting. Administrative item number 27 is from the fire department it is regarding revisions to the rules and regulations of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department's Board of Appeals and appointment of candidates onto the Board of Appeals Additionally, it was brought to our attention that Departmental Item No. 4 regarding the Use and Preservation Policy for County-Owned Property in County Parks and Recreation Areas was not visible on the online PDF agenda for a period of time over the weekend. While the item remained visible on the posted agenda and available in the meeting details, it was not displayed on the online PDF or accessible versions of the agenda.

At an abundance of caution regarding public noticing, the Chair has called a special meeting for this afternoon at 1230 p.m. to hear this item only. Departmental Item No. 4 will now be listed as Item No. 1 on the Special Meeting Agenda. Although the item is still anticipated to be heard closer to 130 p. m., the earlier time ensures that item is properly noticed in the event the morning agenda concludes sooner than expected. So if you are a member of the public who is interested in departmental item number four listed on today's regular meeting agenda, please be advised that will now be departmental item number one on the special meeting agenda which will have a separate zoom link for those wishing to provide public comment remotely.

And lastly, for information on the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and instructions on how to provide public comment on items listed on today's agenda or during general public comment please refer to page 2 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 of the Board's Office at area code 805-568-2240 Again that number is 805-568-2240. That concludes my announcements for today.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:29

All right, thank you Madam Clerk and for those of you who may have not picked up on it so item four today that was on our regular agenda will be now item one in our special meeting that will be this afternoon as we mentioned before it would take place no earlier than 12 30 but will likely be probably closer to 1 or 1 30 based on our calendar the reason why that again that was done out of abundance of caution there was a technical glitch this weekend with our Online posting and so we wanted to make sure that we did it properly So that item will again be heard this afternoon probably about 1 1 30 But we wanted to have it on there at 1230 just to make sure That was properly noticed if we needed to have their earlier if we moved along a little quicker this morning So if you're here to speak about the immigration and custom enforcement Item, that will likely be after lunch after sometime after 1230 as part of our special meeting once we conclude our regularly scheduled items in this agenda.

So just wanting to make sure everybody in the public understands that As we move forward today. So with that, we're now moving along to the administrative agenda.

Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled — click to expand
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:29

Would any board members like to pull items on the administrative agenda today? Supervisor Lavenino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5voiceprint 0.945:33

17 and 19.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:34

Okay got those. Supervisor Hartman I have right now 12 and 17 and 19 for you. All right. 12 for Supervisor Capps and then do you have anything that's Supervisor Lee? All right, and then I'm also pulling 27. That's being pulled by the department as well. I just have a brief comment on it before we make the continuation adoption so that won't be a part of the initial motion. There'll probably be a motion later on. So what i like to do at this time is get a motion for the balance of the agenda so it's all the oh sorry Madam Clerk are there members of public that pulled items

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction6:11

Chair Nelson and members of the board, yes we have requests to speak from the public on A4, A17 and A19. Give me one second.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:39

All right, so we're going to go ahead and I'm going to ask for it to adopt the administrative agenda with the exception of 4, 12, 17, 19 or 27. Can I get that motion? Motion from Supervisor Lavino.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction6:59

I'll second.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role7:00

Second from Supervisor Caps. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, at this time we are going to go to our resolutions that were going to be presented today.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction7:17

Chair Nelson and members of the board administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson it is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Jerry Nichols of the Public Works Department as the April 2026 Employee of the Month in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have Jerry Nichols Kevin Thompson and Chris Sneddon Whereas Jerry Nichols exemplifies the county's organizational values of accountability, customer focus, equity and inclusion, innovation trust and ethics. And whereas Jerry Nichols Laguna Sanitation County Districts Chief Plant Operator played an integral leadership role in the district's recent plant upgrade project consistently going above and beyond to ensure construction testing and commissioning stayed on track and exceeded operational expectations.

And whereas engineers interested in learning how to refine and optimize design will find a teacher in Jerry who is humble, proactive problem solver with deep technical knowledge. And whereas Jerry takes ownership of his work and accountability for his team by ensuring that reliability of critical wastewater systems, offering consistent support in training for a staff and upholding the highest standards of public service. And whereas Jerry raises the bar for what it means to be a leader and a public servant he contributes to a positive collaborative and respectful workplace culture Fostering teamwork and boosting morale through his professionalism and consistently good-natured attitude. Now therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge Jerry Nichols as Employee of the Month for April 2026.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed9:03

Chair Nelson, board members. In many contexts you don't want your wastewater plant operator on the skyline so we're really grateful for the opportunity and for the recognition from your Board of Jerry today I was just thinking about his job and what he does You know he has to understand biology, chemistry, logistics, mechanical engineering, electrical work, computer systems and a whole bunch of other things that it takes to run these plants. And Jerry's really great at all of that with as was mentioned a really can do attitude.

And is really good at coordinating his teams for an operation where failure is not an option. So, so thank you for this recognition and I think Kevin Thompson our general manager has a few words to say.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed9:57

Thank you board of directors through the chair members of the public. In Jerry we find a leader, someone who models ownership and humility. Someone not looking for validation but success as a team. Someone we can trust having developed technical interpersonal skills through years of dedication both on and off the job. He routinely goes out of his way to share knowledge and encourage others which I am personally thankful for and I'm sure others in this room are as well.

As Chief Plant Operator, we want him on our side to help lead the operation of an essential facility that serves a community of roughly 35,000 people. A wastewater reclamation plant that serves the town of Orchid and is vital to the county's critical infrastructure. His edification and leadership were key in completing the recent plant upgrade which will serve the community for years to come.

Jerry is someone we want to have on our team for whatever challenge awaits us. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role10:59

Thank you, Kevin. Jerry?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed11:03

I am very honored and humbled to be selected as this month's Employee of the Month. I want to thank Kevin Thompson and Chris Nidden for the nomination. Working for the county is truly rewarding. I've always believed that our role in local government is to serve our community with dedication I'm proud to work alongside a team that shares that same passion for serving our residents every day.

However, this award isn't just about me. Any success I've had is a direct result of the support from my colleagues at Laguna Sanitation and the Public Works Department. I'm fortunate to work with such a collaborative team, and this really belongs to all of us who work behind the scenes to keep our operations running smoothly. I'm excited to continue serving our county and supporting my team.

Thank you again for this honor. Thank you Jerry.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction12:25

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Lee. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of April 20th, 2026 through April 24th, 2026 as National Home Visiting Week in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Kelly Berrigan, Director Maternal Child and Adolescent Health Program, Maria De Villa, Program Coordinator Healthy Families Santa Barbara County, Linda Oh, Public Health Nurse Supervisor, and Cecilia Torres, Home Educator.

And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas children thrive when parents and caregivers are supported with knowledge, confidence, and encouragement from trusted skilled professionals. And whereas home visiting plays a vital role in supporting early childhood development by fostering safe stable and nurturing relationships during the earliest years. A critical window for brain growth and long-term success And serves as an essential tool for advancing equity by connecting families, especially those facing systemic barriers with culturally responsive strengths based services that promote health well-being and opportunity.

And whereas home visitors empower families with practical tools and compassionate guidance to meet the unique developmental needs of children, improving health and educational outcomes while strengthening family bonds. And whereas these highly trained professionals deliver services with deep respect for community context and each family's culture values and lived experience meeting families where they are physically and emotionally And whereas we celebrate and commemorate the dedication, compassion and lasting impact of home visiting professionals across Santa Barbara County in partnership with First 5, Santa Barbara County, Santa Barbara County Health, CALM and the community partners who implement home visiting services. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors to the county of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge the week of April 20th through 24th as National Home Visiting Week and urges all residents to recognize the vital role of home visitors And their unwavering commitment to health, safety and success of our families in our community.

Passed and adopted today.

PresenterCecilia TorresHealthy Families America program with County HealthProposedself-stated14:34

Good morning Chair Nielsen, Supervisor Lee and members of the board. My name is Cecilia Torres I am a home visitor with the Healthy Families America program with County Health. On behalf of home visitors across the county, I extend sincere gratitude for your recognition of Home Visiting Week. Honoring the professionals who support families during their earliest most critical years and highlighting home visiting as a cornerstone of a strong family support system.

I stand in celebration with my colleagues from the MCH Field Nursing and Healthy Families America teams who are holding pictures of home visiting in action. Home visiting programs connect pregnant and parenting families with trained professionals who offer professional guidance and practical tools at no cost. Using

0:15 – 0:182 turns

PresenterCecilia TorresHealthy Families America program with County HealthProposedself-stated15:29

evidence-based and informed models, these services promote healthy pregnancies, strengthen parenting confidence, support self-sufficient, and lay the foundation for long life learning. I would like to share a story of family that I've worked Their name and sensitive information has been changed for privacy. I was introduced to Lupe and Carla by one of the public health nurses.

Carla, Lupe's three-month old beautiful daughter was born with special needs, spina bifida and a cleft At first her mother felt overwhelmed navigating the medical system, managing calls from multiple providers and scheduling numerous appointments. With only her partner Juan as a support she asked would you be able to help me with everything that I need for Carla?

We started with small steps. I suggested using a calendar and by the next visit she proudly brought one given by the public health nurse. Together we organized appointments and discussed transportation, calling Ventura Transit to get her started. Over time Lupe grew more confident and independent scheduling appointments arranging transportation and advocating for her daughter's needs.

Recently when their daughter required surgery to drain fluid Lupe approached approached it with strength, asking information, questions and seeking support when needed. The family has come a long way turning early challenges into confidence, resiliency and self-advocacy that all started with the support of a home visitor. Through home visiting programs like Healthy Families America We partner with families facing complex challenges, building on their strengths through trusted relationship-based support.

We help families navigate housing, health care, employment and child care walking alongside them to ensure they remain supported every step of the way by recognizing home visiting you affirm commitment to healthier families stronger communities And write our futures for the county's children. The right support families can overcome challenges and thrive. Home visitors are true different makers.

Santa Barbara County home visiting week honors their impact and dedication to stronger families, one visit, one family, and one child at a time. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role18:29

Thank you ladies for being here and thank you for the work that you're doing. All right, Madam Clerk will you please read A3 into the record?

0:18 – 0:244 turns

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction18:45

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item number 3 is sponsored by Supervisor Lee. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of April 19th, 2026 through April 25th, 2026 as National Library Week in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have Brandon Beaudet, Library Director at Santa Barbara Library, Elizabeth Saucedo, Library Director at Goleta Library, Dawn Jackson, Library Director at Santa Maria Library Lauren Trujillo, Executive Director at the Santa Barbara Library Foundation and Sarah Bleal, Director of the Lompoc Library.

And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas libraries serve as community hubs, partnering with schools businesses and organizations to maximize resources increase efficiency and expand access to essential services strengthening the entire community. And whereas libraries provide free and equitable access to books digital tools and innovative programming ensuring that all individuals have the support they need to learn connect and thrive And whereas libraries nurture young minds through story times, STEM programs and critical literacy initiatives fostering curiosity and a love of learning that lasts a lifetime.

And whereas libraries empower job seekers entrepreneurs and lifelong learners by providing access to resources training and opportunities that support career growth and economic success. Whereas dedicated librarians and library workers provide welcoming spaces that inspire discovery collaboration and creativity for all And whereas libraries, librarians and library workers across the country are joining together to celebrate National Library Week under the theme Find Your Joy. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge the week of April 19th through the 25th as National Library Week and encourages all residents to visit their library explore its resources and celebrate all the ways that the library helps our community find joy passed and adopted today

PresenterLauren Trujillofor the Santa Barbara Public Library Foundation and happy National Library WeekProposedself-stated20:46

Good morning Chair Nelson and Supervisors. My name is Lauren Trujillo, I'm the Executive Director for the Santa Barbara Public Library Foundation and happy National Library Week! Great to see you all again. It's an honor to be here today to present this resolution and share library love. Behind me are just 100 of over 1,000 love letters we collected from the community during Valentine's Day and we wanted to share them with you. Just messages from the community about what the library means to them.

Over the past year we've seen a renewed sense of connection among libraries across Santa Barbara County. There's a growing spirit of collaboration with leaders coming together, supporting one another and exploring ways to strengthen library services for all of our communities. I'd like to recognize the outstanding library leaders with us today Sarah Biel from Wampoag, Elizabeth Salcido from Goleta and Brandon Bedette from Santa Barbara. I have to mention today is his birthday so happy birthday Brandon!

Thank you all for your leadership and your commitment to the communities you serve. Today is National Library Workers Day so thank you, thank you, thank you! At the Santa Barbara Public Library Foundation we believe deeply in the power of public-private partnerships and we're excited about the opportunities ahead to help build stronger connections and expand support for libraries countywide.

Thank you for protecting library funding that keeps this ecosystem alive and accessible to everyone. We are committed to keeping you all connected to your libraries and look forward to sharing our spaces with you and the impact they have on our communities. I encourage everyone to visit your local library this week, and use the most important card in your wallet, your library card, and discover all that it has to offer you. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed22:42

Thank you chair Nelson supervisors. I have some remarks to share they were written by Don Jackson, the Santa Maria library director who was unable to be here today in person. Thank you for making this proclamation recognizing the importance of libraries in Santa Barbara County. As library directors throughout the county, we see firsthand the positive impact libraries make on our county communities from thousands of children who attend our early literacy story times beginning their paths to later academic success To teens or adults needing job seeking resources and seniors who attend our informative adult programming, giving them new skills and providing vital connections. We hear countless stories from library patrons about how the library has made their lives better often in powerful life changing ways.

There is no doubt our local libraries are an essential component to improving the quality of life in Santa Barbara County and we thank you again for this important recognition.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role23:51

Thank you. All right, we're going to skip A4 for a moment. We're going to come back to A4 but we're gonna go to A5. Madam Clerk can you please read that in the record?

0:24 – 0:303 turns

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction24:07

Chair Nelson and members of the board. Administrative item number five is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson, is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of April 19th 2026 through April 25th 2026 as Court Appointed Special Advocates CASA Volunteer Appreciation Week in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have Kim Colby Davis if you can please make your way to the podium.

And anyone else you'd like to join with you? I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas for more than 30 years, court-appointed special advocates CASA of Santa Barbara County has worked to assure a safe permanent nurturing home for all abused and or neglected children by providing a highly trained volunteer to advocate for them in the court system. And whereas CASA volunteer advocates are appointed by the Juvenile Court to represent the best interests of children who have experienced abuse or neglect, ensuring their voices are heard in the courtroom classroom and community. And whereas in the past year CASA of Santa Barbara County served 550 children, the highest number in the county's history reflecting both the increasing need for child advocacy and the power of community involvement.

And whereas this vital work was made possible through the dedication of 232 CASA volunteer advocates who together contributed 14,996 hours of service to children in the dependency system. And whereas these dedicated volunteers helped achieve 168 cases closing in a safe and permanent home offering long-term stability and hope to children throughout Santa Barbara County. And whereas, CASA volunteers also submitted 1,079 court reports ensuring judges received critical child-centered information when making decisions that profoundly affect the lives and futures of children in foster care.

And whereas CASA volunteers come from communities across Santa Barbara County and exemplify the spirit of compassion, civic engagement and commitment that strengthens our entire region. And whereas National Volunteer Appreciation Week provides an important opportunity to honor these individuals who give generously of their time, talents and hearts to support and uplift children in need. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Proudly recognize CASA of Santa Barbara County and its volunteers for their extraordinary service and declares April 19th through the 25th as Volunteer Appreciation Week in Santa Barbara County, honoring the profound impact CASA volunteers make in the lives of vulnerable children passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed26:43

Chair Nelson and Supervisors, I want to accept this wonderful proclamation on behalf of CASA's small and very powerful staff and our hundreds of CASA volunteers. We serve the most vulnerable children in the county from age 0, day of birth until their 21st birthday. And we can only do it because of the many volunteers that we have. Over my career with CASA, we have had nearly 1,000 members of the community step up and become CASA volunteers and I do want to recognize that both Joan Hartman Supervisor Hartman and Laura Capps, Supervisor Capps are part of the CASA family.

When I started with CASA, I remember bringing a quilt made by one of our wonderful quilting ladies group to Supervisor Hartman for the team she was serving at the time. And I look forward to wonderful stories from Supervisor Capps. It is hard work being a CASA volunteer and we understand that it's not for everybody but we absolutely cannot do the vital work that CASA does without the community And it is hard right now, it has been for several years to find those CASA volunteers. So the CASA team is working harder than ever to find those people who will step up and be part of our team.

And now I would like to introduce our Board President Heather Ames for a few words.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed28:29

Thank you Chair, Supervisors and the Board for recognizing CASA of Santa Barbara County as we are humbled by this honor. As Board Chair I'm super proud to support CASA's mission and to make the individuals who make this work really possible. A special thanks to Kim Davis who has had over almost 20 years of leadership of this amazing organization To my fellow Casa team board members, they've been amazing and especially for the Casa team for their tireless work. I think as Kim said this team works amazing throughout the entire community from Santa Barbara to Santa Maria and they're very passionate and dedicated to the work they do. This is a passion job as many of you know to do the work that they're doing it is also a difficult job at times we also really do want to thank All of our community members and volunteers because as Kim said without everybody's time energy effort and support this would not be possible.

And we have served many many children over 500 last year in our own communities with more on the wait list so we continue to Spread our awareness. This honor is so wonderful and recognition for us because this helps us get more out in the community and share our story, so I am very proud and very humbled to accept this along with Kim and the staff, the fellow board, and our volunteers who we are very proud to be recognizing on Wednesday for our volunteer appreciation dinner. So thank you again for this award.

Thank you.

0:30 – 0:366 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role30:10

Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.9230:12

Yes I just wanted to make a pitch that this is very gratifying to be a CASA you're the one person who gets to explore the school, the natural family, the foster family and understand the full range of issues that affect a child's life and In my situation the child I was with changed living situations over the period, the seven year period. So I was the one constant in her life and it really made a profound effect on me and so it's something that you're able to allow enrichment opportunities that otherwise wouldn't exist And CASA as an organization really supports that.

They bring in opportunities and suggest things, and connect you to other CASAs so that you can do things together. So it's a tremendously supportive organization doing really critical work for children. So I encourage people to sign up.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role31:19

Thank You Supervisor Hartman And I just want to make a plug on how important they are. You know, we just went through some budget workshops where we're potentially seeing some significant cuts to our child welfare services and so without cost of coming in the gap for a lot of these kids that there would be huge gaps in services for some of our most vulnerable. So again this time it is one of the most important times to step up and be helping these children. And you know if it wasn't for our community, you know not everything can be solved by the government right? And some things need to be stepped up by people in our community, you know the faith community as well as our volunteers so again thank you those of you who are serving as CASAs.

All right we're going to move on to A6. Madam Clerk will you please read that item into the record.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction32:08

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item No. 6 is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson and is to adopt a resolution proclaiming May 7th, 2026 as the National Day of Prayer in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Beverly Taylor, Veronica Leach, and Rochelle Mellon. Whereas throughout history America has faced trials and triumphs, and Americans have responded in prayer seeking courage and comfort, inspiration, and joy-filled celebrations. Faith compels us to seek and cling to the light in times of darkness and spread light to those in need. And whereas from the first gatherings of our founding fathers, elected officials have prayed and entreated those they serve and represent to join them in prayer including the authors of our Declaration of Independence Wrote that they the representatives of the United States of America and General Congress assembled appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world and carried on to present day.

To present a presidential proclamations such as last year's invitation to join him in asking for God's continued guidance mercy and protection And whereas a National Day of Prayer has not only been a part of our heritage since it was declared by the First Centennial Congress in 1775, but it is a public law established in the United States Congress in 1952 approved by a joint resolution and amended by Congress and President Reagan with Public Law 100-307.

In 1988, affirming that it is essential for us as a nation to pray and directs the President of the United States to set aside and proclaim the first Thursday of May annually as the National Day of Prayer. And whereas in every state across America, the observance of the National Day of Prayer will be held on Thursday, May 7th 2026 with the theme glorify God among the nations seeking him in all generations Based on the verse in First Chronicles 1624, a prayer of Thanksgiving. Tell of his glory among nations, his wonderful deeds among all peoples and whereas in every state across America the observance of the National Day of Prayer will be held on Thursday and whereas unified prayer is mobilized across America every first Thursday of May on the National Day of Prayer As neighbors come together to join their hearts and voices in reading sacred scriptures and attending services to seek God for the city and country where we live, learn, work, worship, serve, and desire all to thrive.

And we express our faith and exercise our freedom in prayer then unite our hearts and voices in personal prayer and public gatherings across America with fervent praise repentance love and humble intercession for our neighbor and nation holding fast to the promises throughout the Holy Scriptures that the Lord hears and avails much as he answers the faith-filled prayers of his people. Now therefore be it hereby ordered a resolve that this Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors recognizes May 7th as the National Day of Prayer in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed34:58

Good morning Chair Nielsen and Supervisors. On behalf of the community of prayer locally here in Santa Maria, and the National Day of Prayer Task Force here on the Central Coast we thank you for issuing us this resolution recognizing and honoring the gift and privilege we have to gather and pray over our city, our county, our state, and our nation. This is a monumental year as the National Day of Prayer celebrates our 75th year and, of course, America commemorating the 250th year as a nation.

The theme for this year's National Day of Prayer is from 1 Chronicles 16 in the Old Testament which proclaims glorify God among the nations seeking him in all generations This year we will declare our personal rededication, focusing our own hearts and our own communities where God has established us. We will gather together to pray, to celebrate and to rededicate ourselves back to the Lord and in covenant as one nation under God.

Committing to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind and strength. And to love our neighbor as Jesus loved us. Thank you for your support.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role36:24

Thank you. All right. Our next item is A7. Madam Clerk will you please read that into the record?

0:36 – 0:418 turns

CommentPatricia NelsonProposedself-stated36:36

Good morning, everyone. My name is Patricia Nelson and members of the board. Administrative item number 7 is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of April 2026 as National Poetry Month in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have Jocelyn Lumie Bow, Chrissy Kurth and Sarah York-Rubin Whereas the United States Congress and the Academy of American Poets have designated April as National Poetry Month in recognition of poetry's power to enrich culture, elevate expression and strengthen community. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara proudly supports programs such as Poetry Out Loud and Youth Poet Laureate which encourage young people to develop as creative thinkers, civic participants and future leaders.

And whereas the Board of Supervisors commends Ernest Rigetti High School for its success in the 2026 Poetry Out Loud program and further recognizes the outstanding efforts of teachers Chrissy Kurth, Erin Robinson and Caitlin Bernardo. And whereas we are pleased to honor this year's Poetry Out Loud student participants for their remarkable achievements, eloquence and inspiring creative expression. And whereas the Board of Supervisors extends special congratulations to Regional Champion Jocelyn Lumi-Bao who represents Santa Barbara County at the State Poetry Out Loud competition alongside students from 48 counties across California. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge this resolution proclaiming April as National Poetry Month in Santa Barbara County and honoring Ernest Rigetti High School for its astounding achievement in poetry passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role38:25

Welcome Jaslyn.

CommentJaslyn LomibowProposedself-stated38:26

Thank you and good morning I'm Jaslyn Lomibow, I'm from Ernest Regetti High School, I am a junior and I recently competed in the state competition at Poetry Out Loud in Sacramento and for you today I will be performing a poem that I performed at that state competition. An Apology by Julia Ward Howe For a warm word spoken, I spake perhaps too sharp a word for one bred up in modesty.

But base and just this trivial scorn on honor heaped had angered me. The smile of courtesy forsook these lips so timid even for good while over the paleness of my brow flash crimson, the indignant blood Nor could I, to the contest bring the trained weapon of the mind. Snatching from reason's armory such shafts as grief had left behind. Grief for the faltering of the age. Grief for my country and my race. Grief to sit here with Christian men that boast their want of Christian grace.

I say not that the man I praise By that poor tribute, stand more high. I say not that the man I blame be not a pure worth than I but when I move reluctant lips for holy justice human rights The sacred cause I strive to plead lends me its fervor and its might. And I must argue from the faith which gave the fervor of my youth, or keep such silence as young stars that only look and live God's truth.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role40:47

That was

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction40:47

awesome.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role40:48

Supervisor Capps.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction40:49

I'm just incredibly impressed both by your words and your delivery, your poise, your passion. Thank you for sharing it with us today.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role40:58

Yeah thank you And on behalf of the proud Rigetti Warrior myself, way to represent and I actually just wanted to take a moment. Just I was thinking about it. This is why we have meetings up in Santa Maria in part you know this full room of people from the Santa Maria Valley that are big part of this community and you know it's really important that this board travels to Santa Maria. This is not how all counties work that we have meetings in both half of the county but I think it really shows you know us wanting to come and interact and also appreciate the people all throughout our county that are doing amazing things so thank you All right, next item is A8.

0:41 – 0:474 turns

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction41:41

Chair Nelson and members of the board, Administrative Item number 8 is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming April 24th 2026 as Arbor Day in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have William Ortega and Udi Loza if you can and Chris Sneddon if you can please make your way to the podium Whereas Santa Barbara County has a long and prosperous agricultural history of growing annual and perennial plants for products as well as landscape benefits. And whereas the residents of Santa Barbara County treasure the valuable landscape trees provide on both public and private lands, and consider them to be essential living features that contribute to their quality-of-life experience.

And whereas the natural beauty of our urban forests and county landscapes As well as the enhanced beauty of the planted and developed landscape environments add to the many qualities that draw visitors and new residents to one of California's most beautiful counties. And whereas four of the largest incorporated cities in Santa Barbara County have, for many years been proud and active participants in the Tree City USA program sponsored by the National Arbor Day Foundation And whereas April 24th, 2026 is National Arbor Day. And whereas as governing stewards responsible for the planting and care of all trees growing on county public lands, as well as promoting and encouraging conservation of valuable trees growing on private lands.

Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge Friday, April 24th 2026 as Arbor Day throughout the county and encourages all citizens to recognize the multitude of benefits our community derives from the conscious acts of planting improperly maintaining landscape trees and requests that all institutions of primary and secondary education throughout the county seek ways to observe this important day and to teach students the value of trees in our lives past and adopted today.

CommentBill OrtegaProposedself-stated43:42

Thank you board. My name is Bill Ortega, I'm from Public Works Transportation. I'm in Urban Forestry Division. I've had the pleasure to go to each district except for meeting Lee was with DOS but it would be nice next year for you and it's nice to finally get to the fifth. I appreciate this. I met everyone here and had a good time with every one of you guys at these each events I'm here to receive the Arbor Day proclamation for a resolution for the county of Santa Barbara. This will be our 23rd annual year being certified and also certified Tree City USA, so it's a big thing for us with the growth award we have over 8500 trees that are maintained by the county and we also respond to trees that fall down We have a lot of little things outside that are private and a lot of the things we have to deal with that letters and be homeowners and let know what trees are protected letting know the rules before she's not just a tree company.

We also hardscape our guys are also concrete finishers. Our department is one of few in the county of Santa Barbara or California that is very hardworking gentlemen, men that are well established. I have Anthony Ramirez our tree inspector he's been here for 23 years. I have been at the county for 25 years. Am I wrong or you 24? 30 sorry 34 and I'm 35 again it's going fast.

I'm waiting to retire can't do it but anyway thank you for the proclamation. I appreciate the recognition and also with Anthony I appreciate you really hard to do half of what I do Without them I also like to thank our manager Uri Loza and our Deputy Director and Director Mustafa and Chris Snell. Thank you guys for supporting us and helping us in our department and giving us the staff that we need, the equipment we need And also the Arbor Day is also part of this event that helps us get recognized. And we get to do it with the children and let them know what, what the trees bring to the city and how it enhances it. It's a fun event. Thank you everybody. I appreciate it. I'm going to have Parks Department come speak in and represent parks and their maintain system.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role45:56

Thank You Mr. Ortega

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed46:00

Good morning everybody. My name is Dominic, I'm a park ranger for the County of Santa Barbara North Sector. I'd like to thank the board recognizing Arbor Day and all the hard work for the county. Thank you Bill Thank you for bringing us along and continuing to provide all the superior work you do throughout the county. I'd also like to thank our director Jesus Armas who is committed to providing quality services, equipment, facilities for our community.

Mahler Park has been blessed to have many contributions, volunteers just one of the many parks that we take care of. I want to contribute to the tree population in the park and in years past we've been presented with different grants. Just a few years ago, we got 300 trees donated or given to us from Cal Fire Grant. Those trees were planted all through Waller Park by volunteers and staff. I just wanted to recognize some of those groups. Ken Knight, The Rotary Club, Friends of Waller Park and other volunteer groups that were part of these plantings.

Our tree budget. We share a countywide in the entire parks division, the budgets minimal so a lot of the numbers and vendors that we use were limited on. So we therefore have a staff that takes on a lot of the The task I'd like to thank that staff here. Sully Dominguez, that's here Brent Cloud Jesus that Dalgaard. I'm sorry Justin Douglas Marvin Solario Mark guy and Tina Schneider when and thank you again board.

Thank you Dominic. Yep

0:47 – 0:529 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role47:52

All right, that brings us to our last resolution to be presented. But this one was actually pulled by the public so we actually need to do public comment on this one prior to adopting it and presenting it. So would you go ahead and just read the item into record? Don't read the resolution yet let's have public comments specifically on the resolution and then we'll then go through the formal part.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction48:11

Chair Nelson and members of the board, Administrative Item number four is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of April 19th 2026 through April 25th 2026 as National Crime Victims Rights Week in Santa Barbara County and we do have three requests to speak from the public on this item. We are going to begin here in Santa Maria with Karen Hauenstein then we will return to Santa Barbara with Elsa Granados and Bruce McHague. Karen.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role48:39

All right, thank you Let's go ahead and do two minutes so we can we've got quite a few things to address in our administrative agenda So Thank You Miss Hauenstein

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed48:50

Karen Hauenstein lifelong resident of Lompoc Nepotism cronyism and political party manipulation creates victims of every citizen in this county. That's what we should be thinking about because of what I've discovered has been done to the Lompoc Valley and I know there is no PC code for what's been done to my Lompoc Valley but stifling growth in the form of owned residences and homes in Lompoc.

By placing a perimeter around Lompoc of commercial industrial strawberry farming, it's very, very apparent. I feel that is a crime to every citizen of my valley. I do not like that it's being done And the political pandering that's happening, that's controlled our county for years. That's allowing it to happen along with the money laundering and all this organized crime activity which is happening right here in our county under our noses and is being ignored by local law enforcement because they're so partisan.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role50:24

Thank you Ms. Hauenstein

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction50:26

We will now go to Santa Barbara with Elsa Granados, to be followed by Bruce Macon who is our final speaker on this item.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role50:33

I'll make sure I close public comment on this item.

PresenterElsa GranadosStanding Together to End Sexual AssaultProposedself-stated50:37

Great. Thank you so much, Chair Nelson and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Elsa Granados and I represent Standing Together to End Sexual Assault. Some people call us STESA for short. I want to thank you for the upcoming proclamation and recognition of Victim Rights Week to highlight all victims April is also Sexual Assault Awareness Month and at STESA we are truly grateful for the partnership with many county departments, especially through SART, the sexual assault response team. Last year I approached all of you in relation to SART nurses And each of you, without exception, immediately recognized the importance of encouraging more recruitment of SART nurses. And I appreciate your support and leadership. I ask that you continue to support SART.

The partnerships with the county are so important to the healing of survivors of sexual assault. A study showed that the initial interaction with law enforcement and medical providers sets the tone for how survivors will look at their healing. I know that fiscal decisions are especially tough now, Stessa knows that all too well with the changes in federal funding But please think of survivors of sexual assault as you think about your fiscal decisions. I ask that you use your leadership to encourage continued collaboration on the issue of sexual assault countywide through SART. I ask also that at some point this week to commemorate Victim Rights Week, that you reach out to one person who works on SART and thank them for their work with survivors of sexual assault.

They're very hardworking people and we see their compassion and humanity every day that we work with them. Thank you so much.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction52:50

And we will remain in Santa Barbara with our final speaker, Bruce McCaig. Bruce?

0:52 – 1:0310 turns

CommentBruce McCaighProposedself-stated52:59

Good morning. My name is Bruce McCaigh. I was a county firefighter. I'm retired for almost 40 years and this National Crime Victims Week ends on April 25th April 25th is the 40th anniversary of a crime that happened, a brutal rape and near murder out at Lake Los Caneros. I responded on this and the victim to this day has not been vindicated. The investigation has stopped and I wanted just to make you aware of this that you might want to look into it. It's been 40 years, it was so brutal when I responded to her she was completely naked stripped face down in the dirt unconscious.

Her face was a lot of head trauma. Her jaw was broken in three places. Her upper jaw was pulled from her skull and I could go on on this But she was brutally raped and left for dead. If it wasn't for her bravery and going throughout the night crawling on her belly trying to get to a street or where somebody could hear, she would have died. And luckily in the morning that's when I responded to her the next day Her name is Tammy Andrak, and this is 40 years ago. I think it's not one of our gleaming success stories.

In fact, she went back to find out where things are happening with this and there's nothing. In fact they said they purged her information. So if nothing else, if you can give look into it and get her information and all the pictures and investigative notes to her I'd appreciate

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role55:14

it. Thank you sir. We appreciate your...

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction55:18

And that concludes public comment on administrative item number four.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role55:21

Right sure sorry supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.9255:24

I move adoption of this resolution.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role55:26

Okay,

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.9255:28

I'll second

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role55:28

okay all in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed motion passes unanimously at this time we will now present this resolution thank you guys for sticking with us Madam Clerk please read item A4 the resolution for A4

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction55:43

yes Chair Nelson and members of the board joining us in person today we have District Attorney John Savernock And Victim Witness Assistant Program Director Megan Riker-Reidenschild. If you can please make your way to the podium with anyone else you'd like to join with you. Whereas over 4,000 individuals are directly harmed by crime each year in Santa Barbara County and each crime affects our community, family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers And whereas the Santa Barbara County District Attorney Victim Witness Assistance Program is designated by the Board of Supervisors as the primary provider of support to victims of violent crime and provide services such as crisis intervention, resource and referrals, orientation to the criminal justice system, court support and advocacy, and crime victim compensation to help mitigate the negative impacts of crime.

And whereas this work is not done in isolation and strong partnerships with community-based organizations are essential to ensuring survivors receive comprehensive support, protection and access to justice. And we recognize and commend the vital work of our community partners advocates and allied agencies whose dedication ensures that survivors receive compassionate care and advocacy and pathways to healing And whereas this is particularly meaningful as April 2026 marks both Child Abuse Awareness Month and Sexual Assault Awareness Month, underscoring our shared commitment to protecting and supporting survivors. And whereas National Crime Victims Rights Week is not simply a week of recognition But a meaningful moment to honor the impact of crime on survivors and the essential services that support them.

Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors declares the week of April 19th through 25th as National Crime Victims Rights Week in Santa Barbara County, thereby reaffirming the county's commitment to respecting and enforcing victims' rights and expressing our appreciation to all of the victims and crime survivors who have turned personal tragedy into action in order to build a more just community passed and adopted today.

CommentMegan RheinschildProposedself-stated57:46

Thank you Chair Nelson, Supervisor Hartman, members of the board. As mentioned my name is Megan Rheinschild and I manage our countywide Victim Witness Assistance Program. The work of our program would not be possible but for the people standing behind me who are advocates in our office and victim compensation claim specialists as well as our community partners in North County Rape Crisis.

I want to thank you for joining the District Attorney's Office and our partners here today to commemorate National Crime Victims Week, April 19th through the 25th. This year's national theme is about community and unity And today, as Elsa mentioned in South County representing STESA. I'd like to shine a light on one of our partnerships and a prime example of our community of victim survivor service providers as demonstrated by our sexual assault response team aka SART.

I think it's timely to mention SART not only given the comments of the individual in Santa Barbara, unfortunately these cases impact all of us and our communities. And being that it is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, I appreciate the acknowledgement of those survivors who are still out there and some of whom may have never reported. The SART team provides timely child forensic interviews and medical forensic legal exams to victims in a time of crisis, and I think it's worthy of mentioning to the community that sexual assault forensic exams are also available to those who don't wish to engage with law enforcement.

I think that's important because so many people are reticent to report but they want to know that they're okay medically. Each year, the program provides approximately 100 exams to survivors of sexual assault and over 250 child forensic interviews through our partnership with CALM to children aged 3 through 13. runs the gamut, physical abuse, sexual abuse, survivors of human trafficking and exploitation. And we cannot and have not done this work without the support of this board and the CEO's office and appreciate that ongoing support.

The District Attorney's Office Victim Witness Assistance Program, Law Enforcement, North County Rape Crisis and Child Protection Center, STESA-COM, Child Welfare, the Public Health Department and specially trained physicians and nurse examiners all make up the team that ensures survivors of sexual assault. are subjected to a limited number of interviews and receive proper care in a safe and supportive environment, in which they don't have to endure the trauma of the incident alone.

This is our supportive community and I appreciate every one of them so much. We're also fortunate to have partnerships with our local hospitals, Cottage, Lompoc Valley Medical Center and Dignity who have made regional sites possible and accessible to survivors countywide both children and adults. I want to give a special shout out to North County Rape Crisis Child Protection Center, Anne McCarty.

A dear friend of mine and the executive director who's retiring this year and has been just an incredible champion not only for the SART program but more importantly for the community and for sexual assault survivors in North County. She also helped us when we were standing up our human trafficking task force with access to the individuals, the youth in Juvenile Hall and providing advocacy to those individuals who were identified as having been trafficked or exploited and providing the advocacy necessary to engage in services.

I also want to take a moment to commemorate and remember Alison Wales, who's the embodiment of advocacy work. I think it's fitting that one of Allison's quotes was healing starts on Tuesday. Survivors are often looking for someone to share space with them in their trauma and their grief, and she did that. That was her whole career. That was her life's work.

And I know the impact of her loss is felt by the more than 4,000 individuals that she served over her career but also her friends and colleagues at the North County Rape Crisis Center. Even while battling cancer and nearly to the end of her life, she showed up For the community and survivors, and I think that's just the embodiment of the work that we do. And I want to honor her here today.

So with that, I just want to take a moment to honor her legacy standing alongside survivors of sexual assault. Honoring all of the advocates in our community, the Victim Witness Program, our staff and team who embody her caring and compassion. And as such we're designating the SART Lompoc House as Allison's house. Her memory will live on for all of us. Thank you.

1:03 – 1:064 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:03:32

Chair Nelson, members of the board. The District Attorney's Office is the voice of victims in the court system. It is our privilege, our honor and our duty to provide support and to provide that voice for victims. In these chambers we're oftentimes talking about programs, FTEs, money, pods whatever it is. But what we have to realize is that behind every collision involving and caused by an impaired driver, every murder, every sexual assault, every case of child abuse Every time a farmer can't harvest that day because of theft.

Every burglary every robbery every case of domestic violence, there is a victim there is a loss there is a harm. There's often times trauma that is unspeakable and unimaginable for most people. So I want to thank this board for this proclamation, for recognizing the people that are brought into the criminal justice system through no fault of their own and are bearing the brunt of the harm caused by criminality. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:05:21

Supervisor

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:05:22

Hartman. Yes, I'm so grateful that Mr. McCraig kind of set the tone for what really is the impact of some of these horrendous crimes and express my appreciation to the victim witness program because It's not just a narrow conception of the role. This program is really the connective tissue that brings together the entire community in caring and I think that that's extraordinary to go beyond the narrow bounds of your office, to pull people together And to develop innovative programs and to support them, especially for women and children. So I just really appreciate the visionary approach with which you do this job that is a very demanding job clearly. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:06:25

All right thank you Supervisor Hartman. I think we're that's concludes our resolutions will be moving on to our poll items by either the board or by the public. I believe the first item is a 12.

1:06 – 1:1119 turns

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction1:06:38

Chair Nelson and members of the Board administrative item number 12 is from the auditor controllers office it is to consider recommendations regarding the sheriff's office overtime analysis report for July 2025 through February 2026. All right,

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:06:53

thank you. It has been pulled back couple of my colleagues including myself. Supervisor Hartman was just asking me if the auditor is available. Do you know, do we know if the auditor is available?

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction1:07:05

Yes Chair Nelson and members of the board our Auditor Controller Betsy Schaefer is available via Zoom.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:07:10

Okay so I'll kick it over to you first Supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:07:14

Well thank you so much for following through and I wonder Ms. Schaffer if first of all you would just summarize the results as they've changed for this period, define the period and what your conclusions are?

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction1:07:44

And to our auditor controller Betsy, we can see you but we can't hear you. I believe you might be muted.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:07:55

Sorry

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:08:03

about that. Thank you Supervisor Hartman. The basic report is showing generally improvement for this time last year and by improvement I mean decreasing costs and decreasing hours overall And we went through sort of a high level summary showing year-to-date hours and year to date costs, and then we reviewed those eight observations that we originally presented last month I believe.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:08:40

So given that we're going to have I think six reports from you, I just wanted to understand a little bit more how things work. So when a deputy records overtime what information are they required to enter and is there any explanation of why the overtime was needed?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:09:03

Yes, there are certain earning codes. Joel I might have to ask you to jump in here and there are certain earning codes that track when a deputy code or works overtime and those are listed in that report. We added those, I believe as a request from the board and it shows. Basically, costs by earning code. There are on the time sheet they can also per each pay period.

They can code or put a note by the reason for working that overtime. They can do that. They don't always do that.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:09:48

And then can you check overtime records against any independent source, dispatch logs or deployment records to verify the hours were actually worked? Or are you limited to the time sheet itself?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:10:02

We only looked at the timesheet itself for these reviews. We did not reach out to the sheriff to ask for the schedules we hope to be able to do that in the future.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:10:12

Okay, so is there any information that you don't have access to but that would really help you do a more complete analysis?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:10:27

Probably interviewing some of the sheriff deputies and the managers would probably be helpful. We have been also talking to Human Resources and County Council sort of about what is allowed and what, you know, what are sort of standard practices. So I don't know if that helps but...

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:10:55

That does. Thank you very much. All

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:11:01

right thank you Supervisor Hartman. Any other questions from the board on this item? Supervisor Kaps.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:11:06

Yeah, thank you. So just again thanks for the report. It's very chock full of a lot of numbers which is good. Just to focus on the big numbers I do see that it states that there has been improvement which is welcome. A welcome sign but I just want to understand the improvements Broadly speaking, because last year the Sheriff's Department was I believe four or five million over budget and overtime.

But now we're on track for nine million so how can I reconcile the improvements there? Maybe that's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:11:47

a question for the undersheriff. Yeah, I don't really know operationally what the sheriff did

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:11:53

And maybe, I mean is that because the overtime budget itself has increased? I believe it's $10 million this year. We

1:12 – 1:2729 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:12:04

have Undersecretary of Welsh here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:12:06

Good morning. Supervisor Capps to the Chair. Yes our overtime budget was increased to $10 million. Okay.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:12:15

So the pie has gotten bigger.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:12:18

The pie has gotten bigger so has our vacancies and so we're still trying to kind of balance the operational need for the overtime as well as fill in our vacancies and try to get closer to that $10 million. Okay,

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:12:29

so again it's good news to see that we're seeing some drops in overtime usage. Especially since the previous MOU with the Deputy Sheriff's Association is still in place and there hasn't been new hiring so that means that some internal controls have been set in place. And I was just hoping you could describe what some of those are.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:12:57

Absolutely, I appreciate the opportunity to explain what our team has been doing the last four months and continuing to identify Only over time that's operationally necessary for our custody branch, for our law enforcement branch and our support services branch. What my team and our team has been able to do is really just look at organization and see what additional managerial and supervisory controls we can put in ourselves.

And to be honest, there is a slew of them that we're able to do. A few of them I'd like to discuss today one major thing that we were able to work with the Deputy Sheriff's Association on is decreasing the mandatory overtime shifts in our custody division as you recall. We think they bid about a year and a half ago on 19 overtime shifts per shift rotation. That is a lot of overtime that's mandated on our employees. This last rotation, they're down to two which is great.

We capped the number of supervisors per shift per custody facility. We decreased our law enforcement overtime shifts from a 12-hour shift to an eight hour shift, which it doesn't sound like a lot but when you get into the hundreds or thousands of shifts those four hours actually start adding up. We implemented managerial controls on how many staff can be on vacation, on patrol and in the jails which limits the amount of overtime shifts that we're sending out We implemented additional overtime controls and supervisory management on just the approval process. We reintroduced paper overtime slips, which sounds archaic but it gives our supervisors and managers more oversight and insight into why We're doing the overtime. You brought up a question or maybe it was Supervisor Hartman, why is that deputy sheriff working overtime?

Well besides the memo section in their timesheet they're also writing it down and that supervisor is signing at that Deputy Capps worked overtime because Deputy Nelson was on vacation so gives us an extra level just to double check hey let's just make sure this overtime shift was really needed. We're modifying our quarterly training hours to reduce the amount of backfill over time that's needed We implemented phase one of our demand-based staffing which I talked about last week, which is really putting deputy sheriffs out in the community when they're needed. So less staff when it's less peak time and then more staff when there's higher call volume. We added a managerial control for overtime approval in all branches We increased our data unit automated reports, which really I talked about a little bit last week.

It almost gives us a live view of our overtime so really per unit per bureau down to you know each employee why they're working how much overtime they're working where they're working at and why? And we feel that that's going to not only give us trends but it also could potentially flag any potential fraud in the future. It just gives us again more oversight and control over overtime We reduced our extra help staff by 25%. We are bringing down some of our discretionary service levels that could impact wait times and for the community, but we're doing in the best interest of being the fiscal stewards that I know you want us to be.

We also removed overtime availability for HR and criminal records, as well as supported sunsetting that SMA side letter that allowed managers to get extra help overtime on a secondary time card. This is just kind of a short list of all the things we're doing but we've shown that we can continue to crack down on overtime where it's not needed but then still support the operational overtime that's needed because we have so many vacancies.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:16:33

Well thank you Under Sheriff Walsh. That was quite a list and again I've commended you during the budget hearings for increased communication and perhaps, I mean you just demonstrated that just now and perhaps you could provide that list for us as you've just done. I think it's really helpful. Just speaking of extra time, I know that the audit or the report, I should say it's not official audit, demonstrated that extra help is 138% of its budget. You just mentioned that you're making some Is it possible to describe, give an example?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:17:06

Sure. You know because of our vacancies we are kind of hamstrung on utilizing extra help and overtime to fill in those gaps however our team you know when we got formed four months ago we really were able to look at all of our extra help lines and we're able to eliminate the ones that were either redundant or that we believe didn't really meet that need for operational Security for the jail facilities and for our law enforcement branch. So we're able to sunset a lot of those, but will still need to be able to keep some of those extra help lines in order for us to function.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:17:41

So I know that you're new in this role, so this is something that we can relate to when you inherit things of previous administrations. But can you...this list does beg the question why were these controls not in place? I mean overtime, blowing through overtime budgets has been an issue year after year after year. So can you speak to that at all?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:18:05

Sure. Supervisor Capsley to the Chair. You know, I'm not one to throw down my predecessors or the previous groups but I really do feel that sometimes organizations, agencies, leadership teams just need a reset. And while we're still under the leadership of Sheriff Brown our team was able to come in fresh eyes outside-the-box thinking and really just pull together some new ideas to tackle the age old problem of you don't have enough staff, you have tons of vacancies but all eyes are on you where's the middle ground? We feel that We're showing the board in our community that we can be good fiscal stewards, but also maintain safety and security. So I think it was just that reset and getting that outside the box thinking

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:18:47

Okay, well last question. I mean we did you know the most severe example was the arrest that occurred from actual abuse of the system actual criminal abuse can you speak to controls that have been put in place lessons learned from that incident for the future

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:19:05

going forward? Supervisor Capps to the chair a lot of the managerial controls that we instituted really did come after the lessons learned this individual as we know was a supervisor in our organization They were entrusted with not only monitoring overtime use for themselves and their colleagues, but also for the custody deputies and deputy sheriffs that work for them. It was a violation of trust for us. It was a violation of trust for you as well as the community. It doesn't happen a lot in our organization or profession, but when it does I can assure you that it stings. And it sent shockwaves through our organization. But we learned so much from it and a lot of these managerial controls that we instituted including bringing back paper overtime slips as archaic as they are really is going back and just slowing everything down, making sure we look line by line shift-by-shift to confirm that overtime was actually needed.

We learned a lot. We don't know what we don't know and our supervisors are entrusted with the ability to modify calendars, schedules and that's what this person exploited. We're able on the back end to tighten a lot of that up as well as introduce those controls that we believe and we want you to rest assured that if this were to ever happen again it would be immediately flagged and then we could tackle it head-on.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:20:27

Well hopefully it never happens again. Of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:20:28

course.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:20:28

Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:20:30

All right, thank you Supervisor Caput. Supervisor Lee?

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.871:20:32

Thank you Chair Nielsen. Under Sheriff Welch I just want to say thank you. I do see a difference in what you and your team have been doing. You're new to this role. I know how it feels but I do trust that you will do your best so my question is can you talk about the vacancies that's you have in your department right now?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:20:54

Supervisor Lee through the chair. Like I talked a little bit about last week, we unfortunately just had a retirement season and we had a big one. We lost a ton of people in the law enforcement support and custody branches which is not unusual it just happens to be a bigger retirement class so right now we have 60 hard vacancies on the law custody and support staff And then we have 34 soft vacancies. So those are people that are on injury leave, on FMLA or other types of leaves so putting those together about 94 down temporary and permanently and that's why we do still have an operational need I mean if you were to do the math at Is it 1,650 hours per employee? You times that by 94. You get you know I think 155,000 hours that's not being worked when these people are out.

That's what the men and women of the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office are stepping up and doing as far as overtime and extra help so it's that kind of thin line that we have to walk to be good fiscal stewards but also to maintain that service level that the community deserves and we do that with overtime and extra help

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:22:04

All right, thank you Supervisor Lee. And so I have a few questions you just mentioned those vacancies with the soft vacancies we're still having to pay those employees typically that are on some level of leave is that that's correct but those 60 vacancies or potential cost savings? Is that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:22:21

Chair Nelson that's that's correct there is some uh you know those that are out on 4850 there are there is some sort of leave that goes through through workers comp for for those but the majority of them yes are just on regular leaves.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:22:31

Are still hitting the department right and so And that's, I guess that's one of the things I'm realizing too is that when the reasons that drove our overtime was the fact that we hired up. I mean something this board has been asking the Sheriff's Department to do for over a decade and I think you guys have been as a leadership of the department really leading that and fully staffing to the highest levels that I've seen since I've been with the county but also drives overtime up right? Do I understand that correctly?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:22:59

Chair Nelson, that's correct. Yeah it's almost a double-edged sword because you get all these employees in and it takes them between 8 to 12 months to train them so they're not productive assets as you've heard before. So yeah, it's either one or the other. Either you have vacancies and you're running overtime behind the vacancies or you get the bodies and they're just not ready to hit the streets of the jail for about twelve months.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:23:21

And then that also then highlights the budget concern right because in the past, we've been able to use existing salaries and benefits without going over time of the. Unfilled positions, I mean that's where the overtime hit first before it went into our overtime budget. Do I understand correctly? That's correct. So now we hired those people there wasn't as much money in that fund so it really became more apparent to everybody involved was that there was this large number where years past that may have not been as obvious because it might have been papered over by vacancies is that correct? Journals and that's 100% accurate. Okay so I just and I think that's kind of one of the things that's going on here You know as we go through these reports, I think this is really great.

They were putting as many eyes on this as possible that but that's something that kind of jumped out at me is just you know partly is a you know yes there needs to be more controls and I'm really confident in this management team that is we're hearing the controls that you're putting in place but the other two things is the hiring you know at some point once we hire up we're gonna have to have a more realistic overtime budget you know we haven't had a budget For overtime, like we do for other departments in part because we've had those salary savings for years.

The other thing is still that a lot of this is driven by the MOU that we have with the Deputy Sheriff's Association so Maxime I have one more question for our auditor were you able to at all be able to differentiate the difference between You know, over time that was kind of generated through the MOU that the board has with the DSA versus what was driven by operational changes and controls at the Sheriff's Department.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:24:54

I have to say, I don't think we specifically were able to do that. We're still putting pieces together on what's allowed on the MOUs So, and like I said we did not we're still learning on what the schedule. The scheduling impact is

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:25:13

1. I think that's really thank you auditor Schaefer for that because I think that's really important in part of this discussion and we need to see all the pieces to be able to make the conclusions that we are making or we're starting to make here. And so I know that we're in active negotiations the DSA right now where it's actually. I don't know if it's a good or bad time to be in labor negotiations, but we are. And it's an opportunity for us to have some of these conversations about some of these things that are Not best practices, but they're legal under the contract that this board has agreed to with the Deputy Sheriff's Association. So I'm really looking forward to getting our arms around that and understanding fully our personal responsibilities as a board as well as the responsibility of the Sheriff's Department so thank you for that.

I know Supervisor Hartman has some additional questions and I know Chair Brown wanted to make a comment as well. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:26:03

Yes, could you explain why a full 12 months before new recruits are productive assets both custody and law enforcement?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:26:14

Absolutely, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So when we hire our custody deputies or sheriff's deputies they come aboard and then they have to go to an academy. We have our core Academy for our custody staff and then our basic Peace Officer Academy at Allan Hancock College for our law enforcement.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:26:32

So we hire first, we don't hire from the Academy, we send them?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:26:38

Supervisor Hartman through the chair, we do both but the majority of our hires are either from within our organization and then they're promoting to a custody deputy or sheriff's deputy. But there are times that there's I believe what you're insinuating there's unsponsored cadets that put themselves through the academy and we absolutely look at them and we try to recruit them if they can meet our backgrounds. That absolutely happens but the majority of time like we're about to send seven Custody deputy cadets to the custody Academy. Well, those academies are either four to six months long and then when they once they get out they have an additional four to six months of actual field training in the streets and in the jails that gives you that 10 to 12 month timeline where there actually unfortunately not productive assets

1:27 – 1:3513 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:27:24

and then what commitment do we have from them after we've invested that much that they'll stick with us for a while?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:27:33

Supervisor Hartman through the chair, we do have that three-year program with custody deputies where we're giving those incentives.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:27:41

Yeah but that's a different program.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:27:42

Appears to be working for the custody staff. Everybody else there's been some court cases that show it's not quite legal to hold them to some sort of agreement as far as hire and paying us back for the academy so I defer to County Council on that but really we just try to make it as welcoming of a place to work And we treat them more like family members. And we just try to get them, try to retain all of them because we know where all of us are looking at the same pool of recruits and candidates. So we try to get them and hold on them as long as we can.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:28:14

And then my last question, you went through almost a dozen things that your innovations and management tools that you've implemented which is really impressive. You were speaking rather fast and I wonder if you would go back about the data in more detail how that's working?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:28:37

Absolutely, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So when we came in December this new team was formed we were getting a lot of reports from our data unit as far as hours worked and overtime. What we've asked them to do is almost double that and give us more timely data reports so we can really attack anything that looks kind of out of wax immediately Before it was looking kind of at a high level so our three branches we have law enforcement, custody and op support. Now it gets granular into how much did Deputy Nelson work last pay period? Where was it? Why was that why was Deputy Nelson working so we could really get granular and confirm that it was operationally needed. It just gives us a huge amount of oversight. It's timely there's only so much you can do months later.

So this this gives us to us the Monday after the pay period and we can really just sink our teeth into it

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:29:32

So I'm just trying to make sure, you know oftentimes we don't gather the information we need at the get-go and then you can't really analyze later on. So how does this data relate to the timesheets and the paper now approval?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:29:49

So the data is taken directly out of the systems as far as, so for example let's just use solving patrol. So that would be one of the granular units that we now get to see how much overtime was charged to solving patrol this last pay period. Then what we can do is we can look at the time sheets compare them to now the overtime slips as well as the schedules and make sure all three things match.

There was an excessive amount of people on vacation, there wasn't too many you know people at training so we can really exercise our managerial controls over our staff to make sure that again that overtime is being worked when only when it's operationally needed.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:30:29

And then would the auditor have access to that to look at those three levels?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:30:33

Supervisor Hartman through the chair there's nothing the auditor has asked us that we haven't give them. We're completely transparent anything they need any interviews any documents we are an open book

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:30:44

Thank you. Can I just clarify? Yeah, absolutely. So it's not just paper. It's a paper in addition to the other systems. Okay thanks for asking that. Thanks.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:30:53

Thank you Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Kapsch. I wanted to let Supervisor, sorry Sheriff Brown he rose his hand on Zoom. Sheriff Brown.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:31:03

Thank You Chair Nelson I apologize to the board and to you that i'm not there in person. I am at a state sheriff's conference and was unable to get there today, but I just wanted to clarify several points that were made by under Sheriff Welsh. The first with respect to the overtime amount or the overtime number it's really important to remember that this number has Really born no real relationship to the historical use of our overtime.

As I mentioned in some detail at our previous meeting where overtime was being discussed, the overtime budget number is artificially low and always has been. And the reason for that is because it is less expensive for the county to cover the amount of hours that are required To run the jail and to run our patrol operations with the use of overtime than it would be if they, if the county was able to be in a position and hire people.

The overtime costs are less than the actual cost of a full time employee. So I just want to make that distinction. And although the number is 10 million, it was raised to 10 million this year but To what our previous use was and what our anticipated use will be this year. We are anticipating a significant reduction in the overtime because we have been able to, excuse me.

We have been able to put a lot of these controls and a lot of these things into place as you've heard from under Sheriff Welsh That really came about as a result of the dire financial situation that the county has found itself in. In preceding years, the sheriff's overtime was rectified essentially at the end of the year with fund balance from other budget sources and again it was done as I mentioned because it was a less costly alternative.

The second point I'd like to point out is that the custody sergeant that was sadly engaging in time card fraud was discovered, was identified, was investigated and was arrested by members of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office. And he is currently facing criminal charges as a result Breaking of the trusted bond that he has had with our organization and the law enforcement profession. And as under Sheriff Welsh indicated, that was a very tragic situation and something that just was absolutely very, very difficult for our organization to handle.

And then lastly I want to point out that the number of vacancies that we currently have, And I don't have the exact numbers in front of me. I'm sure that under Sheriff Welch does, but the actual number of sworn vacancies is more on the order of about around 20 and as he indicated that's for the custody side and that is because of the fact that we had a significant number of retirements in the recent past that typically occur effective on the last day in March.

In the case of the custody deputies, we are about to begin an academy that will I believe have eight of those positions taken up and filled. So I just wanted to make those points of clarification.

1:35 – 1:3913 turns

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:35:28

Yeah, I mean that I think those clarifications were actually really instructive. We we didn't discuss this much in our budget hearings but it appears we should have because if a if a budget overtime budget is deemed irrelevant that's a real issue that gets to the crux of the issue of why maybe controls weren't put in place to make sure that that budget was adhered to and so I just want to make sure that the conversations are being It sounds like held now to make sure that there's agreed upon number because that's how fiscal management works and there has to be.

a budget and it can't be fungible. That's not how we spend taxpayer money so I understand that the budget currently is $10 million but we don't have our budget director here and that was last week's work, but I just found that explanation very Clarifying that it seems to be that's why we've had these issues in the past is that you can blow through a budget if sort of the number isn't deemed relevant. I just find that really bewildering, thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:36:40

Great, thank you Supervisor Kaps. This time we're going to go public comment on this item. Madam Clerk? And I'm gonna also close public comment this time on this item

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction1:36:51

Members of the board we have one request to speak from the public on this item. We're going to remain here in Santa Maria with Karen Hauenstein. Karen?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:36:58

Okay, Ms. Hauenstein you have two minutes. We're gonna...we have quite a few other items that are polled so we're gonna keep all the administrative items down to two minutes so that we can move through the agenda and get to eventually to our departmental items. Ms. Hauenstein?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:37:10

Yes, this is a great example of where the rubber meets the road because this board likes to hang itself on national issues. We can see a definite cause and effect when you allow millions of people into our country that are ineligible for law enforcement employment And then you expect our systems to support them. What we're dealing with, with our Sheriff's Office for now 10 years is a lack of eligible candidates for the positions.

How are we going to solve that? We can see on a national level how Horrendous liberal policies have allowed a whole bunch of ineligible candidates into our midst, along with a bunch of fentanyl. And our Sheriff's Office has to deal with that every day directly. This problem that we're having with the budget rests squarely on those liberal policies which are failed filled our our country and our our state.

And I would like to know just for my own curiosity what happened to the 4.1 million dollars that John or that's of our Knox office in Dudley's office took in from 18 oh 7 West Highway 2 46 through the Cisneros family. What happened to that $4 million? Couldn't it have gone to support our law enforcement budget? Where did that 4.1 million dollars go?

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction1:39:08

And that concludes public comment on administrative item number 12.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:39:11

Okay, back to the board. I believe this is a receive and file.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:39:17

I'll move to receive and file

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:39:19

And so the, what are they? Do we

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:39:20

need a motion?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:39:21

Yeah do we need a motion. So is it A through A and B?

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:39:25

So moved. We move to receive and file A and B. Second.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:39:30

Okay any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Alright next item is I believe A17. Madam Clerk can you please read that into the record?

1:39 – 1:458 turns

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction1:39:46

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 17 is from the Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the professional service agreement with CJM Petroleum consulting CJMPC to conduct amortization study. And we did receive four requests to speak from the public on this item.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:40:07

Okay so Let's go ahead and go to public comment on this first, and then I will. I just have some questions on it so we'll go to the public comment on this item first. And again we're going to keep public comment on administrative agenda items to two minutes at this time.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction1:40:26

We will remain here in Santa Maria and begin with Andy Caldwell then we will go to Zoom with Pasha Mondavi.

CommentAndy CaldwellProposed1:40:40

Chair Nelson, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. What I'm always amazed at is the ignorance or ignoring the fact that upwards of one half of every barrel of oil doesn't go to energy It goes to for instance the tires on EVs, right? The parts on EVs plus 6,000 other products which fill hospitals and industry and manufacturing. If you had your dream world where we banned oil and gas operations, where would you get the 6,00 derivatives and byproducts?

You're wearing byproducts of oil right now all five of you The other thing is the ignorance of our Constitution. Our Constitution created immense wealth in a rapid amount of time because intellectual property, surface rights, private property and mineral rights were always protected against the takings And you have to ask yourself with the critical shortage of oil and gas in this state that has led to refinery closures, we used to have 40 refineries. We're down to about seven or eight depending on how you count two more who said they're going to leave if they do.

Every expert in the industry says California is beyond the point of no return. So how do you justify to the poorest of the poor that they're paying $2.50 more per gallon than anybody else in the country, including Hawaii? This is a waste of dollars. It's going to invite litigation, which is a greater waste of dollars and you're threatening the livelihood of people that are managing a critical resource for our economy. How do you justify it? Supervisor Lee, you wouldn't be able to run your restaurant without these.

And again, you couldn't run your public works department without it. The list goes on and on. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:42:40

Thank you Mr. Caldwell.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction1:42:41

We will now go to Zoom with Pasha Madavi to be followed by Tara Renifo.

CommentPasha MadaviProposedself-stated1:42:50

Good morning, members of the board. My name is Pasha Madavi. I'm a resident in Santa Barbara living in District 1 and a professor at UCSB. I am here to urge the Board of Supervisors to approve staff's recommendation to conduct an amortization study of onshore oil and gas extraction operations, which are an essential component to expediently drafting an effective ordinance to phase out oil and gas operations.

Two weeks ago in front of the County Planning Commission I presented research for my team at UCSB in conjunction with the Community Labor Center led by Carmen Rhodes, which conducted a 10-month research study on the demographics of the oil and gass workforce The economic impacts of a prohibition on new oil and gas drilling, and a phase-out of existing oil and gas operation as well as public attitude on these issues.

It's a 54 page report it's quite long which I submitted as public comment to that hearing but i'll focus on one set of results here which are centered around the question of phase two of the county's proposed ordinance on the phase out of existing oil and gas operations note that this is distinct From the results I presented to the Planning Commission as these were focused on phase one, to prohibit new oil and gas operations. These results come from a public opinion survey of 2714 residents across Santa Barbara County randomly selected using a state-of-the-science methodology to capture balanced and representative sample of county residents. We found that 60% of all county residents support an ordinance to phase out existing onshore oil and gas drilling in the county, and operations in the county for which the amortization study before us today recommended by County staff is an essential component for a timely analysis of this ordinance.

In other words, three out of every five county residents support this. And it's not just a North versus South County story. We find majority support in four of five supervisor districts including 71% support in District 1, 68% in District 2, 60% in District 3, 40% in District 4 but 54.7% in District 5. As you can see the public supports this ordinance whether in North or South County so I urge the board to approve that recommendation. Thank you. Thank you.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction1:45:05

We will now go to our final speaker, Tara Renifo. Tara?

1:45 – 1:5629 turns

PresenterTara RenifoEnvironmental Defense CenterProposedself-stated1:45:13

Good morning Chair Nelson and Supervisors. My name is Tara Renifo and I'm a Senior Attorney with the Environmental Defense Center. EDC wants to thank staff for their work and their responsiveness and openness to speak with community members who reach out with questions. We request that the board authorize the chair to execute a professional services agreement to conduct an amortization study of onshore oil and gas extraction operations. This is a critical next step to eventually achieve the county's climate action plan measure, to develop a sunset strategy for oil and gas operations in the county. Thank you.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction1:45:47

And that concludes public comment on this item.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:45:50

All right, my first question I had was for Director Armas and then I have a question to my colleagues. When the Climate Action Plan was developed it was developed without this piece but then it was added in right? Is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:46:04

Chair Nelson, when the Climate Action Plan was presented to the board there was an option that essentially moved us in a direction of analyzing oil and gas more independently and more thoroughly. And the board adopted that course of action.

CommentNational Sheriff's AssociationProposed · by introduction1:46:19

So I

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:46:19

guess it has been

CommentNational Sheriff's AssociationProposed · by introduction1:46:20

a

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:46:20

continuation of that direction. Sure but to meet the goals and numbers they did not include this right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:46:27

That is correct

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:46:27

so this is just kind of extra You'll

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:46:33

recall, Chair Nelson, that when the cap was before you we did not have state authority to deal with oil and gas. And subsequent to that action the state legislature approved and the governor signed legislation that extended that authority to the board and it was subsequent to that action that we embarked on this process.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:46:52

So then were the calculations for this action recalculated back in the Climate Action Plan and adjusted accordingly?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:46:57

They were not. Okay,

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:46:59

so the climate action goals can be completed whether we have this or not? If we're successful.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:47:05

Well, we were not able to independently identify the oil and gas components simply because we have less of ability to control many of the components there and that's why they're not incorporated into the cap and you'll recall that the climate action plan was adopted in part to also provide some environmental clearance for subsequent development activity in the county In a more economical way allowing the environmental review process to be conducted.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:47:35

All right, thank you for that I guess my question is for my colleagues with this is this is $250,000 general fund they're going to go toward amortization study and I was just I'm curious if there's anybody that you know in light of where we have budget wise, you know $250,000 a general fund is another IB patrol or it's somebody. It's potentially multiple child welfare workers and I just thought in the frame of what the budget hearings we just had knowing that this is not necessary for satisfying our Our climate action plan whether there was any desire to maybe put this on hold right now while we're going through the financial challenges that we are as well as understanding that there may be executive orders coming down the pipe, that may make this moot.

And so you know knowing that environment I didn't know if he wanted embark on this contractor or maybe we want to take a step back me for a period of time and reevaluate Whether this is still prudent to go through now. I don't have a lot of hope, but I thought I'd at least ask the question so I think it's important question to ask knowing that where we're going and where is ahead of us you know.

It's one thing to spend this funds if we know that there is a conclusion on the other end. My colleagues want to do things that will actually into a result, especially we're spending this amount of general fund in these challenging times. So I guess Supervisor Hartman has my question for my colleagues and see if there's any desire maybe to back off of this for now so.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:49:11

At least speaking for myself, no. I think we have to keep moving forward on important initiatives and before we can have an honest conversation about property rights mineral estate values or tax revenue impacts we really need the facts and right now we don't have them Amortization is a legally recognized constitutionally sound tool precisely because it takes property rights seriously, it gives operators a reasonable period to recoup their investment rather than simply shutting them down.

I think we owe it to every resident breathing that air and living near those wells to understand our options and a study doesn't phase out anything it gives us the truth and that's what I'm after

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:49:52

All right, thank you Supervisor Caput. Yeah

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction1:49:56

I would agree and I appreciate the attempt it's always good to have a discussion up here and and I just remember I just go back to the report of you know the health impacts of living near Well as and the long-term effects and I do see these these costs, I know that there's a lot of work we have to do and will do it responsibly but I do see that in the long term. These investments as we've done with investing in solar right here.

So I'm pleased to see that it's within that so good job director armistice in getting a contract that is within the budget. I know that that was in question thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:50:43

All right not seen anybody jump up to 11, you know.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5voiceprint 0.941:50:47

Thank you Mister chair. Hey nice try like it's my job where they say a little something for the effort. I know we all have priorities. I think we're, we still just have still the bruises and the scar tissue from going through that budget where we're cutting essential services for people. And today we were honoring libraries at the same time we're cutting library funding. So I think we have to realize that you know, we're spending money to permanently eliminate a longstanding revenue stream in Santa Barbara County And without something to replace it. And I know what the push has been, the replacement revenue stream is let's go out and tax residents more.

And when the UCSB professor said he polled well in my district, measure P was the poll. Measure P was eliminating oil and gas in Santa Barbara County got crushed. So until we do another ballot measure where people say, hey this is the direction I'd like to go then maybe I would be able to get on board but the thing that bothers me the most about it though is not just 250,000 but it's really that how you feel about the relationship of oil and the environment?

And I know people believe very strongly about this But the reality is we aren't, this does nothing to curb the consumption of oil. And that's the issue because really all we're doing if we're successful and we eliminate oil and gas in Santa Barbara County is you just push it down the road. You just pushed somewhere else because until we get right with the world and say okay, we do believe In climate change, we do believe all these things are going to change. That's one thing but number two is change your behavior You know, yes we have done some at the county and I've supported those things of you know easy ways that we can change but I won't be able to support this.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:52:50

All right thank you Supervisor Levinino. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.921:52:53

Just an interesting fact I heard from our secretary California Secretary of Energy today we have more EV charging stations than gas pumps in California. We are making this transition

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:53:07

Interesting. All right, not seeing any other things. I do have a few more questions about the amortization study. So I saw in there that you guys have amortization of mental rights as part of that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:53:24

The consultant, if the board approves a contract will evaluate that issue. It's going to depend on two factors. The extent to which the information is available and much of that is private. If that information is not made available to the consultant he will rely on standard assumptions to determine value and then calculate the impact associated with that analysis.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:53:49

And then the amortization of that separately than the amortization for the well owner, right? So that's a different category. Those are going to amortize down there. I mean because mineral rights are a property right piece of property protected in the Constitution so that's gonna get amortized down. So explain that to me how that works.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:54:08

What's difficult on the mineral rights question is we've done some research on that topic. Many mineral rights owners are compensated only to the extent that production activity takes place and so if there is no production activity, the mineral rights owner receives no compensation. And so that component needs to be taken into account And then in the typical definition of amortization, of course you recognize revenue subtract operating expenses and capital investment and then realize what the return is to the owner of that activity.

A different situation with respect to mineral rights because they may not be incurring expenses as we know it in terms of capital investment so the consultant is going Do his best. But there are a number of complicated factors here, a good part of which is dependent on the party that's extracting the oil and the party that owns the mineral rights being willing to share some information with a consultant.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:55:19

So but I guess we're just trying to understand so let's try this in maybe farming instead of oil. So if a farmer has a piece of property And there is a crop on there, but we don't let him go onto his property to harvest that crop. How do you how do you wrestle with that? Because that's what we're talking about here right so the mineral rights owners have a piece of property right? Do I understand that right? It's mineral rights are historically and constitutionally protected property rights right it's an asset but we're not letting you get your assets.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:55:54

Well, I've actually tried to put this in my own mind in the context of a land-use activity. Sure. That you might have an agricultural field but you're not allowing cannabis to be grown there or to be extracted if you will from that parcel and so it in some ways there's there's some parallels here in the sense that simply because one owns the mineral rights doesn't mean that extraction will be permitted and therefore value may not exist.

So

1:56 – 2:0121 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:56:29

but it's agricultural zoned events maybe cannabis isn't, but you can do some type of cultural there sure so what kind of extraction would we allow if it was an oil for from their rights owners because it still be agriculture you still be able to do something on the property we're talking about potentially excluding And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:56:49

of course you're not anywhere near making that determination through this study the study is simply trying to understand if there are financial ramifications and if there are. And your comments have long indicated that there are. It means that a reasonable period has to be established to allow the owner of those rights to get a return on that ownership status.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:57:13

So we would maybe need to give access for them for a period of time to their mental rights before we were able to discontinue it? That's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:57:19

conceivable.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:57:20

Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:57:20

so this

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:57:20

actually might lead to more oil and gas

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:57:24

Or there's a realization that there isn't more to extract from that particular mineral right that's owned by individual A. Okay

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:57:31

all right so then the other question I had about the study was capital reinvestment, right? A well does not just you don't just stop working on a well is that a part of the amortization study as well

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:57:41

yes it

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:57:41

is okay good well again I can't support the ammortization study but I'm glad that's included and I really hope that we can figure out how to If you, if the county does move down this route with especially with mental rights owners. You know I often say you know the government can do lots of things but we just need to pay people for what we take from them. I mean that's a basic you know Bill of Rights concept and if we go down this route I just think we need to count that cost instead of just board that on a property rights owner

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:58:10

Chair Nelson, I think everyone on the staff's team recognizes that this is a significant decision for the board. And the support for undertaking this study is to make certain that the board has the best information available to make an informed decision. We may not like the conclusions. We may think that they move us in a direction that we don't want to move in. On the other hand, they may reveal that moving in a particular direction over a specified period of time works for a number of individuals, both the property owners and the public. And the information that will be gleaned from this study I think will help the board make that determination.

In other communities they've applied that in the context of the next phase of the study where they've identified a pretty extensive period for the amortization to be realized

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:59:02

Okay, and one more thing that I thought about when you're talking. You're saying that this is for the future on what we do with those mental rights owners property but we're also part of this includes a ban now right? So how are we figuring that out because I know that the Planning Commission disapproves something it's come back to board so we're actually going to do something now where we're going to say without knowing the number so exclude them their rights to their property now but we haven't studied that yet

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:59:32

Excuse me for interrupting you, I apologize. The matter that was before the Planning Commission recently and will be before you in a short while relates to new permit issuance. It doesn't relate to activity that may be conducted by folks that have vested rights so those with vested rights will continue to have access to that activity

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:59:57

That's the rights for well, but not access to your your mineral rights.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:00:01

Well to the extent so that I don't know how you can separate a mineral rights as a as a concept of value if permits aren't allowed for extraction

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:00:17

Okay, so the county would stop their ability to access or okay great thank you. That's my question all right And I just want to make a comment on that study or the survey. Not a scientific survey on our communities, especially when you pay people to take surveys it sometimes has a different outcome than either an election. I guess I'm not surprised that professor tends to act outside of his areas of expertise so I guess he's getting into statistics as well anyway.

Moving along, does somebody want to make a motion on this item? Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.922:00:51

I'll move staff recommendation. And I'll second.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:00:55

All right can we do a roll call vote please?

Roll-call vote Passed 3–2 move staff recommendation. And I'll second. All right can we do a roll call
Show transcript
Supervisor Lavinino. No. Supervisor Lee. Aye. Supervisor Kaps. Aye Supervisor Hartman aye and Chair Nelson no.
GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:01:08

Motion passes 3-2.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:01:09

All right that brings us to Item A19 Madam Clerk can you please read that into the record

2:01 – 2:0616 turns

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:01:25

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item number 19 is from the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the support for Assembly Bill AB 2257, County Departments of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:01:37

All right, this is pulled by quite a few members of the board. I personally pulled it for a couple reasons. One is that I just wanted to make sure the public understood why this is showing up in the administrative agenda. There's some questions out there in the public about that. Typically, a lot of our support letters from the county come right from our legislative committee and I know that I've asked and others have asked to make sure Anything that might be controversial or might be slightly outside of that come to the board so we could all weigh in on our personal feelings here. I know once we had one come to departmental item, but I do like the administrative agenda as a place where if it's not doesn't need to be a full discussion because all we are doing is commenting on legislation.

You know some people in Sacramento care what Santa Barbara County thinks many do not So we have minimal impact on this legislation and often legislation changes. So, you know I like to reserve the departmental agenda for things that are of a higher level of discourse and impact for our board so that's why it's on the administrative agenda. I'm glad it's on here so that what I get to weigh in personally but I just wanted to explain that for the public that was a little misunderstood on why this showed up on today's agenda the way it did. Supervisor Caps?

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction2:02:42

Yeah, I think just along with your clarification. It seems as though information went out that we're actually taking action today to take over our jails so you might want to clarify that

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:02:55

yeah

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction2:02:55

or I can buy that tomorrow. I mean that's the email that we got I think thanks to some communications that went out so Public comment, that is not the action that is being taken today. It's about weighing in on a piece of legislation that would give counties the option but nothing would change regardless of what this board does today so I just think it's really important to have accurate information when we're dealing with public discourse.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:03:29

All right thank you Supervisor Capsley. Supervisor Lavinino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5voiceprint 0.942:03:32

Sorry. Let's go to public, I'd rather hear from the public first.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:03:38

Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.922:03:39

Yeah, I want to hear from the public too but I understand Ethan Bertrand might be available and if he is I would very much like to hear from him.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:03:47

All right and before we get a public comment I just wanted to get my position on this as well you know Took a look at this legislation. I tried to take everything seriously, especially that comes from our assembly member because I think that there's obviously some type of thought of his you know his county in mind when he writes legislation so I think that and I want to do him. But I just, you know.

It's an idea, it's a concept. I know it's been done in other counties but there's also good reasons why it's under the Sheriff's Department now and hopefully would continue in San Barbara County. So with that let's go ahead and go to public comment. Madam Clerk how many public commenters do we have on this item?

not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:04:44

Chair Nelson, members of the board we have four requests to speak on this item.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:04:47

All right let's go ahead and go to public comment and that's keep it again at two minutes and then well I know that Sue Harman has asked for Mr. Bertram from the Assemblyman's office to comment so we'll we'll go to him after public comment.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:05:02

Chair Nelson and members of the board will begin here in Santa Maria with Larry Barrett to be followed by JC Hunter.

PresenterLarry BarrettIndivisible Santa BarbaraProposedself-stated2:05:17

Good morning Chair Nelson, Supervisors. I'm Larry Barrett representing Indivisible Santa Barbara. At last Friday's budget workshop we heard reference to the Murray stipulated judgment governing conditions in our county jail I'll read a portion of the most recent correspondence from the Murray plaintiffs. The reality is that Santa Barbara County will very likely be unable to provide the staffing or legally required treatment and services in a jail system with current or higher population.

If the county is unable to provide the staffing and services, this class counsel will proceed with a federal court enforcement action. It should give us pause that Murray Council doubts the Sheriff's ability to manage our jail per the stipulated judgment. Greg Hart's AB 2257 provides you with a management alternative, to create a department independent of the sheriff to manage the jail and this option may be critical for you to avoid another lawsuit.

Now let's be clear, this bill does not take any existing power away from the sheriff. It only provides you with a future alternative. Even if you're happy with the performance of this current sheriff, you may not be thrilled with that of a future sheriff. So please support this bill to provide you with an improved ability if needed to address how our county jail is operated.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:06:53

Thank you, Larry.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:06:55

We will remain here in Santa Maria with JC Hunter to be followed by Andy Caldwell.

2:07 – 2:2325 turns

CommentJC HunterProposed2:07:05

Good morning, JC Hunter from the Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff's Association. The DSA is opposed to AB 2257. This is a bill that will replace a duly elected sheriff and his responsibility or her responsibility for being in charge of the jail with an unelected non-law enforcement bureaucrat Now reasons given for this is that well, maybe if we do this will take care of the staffing problem in the jail.

Contrary, the staffing problem as a result that this county habitually fails to pay a competitive wage to the deputy sheriffs when you fail to pay a competitive wage. You don't get enough people to put in for the job and when you do hire somebody they leave how about the overtime? Maybe this will take care all that overtime no, no, is the result of not having enough deputies working.

Why don't you have enough deputies working? Because you don't pay them enough. The reality is that this county has really not been appreciative enough of Sheriff Brown for the 20 years that he's been working here, I have witnessed him work some miracles. One of his miracles probably his first one was getting a northern branch jail authorized Now, people probably don't realize it but Sheriff Brown is clairvoyant because he said at that time what? That that jail should be larger. So here we are 12 years later having to enlarge the jail we should have listened to the sheriff so rather than replacing the sheriff with a bureaucrat what's the answer to this whole problem I'll give it to you the answer is U5.

Later today you're going to be going into closed session to talk about the DSA's contract What I need you five to do is band together. Talk to your negotiators and the bureaucrats that are in the room, and say what we need to do is get the deputy's salary up to a market rate wage. And I guarantee you all of these problems with overtime, all of the staffing problems will disappear. Thank you. Thank You Mr. Hunter.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:09:18

We will now go to Andy Caldwell then we will go to Zoom with Ethan Bertrand.

CommentAndy CaldwellProposed2:09:25

Chair Nelson, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing CoLab and for clarification all of our communication said this action is to support Hart's bill. All of it said that so somebody misread it that's on them not us. One of the things I think that's critical here a separation of powers we don't want you to control the sheriff We want separation of powers, we want a professional law enforcement person elected to run the jail.

And the consent of the governor, he's been elected how many times? Five times already. And he's not only been elected to run our county, he was elected as a leader of the State Sheriff's Association and then National Sheriff's Association which means he has the respect from his peers all across the country. The only place he lacks respects is right here. And I believe it's always been a battle of egos more than it has been finances.

And I want you to start barking up a different tree. Like one of the things in Hart's proposal is people with mental health, mental illness are languishing in our jails. You have a behavioral wealth department that spends a quarter of a billion dollars every year has nearly 500 employees so every four years you're spending a billion dollars Why wouldn't the people in the jail who are committing crimes mostly while having alcohol, mental illness and drug problems be the top priority of your own department?

Why not break down that silo you can have all them send a dozen or two dozen people into that jail from that staff. And maybe you solve the problem yourself rather than blaming it on the sheriff You know the people in the jail should be your highest priority because their cost in the county of fortune. Please respect the office and respect the will of the voters they've elected him four or five times and he's gotten more votes than any of you. Thank

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:11:39

you Mr.

CommentAndy CaldwellProposed2:11:39

Colwell.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:11:40

We will now go to Ethan Bertrand on Zoom, Ethan?

CommentEthan BertrandProposed2:11:47

Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chair and Supervisors. Ethan Bertrand here, District Director for Assemblymember Hart. We apologize we can't be with you in person today. We're actually in Sacramento presenting this very bill. So Assembly Bill 2257 would restore the authority that counties previously had up until 1993 to establish an independently led Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

This agency would be led by an appointed director, as has been stated. Our goal with this legislation is not to replace the workforce of our jails. In fact, our legislation makes it clear that Individuals who work for county jails today could continue to work there if a county, and let me just underline if a county made the shift. Additionally our bill clarifies that if a county made the shift custody deputies or correctional officers would still have the same peace officer status that they have today.

So this is not a proposal to take custody operations and give it to a non-law enforcement entity. It really is an agency that would function in the same way as the current corrections under the sheriff, but having the accountable leadership at the top that is responsive to the Board of Supervisors' budgetary and policy directions. So, as has been stated this is merely restoring a choice. Many counties including your own may choose to maintain a sheriff run jail and if that is in the best interest of public safety and fiscal accountability and rehabilitation we support that. But what this will do is by giving a second option that counties historically had, your board and other boards of supervisors throughout the state would have more leverage that right now is lacking as far as advancing the county's financial and policy interests in the administration of the jail.

As you know, boards of supervisors have full legal and financial liability over jail issues but have very little authority to prevent these issues going forward. Which is a very difficult situation where your board can be forced to pay out legal settlements or pay for overspending by an agency but not have any authority operationally to prevent those issues.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:14:24

Thank you Mr. Bertram Did any other Supervisors wanted to hear a little bit more from Mr. Bertram on, as far as public comment is that's your public comment? Thank you.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction2:14:38

Well just one question. All

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:14:39

right yeah so Supervisor Capps do you have

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction2:14:41

some questions

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:14:41

for?

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction2:14:42

Well I heard this in Legislative Committee but just to refresh my memory what when was that authority changed?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:14:49

Mr. Bertram would you think it was 1993 is that correct?

CommentEthan BertrandProposed2:14:53

That's correct. Yes, that's correct.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction2:14:56

Okay, but I think that was news to me so that the Board of Supervisors used to have this. So thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:15:05

All right, so back to board. Did you want any other members? Supervisor Lavagnino? I have questions. Are we in deliberation? I think we are on this. Is there any further questions about it or Supervisor Capps?

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction2:15:22

Again I just feel like, I feel disheartened by the emails that we got because and even the commenter this isn't, this is a choice. And I think that that is the key to this legislation that Assemblymember Hart is very thoughtful as you well know you serve with him. He might have his perspective, he might not agree with it but he is providing counties with a choice and none of the emails that we received in opposition to this thanks to the blast that went out which did not include that information and I just think in this day and age with so much division we have to have accurate information It was just really disheartening to see that people were led astray, including our public comment from the deputy sheriff.

This wouldn't automatically make counties take over jails and I just think it bears repeating because not one of the emails In opposition to this, stated it correctly. And so I just my support for in the legislative committee with Supervisor Hartman was because of that choice. It doesn't mean that that's what we would do. Doesn't mean that that's what we would force upon counties.

Each county is different. Each county has its own dynamics. We have our own dynamic. It's different now than it was when Then Supervisor Hart, so I mean we would take it under consideration potentially if and that's a big if this becomes law. So again because of that choice which the state of California provided to counties prior and we'll get into this much later with item D4. I think local choices is what we're standing up for in our county. That's what I wanted to say.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:17:09

Thank you Supervisor Capps, appreciate that. Supervisor Lavinio and then Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5voiceprint 0.942:17:15

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know I guess if you kind of couch it that way that it's a choice we don't have to do it or we could do it. We don't have to do it. You know the pressure would be too obviously this is available you we need to go in this direction and be like I think almost like if there was legislation and said well we could do two year terms for supervisors are four-year terms for supervisors the public would be showing up I really look at this as a kind of referendum on on Sheriff Brown.

I heard local control and I read it in the report. I don't think there's anything more local than a local sheriff. It's not Sacramento making, coming down and imposing. It's not DC, it's the guy sitting that comes into our meetings just about every week. So replacing him with a department, an agency, a director when I hear those things, that just means money to me. Means more red tape, more bureaucracy And as was pointed out, I mean you've got a sheriff that yes. I've had disagreements with him on policy but he's been elected five times starting in 2006.

Five times the he's faced the people and five times they've sent him back resoundingly as they wanted him for another four years so well regarded statewide nationally and when you look at Like you're going to replace the person with a master's not replaced. I know it's an option, but you're theoretically saying I've got somebody with a masters in public administration from USC has been running a department for 20 years is absolutely qualified.

To go out and I guess we would appoint members of this commission. It's going to be totally political. Assemblyman Greg Hart, totally respect him. He has a amazing optimistic outlook on life that I tried to emulate. I just disagree with him on this policy. I just look at this as another Sacramento end run and I don't like it so I won't be supporting it but I also appreciate the Alleged Committee bringing it to us. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:19:43

Absolutely thank you Supervisor Lavinio. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.922:19:47

Well, I am supportive of this legislation and endorsing it on behalf of Santa Barbara County. One of the great frustrations that I found in this job is that we up here are the ones who are liable for decisions over which we have absolutely no control It's our name on the lawsuit, not the sheriff's. It's our budget that has to pay the settlements whether it's federal civil rights litigation, wrongful death claims, procurement of equipment that could not be used due to basic planning oversights, a custody key handoff system that resulted in overtime liability and required a settlement We're on the hook for the management failures and we have no tools whatsoever. If we at least had this choice, I think we would have a little bit more leverage so I'm very frustrated at being on the hook for something I have no ability to influence.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:20:51

All right, thank you Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Lee?

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.872:20:54

Thank you Chair Caput. So I'm going to be supportive of this agenda item. I was able to reach out to Assemblymember Greg Harden and ask him the questions that we all did and he answered them perfectly because he's really putting himself out there for this. I think he's giving us choices right more tools in our tool belt to do what we can so I'll be supportive

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:21:17

All right, thank you Supervisor Lee. And as I mentioned before, I've got some concerns about this. You know boards come and go and you know sometimes they get political we have certain things that happen on the national level that impacts local decision making which may not be necessarily fair to that process. I want leverage too. I would disagree though that it's on us It's on us as represents the taxpayers, but the taxpayers also elect Sheriff Brown. So it also is shared there and I do think actually his name ends up in every single lawsuit when the sheriff's department gets sued along with the board. I think we're all on those lawsuits together.

I think eventually you know were accountable to accounting budget, but you know these things He's often criticized for these things too. He does not get off Scots free ultimately the electorate decides to send him back so you know, like I said, I've been frustrated by the sheriff over the years. I've supported some of his opponents as many as other people but also, you know, I know there's this partnership that we have to have and it's a kind of a balance of power sometimes because I do think that boards don't always make the best decisions either I listening to some of the other counties, or at least Napa County that has been gone through this.

They're moving more of a direction to potentially returning it back to their sheriff because they've seen that this is not an ideal situation when you're having non sworn custody. I know that Mr Bertram said that would not change. That's not the model that exists now and so this would be something that's an unproven model that would be out there. with this as a leverage piece at this point, so I won't be able to support this. But again, I'm glad that we brought it forward so we could each weigh in with our thoughts on it. I think it's an important part of the conversation. Supervisor Hartman?

2:23 – 2:2713 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.922:23:09

Yeah, I just wanted to make one comment about visibility. These issues of liability come up in closed session. They're things that the public really never knows about but we have to deal with. So I just want to put that on the record

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:23:26

And some of it's driven by the Sheriff's Department, some of it is driven by past boards and policies that we put in place or lack of investment capital that we have not, we failed to make as well. So can I get a motion on this item?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.922:23:42

I would move that we support Assemblymember Hart's bill.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:23:48

It would be adopting A and B of 819? Is that the motion by Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.922:23:53

And I'll

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction2:23:53

second.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:23:54

It's seconded by Supervisor Caput, can we do a roll call vote please?

Roll-call vote Passed 3–2 Moved by Joan Hartmann motion by Supervisor Hartman? And I'll second. It's seconded by Supervisor Caput, can we do a roll call
Show transcript
Supervisor Labanino? No. Supervisor Lee? Aye. Supervisor Kaps? Aye Supervisor Hartman? Aye and Chair Nelson? No.
GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:24:08

Motion passes 3 to 2.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:24:09

Okay great so we have one more administrative item and then we're gonna take a small quick break before we get to our public commenters I know there's public commenters in the room they've been waiting quite some time but we have a translator that needs to take a quick break here so let's go hit A27 and that will be our last item in the administrative agenda

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:24:29

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 27 is from the fire department. It is to consider recommendations regarding revisions to the rules and regulations of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department's Board of Appeals and appointment of candidates onto the Board of Appeals. And as noted earlier, the department requests a continuance of administrative item number 27 to the May 5th 2026 board meeting.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:24:51

Thank you, Chief Huff. My understanding is we've got this brought forward along with candidates and it's going to come back on May 5th. You know one of the concerns I had was I wanted to make sure that I could actually have input on my appointment for each of our districts and so I just kind of wanted to pull it out actually just to highlight that. I know Supervisor Capps already has an appointee here. Appreciate the fire department offering a slate of candidates but I do think it's important for all of us To take you guys out of that, and so I just want to make that for the record. That I am so I'm going to be appointing somebody from my district to serve on this. I think it's important that we have that independent guidance from all of our offices on who ultimately judges that the appeal from the fire marshals.

So do understand correctly that by May 5th will be able to have that in place for us to be able to make those appointments?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:25:37

Yeah, chair Nelson to chair Nelson not through the board or through the chair. You're the chair? Yes, we'll take it. We are working through some other issues as well with council and the clerk's office but we should have it ready on May 5th.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:25:50

Okay excellent thank you so I just wanted to you know highlight that and let for my colleagues also that you might want Find somebody for this board, maybe from the list of candidates that the fire department has found. But there's also other people in your community that might make more sense for each one of you. So just wanted to take this opportunity to pull that item or highlight that item.

The departments asked for continuance on this till May 5th and so I'll go ahead and make that motion if there is no further comment to continue this until May 5. Can we get a second on that? Second. Okay, any further discussion? All right all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed motion passes unanimously okay we're going to take a short five-minute break I know we have public commenters here they've been waiting patiently and i want to get to you apologize for such a long administrative agenda also those people who want to be here for item four from the regular meeting or item one in the special meeting that we said it would start no earlier than 12 30 that's gonna be At least 1.30 at this point, potentially as late as 2 just want to make sure that you guys are aware of that if you guys are paying attention at home we still have a few items before we get to that so I'm just wanting to let you guys know that it probably will not be heard any earlier than one 30 or two o'clock at this point thank you.

Okay, welcome back to the April 21st meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We just finished a long administrative agenda and now we're getting into our at this time public comment. This is public comment for items that are not on today's agenda. Madam Clerk do we have general public comment today?

2:27 – 2:3512 turns

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:27:39

John Nelson and members of the board. Yes, we originally had eight requests to speak from the public in general public comment I do believe at least two of our members have stepped away and will no longer be providing comment but we will begin here in San Maria with John Ronev to be followed by Don McCray.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:27:55

John? And just before I get to John For the members of the public that were here and they had to leave because it got a little long, it is my apology for that. I would request that you submit your public comments in writing we will still read it and still take it into account so again we try not to do what we did this morning but unfortunately sometimes these meetings get away from us so I just wanted to apologize on behalf of the entire board as our chair for that delay. So John please and at this time I'll go ahead and close public comment

CommentJohn RohnerProposedself-stated2:28:28

Good morning Chair Nelson and members of the board, county staff and all others in attendance. My name is John Rohner and I wanted to introduce myself as the new Public Affairs Manager for SoCalGas. I cover San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara County. I like to say my coverage territory is Hearst Castle, The Carpinteria. And having recently moved to the Central Coast, I gotta say it's truly remarkable to be here and there's something special I took over the role of Public Affairs Manager after Tim Mahoney retired last year. He was in the role for about 27 years, so very large shoes to fill and I just wanted to state that SoCalGas remains committed to supporting local governments, communities to provide safe, reliable and affordable energy delivery today ready for tomorrow.

And please don't hesitate to reach out and I look forward to reaching, working with all of you in the future. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:29:26

Thank you John. Appreciate your introduction or reintroduction.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:29:29

And we will now go to Don McRae to be followed by Eleanor Lindh. Don?

CommentDon McRaeProposedself-stated2:29:38

Chairman Nelson, Board. My name is Don McRae. I'm a homeowner at Knollwood Terrace out in Orkut also on the board of directors We have a situation with St. Joseph's High School, about year and a half ago St. Joe's built a new softball field it's been discovered that they built it without permits never applied for one the issue we have is we have numerous homes that are adjacent to the softball field that are receiving foul balls in their yard And I don't know how long it's been since any of you played softball but softball is a misnomer.

It's not soft and these things are going 50, 60 feet in the air and then returning to earth in people's backyards and got a broken window last week or two weeks ago and people can't go in their yard when they're out in their backyard when they're playing because it's not safe. Things will hurt ya. So anyway we've talked to the school tried get them to mitigate it and we've discovered that they have now applied for a permit retroactively without addressing any of the issues that were having with balls in our neighbor's yards.

We have one, one neighbor has a bag two weeks ago had 29 softballs in it so they're not, they're coming in there quite often School refuses to even talk to us about it. We've asked them to cease operations until they can fix the problem and they refuse. They told us that they've ordered the material to raise, they do have a fence woefully short They've ordered the material supposedly to raise it 30 feet. I'm not sure that's high enough.

It might get it to 50 feet, I don't know but we're asking the board to direct the planning commission to look into this And we've contacted the Planning Commission, they're well aware of what's going on. But there needs to be a new design on the backstop to stop this because we're receiving damage in our homes and we're all invested in them and we'd appreciate if the board would direct the Planning Department to do something about it. Thank you.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:32:18

We will now go to Eleanor Lind and I believe Andrew Philpott is no longer in the room so we will go to Karen Hauenstein following Eleanor.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:32:29

Thank you Chairman and the Board. I'm also speaking for my husband Andrew Philpott because he had to leave to go to work. I am a homeowner who lives along Foster Road, our property is directly along the softball fields of the third baseline and we were here to formally object to the current location of the softball field. I've been to other fields across our area and no one has a three foot easement between a field of play and a property. It's always, it looks like at least 30 feet.

We've had numerous balls as he said that have kept, that keep coming in. We had at least 12 or 15, 12 that we've kept, 3 that we've hit back or given back. They come into our yard, my planters, my roof, I can't be in space, you know 5, 6, 7 days a week because they're playing. Weekends they play almost all day and they are usually there from 3 to about 6 or 7 in the afternoons.

We're afraid for our safety. The balls are coming from like he said 40-50 feet up. The netting is about 32 feet right now. They want to put another 8 feet on that. You know in the meantime but so having the field so close to our property negatively affects our property values as well and I can tell you if this field was there when we bought three years ago, we would not have bought this place. You can see what that looks like from our property, it is right there.

The noise from the boom boxes as well that they play during the practice and in between innings, it also is so loud. It's intrusive and not just outside but when we're inside we've had Zoom calls in our office that Andy has to do or I have to do with people We can't I mean we can hear that it's it comes across through the zoom calls so loud. So we're respectfully requesting that the county takes action to deny their request for approvals for their amendments and move the field, including the structures to a safe and more appropriate distance from our properties.

Thank you so much.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:35:10

Appreciate

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:35:11

your time.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:35:11

Thank you, Ms. Lynn and my staff will get a hold of you Mr. McGray and meet with you at some time not today but in the future.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:35:20

We will now go to Karen Hauenstein then we'll go to Zoom with Christy Lozano. Karen?

2:35 – 2:416 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:35:32

Karen Hauenstein North County resident I'm here talking to you right now because I have to point out for the record, the hypocrisy and favoritism shown by this county towards Verizon Corporation regarding the 5G antenna that is being placed on the corner of Rucker Road, Empress Monroe. Now I've researched this and I found out that our completely corrupt planning department Planned this, they actually changed the way the county deals with environmental impact reports to do this.

CEQA is being ignored because exactly where they're placing this 5G antenna used to be the middle of a pond in a wetland That is the drainage for a protected state park. Now, all of those environmental factors that are being triggered and then all of these regulations that are being ignored stands out like a big sore thumb to us but what really impacts the property owner is of dozens of cases where this county has denied residents the ability to build homes because of the conflict created by the line-of-sight, the horizon line-of sight.

Which for this particular 5G tower is being placed less than 200 feet away from the front porch of a long established home. Now in my personal experience, that never would have been considered ever as applied to a residential homeowner or property owner Why is Verizon being shown such favoritism? This all has to be placed on record.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:38:08

Thank you, Ms. Townsend.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:38:12

We will now go to Zoom with Christy Lozano to be followed by Gina Correz. Christy.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:38:21

Good afternoon board. The best thing I saw you do today was bring for a day of prayer in May, which is awesome. I'm a person of prayer so I really appreciate that but it does seem hypocritical as My observation, you don't follow any of those rules with regard to your honored position of governing over our County of Santa Barbara. And so I wanna point out the hypocrisy of that and there's a lot of hypocrisy to honor the library which has cut their funding, to honor Victims Awareness Month but to scrub people from the record To honor the sheriff and the hard work that the sheriff does, but to not support what he does and to vote against him three to two.

And so I think what we are tired of is the dog and pony show. The show that continues to go on, to act like you care but you don't, to decide who's gonna be the bad guy this week and pass the buck. So it never lands on anybody And we have a lot of problems to fix in our county. We have a ton of problems, ICE is a problem. We have a congressman who could go to DC and he could advocate for our illegal community or immigrants that have been here for the last 30 years and he could do something about that but he doesn't.

Instead he creates drama to try to stir up people's emotions So that they'll continue to vote for him. Indivisible does not represent Santa Barbara citizens, they are for their own agenda as many of you sitting on that board or for your own agenda but here's the good news there's a simple solution we can vote on June 2nd and as far as I'm concerned you all need to be voted out but let's start with Laura Capps let's start with Steve Lavallino And the distinction between Laura Capps and Elijah Mack, Elijah Mack will listen to people. Laura Capps never listens to people. She's a robot for whoever she works for and she follows that agenda so if there's anything that we can come together on as a community of homeowners and business owners and people who actually care Is to vote for people who care for people and who will listen to people.

And I know there's people running for election that do, and so that's who we need to put in these positions because your position is very important. You are representing We the People but as far as I'm concerned, I don't think any of you represent We the People. And we need change and we need change now and that can come as quickly as June 2nd. Thank you

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:41:12

Thank you, Ms. Lozano.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:41:12

We will now go to Gina Quarez who is our final speaker in general public comment. Gina?

2:41 – 2:5311 turns

CommentGina Quarez I'mProposedself-stated2:41:20

Yes good morning Chair Nelson and members of the board my name is Gina Quarez I'm here today to ask for a formal investigation of this Board into the operational practices of the contracted service provider Good Samaritan In my previous employment with the Committee for Social Justice where I served as the Outreach Coordinator, I was contacted by several residents at La Posada with complaints that they wanted to file.

I assisted them in filing grievances and delivered them on May 19th 2025 to the Homelessness Assistance Program Manager at the Community Services Department. A few days after those grievances were submitted, the Executive Director of Good Samaritan made retaliatory actions towards me I made several attempts to get a response from the grievances only to be ignored. I will not let the voices of those people be ignored, they deserve answers and there needs to be accountability for publicly funded programs. Today, I am requesting an investigation by this board into the operational practices of Good Samaritan at all sites that they are contracted. Secondly, I would like an independent review of every grievance that I submitted to the Community Services Department.

Thank you.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:42:34

And that concludes general public comment for today.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:42:37

All right, that now brings us to our first departmental item and before yeah we're going to have this first departmental item and then we'll be going into closed session. I believe that's right.

CommentBruce McCaighProposedself-stated2:42:55

Yeah.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:43:08

All right we're going to go ahead into department item number one then we're going to go to closed session and lunch break. And then we'll be coming back for items D2 and 3 at this point if you're here to comment on item D4 I know there's a lot of public interest that item we're looking at approximately two o'clock for that item at this time.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction2:43:28

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the first reading of an ordinance adding chapter 52 to the Santa Barbara County Code titled Local Housing Marketing Program case number 26 ORD3 which affects portions of 1st 2nd and 3rd districts.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:43:48

All right Ms. Plowman you're up.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:43:51

Good morning Mr. Chair members of the board So when the board was considering the update to the housing element that was adopted a few years back now, hard to believe. There was a lot of discussion about the desire to have local people occupy the new units particularly on the South Coast as they get constructed. So the housing element included program 20 which was about local preference and the program directed the staff to essentially look at creating either guidelines or an ordinance that would try to balance prioritizing locals getting into these units.

And fair housing law The implementation actions from program 20 were twofold. The first item was to look at what we might be able So, we spent a good deal of time doing research across the state and even including some other states to look at both programs that address affordable housing and look for something that addressed market rate housing. We haven't found anything related to market rate housing. We did find examples where there were other jurisdictions that adopted programs for capital A affordable housing.

And they seem to have gone unchallenged. There are other jurisdictions on the South Coast that have tried to look at this issue. And the city of Goleta about a year ago looked at capital A affordable and moved forward with something along those lines, but they declined to go into trying to do something for market rate The city of Santa Barbara and I don't think the city of Carpinteria has anything so really I think we're sort of on the cutting edge here trying to do something.

It's maybe not as much as we had hoped we could do, but it's something we felt that would get us started down that path. I did want to mention that we did spend some time with the development community talking to them about a potential program because I didn't want to be in a position where it would bring something to the board that the development community would complete completely oppose and then potentially file some kind of suit against the county or something along those lines. So we wanted to make sure we had something I think reasonable and manageable with respect to the financing constraints some of the development community expressed.

So with that introduction, I'm going to turn it over to the staff to present the program that we have that really mostly focuses on sort of intensive marketing efforts for our local community. Today I have Alex Tuttle, Deputy Director. I want to introduce Kathy King who is the new Supervising Planner in Long-Range Planning. She has replaced Alan Bell And then Lila Spring, who's one of our planners in long-range planning. So Ms. Spring if you would go ahead and start the presentation.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed2:47:35

Thank you Lisa. Good afternoon Chair Nelson and members of the board as Lisa said my name is Lila spring and I will be presenting the local housing marketing program This program introduces a new chapter to Santa Barbara County Code, Chapter 52 titled the Local Housing Marketing Program which includes requirements related to the marketing of new housing units in the South Coast region of the unincorporated county.

The primary goal of Chapter 52 is to increase opportunities for the local workforce to access local housing. Chapter 52 comes out of the 2023-2031 housing element update that was adopted by this board in December of 2023. The housing element includes a suite of programs that are directed for staff implementation including program 21, local preference which is intended to improve opportunities for local workers and residents to obtain local housing.

Chapter 52 was developed following outreach to and including feedback from the development community. And in collaboration with County Community Services Department, you will hear from the Community Services Department a little later related to local preference for deed-restricted affordable housing and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Chapter 52 is focused only on non-deed restricted housing. Meaning housing that is free from legal restrictions on the rental or for sale price, or income limits for occupants.

Chapter 52 is limited in applicability to the South Coast Housing Market Area. The county is divided into five housing market areas or HMA's and as you can see on this slide, the South Coast HMA in green doesn't look very green on this slide but it extends from the eastern boundary of the county to Gaviota Pass where Highway 101 turns away from the coast and heads north It also, the southern border is the coast and the northern border is approximately the ridgeline of the San Ynez Mountains.

The South Coast HMA is characterized in part by a jobs housing imbalance, meaning there are more jobs in the south coast than there are homes for the workers that fulfill those jobs. And recent studies have found that approximately 28,000 workers commute into the South Coast HMA daily. In addition, 15.3% of the commutes that end at the South Coast travel 32 miles or more versus 9% of commutes to the North County and compared to the statewide average almost two times as many people employed in the South Coast travel 50 miles or more to work.

The consequence is air pollution including greenhouse gas emissions, traffic congestion and decreased personal time for workers to spend with their families and in their communities. The South Coast HMA also has a low vacancy rate. The rental vacancy rate is currently around 2%, and as anyone who has tried to rent or purchase a home in the South Coast region knows, it is a very competitive market for housing.

So a critical first step for securing housing is timely awareness of housing opportunities which brings us to Chapter 52. So given the unique characteristics of the South Coast HMA, Chapter 52 only applies in that region. It also only applies to five or housing developments with five or more primary dwelling units so it would not be triggered by accessory dwelling units or ADUs.

It also only applies to the initial sale or rental of those units and again only applies to non-need restricted units. Chapter 52 essentially requires developers to prepare, submit and implement a local marketing plan. It requires that the plan be submitted and approved prior to planning permit approval and that it be implemented 21 days prior to marketing for general audiences.

The local marketing plan must include newspaper ads in both English and Spanish, notification to local employers, jurisdictions and housing organizations, online marketing focused on the South Coast and informational flyers. In addition, when applicants for rental or for sale units generally have equal qualifications, Chapter 52 encourages prioritization in line with what's shown on this screen. So first priority is encouraged to be given to people who work in the South Coast HMA but live elsewhere.

Second, to people who live and work within the South Coast HMA and this includes folks who have experienced a no-fault eviction within the last two months Third is people who have been hired to work in the South Coast HMA but live elsewhere. Fourth is people who live in the South Coast HMA but work elsewhere and finally, people who live and work outside of the South Coast HMA.

In terms of environmental review, the package before you today is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act because it will not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment Staff recommends that the board take the actions listed in the staff report and summarized on your screen. This concludes staff's presentation, and we are available for any questions. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:53:42

All right thank you. Questions from the Board? Supervisor Lee.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.872:53:46

Are there any plans to work with nonprofits or cities along with this plan?

2:53 – 3:0628 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:53:52

Supervisor Lee through the chair. So we have we are open to working with any of other city jurisdictions I have spoken with their planning directors in the past about moving forward with a concept like this They expressed some interest but haven't done so yet, but I'm happy to reach out to them and talk to him about what we are doing. Also happy to work with any of the nonprofits in the community like Santa Barbara Foundation or any of the other ones that might have an interest in what we're doing.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.872:54:24

That's a fantastic answer. I would like to see that that we work with our fellow cities and nonprofits they could really help us accomplish this goal. Sure thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:54:34

All right thank you Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Caps and Supervisor Hartman?

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction2:54:37

Sure, I have some comments but right now just have a couple questions. Do we...I look to try to find statistics on the rate of second homes in the unincorporated and I was able to find some estimates for Montecito for Supervisor Lee's district roughly 10-15% and growing But I'm very concerned about that and with all of the new developments coming to Goleta.

It's currently estimated at 3%. I just wondered if you discovered that or talking with developers because that is forefront in my mind when I think about all of the building that's happening, just wondered if you have a source or any kind of intel that you might be able to share?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:55:22

Thank you. Supervisor Katz for the chair. So we don't have a statistic. We have anecdotal information. Yeah, a large portion of the units that were seeing developed on the South Coast are rental. Yes. And so we have much less of a problem with that in terms of having them be second homes but Yeah, I mean there has been some discussion of and this would have to be something that would be approved by the voters but having like a second home tax

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction2:55:53

yeah

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:55:54

something along those lines.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction2:55:59

Yeah, again I just hear that real fear from my constituents is that these homes are going to be gobbled up as second homes and not people actually living there. And that really does weaken the fabric of a community. And I think that Goleta currently the estimates I saw it's just really like 1-3%. Again that's an estimate but Hope Ranch is closer to Montecito more like potentially 10% so...

Anyway my second question was why 6 weeks. I have some opinions about that being way too short but it was at a number you negotiated with developers.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:56:35

Supervisor cast to the chair so it's good question. I had originally talked about 60 days there. I got a lot of pushback from the development community There you have some fears about their financing companies having concerns about that So we ended up, I think they wanted 15 days There was some discussion of that 30 days. Posting a flyer and a bulletin board? Yeah, we settled on six weeks. And the truth of the matter is I think is they can start marketing early.

They get anxious if they get to the point where they can't reach out broadly when they're ready to be in occupancy Supervisor Hartman.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.922:57:48

Yes, let's see. I guess I'll start with the Santa Ynez Valley and did you consider that HMA? They have some of the same conditions as the South Coast and so I'd like to hear what you have to say about that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:58:07

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. When we started this effort, we're really mostly focused on the South Coast because of I think it's a problem to expand it to other housing to do that because our noticing was more focused on the South Coast market area.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.922:58:55

So just briefly, I mean SB CAG data shows that fewer than 20% of the workers in Buellton anyway actually live there now we would be worried about the bigger area, the unincorporated area but I think that's true. That's just the only number I could get Median home values are 1.2 million, the long-term rental market is essentially nonexistent and this is a backdrop over 700 short term rentals and those I think are not even all of them so I am very interested because what you haven't really addressed yet is some of the preferences that you're describing here fit in the next ordinance that we'll be talking about In terms of ranking right?

And so I think that's important to have consistency. I'd like to see the valley included in both.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:59:52

I think Supervisor Hartman through the chair, I understand your reflections and I think what I would say is one of the reasons we focused primarily on the South Coast was because the number of units that were going to be developed there. We don't have as, we have I think one site in the housing element that is focused on in San Ynez so that's kind of another explanation as to why. And

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:00:20

some in Los Alamos too, I think that's in the area right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:00:23

There are new units coming online in Los Alamos but they were not identified sites in the housing element rezone process.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:00:30

I see so this will only apply to the rezones? No

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:00:34

it will apply to all projects, new projects that are coming in. So it could certainly be expanded and impact new projects that are being developed in the other areas of the county

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:00:44

Okay. And I guess we'll want public comment, but one of the issues I think we want to have evidence that really supports this so I did a little research and would like to get that in the record at the right time.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:00:57

Thank you Supervisor Hartman. My question was about why this doesn't apply deed restricted units?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:01:07

Supervisor Nelson, we are working with CSD on the deed restricted units because they manage those deed restricted units. So there is going to be a local preference for deed restricted units and then we can actually do more with capital A affordable deed restricted units.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:01:27

Okay so I'm really interested in that. I've seen it throughout my career in county government that we build a lot of these projects and then somebody takes about rental voucher from LA County and comes up and takes one those units. And what I find that does nothing that's worse for promoting affordable housing in a community is to have people to solve that problem for another community, not our own. I believe most people in our county have no issue with building affordable housing for our county.

I think what we have a problem for is being the retirement community or the final destination for somebody from another community that's not solving that problem for themselves. And so, um, that's an area I definitely want us to lean into as on the deed restriction. So, as we head into that, I think that's one of the areas We absolutely need to make sure that we're assuring that we're having local residents that are in need of those units, to get those first.

As far as this program I mean I'm interested in it you know I know you reached out to me and asked me about the Santa Maria HMA. I like to hear though from the development community and what the impacts are. I have not fully vetted it for what that looks like, I don't know the math if it changes in Santa Maria or San Ynez or in South Coast. I have not dug into it, not knowing that this was potential on the table. I am interested but not necessarily ready to give direction on that today for parts of my county. I wonder maybe even in the future could these be conditions You know, like there's you know Los Alamos project probably come to the Planning Commission that the Planning Commission could ask for these these to be on those projects. You know if it's not in HMA as a condition and what if that's a within the purview on a case-by-case basis so that maybe some of those developers can say yeah I can do it or some of them say hey for X Y Z financing reasons.

I cannot maybe some more flexibility and so I just kind of want to highlight that because I think that those last Los Alamos projects are going to be coming to the PC in the future. I don't know if they make their way up I'm not sure if that's an appropriate condition. But there's an opportunity there that that might be added this condition of the planning Commission thought it was appropriate

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:03:32

supervisor Nelson to the chair because it wouldn't be codified making it a condition might be particularly challenging but what we can do and we do this a lot is work with the applicants And so I'm happy to work with the develop development community for some of the projects that are happening outside the South Coast market.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:04:01

Yeah, I think these this is in practice is a really good idea no matter where I mean this is a good planning what I get concerned about is does it? Is it just another mandate that ends up costing more to build the housing, therefore we get less housing because we can only put so much regulatory load on projects before people go elsewhere. And that's also happening in our county as well. So I don't want this to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. And so that's why I would prefer to maybe have some of those discussions in Santa Maria and Santa Ynez or specifically Los Alamos on what are What is the math for that developer? Because I think that would help us, you know and your staff negotiate that in the future. So I guess that's my feedback based on what I'm hearing from you two and also my other feedback is that's leaning hard on that on the deed restricted units for Santa Barbara County residents.

There's no purpose for us to go through this whole entire exercise to not get the benefit for our residents that would be tragic so.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:05:00

Supervisor Nielsen I just wanted to make a few reflections on the comments heard from you today, we when we met with the development community included abroad range of developers so developers that were developing along poke developers that might be developing in the north part of the county. So we have a lot pretty wide group of people that we spoke with It's my understanding that this is not a financial burden. This marketing program is something they're already doing and so they have, they all know the ones that the key developers that we've been working with know about this item today you might hear some public comment but I haven't heard anything that says it's a problem from a financial perspective at this point

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:05:44

All right, good to hear. All right Supervisor Hartman and then we I think we have at least one public comment at this point on this item?

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction3:05:51

Why don't we go to the public comment and then back to you?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:05:53

Is that correct Madam Clerk?

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction3:05:56

Chair Nelson and members of the board um we did receive an additional request to speak so we have two requests to speak from the public on this item. We are going to Zoom with Steve Forth and will be followed by Hillary Lynch. Steve?

3:06 – 3:1213 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:06:12

Hello, thank you. Steve Fort with Seps Land Use Consulting. I'll be fairly brief today. We have several clients that are working on housing projects in the county and at least one of them participated in the group that helped develop this but unfortunately they were just alerted of this item this morning and haven't had a chance to really absorb and digest or vet The ordinance and I hate to be that person, but we'd like to request that this get continued in order to give them a chance.

To, uh, you know, to vet the ordinance and the impacts of it and what it would mean to a project if this was placed on it via conditions of approval. We support the program and the concept for sure. But we're just, we'd like to be able to take a look at what is this going to mean in the form of conditions of approval? Could it create problems with financing of non-restricted construction of housing?

So again, just to be very clear we're not against the concept. We'd just like a little more time. for our client who participated in the process to review the ordinance and vet it a little bit. And I did have a question too, for staff is that would this apply to projects that are deemed complete and locked in under SB 330 as to the ordinances and standards that applied at the time they were deemed complete?

Thank you, appreciate your time and hope you give this some consideration. Thanks again.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:07:56

All right Mr Ford thank you for your comments

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction3:07:58

and we will now go to our final speaker Hilary Litch. Hilary?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:08:02

We're going to go ahead and put a comment on this item

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:08:05

yes actually I was here to speak on the ice is that appropriate now?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:08:11

No Hilary i'm sorry it's going to be at about two o'clock that items can be heard. Thank you so um this is the first one thank

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction3:08:19

And that concludes public comment on this item.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:08:21

All right so back to the board I think Mr Ford had at least a question there and I was maybe also thinking, I know he's asked for continuance only member of the development community that's been here to comment on this. This is the first reading right? There'll be a second reading we're going to continue this until May 5th. So Mr Ford I know it's not a lot of time but we do have another bite of the apple here as my understanding but typically it's more We're going to have a public comment on that. And then would you mind commenting on SB 3.30.

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:09:13

It's likely that it would not apply to SB 3.30 projects that are deemed complete. Although I would strongly encourage those developers to include this voluntarily and I will be making my pitch to them because they've known about this for quite some time

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:09:30

sure. So be an optional thing that they could insert the SB 3 30's or does build a remedy projects of that or is that another. I'm sorry could you tell us the bill the remedy projects

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:09:43

Those are SB 330 applies to multiple projects, but they are but builders remedy would be included in that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:09:49

Okay, I understand. All right. Supervisor Hartman and then Supervisor Caps.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:09:54

Yeah, so I just want to explain and put in the record why we think this is important. And first on the jobs housing imbalance, the cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta have a jobs-to-resident worker ratio of 1.44% and 1.51%, respectively. And that's SBK's ARENA Supplemental Report. And what this means in plain terms is that for every hundred people who live and work on the South Coast There are 144 to 151 jobs located there, so the excess jobs 41 to 51 per 100 residents must be filled by workers commuting from outside because there simply isn't enough housing for them locally.

On the commute burden, as of 2022 nearly 27,000 workers commuted daily on the South Coast from outside the region according to SPCAG. From 2000-2016 the number of Ventura County residents working on the South Coast increased by 47%. So the coastal express was specifically implemented to help deal with this commute volume as is now Really the lane in the train that we're seeing developed right now too.

On rental supply collapse, SPCAG's January 2024 travel patterns report documented a decline of approximately 40% in available rental housing over the past decade in this region. On school enrollment, the Santa Barbara Unified School District has lost more than 2,250 students over the past 10 years shrinking from 15,593 in 2015 to 13,336 in 2025. According to the California Department of Education data. So the district's own superintendent attributes this to birth rates, immigration and housing. The Goleta Union has declined from approximately 3,800 students 3,395 over the same period. So these are specific quantified jurisdiction specific findings about the labor market area and that specificity is exactly what a constitutional standard requires to justify treating the South Coast differently from other parts of the county so I would ask that the SPCAG regional housing assessment the SPCAG January 2024 Understanding regional travel patterns report and the California Department of Education enrollment data for Santa Barbara Unified and Galena be formally entered into the record as exhibits supporting these findings.

3:12 – 3:2213 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:12:47

How do we exactly do that? I mean, I don't necessarily oppose that but not having them here or just to make reference to them.

CommentTara RenifoProposed · by introduction3:13:00

Mr. Chair and members of the board, I mean that the information is already part of the record but if we want to include like the actual reports that could be done for the next item like the next time when it's continued.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:13:15

Okay so it can be put in the record between now and maybe the May 5th second okay all right just want to figure out the functionality of that and I don't oppose that Supervisor Hartman no objection here. Supervisor Caps?

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction3:13:27

Yeah, thank you Chair Nelson and I fully support Supervisor Hartman's request. And she and I partnered on the housing element and shared a strong emphasis on making sure that there is local preference and I appreciate our planning division for bringing this forward. Where I'm going with this is the little leverage we have is in this marketing plan and I'm going to request that we increase it from six weeks.

I'll give the background first but just to, you know, I have a background in communications and marketing and any standard marketing plan is 6-18 months. Six weeks would barely scratch the surface and reach people. It feels like a check of the box and I know that you You did what you could and I heard sort of along the way that there was pushback from developers.

And that really disappoints me because I did want to bring us back a little trip down memory lane but why it's important is because this discussion about local preference as you gave the statistics, this is about the character of our community. This is about And specifically the one I'm proud to represent. This is about giving people a chance to live where they work and this is the whole reason why we are fighting so hard and we all share this value, I know it. And this is just such a minor tool to basically give people a heads up that, hey this housing is coming. Telling the tech companies in Goleta that tell us that the hardest thing that they are up against is that they can't hire people because they see how expensive it is and how hard it is to find housing or they're losing people because or people are sharing you know three people in a bedroom I mean this is the most essential thing that we hear all the time and yet the developers if You know if they're bulking at six weeks to just do basic marketing, we know how involved the Chamber of Commerce is on this.

So there's already such support from our businesses to do this so it's not like they need to go out and sort of create something in a vacuum. They just need to plug and play with a marketing structure. We have that consortium. As Supervisor Hartman mentioned, the school district is building We're all sort of in this together and the developers, I know they need to be part of this to make sure that Goleta doesn't become Orange County.

I feel so strongly that if we don't make at least this very basic tool of a marketing strategy Or maybe, you know, living in Lompoc but working in Goleta get a chance to hear about this new development that might be opening on Hollister. That's exactly what we're talking about otherwise they're going to get beat out by higher bidder from somewhere else in LA. That's literally what's gonna happen here.

It's happening now and just because they want a little financing I just don't buy it so. I just to go back to the reason process because not every developer was going to get a rezone so they started making promises after promises to me in my office, you know of parks and child care centers and and it got to the point where I kind of started to get a little uncomfortable that these conversations were happening in my office. I mean there well intended and good people are not And so I had the idea and thankfully was supported by the board.

Let's have this in public. I just thought we should have some spotlight on this because the public should know what is being promised, so that there isn't sort of any air of any kind of backroom deal. And so we had that workshop and I went back and looked at that And that was in May of 2000, May 3rd 2024. They all emphasized that these projects were going to be for local people every single one and that was the premise by which they got their rezones approved That's why we approve them. And so to hear you know that they are balking at a six weeks or an eight week marketing campaign to give an employer in Goleta, employee in Goleta chance it just it's just really disheartening because you know these are people who want their kids to be able to live here I know that I've talked about that.

I mean a lot of them Are from here and I guess their kids are doing okay, but it's just it's just really frustrating so III mean I was trying to think of the right number. The lowest I would go is 12 weeks honestly. But I could 6 months would be more appropriate For a marketing campaign. Again, it's not we know the law we know we have respect for fair housing laws and we understand the history there was redlining in this country there was discrimination we understand why fair housing laws exist that are federal.

This doesn't stop someone from getting that apartment this just means that other that locals get the first heads up about it but it doesn't sound binding It's just a tool. So I think we need to strengthen the tool. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:19:17

I got a question based on Supervisor Kapp's comment. So does that six weeks as proposed now begin once they have occupancy? Does it happen anytime in the development process, is this there's a six-week window? You know help me with that because I mean I know there's rarely an exact date and when occupancy is going to be obtained for a project But I mean, you kind of know six months in advance on when at the best case scenario that when the product is going to be ready. So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:19:50

Supervisor Nielsen and Supervisor Kaps and members of the board in my conversations there's they might not know their rents that early because the market's changing and that's one of the things we require in our marketing plan so I understand the desire to get the information out as soon as possible so that people have an opportunity maybe get out of another.

You know you can start marketing kind of at any point. You might not have all the information that we're expecting but so I think there is room probably to start early but I haven't had, I've just had a little bit of feedback on that front saying yeah you can kind of start your marketing when you want to but it's Yeah, so we say six weeks in advance of initiating their regular marketing is what our requirement would be. So it is certainly something the board could consider extending that.

You could talk about that today and come back for the second reading with a recommendation and see if there's feedback in between those two hearings

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:21:14

Well, I just getting I was just curious on how that plays out. So I don't necessarily have all the right answers. I'm just you know, I'm walking through this with the rest of you it just seems like there's a bigger lead time and one of the you know if drilling down in on the how much rent if that's the headache piece? You know there's some marketing that could be done before the rents are solidified you know

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:21:40

right

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:21:41

so and maybe that maybe that's the happy compromise is that you know rinse

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:21:45

it ranges yeah the time

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:21:47

ranges and then you know maybe that needs to be tightened up within 6 weeks of opening up to the broader market that might be a compromise that might. Help those who are concerned about kneeling down the rancid If we're afraid that locks it in, is that kind of what the development community is concerned about? That if we write down on a piece of paper this is what the rent's going to be and somehow have to lock that in for a six week period.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:22:11

If you will give me one minute I'm gonna look at our code. Hold on a second.

CommentNational Sheriff's AssociationProposed · by introduction3:22:14

Sure

3:22 – 3:2820 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:22:40

Okay. So I think it's we have we have some clarifications here that I think are going to be important for the board to understand. The way the code reads is the developers shall implement local marketing plans at least 21 days before any other general mark general marketing so that's a that's a time frame. That will want to talk about the other sections that talk about newspaper advertisements is at least one time per week for 6 weeks and then I'm going to go ahead and get started. Okay so it's so really If you wanted to expand it, we would focus on the 21 days.

Yeah.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:23:55

All right. I'm not sure that I'm guiding this conversation. I mean, I was just asking for some clarification. Again, I'm amenable to what Supervisor Capps is looking for as much as it can be defensible. Do you want to continue on that thread, Supervisor Capps with this? And then I'll go to Supervisor Lee and then Supervisor Harmon.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction3:24:14

Supervisor

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:24:17

Lee and then Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.873:24:18

Were there any incentives that you offered or spoke to the developers about, or thought about creating tier system where say 12 weeks, 16 weeks, 18 weeks would give you different incentives?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:24:29

Supervisor Lee through the chair, we talked about that some but honestly couldn't identify any incentives that would really be meaningful for them.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.873:24:40

I mean they got they

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:24:41

got the part of that. They already promised a

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction3:25:09

Anyway, you were on the board then. They promised that they would be selling and renting to people who live here and of course you know the devil's in the details of how that was going to happen and now we're getting to those details but that was what they all promised

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.873:25:28

Thanks for that background. So just a follow-up question, so you said that they start six weeks before regular marketing. So what does that mean?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:25:37

Supervisor Lee through the chair. I misspoke.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.873:25:42

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:25:43

It's 21 days. Yeah, it's three weeks before the program. I had read the other section of the code which is we have to have these notices in six weeks at least one time for six weeks and So that is my fault.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.873:26:02

No problem.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:26:03

Yeah,

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.873:26:04

so would they be marketing outside of the industry standard for marketing? Is that something?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:26:14

Supervisor Lee through the chair. So when we developed this list of like the strategy components in terms of what elements they would want to incorporate into their marketing plan, we actually did work with and saw a couple examples of marketing plan strategies that developers had and this really isn't I wouldn't say it's a wide departure from the typical industry standards for marketing In terms of what tools they'd be employing. So, you know for that reason we didn't believe this would create a burden or a challenge for the development community to implement.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:26:59

And Supervisor Lee through the Chair, the developers said as much. That a marketing plan concept was something they could live with So it's the timing of how far in advance we want them to start working with the local community. And I mean, we will follow the Board's lead. I think expanding 21 days is probably a good idea. Great.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:27:29

All right. Thank you Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Hartman and then Supervisor Lavendino.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:27:33

I'm very supportive of at least three months and I think Supervisor Capps really lays out the rationale. I have a question and that is you've set out these preferences here that also go into the next inclusionary ordinance discussion, so these two fit together hand in glove even though they're two departments but you've been working together And that's one reason why I think the Santa Ynez Valley or maybe broader ought to be included.

So, I don't know if I give direction and that will come but I couldn't overstate or underscore what Supervisor, what Chair Nelson has said. We have support for housing if it goes to locals and especially for low-income housing but when you bring people from out of the area then that really makes it hard for people in our position to support these housing projects So we've got to make sure that extends beyond just the South Coast because that's an issue for all of us.

3:28 – 3:4035 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:28:51

Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Labadino? Thank

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5voiceprint 0.943:28:53

you Mr. Chair. Yeah I'm supportive of an increased timeline but what worries me the most about all this is that what Supervisor Capps was mentioning was we heard all these promises and at the time I remember thinking Wow, man. These are a lot of great projects with parks and meandering things but I knew none of them were enforceable and so you kind of rely on people sticking true to what they offered You know, we're going to hear well market conditions change this changes. You know, we can't do this would love to do that. We just can't do it.

I'm worried. This is this is one and this is the easiest one right? This is just a marketing plan so I hope I'm wrong but now it's not looking good.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:29:45

Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair. I just, I want to take a minute. I don't do this a lot but I'm going to this time because this is something that's really important to me personally and I know to this board we are getting most of those things. We are getting those parks And I have put a lot of effort into making sure this happens. We're getting those parks, we're getting things the developers are working with us in ways that they might not have to because of SB 330 and other things so we are really the department and Public Works Department and CSD were looking out for the community and trying to get as much as we can out of these projects And I'm going to tout the work of all of our staff. They're doing a great job and so I just want to say to everybody, I really appreciate that work and we are committed to getting as much as we can for this community and for your board.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5voiceprint 0.943:30:49

Can I respond to that? Yeah, yeah. I hope it wasn't intended what I was saying was not intended as a slam on the staff. I think they're always defending and doing what we've what we're trying to get done as well I just know that when it gets down to dollars and cents, we generally lose out to the market. So appreciate all the hard work that's being done and continue to hold everybody's feet to the fire. We appreciate it. Thank

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:31:18

you. All right. Thank you. Where are we at now? So I guess some point we need some direction or a motion with some direction here. There's A through E, but it sounds like we're asking for some maybe some amendments here on some of the time frames I heard. I think I heard 12 weeks from supervisor Hartman. I know Supervisor Capps had some strong feelings in those areas too, but help me help you.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction3:31:57

Yeah, 12 is the minimum I would do if there's support for that amongst this board again. I just would wish it would be sincere and they They could start now. I mean, they know what their projects look like and but I would be I think if Supervisor Hartman is on board with 12 weeks that's fine with me.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:32:21

Does that sound good Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:32:24

I mean I would go longer it's just we haven't vetted that with the development community so I could go either way, but I think we may get a lot of blow back and be slower at getting this adopted if we don't reach out.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:32:44

So let me try to land this so let's go 12 weeks and I think what I'm hearing is that they were worried about specific rents. Maybe a rent range might be something that might help soften it for some of these developers, you know as I don't know if that language needs to be adopted there to kind of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:33:09

And I'm happy to reconvene a meeting with the development community and talk to them about the recommendations are coming out of the board. So if you were to recommend 12 weeks now, and including this any and as market area, I can work with that information in between our hearings talk

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction3:33:29

Yeah I mean I'll just be clear because I don't, I just don't want it to get muddled. I'm not, I wouldn't be interested in supporting something that goes low and lower than 12. And I also just want to make sure that are they working with the Chamber of Commerce? Are they part of... there must be dialogue. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:33:44

believe they all are. Supervisor Capsley, the Chair, I believe that's correct as well. That there's there is a most of the developers tell us particularly in the rental market that they want locals and so they're doing the best that they can to get locals because those are the people that tend to stay right. So they are doing work with the chambers and I think many of them are members of the chamber. Right yeah. So I think that is going on yes

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction3:34:12

OK.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:34:13

And I have reached out to the chamber to talk

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction3:34:14

to them about being

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:34:15

involved

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction3:34:16

Kristen Miller talks about the fact that she's in her place. She says this publicly, she's in her place because of some program like this where she was able to hear about it first and so anyway I will move that we support staff recommendation with an increase to 12 weeks and bring it back for a second read. One

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:34:38

second let's make sure we got council and everybody is hearing this correctly are concerned what you need us to clarify that we're happy

CommentTara RenifoProposed · by introduction3:34:46

to. Mr. Chair and members of the board, since it's a first reading so a lot of times when you hear these ordinances were at the different stage but since we're on the first reading we just need to make clear what changes you're making by section which I think planning is prepared to do.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:34:59

Okay could please read the by section identifying?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:35:04

I do um so under The next item on the agenda. 12 weeks before any other general marketing plans so that would we would also recommend that under 52 dash 6 the local marketing plan strategy. That in the newspaper advertisements they would run at least one time per week for 12 weeks. That's subsection A and then in section 52 dash six Subsection C, it would also be changed to talk about social media posts happening one time per week for 12 weeks.

And then under subsection 52-7 local marketing materials content, subsection D we would say rent or for sale prices we would change that to price ranges.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:36:12

Does that grab what

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:36:14

you're looking for? Where were we? In subsection 52-1, we would expand the housing market areas to include San Yanez.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:36:28

And then and then we just want to supplement the additional findings that I placed in the record as part of the motion.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction3:36:38

I think there's also a subsection 52-3 on applicability subsection A. Subsection B should include the San Ynez

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:36:46

Yeah. And anywhere else it's referenced in our ordinance, we will add that to the housing market area.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:36:52

I will second the motion.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:36:54

Okay so we've got a motion and a second based on the amendments that have been discussed at the board. Caps to Hartman. Only i'm not trying to wrinkle in this or take this longer you know when we talk about incentives something that your department might be able to do is work with developers on occupancy And hitting that right date. And I know that's sometimes driven by the work that they're doing, but also sometimes it's worked you know it's a coordination.

And I think that might be something you guys can potentially promise from the building department side on. Hey, we're going to hit occupancy on this certain date. We're all going to work together. We sit down. We're going to maybe do a plan to get you that because I know that's one of the big impediments for that. So I'm just throwing it out there. You were trying to find incentives just something for you guys to think about as you guys try to entice in developers into this idea if they could have more time certain on when their occupancy is gonna hit, you know, I think that they're That brings a lot of value, a lot of value to a developer. So just throwing that out there as an idea not to mess up what we're doing right now but just gonna as an idea so So we have a motion, we have a second.

Any further discussion? Supervisor Lee did you want to make a comment?

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.873:38:02

I just wanted to say Lisa thank you for your hard work on this. I see it in your department really cares so thank you. All right thank you Supervisor Lee.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:38:11

All right Supervisor Hartman do you have another?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:38:13

Yeah I just wanted to say thank you too. I've been hammering you to do more than this and you know legally that this is the best we can do in our state in particular maybe there's some changes in state law that could get us a little further But I know you're distilling in this a lot of research and a lot of work, and it's much appreciated.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:38:36

All right thank you. Is the clerk okay? County Council, are you guys both okay with the motion right now? Alright so we all and I think the boards that we understand what the motion is. So I think I can just do a voice vote here. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, so we were going to break for lunch at this point.

Community Services asked if maybe we could do D2 that's about 20 minutes is what they're guessing. Does the board want to have lunch or do you want to knock that out?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:39:10

They're so closely related why don't we just do it?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:39:13

All right. Jesus, you win! I was gonna make you wait because of earlier. Just teasing.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction3:39:24

And turn also members of the board before we proceed with departmental item number 2. I didn't want to briefly make a quick announcement for any members of the public who are following along and know there are a few were currently logged into zoom that the staff of the clerk of the board's office has done every effort to reach out to anyone who has registered for the regular meeting for departmental item number 4.

My apologies regarding the prohibition of unauthorized use of county-owned properties such as immigration enforcement, safeguard the integrity of county administered elections and the protection of ballots once they are cast and evaluated from Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Kapp's office. And we have instructed those individuals that have signed up for the regular meeting, that we have a separate Zoom link for the special meetings since that item was moved to the afternoon today. So if you are tuning in via Zoom or watching from home and you've registered for the regular meeting, please log out and register for the special meeting. You will find that agenda also available online. Thank you.

We will now go to departmental item number two Departmental item number two is from the Community Services Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a first reading of an ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 46A, inclusionary housing.

3:40 – 3:477 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:40:43

Thank you chair Nelson, members of the board. I appreciate you considering this before your break. Much like planning just presented some efforts on the marketing front we want to speak to what we do on the inclusionary side and this afternoon we're going to hear from some of our staff members but In terms of the big picture context, we've been doing a fair amount of work on this area having some success throughout the community. But as a reminder, we try to come back to the board at least once a year with some updates amendments to this ordinance based on changes that may have occurred in state law or changes that have become apparent to us as we interact with the nonprofit community and also the profit The market rate folks that are developing partnerships with the nonprofits to realize affordable units.

Joe Dysvonik, our Assistant Director and Andrew Kish, our Housing Program Specialist Senior will be making a presentation and then at the end I'd like to offer a couple of closing remarks. Mr. Dysvonik?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:41:52

Good afternoon Chair Nelson, members of the Board. I want to take a moment explain why we're bringing this item to your board today Over a decade ago, our county adopted County Code Chapter 46A. County Code Chapter 46A articulates our county's inclusionary housing ordinance. This is the ordinance that reflects the local policies aiming to create affordable housing by encouraging or even requiring developers to include a specified share of below market rate units in their market rate rental or homeowner developments.

Because it has been over 10 years since staff has proposed any substantive updates for this ordinance, it's clear that the need for affordable housing is increased significantly over that time and state housing laws have evolved just as much. And as Director Armes just indicated we continue to bring our county into compliance with state laws as they evolve.

During your deliberations regarding the county housing element last spring, your board recognized this and directed staff to continue to update Chapter 46A in such a way that it supports increasing our supply of affordable housing while also reflecting current state housing laws. So that's what we're here to do today. We propose for your consideration and for the details on this issue I turn it over now to Andrew Kish one of CSD senior housing specialists and our resident expert on inclusionary housing

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:43:13

Thank you, Assistant Director Dybwadek. The Housing Element Update Program 4 requires the county amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by making any changes required to comply with state law, for example State Density Bonus Law. State Density Bonus Law allows a multifamily housing development to be eligible for various incentives. One example when the multifamily housing developer partners with an affordable housing developer they can construct affordable housing on the project site or off-site.

Presently, County Code Chapter 46A only allows developers to fulfill inclusionary housing requirements through development of affordable units on the same project site. The recommended amendment will allow for off-site development of affordable units within one mile of the market rate project site. This amendment ensures the county's inclusionary housing program alignment with state law and increases financing opportunities for developers to build units that will help meet the county's regional housing needs allocation or RENA goals.

Both state and county HCD recognize our South Coast housing market area as a region with an unusually high housing cost to income relationship. The goal of the second recommended amendment to Chapter 46A is to preserve the availability of deed-restricted units built on the South Coast HMA for those applicants who either live or work within the same housing market area.

This prioritization is necessary in order to provide affordable housing opportunities to lower income individuals residing in neighborhoods and communities experiencing significant displacement pressures.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:44:53

So Chair Nelson, wherever you are and members of the board thank you for your time today. Here we present staff's recommended actions on this item for your consideration and as always we look forward to your questions comments and direction I now turn it back over to Director Armas

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:45:11

Chair Nelson and board members just wanted to expand on a couple things given the discussion you just had on the market rate. If I can draw your attention to the ordinance itself which is page 3 of 5 It may help address some of the concerns that were raised about the other areas in our county. You can see under Section 7 there, there's really something that can be grouped into two parts. A and B apply regardless of where one resides or works in the county. And then C, 7C is a subset of that specific to the South Coast because of the higher cost of housing in our area. So I think in this structure we can address some of the issues that Supervisor Hartman raised about the Santa Ynez Valley and we can amplify on those. And certainly when we come back with any amendments to rates for inclusionary, we can elaborate on how that might be achieved.

The second thing I just wanted to apprise you of, you did receive some correspondence from Habitat for Humanity asking you to provide direction on a number of areas and we can at the staff level indicate that were more than happy to explore all those. We think that there are ways to move that forward. We obviously as someone mentioned earlier need to make sure that the devil's in the details components are properly addressed but we think there is a way to properly address all those concerns. So, simply want to indicate that we're supportive of moving forward. We think that we've addressed the South Coast versus other areas of the county but happy to answer any questions the board may have.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:47:02

All right, thank you Mr. Armas and we do have public comment from Habitat. I just like to go to that get that. So let's go to the public comment. I believe

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction3:47:11

Nelson and members of the board. Yes. We have one request to speak from the public on this item. We're going to zoom with Jessica wish and Alabra Jessica.

3:47 – 3:5319 turns

PresenterJessica Wishan-DeLarbraHabitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara CountyProposedself-stated3:47:22

For me, you can hear me

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction3:47:23

okay? Yes, we can if you could just speak a little bit closer to your microphone, but we can't hear you.

PresenterJessica Wishan-DeLarbraHabitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara CountyProposedself-stated3:47:30

Okay, good afternoon Chair and Supervisors. I'm Jessica Wishan-DeLarbra, CEO of Habitat for Humanity of Southern Santa Barbara County. Habitat is a nonprofit affordable home ownership developer and we build and repair permanently affordable homes for low income working families. These are deed restricted ownership units specifically. I first really want to thank Uh, staff Lucille Andrew and Jesus for your partnership in the progress made so far. We especially want to recognize the milestone of moving towards local preference as previously discussed in the agenda habitat does not want to slow anything down we want to help strengthen it. As this moves forward, we respectfully ask that staff be directed to work with Habitat on mutually agreeable terms that better incorporate nonprofit developers and the unique financing and long-term affordability covenants that our model requires.

The reality is really that building housing here is an incredible, incredibly hard thing to do. We need smarter partnerships. Developers can build at scale and Habitat can ensure those homes stay affordable for local families long term. And Luffy's may fund housing someday Partnerships like this create real homes for real families now. This is bigger than any one project, it's a chance to modernize policy so it turns good intentions into actual keys in the hands of local families. Thank you for working with us.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction3:49:10

And that concludes public comment on this item.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:49:12

All right thank you Jessica We want to hear from staff on that because I think that's a big part of the discussion is, you know, Habitat is one of the great partners both north and south. And making sure that we're not messing up the good deal that they've got going with their families.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:49:33

Thank You Chair Nelson. We do have a history of working with Habitat in fact there was a project in 2019 in Carpinteria where the county provided So we do have a history of working together. We're supportive of the request that they've made We want to obviously take a look at the details to make sure we don't run afoul of any other provisions in our regulations, but we think there's a path forward. And so we would support the request that you provide direction as indicated by the speaker.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:50:15

And do we have time to potentially make some of those changes between now and the May 5th second reading?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:50:21

I would suggest not. I think this needs to be baked, if you will. And we indicated to Habitat that we thought a three to six month period was likely and they didn't see a problem with that timeframe.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:50:33

OK, just want to understand that conversation. Thank you. Supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:50:39

So if need be you would come back to amend this ordinance in 3 to 6 months correct and a few other questions so the offside is a mile is it could you give me some justification for that distance.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:50:55

I'll let either Mister Keisha Mister does want to speak to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:51:01

that. Supervisor Hartman through the chair, the state Currently requires a multifamily project in order to be eligible for the density bonus concessions and et cetera. They need to ensure that the affordable units are located within close proximity I'm going to talk a little bit about what we've seen so far in terms of affordable housing. We have found that the one mile radius is consistent with other requirements within county code, particularly under Chapter 44 as well and it's close enough to accommodate for these projects that are needing this accommodation Projects will be within closer proximity, potentially adjacent. But a mile gives them more latitude and flexibility.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:51:57

Thank you. And I'm sorry, I wasn't tracking Director Armas about the Santa Ynez Valley and the preference system. Could you summarize that for me again?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:52:08

Yes. If if I can draw your attention to

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:52:11

set in the ordinance language itself

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:52:13

Yes, it's actually in the ordinance. It's section 3 and then when you look at it is there

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:52:21

any way we can pull it up?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:52:24

It's as that has done its page 3 of 5 if you happen to have it It's attachment A to the board letter.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:53:14

We're on attachment B.

3:53 – 4:0045 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:53:19

Attachment A. Okay,

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:53:22

we're there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:53:24

And it should read page 3 of 5 at the bottom? Is that evident on your... I think we'll enlarge it for everybody. So Supervisor Hartman through the chair, if we take a look at Section 7 there you can see it introduces it to indicate that's applicable throughout the county as a preference structure and so A and B really apply regardless of where one may reside or work in the county and then C because of its higher factors applies to the South Coast.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:54:15

Okay, okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:54:17

And I think that speaks to your concern about the Santa Ana's

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:54:20

Okay. And even more broadly?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:54:22

Yes.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:54:23

Okay, and then just would like you to talk a little bit more about the housing authorities and how this they have their own requirements and how this might fit with it

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:54:36

The Housing Authority has indicated to us that under their auspices, they have a bit more latitude and flexibility as to how they identify prospective tenants. And they're not dependent on our regulations for that authority. We haven't examined that more fully. We've accepted it as their representation.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:54:58

So instead of being stricter, they believe they have more latitude

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:55:05

I suppose one could argue that they have a more liberal approach to

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:55:10

selecting tenants. And I guess, yeah, that's the concern. And there's nothing we can do about that because that's federal law or?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:55:27

Well, I think based on conversations that we've had over the last couple of years especially with Hasbarco they're very committed to trying to identify serving Santa Barbara County residents. They go to an extraordinary length including some early marketing if you will apropos your earlier conversation.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:55:48

Okay thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:55:52

Supervisor Caps. Okay, just remind me so the inclusionary housing it's applies to all housing projects or is it a certain amount of units? Mr. Keish is our expert. Sure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:56:05

Chair Nelson the inclusionary requirements under Chapter 4-6a apply to residential developments of five or more units.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:56:13

Gotcha I just want to clarify that and then walk me through how that ADU the construction of ADU as a supplement so That's an option too, is like if you're building five units and then you just want to throw an ADU on the same site. That would be one of the options potentially?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:56:29

Chair Nelson, to satisfy the workforce housing income category requirements yes, an ADU is an option for a developer to satisfy the Chapter 46A

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:56:41

And that's where the ADU piece that you guys are changing comes into

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:56:44

play? We're not changing Are you

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:56:47

just changing some of the language?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:56:50

The the secondary dwelling unit. Yeah, yes. So just if that's is that what you're referring

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:56:54

to? I'm just trying to understand how they use factor in some of this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:57:00

Just the definition so instead of referring to them as secondary dwelling units as we have in the past now we're referring to them as ADUs instead but the option for a developer to satisfy inclusionary requirements under the workforce income category can still be satisfied through building an ADU to meet those requirements

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:57:19

So how does that help that we're switching into an ADU versus a secondary dwelling unit?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:57:23

Just semantics.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:57:24

It's just the title.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:57:25

Definition.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:57:26

Okay. Chair Nelson, there are two different things and I know that planning had mistakenly deleted one of those once. But they are two different things in our county.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:57:38

They're not intended to be different here and just as a refresher we did bring forward the ADU amendments to you about a year ago when this section was modified to address the workforce housing

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:57:53

Yes, please Supervisor

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:57:54

Herman. ADUs are fast-tracked and in exchange for that my understanding is that they're not for short term rental and that was kind of the distinction between residential second units that went through that process and ADUs so I guess my question on these is are there restrictions on short term rental of these?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:58:18

For the Supervisor Hartman through the Chair, absolutely. Restrictions on any deed restricted unit they are not permitted to be rented unless the owner applies for a hardship exemption to the program so there's no rental or short-term rental for any ADU produced through Chapter 426A.

CommentNational Sheriff's AssociationProposed · by introduction3:58:35

Through the deed restriction that'll be covered? So some of them are going to be rented though right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:58:42

What I think Mr. Keish was saying, you can't rent it out as another source of income. There could be a rental component because you have a tenant in there but you're not renting it out for a visitor for someone else.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:58:58

For short

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:58:59

term? Correct.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:59:00

Okay. They are rental units.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:59:02

Yes.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:59:03

Okay just want to clarify.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:59:04

Yes

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:59:05

thank you all right so any further questions conversations There's no further amendments. All right, I'll just make my comment. We were voting on Chapter 46A. I probably wouldn't be supportive, but since we're it's already adopted and we are tinkering. I don't mind tinkering with something that's already adopted. I typically think that inclusionary housing although well intended is one of the reasons why that we have a lack of affordable housing, but I mean we're already far down that shoot so I'm not going to fix that, but I think what the improvements you're making is in the spirit of what the board trying to get done even if the economics might not work out. So Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.923:59:47

Well, I would just a small rejoinder to what you're saying. They get a lot of benefits in terms of setbacks and density and parking to make up for the cost I think so just want to put that out there

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction4:00:04

I just wanted to appreciate the work, Director Armas particularly as it relates to the issue with Habitat. We met with them yesterday and I know Lucille Boss you've done that the same and it just shows a good collaboration going forward so I'm happy to support.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:00:19

All right so we will go ahead make a motion

4:00 – 4:0316 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.924:00:26

I'll move A through E in today's board letter with additional direction to come back in six months with changes as a result of discussions with Habitat.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:00:38

Within six months?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed4:00:39

Can I just clarify if I may, my understanding is that it would be beneficial for Habitat if the motion would indicate that the Board is directing the staff to work with Habitat to address the issues identified in their letter.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.924:00:54

That's what I meant, so I guess you've captured it better. Thank you. So that's the motion

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:01:00

right?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.924:01:01

All second

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:01:02

all right second is there any further discussion seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed motion passes unanimously

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction4:01:12

thanks

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:01:13

alright so we're going to go ahead and break for closed session here Madam County Council, would you mind telling us what we're discussing today in closed session?

CommentTara RenifoProposed · by introduction4:01:25

Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the board. In closed session today the board is scheduled to consider a conference with labor negotiators. Employee organizations are all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives and that agency designated representatives are CEO Monomi Asato and Human Resources Director Christine Schmidt And the time estimate is about 20 minutes. I'm thinking 30.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:01:50

Okay, so let's try to be back in half an hour. Is that if we can roll through it? How about we come back at 2? Come back at 2. Yeah two o'clock. Two o'clock. At two o'clock it's supposed to be a department item or three which is 45 minutes at two o clock And then so that we are anticipating hearing item four at potentially at 245. At this point, the special meeting previously Department for so let me ask this question.

Okay, we'll come back. Is there a potential for us to recess the regular meeting and come back to Department of Animal 3?

CommentTara RenifoProposed · by introduction4:02:47

Mr. Chair, members of the board just with the technology it's really difficult to have you can't have two meetings running at the same time but my suggestion time wise I'm not sure how long item three will take or how much public comment there is so I don't want the public to wait until 245 in case it runs earlier

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:03:05

okay well we're gonna try to be back here as quickly as possible because there's our commitment to the public and we'll try to get through Department 803 As quickly as possible so we can get to department or for we know that many people in the public have been waiting and we apologize for the latest sometimes the speed of government is what it is so. So we'll

CommentTara RenifoProposed · by introduction4:03:23

chair will is it possible you might come back before 2 for

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:03:27

no earlier than 1.50 early in the

CommentTara RenifoProposed · by introduction4:03:29

one thank you.

4:03 – 4:1210 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:03:47

All right, welcome. Welcome back to the April 21st meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We're coming back from closed session. Madam County Council would do you have anything to report from closed session?

CommentTara RenifoProposed · by introduction4:04:01

Mr. Chair members of the board. The board met in closed session for one item conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units underrepresented employees managers and executives and the board took no reportable action.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:04:12

Alright thank you our next item on the agenda is department item number three And for the public out there that is wanting to speak on what was formerly department item number four, but the first item in our special meeting. It will happen at the conclusion of this item so we're going to try to get through this one appropriately fast and then get to that item here probably in the next half an hour to 45 minutes. So just for those you are watching on TV that will be the next item up.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction4:04:42

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding options related to the implementation of an office of Inspector General pursuant to Government Code section 25303.7. All right. Ms. Warren take it away.

GuestRonna WarrenCounty Executive OfficerProposedself-stated4:05:01

Good afternoon, Chair Nelson and Supervisors. My name is Ronna Warren, Deputy County Executive Officer and with me today I have Tanya Heitman, Assistant CEO and Principal Analyst Neftali Miller-Rubio. I will be taking you through today's presentation regarding options for oversight of the Sheriff's Office including the option of the Inspector General. Auditor Betsy Schaefer and her staff are available virtually via Zoom and will also be able to answer questions.

On February 10th, 2026 the board received a report from the auditor controllers internal audit division regarding overtime usage with the sheriff's office. The auditors analysis addressed increasing overtime costs and noted opportunities to improve the Sheriff's administration monitoring and reporting practices. Following that presentation, the Board directed ongoing monthly reporting on overtime at the Sheriff's Office and an evaluation of the Board's authority to establish an Office of Inspector General pursuant to Assembly Bill 1185.

In addition to the Inspector General option, staff worked with the Auditor-Controller to develop an alternative option within the Auditor's office focused on fiscal oversight of the Sheriff's budget. Assembly Bill 1185, which is codified in Government Code Section 25303.7 details the authority of county boards to oversee independently elected sheriffs. It authorizes counties to establish a Sheriff Oversight Board and Inspector General or both.

Turning first to the Inspector General role, the Inspector General would have independent oversight responsibilities related to the Sheriff's Office. In other jurisdictions, the role has often focused on internal investigations, use of force incidents and custodial conditions. The Inspector General has the ability to review matters related to sheriff operations, can subpoena documents and witness testimony and has access to certain personnel records subject to confidentiality requirements.

The Inspector General may not interfere with sheriff investigations and subpoenas may be challenged if they impede those functions. We reviewed the potential advantages and disadvantages of the inspector general option, including staffing and costs. Potential advantages include that an inspector general would have independent authority and would be appointed by the board, would have broad scope of review, and subpoena authority to obtain information.

Potential disadvantages include a higher annual cost, which is estimated at approximately $536,500 for a minimum staffing structure including an inspector general and one support staff. The need for specialized expertise in both law enforcement operations and fiscal oversight. Potential delayed implementation given the time associated with recruitment onboarding and initiation of their work The potential for overlap with existing oversight mechanisms currently occurring at the Auditor-Controller's office and the County Executive Office.

And the absence of direct operational control over the Sheriff's office, making the Inspector General's role purely advisory in nature. As an alternative to an Inspector General, your board could approve a dedicated internal audit position within the Auditor-Controller's Office to focus on financial and operational oversight of the Sheriff's Office. Areas of review could include overtime compliance and controls, budgetary and financial management, internal controls and financial systems, contract and procurement compliance, and revenue receivables and asset management review.

The internal audit option offers the following advantages. The auditor is particularly primed to conduct fiscal auditing and budgetary oversight given expertise in financial accountability and internal controls. The auditor can implement the work more quickly with the use of existing audit infrastructure, methodologies, and expertise, and the auditor position carries a lower annual cost estimated at approximately $180,000 for one senior auditor position.

However, disadvantages include a more limited scope as compared to an inspector general. A lack of subpoena authority and reliance on existing audit authority to access information. As with the inspector general option this option does not provide operational control over the sheriff's office. In addition to the two options that we have discussed, your board could consider a phased or combined approach. This slide lays out potential options for your board's consideration.

In sum, your board could 1. Establish an Office of Inspector General at an estimated annual cost of $536,500 2. Establish a dedicated internal audit position for Sheriff Oversight at an annual estimated cost of $180,000 3. Implement a phased approach, beginning first with an internal audit position and allowing time to evaluate those audits and potential management improvements while retaining the option to later appoint an Inspector General if necessary. This option would cost between $180,000-$536,500 annually depending on whether an Inspector General is ultimately appointed.

Four, your board could implement a simultaneous approach by establishing an internal audit position and also establishing an inspector general for a limited scope or term through contracted services to address specific issues or areas of inquiry as they arise. This approach would include an annual cost of about $180,000 and a recommended $250,000 in one-time funds to be set aside for when the need for limited scope engagements arise.

And lastly, the board could evaluate the current measures that the board recently instituted including overtime monitoring by the auditor's office and enhanced internal controls through the county executive office as well as the sheriff offices efforts to reduce overtime before making additional oversight decisions. Under this option, staff could return to the board annually or at the Board's discretion to assess the progress and to reconsider an Inspector General or in an internal audit position.

This would have no cost implications at this time. In closing today's recommended actions appear here on the slide. In sum we ask the Board to receive and file the report and provide direction on the Board's preferred oversight approach This concludes the presentation and we're happy to answer any questions for ease of reference. We'll return to slide 8 which details the board's options before you today.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:12:11

All right, thank you miss Warren questions from the board supervisor Lee

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.874:12:14

so I got a question about option 2 do you think that the auditor position will save the county money?

GuestRonna WarrenCounty Executive OfficerProposedself-stated4:12:21

Thank you Supervisor, through the Chair. The second option is the auditor position and it is less expensive than the inspector general position so in that sense yes it would save if we were to choose that option.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:12:34

Just clarify that neither one of these are budgeted at this point right? So they both will cost us money if I'm correct? Yes, that's right Chair.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.874:12:43

So can we anticipate any money that we find that could save us money down the road

4:12 – 4:2722 turns

GuestRonna WarrenCounty Executive OfficerProposedself-stated4:12:54

I'm not sure what the cost savings would be to be honest with you, I think we would have to wait to see what the auditing functions would determine and to see if there were any cost savings that could be found by the auditor. However because it is an advisory position at it is still something that would be an advisory in nature and just recommendation.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:13:17

Go ahead Supervisor Caps.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction4:13:20

Along those lines just revisiting our previous item roughly how much was in, how much overtime has been reduced in the last several months? Do you know that number?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction4:13:39

Supervisor through the chair, I don't know that number off top of my head but it is pretty substantial. The reduction that has occurred a lot of work has gone into it. I think what you're calling out is the fact that a lot of that was generated by the observations at the auditor's office had led the Sheriff's Office to make some changes.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction4:14:04

Yeah and I could make previous points about well-path contracts and penalties, a million dollars so I mean had we had this sort of level of scrutiny in the past to Supervisor Lee's question we could have made revisionist history but we could see potentially millions of dollars of cost savings it's in my opinion

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:14:29

All right, thank you Supervisor Capps. I don't think we have one public commenter? Yeah, sorry we're just checking on public comment here before we get too far. You said do we have one public commenter on this item? Okay. I have a couple questions So again it's not yet budgeted for this year and this is only, this position is only advisory. Some of these things are already getting done right now right within the function of the auditor's office I mean auditors looking at this and has carved out money within their own budget to continue to look at this I think every couple months right? Is that what we've

GuestRonna WarrenCounty Executive OfficerProposedself-stated4:15:16

Yes, Chair Nelson. The direction from the board was to do a monthly audit report on sheriffs over time for the next six months and today was the first

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:15:24

report

GuestRonna WarrenCounty Executive OfficerProposedself-stated4:15:24

from the auditor.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:15:25

And so that's within the existing budget right now?

GuestRonna WarrenCounty Executive OfficerProposedself-stated4:15:28

Yes.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:15:29

So it fit more like an option five that you had which was a no-cost option at this point?

GuestRonna WarrenCounty Executive OfficerProposedself-stated4:15:36

Yes, option five would essentially be to wait and see what the current measures that the board has taken how those pan out and then to return at the boards discretion.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:15:46

Not only the board but the actions of this management team at the Sheriff's Office that seems have taken a little bit of a turn as well as the negotiations that the board will be going through with the DSA potentially is a way to potentially reduce some of those costs as well?

GuestRonna WarrenCounty Executive OfficerProposedself-stated4:16:01

Yes, that's right.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:16:02

Okay Thank you. Excuse me, do you have some questions before we go to public comment?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.924:16:07

No I'm more a statement.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:16:09

Okay all right let's go ahead and go to public comment. I think we have one speaker actually the sheriff would like to make a comment and i want to make sure that he's available to comment first so let's actually hear from the sheriff prior to hearing from public comment. Sheriff Brown.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed4:16:27

Thank you Chair Nelson and members of the board for the opportunity to speak regarding the proposed consideration of establishing an office of inspector general for the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office. I appreciate the chance to provide some context, some operational information and considerations that may help support a thorough and informed evaluation.

As I've shared with the board in prior presentations, the members of the sheriff's office and I remain committed to professionalism, transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement At the same time, it's important to understand that significant oversight changes can carry operational, significant financial and staffing and legal implications that merit very careful review and early engagement with the departments that would be affected in this case ours.

My concern is this, that the proposal which would have a significant impact on the sheriff's operations has been brought forward without any prior discussion with us or with any opportunity for subject matter input. When communication occurs late in a process like this, it limits the ability to provide practical context operational detail or workload assessments that would be useful especially when considering such a significant policy change.

Because of that, I want to offer several key considerations that may assist the board in their decision today. The first is operational insight. The Sheriff's Office can provide data, facility information, staff impacts and process understanding that helps ensure any proposed changes align with actual operational as well as financial realities. The second is workforce capacity.

New administrative or compliance requirements, even when well intended would add significant workload for members of our agency who are already spread extremely thin and would result in managing a host of significant additional responsibilities as well as their primary ones. Third there should be consideration of the existing oversight landscape The Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office already interacts with a broad network of regulatory, auditing, licensing and investigative entities at the state, federal and local levels.

And understanding how any additional oversight structure would integrate with these existing systems is important. The fourth is the cost and the resource planning. Any change of this nature requires evaluation of the long-term financial and staffing impacts, impacts that would further limit the board's ability to provide for levels of staffing for the Sheriff's Office that are currently inadequate.

The last point is the need for collaboration and communication. Early and ongoing dialogue helps ensure that proposals are informed By operational experience and aligned with ongoing improvement efforts, labor agreements and practices and actual need. As I mentioned the Sheriff's Office is already subject to extensive oversight from state authorities, licensing boards, employment and labor regulators, correction standards agencies, workplace safety agencies, civil rights entities, grand jury inspections And internal county review functions like the recent inquiry and review from the Auditor Controller's Office.

These bodies audit, inspect, review, license, investigate and regulate many aspects of our operations on a regular basis. Additionally, the Sheriff's Office has made significant ongoing improvements in its hiring staffing stability training community engagement practices Facility operations and service delivery. These efforts are the result of coordinated planning and partnership with county staff, and they continue to evolve as needs and laws change.

And many of those have been in regards to overtime which is the driver of this proposal. The problem is the tool that is being proposed to fix The overtime issue is not designed or suited to do so. As the board considers this idea, I respectfully offer the Sheriff's Office as a resource to provide operational context data and subject matter information that may support a comprehensive understanding of how any potential oversight changes would interact with our existing systems and day-to-day operations of a well functioning but resource constrained Law Enforcement and Corrections Agency.

I'd also like to just briefly mention the fact that my executive and financial teams consistently meet with the CEO's office and other county stakeholders to offer not only transparency in this issue, but genuine teamwork in all issues. And we have tried to be good team players with our counties one county one future Uh, determination. And I believe that this proposal is something that is first of all not required. Secondly would be extremely expensive. I think that with all due respect to the CEO's report, I think the notion that this could be done for $500,000 is just not borne out when you look at studies and I spoke to the sheriff in Sonoma County Sonoma County is very similar in size to us, slightly larger.

But they've had a program like this for seven or eight years I believe and their program is a $2.5 million annual program. Marin County is just getting started to put one together also a similar size to us little smaller. They're just getting started but their budget is in the 700,000 plus range And some expected to grow more than that. The remaining entities are large law enforcement agencies like San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco and all of them have programs that cost millions and millions of dollars.

This is not a something that can be done on the cheap and I would strongly recommend against even considering it For the situations that we're in now. When Inspector General's offices have been brought into communities, they have been brought in because there have been problems with excessive officer-involved shootings, with use of force issues, with police misconduct issues, none of which apply in this instance to the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office.

And what we're talking about here is dollars and cents, and we're talking about overtime. And as I mentioned before, the reason that we have an overtime problem is because we've had unrealistic overtime and staffing for many, many, many years. And it has been tolerated, it has been condoned. There's been a wink and a nod at it because as I mentioned before, it's cheaper to pay for the overtime than it is to fill the positions that should be filled Particularly in our jail, study after study after study has recommended increases in the number of people in our jails.

And there has been no action taken on those issues so it should be no surprise that overtime and extra help which are the only two remedies that are available to us in the sheriff's office to address these problems have gone up. I think that we can do what needs to be done. I think the concerns are there, I think the proof is in the pudding even in the short period of time as a result of the dire financial situation that the county is in. We have made changes that have significantly reduced our overtime and I would encourage you to as you look forward to the work and the challenges that we all have to face ahead That we're not doing something that is going to be ineffective and also potentially open up the community to a significant amount of liability and litigation.

Sonoma County has been entrenched, and currently is still entrenched in litigation between the county and the Deputy Sheriff's Association and the sheriff. And it is just, it's not a pretty picture. So I do not believe that that's appropriate for our county. And our recommendation is that you adopt option five on the CEO staff report. We will continue to be transparent, we will continue to cooperate and work. And frankly, we would welcome the additional resource that we would have in the form of somebody from the auditor controller's office or a position an additional position in our financial division that would accomplish the same thing. We don't have that. We run a very, very small, exceptionally small finance department and the resources that we have in that area like in most areas of the Sheriff's Office are inadequate for the job that we have to do.

So I appreciate your attention and again recommendation is that you allow us to proceed, do what we can this year. We'll engage in discussions with the CEO's office And look for hopefully some better things in the future. But the recommendation would be to not spend or commit money that is desperately needed in other areas to this proposal, which although I'm sure well-intended is really something that is totally inappropriate. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:27:14

All right thank you Sheriff Brown and at this time we'll go ahead and go to public comment. We have one speaker is that correct?

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction4:27:21

Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board that is correct. We have one request to speak on this item and we're going to remain here in Santa Maria with Larry Barrett.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:27:29

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and close public comment on this item. Mr. Barrett?

4:27 – 4:4014 turns

PresenterLarry BarrettIndivisible Santa BarbaraProposedself-stated4:27:40

Good afternoon. I'll introduce myself again, Larry Barrett from indivisible Santa Barbara chair Nelson supervisors we received a audit report this morning that was described as not an audit confirming that the sheriff is indeed blowing $9 million all into his overtime budget but he described this morning as irrelevant The issue of this lays before you is how do you conduct your oversight responsibility under these extraordinary circumstances that occur year after year after year and appear to pop up as a complete surprise on an annual basis.

So staff has laid two options before you although they've sliced and diced them One is the appointment of an Inspector General with subpoena and other powers to truly figure out what's going on inside the Sheriff's Office. This would not only help you get to the bottom of why these practices are occurring but will also enable you to get answers to other questions I've heard you ask, but they're never answered such as why are ICE arrests of those released from the sheriff's detention so much higher than what's being reported by the sheriff?

And how now how is it that so many of his officers were engaged in these overtime practices, but only one of them was charged with I have not heard answers to these questions. I do not believe the auditor can reach them you do have another choice. Let's keep in mind as we're talking about dollars and cents We've approved a 200 million dollar expansion of the North County jail that the sheriff will be operating and the sheriff's budget itself is another 225 million dollars a year.

The cost that we're talking about here are fractions of a penny on $1. If you buy a house and overspend on the House, you wouldn't listen to a real estate agent who tells you it's not worth spending the $300 for the home inspection and you can go after the black mold with a little bit of baking soda toothbrush and save money that way. It's not the place to be spending money when we're talking about expenditures of this size in a pattern A budget overspending that an auditor could certainly point to and say they can give you a monthly report as opposed to a yearly report.

An auditor is not equipped to dive deep down and try to figure out what is really the problem, but mostly this comes down to oversight. The buck for oversight is here You 5 are responsible for the fiscal oversight of the sheriff's office. You have before you a reasonably priced proposal to use a state law authorized means the Office of Inspector General, which is the best form of oversight that the law provides you I really can't see how you can afford not to adopt the very best means that are available to you to get to this problem.

Thank

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:30:55

you.

GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction4:30:57

And that concludes public comment on the site.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:30:58

So, you have a statement you got one more question or other questions from the board? I guess my one question I have for CEO's office Has there been anything that we've asked from the Sheriff's Department as part of the review on the overtime or recently that we're not getting at this point that we would be able to get through this process?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction4:31:22

Chair Nelson, I think you'd have to clarify when you say this process the IG process or the auditor process in general because it's a little bit different what they might be able to obtain.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:31:33

When is the

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction4:31:33

last time

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:31:34

we've asked them for something that they haven't given you?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction4:31:36

I wouldn't say that it's an issue of not giving us something. The timeliness of some of the issues recently is something that we continue to work on. There are some outstanding requests to the Sheriff's Office, I don't believe it's a indication they're not going to provide it. It's a timeliness issue for the most part. Overtime however has been a longstanding issue that I just want to be clear that we came to this point because There were many, many requests that the board made for additional information that we were not able to provide you with because we could not get it.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction4:32:15

CEO? Chair Nelson I think the auditor is online and I think that's a question if you're asking if there's anything that hasn't been provided that she has asked for. That

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:32:23

would be great yeah. Auditor Schaffer?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed4:32:26

Thank you Chair Nelson. No, we provided or we've requested very limited information from the sheriff actually. And what we have asked for they provided anything that was not investigatory they have provided so I'll say that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:32:53

Okay, so I guess outside of an actual personnel issue specifically? Yeah. I mean that would make sense for a lot of reasons. So yeah, I'll go ahead and come back to my other questions. Supervisor Hartman you want to make your statement?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.924:33:13

Sure. For me at least, given my now almost 10 years here is it's not an issue of simply compliance. It's really about system performance and I think the case for establishing an Inspector General is not based on any single issue but on a consistent and well-documented pattern of administrative and operational challenges that have persisted over time Importantly, most of what we know about these issues does not come from anecdote but from independent assessments, KPMG, grand jury reports, internal audits and repeated budget expansion requests.

Taken together these sources present a coherent picture The Sheriff's Office is an outlier among county departments in terms of persistent cost pressures, recurring administrative issues and continual requests for additional resources even after years of increased funding and efforts to fill vacancies. At the same time, and this is important to acknowledge, the Board of Supervisors is part of this system. Through approval of budgets, memoranda of understandings and side letters including provisions that have allowed managerial staff to work significant extra help overtime hours, the board itself has contributed to the framework within which these outcomes occur.

So it's not about assigning blame, but about recognizing that the current structure spanning the Sheriff's Office labor agreements board decisions has collectively produced results that warrant closer and more coordinated oversight. So let's just review the independent KPMG report It identified structural issues that remain relevant today. Misalignment between staffing levels and workload, inefficient use of available data for operational decision making. These findings were not misconduct they were about administrative and operational efficiency.

A series of grand jury reports have highlighted recurring issues across different aspects of the Sheriff's Office. Mandatory overtime, 2022 Grand Jury demonstrates that overtime was embedded in the staffing model particularly in custody where mandatory overtime shifts are required to meet minimum staffing levels I mean, we may want over time but there's a balance and I don't know that we know what that is.

2022 vehicle idling identifies basic resource management inefficiencies including lack of enforcement policies related to fuel use and vehicle operations. The Coroner's Bureau 2022 finds that fee schedules had not been updated in decades resulting in lost revenue due to lack of administrative capacity to perform routine financial functions. The WellPath contract 2024 identifies contract oversight gaps including payments for unfilled positions and delayed or insufficient performance tracking.

These reports span an array of different functions, staffing operations finance and contracts but point to the same underlying issue, administrative systems that are not consistently functioning or improving over time. And I think that is the issue that I'm after. It's not just overtime, but let's think about how the overtime issue...I mean that came from us!

It didn't come internally from the Sheriff's Office. So there's just a pattern where we see issues are identified repeatedly, corrective actions are proposed, the same or similar issues persist over time. And it's not lack of information. We've commissioned these different reviews and grand jury findings, we've tried. So it seems that the outcomes maybe they're improving somewhat now but this pattern didn't just start, it goes back for my entire 10 years There's no sustained independent mechanism across both the sheriff's office and board level decisions to ensure that identified problems are addressed, and that improvements are implemented and maintained over time.

So an inspector general scoped specifically for administrative and operational oversight would help address this gap by providing an independent continuous line of analysis that complements both departmental management and board decision making. This role would not duplicate existing audits or focus on law enforcement conduct, it instead would evaluate how systems function across the department staffing budgeting contracts operations assess how board approved policies labor agreements and funding decisions Interact with operational outcomes. Identify root causes of recurring issues. Track implementation of recommendations from these audits, from the grand jury reports and other reviews. We kind of they get lost.

They just go off into the ether and provide continuity and accountability across budget cycles and leadership changes. So that's why I think we really do need this function I'm, I know we're in a very difficult budget situation. I might be willing to go along personally with four where we start cultivating with an auditor position in the auditor's office We have put financial support into the sheriff's office and we still haven't gotten back what we needed. So I think that would cultivate the soil and establish some procedures, but I ultimately would like to see us create an ordinance that gives us that authority that we could use if need be because I would be irresponsible sitting up here to just keep going along as we've done before.

It just isn't making the kind of change that is required, and I think it's clear this isn't all just budget shortfall. We hear this from the sheriff and I have a great deal of respect for the sheriff And he deserves all credit for the culture that he's created of de-escalation and sympathy for those suffering from mental illness. But the day to day management has not been the strongest suit in this department, Again, we have to pay the bills and we found that you can with the pressure with visibility make the changes but it hasn't happened without that.

4:40 – 4:4613 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:40:24

All right thank you Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Capsen I actually have a couple questions now I thought of once started talking.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction4:40:30

If you want to ask your questions first?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:40:32

Actually I have a question for Under Sheriff Welsch You know, because I think a lot of what we're hearing is a lot to do with the reporting and the oversight. And this is something that I've talked in my meetings with the Sheriff's Department about just your financial team and what you have within the Sheriff's Department to evaluate all the complexities of it. You know, we were running all these different organizations at jail, coroner's office patrol.

Contract cities, and then what's your finance team look like that has to manage all that as well as lots of contracts and grants and lawsuits. And so can you talk about that for a moment? Because I think maybe if we're looking for help, maybe we should actually give it to them to be able to do some of that work.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.924:41:11

We did.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:41:13

Well let's hear from under Sheriff Walsh

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed4:41:15

Thank you for the question chair Nelson and members of the board. I was actually able to last few weeks to reach out to the other 58 under sheriff's or 57 under sheriffs in the state of California just to get a good idea of what their total operating budget is, their total amount of FTEs and their total amount of FTEs in their fiscal departments And while I only got about half of the responses, that's still about 25 responses which in cop work is actually pretty good. Yeah and I was able to look and see that we are our agency. We have about 11 fiscal personnel right now one being the CFO And we compared to other organizations, other sheriff's organizations with similar operating budgets were significantly understaffed and it's just been consistent year after year.

The delays that I believe the CEO is talking about are most likely due to requests to our fiscal teams who are just overwhelmed in the sheer amount of work that they're doing because they're so grossly understaffed. It pains me to see how understaffed they are because there's so much to do and we want We have a lot of staff that we're working with. We do have partners with CEO and other members of our of our county team, but we just don't have enough staff to keep up with the with the demand of work.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:42:25

OK so is there any kind of is there a ratio typically to budget to fiscal staff that you've seen out there?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed4:42:32

There is and we're continuing to kind of we want to give you a good product. So let us continue

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:42:45

Is that you're not getting some information, but also I'm seeing this as well. You know and I know you guys have these tough decisions on do we put another corrections deputy in the jail or do we hire another fiscal person? I mean, I mean the sheriff has their budget and they have to as we just saw with the workshops last week. You guys have to make some determinations on the allocation resources and it's hard to take a cop off the beat To put them in, you know behind a desk to shuffle papers. But I mean, I think that's where we're trying to find that balance and so I just wanted to make sure that was part of the narrative here. Thank you. Thank you.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.874:43:21

So, Under Sheriff Welch, just a quick question how long have you been under sheriff? About four months and a couple days.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed4:43:30

Four months, right? So that's still pretty fresh here. Yes. Supervisor Lee through the chair I've been with the organization for 27 years. I've been in upper management for about 4 1⁄2 years and in a supervisory role since 2012. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:43:49

All right, thank you. Do you have a question Supervisor Levenino or just statements comments? Okay let's go to comments here I think Supervisor Caps you wanted to make comment here and then

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction4:43:57

yeah I mean I support where Supervisor Hartman is going On the one hand, because we're in such a tight budget year it makes the challenge hard to find the funds. But the flip side is we need the cost savings and I do believe that the scrutiny has yielded the savings. We've just seen it with overtime pay. We will see it hopefully with a new MOU with UCSB so that's part of the responsibility from UCSB.

There's so many areas in which you sort of look under a rock and you realize that you can uncover some costs. And I would, you know, appreciate the cooperation that's happening and I would hope that this level of oversight is welcome if you are understaffed and I don't recall these kind of budget requests coming for more fiscal staff in the short time that I've been a supervisor.

It's been in other areas but certainly that would have been welcome in the years that we had more funds. Anyway, I just know that this position either one would more than pay for itself In a budget of $223 million and that's not an indictment. That's just the fact I mean there is so much that can be uncovered and I just appreciate again that we are taking a look at this because again ultimately this does come to the board. I mean just the amount of time that this board spends on these issues is evidence enough that something you know needs to happen that's different do we just keep having hearing after hearing and board item after board item I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. So first off.

4:46 – 4:5610 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5voiceprint 0.944:46:25

I mean, we would like everybody to kind of behave like we are in this room right now. But we don't see what this department is dealing with on a daily basis. So there's actually people out there whose life it is to steal, rob, inflict damage on other people and property. I look at this department, and I go okay where are the headlines that I read about other departments? You know a lot of the scandal is involved. There's not.

It's mostly fiscal. I mean what we're all talking about is that we're frustrated because we don't have a firm grasp on the budget and how money is spent but we've got a whole department it's called the Audit Controllers Department That now we are connecting them into try to figure out what's going on and get a better handle on it. I was kind of surprised when I saw that when we saw the auditor's report, it says it's not an audit. I understand and we're just basically reporting on what the numbers are and maybe that needs to be beefed up a little bit so that we get in there and figure out what's going on but to go to the level of you know getting subpoenas and I mean. I think it's a lot of overkill Also the other thing I just wanted to point out was, I don't think I've ever seen the Sheriff's Department represented better than it has been over the last couple of meetings.

And maybe that's because there's more scrutiny on it but I think it has to do with a lot of the new team that we have. You know it's just a sharper focus, better answers, a commitment to doing better and For most of the 10 years, maybe it wasn't the case right? So I'm willing to say hey, I understand there's an issue. I understand there's a problem. We're lucky that we don't have some of the issues that are plaguing other sheriff's departments, you know with gangs inside the department and those types of things. So the fact that we, you know have a fiscal crisis I think also lends me to kind of come down on the side of let's find somebody with you know whether we just make it a direction What the auditors looking at right now comes back with a little bit more teeth and just reporting.

And I don't know how the mechanics of that will work, because I don't know if we've actually had a firm audit of an inside department since I've been here. It would be interesting to see how the mechanics of how that would work. So anyway, I'm for something a lot less than an IG And I think it's just using the assets that we have right now and the resources we do to get a better fix. When the Sheriff's Department themselves said yeah, this is not our strong point. We didn't get into law enforcement.

I understand we have professionals that are doing that, we just don't have enough. And so you're right Supervisor Nelson when I'm sitting here I'd rather have a deputy on the street or a custody deputy in the jail than another financial person but then it leads us back to this same spot that we're in again. So I'm for using the resources that we currently have and maybe beefing that up somewhat inside the Auditor-Controller's office.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction4:49:57

Actually I do have a question. Yeah please do. I want to be respectful of the auditors department We've only seen one audit in the three plus years I've been here. Why do we have to add a senior auditor? If we went with option three, again, I don't have eyes on their department in terms of staffing but it does beg the question of who's doing audits

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction4:50:30

So Supervisors, I think I asked Auditor Controller to answer the second part of that question but the auditor does present to the Board an audit plan that says these are the audits that I'm going to conduct and sometimes they're very general. Sometimes they're specific. I've seen audits come through on departments. They're required to do certain types of audits but there is a plan in your board has the authority to direct the auditor to look at certain areas to do certain audits so just I think it's most appropriate to have the auditor respond to that. Yeah, I will turn the question back around me as she gets

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:51:25

Miss Schaefer.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed4:51:27

Thank you. You know, we do present an audit plan like CEO Miyasato just presented or described. We do this every year. You may not realize this but every quarter we present the treasurer's audit. There are several mandated audits we do. We also supervise audits and we have the annual external audit that occurs. We supervise that with our external auditors Brown Armstrong They also do the single audit, which is an audit of all the grant programs.

Our staff I mentioned at our budget workshops only has five people and two of those are the supervisor and the division chief of audit There, we just completed. We also get requests for audits by departments and we just completed a request from FIRE for an accounts receivable review. When we did a... We worked with Nisa Pigs on an external audit. They were in an external firm and then they did an internal audit for CSD for their homeless grants And I believe we're presenting the audits that we can present to the board as frequently as we can. So, we have a...

We're working. We have a busy team so I'm sorry that it may not be as public as some of these audits You know, can be where as public as we can't be. We also spend a lot of time on the whistleblower administration. We probably get a whistleblower report. Probably a few a week and those take a lot of investigation and follow up. I'm sure I'm missing something here. Supervisor caps. No, that's

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction4:53:38

helpful. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed4:53:39

We really are working hard there.

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction4:53:42

Thank you I wasn't aware of those audits thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:53:45

All right, thank you Supervisor Capps. You know my concern this whole discussion is that we are making progress you know we have a better relationship the Sheriff's Department and there's so many things that we work on with the Sheriff's Department that us having a cooperative relationship is really important and I think there's this balancing act of political pressure from our body with You know, also giving them the autonomy to run their department as an infinitely elected official.

You know in finding that right dose of pressure is I think is what we were all striving to kind of figure out you know it's the only reason why things are better is because we're threatening of all these other You know political consequences or is this just a really a change in the management and the staffing and, and just the evolution of this board's relationship.

CEO is a relationship with the Sheriff's Department. And I'm just really concerned about if we go down this route with the that the dose might be a little bit too much it might eventually poison that relationship. The difference between medicine and poison is dose And I am afraid this board if we go too far, that it will become some point that the relationship will not be as strong as it is right now. We've had some huge successes recently and so that's why I just caution us. I'm not going to support this at this point but you know I think that we're already getting what we need because things are coming in our direction.

I am just afraid that this might be pushing too far at some point here and We might go backwards, and that would be a travesty as I think we're making a lot of progress with the Sheriff's Department on some of these issues. So that's my thought. I would prefer option number five at this time continuing on the pathway that we're going to see if we can add on some of the most recent successes that we've had and build from there.

Supervisor Lee and then Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.874:55:45

So I do agree with you that option 5 is what I'm supporting as well. I do believe that we need more sheriff oversight, but I really want to give under Sheriff Welch and his team a chance. He's still new at this and I think I have seen improvements. I do believe that he's trying really hard and working with all his controller Betsy is trying let's give her more clear concise direction so that she can give us the best report back

4:56 – 5:0111 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.924:56:14

Would anybody be open to option three, which we actually give more dedicated auditing. The overtime changes have come from this board and from the auditor. Yes, we have a more responsive executive team on the sheriff's side. But I think that it is a balance and I think option three provides more resources and can keep the sustained attention on the fiscal side in a way that we haven't done before. And I think it's just asking if there might be any support for that

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:57:01

Before we get there, I'll let everybody answer that question. I'm not trying to cut you off. Any of these options are going to need to come to some budget hearings right? Is that what we're looking at because we've just went through this workshops. What's that? Well except for five yes but I mean any of these ones that cost money are gonna have to come in budget hearings with a list of the other restorations or other cuts that we might be seeing in June is that correct?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction4:57:26

Correct, Supervisor Chair Nelson. Yes if you decide if you direct us to do one of these options and it costs money for next year's budget we would discuss it at budget hearings with all the other asks that you've made of us.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:57:40

Okay so we aren't actually gonna make that decision today we're just gonna potentially bring one of these back or none of them back in June third week of June

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction4:57:52

Supervisor, we would like to give it if you have a choice of what you'd like to pursue. We'd like to know because in this part of the recommended budget, we will be I mean, I'll be in the budget yet but you've given us a list of your priorities and we want to figure out if they can be funded like you said, we get state money and so if the board majority told us to do one of these options, we would look to see between now and June if there is state funding to help offset, we would then try to fund it.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:58:18

Okay. So I'll give Supervisor Hartman a chance to lobby for the number three. I think I have heard three potential number five votes, but again, I'll give you some deference to... so what are you hoping to get direction on bolstering the auditor's office?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.924:58:37

Yeah, yeah. Kind of establishing consistent ongoing review of the fiscal side of the sheriff's office so it's not just a one-off or six month thing but we really keep the visibility on this budget. And I think that would give us more information and maybe that would be enough, but you know if it revealed that ongoing problems then maybe an IG would be something for the future. But I think this at least is a an important step in the right direction.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:59:18

Supervisor Capsen, I do have an answer for you that hopefully might thread the needle

CommentKathy KingProposed · by introduction4:59:23

Yeah I mean, I think that would be helpful because again you know the first part of this report that was early on our agenda just says this is not an audit. This is not an audit so it'd be great to see what an audit would actually look like and actually give her the full authority and so that's good rationale for me for number three.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:59:41

Well here let's and here was the compromise I was thinking about here as let's get through our six months and that does two things one that gets us to see if we're making a progress we're hoping to And at that point, we also have seen what the budget initially looks like for the year. You know even when we decided our budget on the third week of June there are a lot of things that balls are still bouncing at the state and federal level that we're going to have some impacts on get us through the six months here. We get actually see if we're making the progress that we hope we would if we're making the good progress that I think that we will continue to make there may not be a need for this additional audit and if we're not Then I'll be right there with you.

If we're not making progress, then I would support that. But I see us going in the right direction and I'm not ready to leap to this level of additional oversight when we're going the right direction as it is right now. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisor, District 3voiceprint 0.925:00:29

Well, we're focused on the six month just on overtime. What I tried to say in my remarks is I think the issues have been broader than that And I think that having somebody dedicated to exploring these issues and making recommendations, again the board is not blameless here. We've done some things that I wished we'd had somebody flag what the implications were when we made those decisions. So I think it has to be sustained with somebody who's developing the relationships and the expertise and comes in with the credentials.

Supervisors meeting I can ask

5:01 – 5:059 turns

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:01:27

What we've asked the auditor to do is review over time and follow up on her last report, which is pretty extensive looking at time cards. And that was the assignment and that's what they're doing. One thing that we have in the board letter that we've talked about if you wanted a dedicated auditor, we list a bunch of things that would be part of the scope but I want to ask the auditor if under the existing purview of what the boards asked on the payroll review One of the things that stands out to me I think that's important is looking at internal controls and financial systems.

Is that review possible to be part of what your view is currently on the overtime? Because I think we want to know are the internal controls in the systems required by the auditor that we all follow or it's good management budgeting practice, are those being followed? So could you actually look at that as part of the review you're already doing?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:02:22

Yes, yes we could add that to it. We've been looking like I said data focused only looking at what's already been posted into our you know that shows us data but we've not looked at what their processes are for scheduling or for how things get approved and reviewed We haven't compared to their policies, both internal. We've looked at just the MOUs. So there is other work we could do there.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:03:02

All right thank you Ms. Schaffer. Supervisor Lee and then Supervisor Labadino.

ElectedRoy LeeSupervisor, District 1voiceprint 0.875:03:05

So what if we set some money aside and come back in six months? And if we all agree that something needs to be done, we can have the money to fill that position right away. Is that something that could work?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:03:14

I think that's something that we can potentially discuss in budget hearings. Yeah, I mean I think we don't know what those numbers are yet so I mean this could be a topic that comes up at that time but I don't think we have a set aside of one-time fees and funding monies yet. I think we spent them all. We spend more than all. Last one so but that could you know it could be decided.

I wouldn't be surprised if this comes up again here in June but I don't think there's a set amount of dollars right now

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5voiceprint 0.945:03:45

Thank you Mr. Chair, well great discussion I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion we'll see where it goes at we go move items A through C and this in the B being the direction would be that we land on option 5 but during budget discussions We discussed maybe setting aside a little bit of money so that we figure out if things don't go in the direction that we're able to fund it.

So, I'll go there. I'll second it.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:04:19

Okay. All right is there further discussion on that motion? I'm not seeing any. Did you want us okay all right so we have no further discussion whether do we need to do a roll call vote on this? All right can Madam Clerk could we do a roll call vote? And the motions for option 5.

Roll-call vote Passed 4–1 motion? I'm not seeing any. Did you want us okay all right so we have no further discussion whether do we need to do a roll call vote on thi
Show transcript
Supervisor Lavinino? Aye. Supervisor Lee? Aye Supervisor Caps? Aye Supervisor Hartman? No and Chair Nelson? Aye
GuestLabadinoProposed · by introduction5:04:55

Motion passes 4 to 1.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:04:57

All right thank you all right this concludes our regular scheduled meeting of the Board of Supervisors we will now be recessing this meeting and beginning a special meeting On the, which was previously Department Item number four that was being brought to us by Supervisor Kaps and Supervisor Lee dealing with Immigration Customs Enforcement and other issues surrounding their engagement in our community. That will be a special meeting that will begin in a brief moment we're going to go ahead and recess this and then we'll get that meeting started momentarily.