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.0:00 – 0:0718 turns
All right, good morning everybody. I will call to order the July 14th 2026 regular scheduled meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Roll call, called by Jacquelyne Alexander
Show transcript
First item of business is approval of the minutes from the July 7th, 2026 meeting. Can I get a motion?
Hartman moves approval and I'll second.
Okay we have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion passes unanimously Next item, this is our CEO report and we have Assistant CEO Wade Horton here. Mr. Horton do you have a report this morning? We
do thank you chair. This morning pleased to share the newest video in your county your services series of these segments run on channel 20 and appear on monthly newsletter on CSB TV's YouTube page and across county social media in both English and Spanish. Today's video highlights the county's on demand permitting options Through the online citizen access portal, residents can quickly obtain permits for common home projects all without needing to visit a county office. Let's take a look.
Welcome to Santa Barbara County! Let's explore what the county does for you. Your county, your services. The County of Santa Barbara is making it faster and easier than ever before to get permits for many common home improvement projects. Through the county's online Citizen Access Portal, residents can apply for and instantly receive permits for eligible projects like electrical panel upgrades, water heater replacements, residential solar installations through SolarAPP, and like-for-like gas, sewer, and water line replacements.
All from the convenience of a website, saving customers time and a trip to the county office.
With Acela and the rollout of citizens access in our online portal to submit applications now everything is digital from our application forms to plans submittals but also a permit process completely digitally
We've gone from a 95 to 99% paper submittals now to online, almost 100%. So it's very convenient for both the applicant and for our staff. And we've saved over 1,000 hours of staff time since then.
It's done three main things. convenience, time-saving and visibility. You can be on site you can be at your home and you can submit these permits and then the visibility is huge. You see each step exactly where your permit's at if you've got corrections you can see it in real time exactly how it's going and then of course the time saver I went from Three weeks to four weeks waiting for a permit to be approved, to some of them solar instantly. You know that's I mean that's game-changing for any contractors or subcontractors out there.
Our online citizens access portal splash page you can choose from any of these apply directly permits and then under building of course is where you'll find your on demand online permitting you can apply and receive your permit at the same time
On-demand permits are great because it allows an applicant to submit an application through our system for simple, small projects. They will get an automatically issued permit and you can get it right away. The system is set up so that you can receive notifications as the project proceeds forward. You can always also pick up the phone and talk to us and ask us questions about that process. We're happy to talk to people.
At the County of Santa Barbara, we're committed to delivering services that are efficient, accessible and customer-focused. Visit the County of Santa Barbara's Citizen Access Portal to learn more.
And later in the agenda, the board will receive an update on the county's implementation of a cell permitting and licensing system including countywide progress and priorities for the next phase. And that concludes the report.
All right thank you ACO Horton. I thought yes it was an infomercial for item D4 later today so stay tuned. Alright Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to today's agenda?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, I do have a few announcements this morning. An addendum was posted on Friday July 10th 2026 amending today's closed session agenda adding an item under conference with legal counsel existing litigation paragraph 1 of subdivision D of government code section 54956.9 regarding Leslie Torgerson versus Vida County of Santa Barbara et al., Santa Barbara County Superior Court case number Good Samaritan shelters, lifehouse 2 and northern Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Jennifer and I'm a board member for Santa Barbara County. And again the department has requested this item be withdrawn from today's agenda. So if the board can please add that to the balance of the administrative agenda that would be greatly appreciated.
And lastly for information on the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and instructions on how to provide public comment on items listed Individuals who wish to provide verbal public comment may do so via zoom by registering in advance using the link provided on page 2. Please note that zoom is available solely for the purpose of providing verbal public comment and is not intended for viewing the meeting. Alternative viewing options are listed on page two of the agenda if you have any questions please contact the clerk at the board's office at area code 805-568-2240 or by email at sbcob And that concludes my announcements for today.
All right, thank you Madam Clerk and I skipped over before we started today's meeting. I really wanted to take the time and recognize a really important leader in our community that passed away just recently so I wanted to change it over turn it over to Supervisor Lee or did you want to say something?
It's my honor
to pay tribute to former Mayor Sheila Lodge who passed away this last week at the age of 97. In a word, Sheila Lodge is a force.
0:07 – 0:1118 turns
It's hard to imagine Santa Barbara without Sheila Lodge. And she was a force, it could be said that no one had more of a consequential impact on the city of Santa Barbara than Sheila Lodge having served 12 years as mayor then on the Planning Commission even in her 90s at on the historic Advisory Commission she served this city just with such compassion and such commitment.
She was a force of a person her integrity, her quiet determination, she would poke at those of us in elected office with such the right combination of making sure she got her point across in a way that was effective, not too assertive but definitely not mincing words. A way that I admire so much and she was also a force because of the way that she's a trailblazer for so many women who have come in her path. She was the first female elected woman mayor of Santa Barbara we've had so many since in fact as a kid she was my mayor and so I just assumed that all mayors are women So anyway, it's my honor to pay tribute to Sheila Lodge of force.
Yes I just want to say that Sheila was incredibly well loved and respected and been called for a moment of silence. I don't want to say that she passed because she would hate that so she lived a well good life
yeah.
Supervisor Hartman, real quick
before
we go into a moment of silence.
Yes I also wanted to add that when I was elected to this position one of the first people to reach out to me was Sheila Lodge offering her help and on housing issues she was a confidante she was always calling writing sending ideas so she really did symbolize Santa Barbara at its best and we'll all miss her
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. And with that I ask the public to join our board in a moment of silence remembering the life and legacy of Sheila Lodge. Thank you. All right, well in her memory and we will continue on.
The next item of business is our again administrative agenda. We had initially Item A-9 has been asked to be withdrawn. I have Items A-11 being pulled by Supervisor Lee and A-16 as well. I have Supervisor Kapsch and I both pulling A-33 Madam Clerk, are there any other items being pulled either by Board members or by the public?
Chair Nelson and Members of the Board. We have no request to speak from the public on the administrative agenda and I have no further requests from the
board. A35.
Okay, an A35 by Supervisor Hartman. So I'm looking for a motion for the withdrawal of A9 and all the items except for A11, 16, 33, and 35 which we will take up after we do our resolutions. Can I have that motion?
Move
by Supervisor Hartman.
Second
by Supervisor Caps. All in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed? The motion passed unanimously. Alright, before we get into our poll of administrative items, we'll go ahead and do our resolution. Madam Clerk will you please read Administrative Item Number 1 to the record.
0:11 – 0:175 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, Administrative Item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of July 19th 2026 through July 25th 2026 as Probation and Pre-Trial Services Week in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Chief Probation Officer Holly Benton, Deputy Probation Officer Daniel Nava, Deputy Probation Officer Erica Floyd, and Juvenile Institutions Officer Cynthia Sixten. Now I'll go ahead and read the resolution.
Whereas during the week of July 19th through the 25th, 2026 criminal justice professionals and communities across the nation will join together to celebrate probation and pre-trial services week and whereas the Probation Department today consists of over 300 dedicated professionals working collaboratively to deliver evidence based programs to justice involved adults and juveniles while focusing on the enhancement of public safety, the reduction of recidivism The protection of and compensation to victims, the endorsement of equitable and appropriate pretrial release, the promotion of crime prevention services, rehabilitation and restorative justice principles. And whereas probation officers and juvenile institutions officers provide an efficient and cost-effective use of public resources by supervising approximately 2,400 adults and approximately 230 juveniles within Santa Barbara County.
The Probation Department conducts pre-trial assessments and currently monitors over 500 individuals on pre-trial supervision using the least restrictive options necessary to ensure public safety while allowing them to remain in the community. And whereas, the Probation Department is an essential connector in the justice system reducing recidivism by carefully balancing direct human services with research based interventions Probation Department staff display a high degree of professionalism, commitment and pride in the work they perform for the courts. In our juvenile justice facilities with local law enforcement partners and in the community. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved this Board of Supervisors at the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge the week of July 19th to the 25th as Probation and Pretrial Services Week and recognizes these officers for their significant contribution to making Santa Barbara County a safer place to live passed and adopted today.
Thank you, Chief Benton.
Thank you Chair Nelson and Supervisors. I am Holly Benton the Chief Probation Officer and it's my honor to represent the dedicated officers and staff of your probation department today and to thank your board for recognizing the important public safety role of our probation and pretrial professionals in our community and our Juvenile Justice Center every day.
As we've done for the last few years, with me this morning to receive this resolution are three of our line officers who represent Adult and Juvenile Services and our Juvenile Justice Center. And each will introduce themselves to your board and briefly share their perspective about their work.
Good morning Supervisors to the Chair. My name is Daniel Nava and I am a Deputy Probation Officer assigned to the Juvenile Division which is a remarkable one as it offers hope Juvenile probation officers take on many responsibilities. We explore youth diversion opportunities, author court reports, supervise youth in the community and support reentry for youth at the Juvenile Justice Center.
Wearing many hats we impact youth and families at different points in their lives. Today I want to speak about the Youth Serving Secure Youth Treatment Facility or SYTF commitments ranging from 18 months to 7 years at our Juvenile Justice Center. I have been working with these youth for approximately three years and we currently have 27 such youth. The work I do with them is varied and involves mentoring, monitoring their compliance, mentoring them, referring them to evidence-based programs within the facility, intervening when they are in crisis, supervising youth and family reengagement, and working on reentry from the moment they are committed to the program.
Each youth's reentry plan is unique and can include furloughs involving community college tours across the state, equine therapy and employment readiness training. Many youth have demonstrated success in the SYTF program resulting in reductions in their commitments and their ultimate productive return to the community. I am proud to work with these youth who have been able to overcome obstacles, show that mistakes don't have to define them, reintegrate into the community and ultimately lead better lives. Thank you for your time.
Good morning. My name is Cynthia and I am a Juvenile Institution Officer at the Santa Maria Juvenile Justice Center. Working at the JJC has been a dynamic experience with each day bringing new opportunities and challenges that make our work both meaningful and engaging. The position has strengthened my ability to communicate effectively, remain calm under pressure and work with youth from diverse backgrounds.
As Juvenile Institution officers we are committed to maintaining a safe and secure environment while helping youth develop the skills and accountability needed for positive change. It is an honor to be part of an organization dedicated to protecting our community And providing effective juvenile detention and treatment programs. I am proud to represent the Santa Barbara County Probation Department and the dedicated professionals who work every day to support public safety, rehabilitation, and positive outcomes for the youth and families we serve. Thank you.
0:17 – 0:208 turns
Good morning Supervisors through the Chair. My name is Erica Floyd and I am a Deputy Probation Officer assigned to the Adult Supervision Unit in the Lompoc Office. My current caseload consists of a diverse group of individuals placed on probation for a wide variety of offenses. Some are new to probation while others have demonstrated consistent compliance with court-ordered conditions.
For many individuals, meeting their assigned probation officer is the beginning of their journey towards rehabilitation and success. We often meet them at one of the most stressful moments in their life after making a poor choice or a mistake in judgment. It is not uncommon that they have spent some time in jail and have experienced loss whether it is a job, a relationship, or something of value to them.
Following their sentence hearing, clients can often feel overwhelmed or intimidated and do not know what to expect after being ordered to report to the probation department. When they walk through our doors for the first time we can often see the anxiety in their expressions and body language. This is what we train for a delicate dance of easing their fears while ensuring they understand their terms and conditions to ensure accountability and success.
My favorite conversation happens at the end of the intake process, when we get to talk about what comes next. This is my opportunity to be an agent of change and to remind the individual that their future does not have to be dictated and that their probation grant can be a road map to a better life. A grant of probation is merely a chapter in their personal story.
I am grateful and honored to have the opportunity to address your board today. Thank you for your continued support of the Probation Department and the work that we do.
Thank you very much.
And again we just want to thank your board for this recognition and for the resolution today.
Before you guys go, Supervisor Hartman?
Yes well when I'm out in the field I always hear such great things about our probation officers and so it's really a thrill to have you come in person and talk about your job I my ears perked up on equine therapy. So could you describe that what what that program is how it works?
I can describe it briefly, I can't give you a lot of detail about it but we do have furlough capability in the JJC and we take youth to see the horse to interact with the horses for some of these youth it's sort I guess you could say it unlocks a different side of them. And there's a gentleness about interacting with the horse that just changes their demeanor and their personality and makes it so much easier to reach them, talk with them.
It can have dramatic impacts on their ability to communicate and it can have impacts on their behavior as well. So it's been quite impactful for some of our youth.
Yeah, that's exciting to hear. I'm involved a little bit with therapeutic riding and whether it be autism or PTSD with veterans, it can have a profound impact so I'm so excited to hear that you're using it in probation with young people. Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Adam used to always say the outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man and so I think that's a quote that's appropriate here but thank you guys all for sharing your work out there it's invaluable and it's appreciated by this board in our community. All right thank you very much probation and pretrial services We'll go ahead and move on to the administrative items that were pulled by the board and the public.
And we're going to go ahead and start off with A11, which was pulled by Supervisor Lee. Madam Clerk will you please read item A11 into the record?
0:20 – 0:247 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 11 is from the Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the approval of Workforce Housing Development Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ENA-117 East Carrillo Street APN 029211025 and this is in the First District.
All right Supervisor Lee. Good thank you Chair Nelson I just want to ask Director Armas for an update about How's things going and have they found a non-profit partner yet?
Thank you Supervisor Lee through the chair. We're at an exciting point that we believe with this project. We've had a number of significant developments take place first and if I can just take a couple moments to put it in context, we've had a couple of conversations with city officials with Santa Barbara to make sure that the path forward is one that is consistent with the design standards that the city has and that were aligned in terms of their objectives for the downtown and the county's objectives with this important housing project Very positive reaction. We continue to make sure that the architectural design standards that apply to the downtown are adhered to and so we believe that SOLA appreciates that point as well.
With respect to the notion of a local partner. We indicated to you last time that the solar had an obligation to identify partner they have identified a partner to take responsibility for managing the property this entity is very familiar with our county is very familiar with Central Coast. They're in the midst of final negotiations, the agreements are largely at At the one foot yard I said, or a yard at one foot point. But they've asked that we not disclose the name until they finally complete those discussions. We're very optimistic that they will reach agreement. I spoke to both representatives as recently as Friday And both assured me that it's just a matter of some final word tweaking. But in substance, the agreements are acceptable. There aren't any to quote any deal breakers in the agreements.
So we're very optimistic and as noted in the ENA, SOLA has a number of performance standards that it must meet over the next six months following which if they perform will come back to you for additional actions on important legal documents
No further questions for me. All right, any other questions from the board on this item? Supervisor
Caps. Just a comment that I'm appreciative of how quickly this moves along. Thank you.
All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lee for pulling this. Let's go ahead and get a motion to approve this item. Got it. I move staff recommendation A11. And I second. Okay so that's A and B and it's been a motion for a motion and a second all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion passes unanimously.
Next item of business is departmental number one second here 16 also pulled by Supervisor Lee. Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Madam clerk, we please write read that item in the record.
0:24 – 0:2924 turns
And also to members of the board administrative item number 16 is from the county executive office. It is to consider recommendations regarding a 3rd quarter fiscal year 2025 through 2026 update on cannabis
All right, Supervisor Lee. Good. So I have a few questions about this. The first one is are we required to have appeals for license revocations? And if anyone... From CO's office
potentially? Yes.
So Supervisor Lee through the Chair, yes we're required by Chapter 50 to have an appeal process for license revocations.
Good and are we required to have appeals for licensed non-renewals?
So if it's a license denial, there's also a requirement for an appeal process.
Okay and the final question is are we required to have the appeal to go before admin judge or other options that we can explore?
Chapter 50 says that we need to go before a hearing officer.
Okay
and the hearing officer that we currently use is the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Good, so we could amend that and change that?
It's likely that there could be a conversation about how to look at different possibilities yes.
Okay so those are my questions for now I do have some comments later if anybody wants Any other questions on this or comments?
Mr. Chair, I just want to add to that the administrative judge chapter 50 defines hearing officer pretty broadly and administrative law judge is one option but there are already other options existing in the code
Okay, so there are some options that we have within what's already in code may not need to change the code and maybe just need to be a decision. Supervisor Lee you wanted to make some further comments or? I do. Supervisor Capuzo. Okay back to you.
So I just want to say that I have been really frustrated with this current process. The Carpentry community has been very patient and expecting solutions it's been quite a while since they have seen anything so I believe that our board wants to deliver that these solutions to the community so I wanted to direct staff to explore different ways of hearing appeals and to come back down the road in the future with options that we can consider.
So if
so, we'd like to potentially add that to the motion today is as a staff direction to look at some additional options that we might have under the current code it's not changing the code But whether options might be there. When would you like that reported back to the board? Supervisor Lee, would you like to have that done offline or would you like it come back as an item? As item. Okay so future administrative item on that that you can eventually pull if you have some additional questions. Yes okay so the motion would be today if we're going to adopt this with the staff direction would be staff recommendation with directions of staff to come back with appeal options within I guess it's the appeal officer. I guess I'm trying to figure out exactly.
The concern, the hearing officer whether we use. The office of. Sorry was the name of that the mission lodge judge.
So it's
Right, so Supervisor Lee you're concerned about potentially maybe some other entity besides them and you're not necessarily satisfied with that process? Correct.
It's just been too long and it drags out faster
than sooner. Okay like I always say more information is better and so if that's something that the staff could look at and bring back to us. And what time frame would you hope to get that back from staff publicly? Say within the next six months. Okay, next six months hopefully sooner but yes next six months so we can move it forward okay. So that would be your motion? Yes I'll be my motion with the comments made by Chair Nelson.
All right. Is there a second on that? Or Supervisor Caps, do you want some further comment?
I certainly appreciate Supervisor Lee's leadership on this and I agree that the process has been it's time to review it and has been frustrating for the people that he represents and I'm happy to second.
Okay so there is a motion and a second. Is there further discussion on the motion? Okay not seeing any further discussion of the motion. I guess I'll call the order. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion passes unanimously. Alright,
next item of business is Item A33. Madam Clerk can you please read that item into record?
0:29 – 0:3918 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item number 33 is from the Sheriff Coroner's Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the California Forensic Medical Group CFMG 2025 Annual Report for Healthcare Services at Sheriff's Jail Facilities.
All right thank you and Supervisor Caps and myself also pulled this item so go ahead Supervisor Caps if you have some questions?
Yeah thank you I have several questions but if you would like to give some overview, you're welcome to or I can launch into them whichever you prefer chair.
I'm sorry I don't have your name. Sorry David Harmon?
I can I can anyway, I can just launch into. I just have maybe three different categories of questions the first. I just do want to recognize that there's been a lot of progress and this is a very challenging work that you all do the health care in the jail is So complex. It's taking two very difficult professions and putting them together, health care and those who work in our jails. So I have deep respect for both professions and the complexity of treating people in a secure environment, very transient coming and going and what that means. So I just wanted to start off and I appreciated the tone of the report. I did read it and the opening letter and just the way in which the collaboration rings through very clearly that this is a strong partnership And I want to start with the good news that was very much called out, which is the progress on the Medically Assisted Treatment Program, the MAT program and that massive increase.
I think I did the math and it's 68% increase of those who've been served 1216 individuals up from 726. And so I was hoping you could speak to that program and specifically how people are doing once they leave the jail, if you have any information about that. Because the report highlights discharge planning and referrals and 30-day prescriptions. Do you have any further information you can elaborate on those who have been treated by the MAT program and how they're doing?
I have limited information as I'm a Custody Lieutenant so I am the Health Services Lieutenant overseeing the contract between WellPath and the Sheriff's Office but I'm going to defer to Dr. Adam for some of that. So the MAT program has largely increased the amount of population that we're serving. We have In regards to what happens after they get released, I'm going to defer to Dr. Adams because she has more insight on that as she's the county health doctor but they are set up with like you mentioned the 38 meds there an appointment is made all of that is done ahead of time to work on their pre-release when they're getting out but while they're there they're still working through that program and getting those services.
And yes Supervisor Catherine the chair and the program Really progressed, I mean it was already progressing when we started but it's really a great program. And they've done a lot of work in the year that we've been here on the discharge planning. Matt Hamlin is the supervisor of the MAT program and he does a great job at making sure that patients have appointments when they are released and medications called in.
Great. And I know when Supervisor Hartman and I hosted that jail health care workshop a couple years ago, this was one of the primary takeaways is that we really need to increase this program and so clearly we've seen results and it has 68% in one year but I just wondered if it's possible to track the connection between this program Efforts to reduce overdoses, emergency room visits or reincarceration. Those who participate in the program are we tracking them if they if we see them again?
Right now we're putting processes in place with CalAIM to be able to do that. There'll be a closed loop back to the facility as far as who shows up for their appointments and hopefully down the road it will be overdoses, you know how many people showed up at the ER. Those kind of stats are in the process of being developed as far as how we are going to do it.
Yeah, I just think it would be really interesting data to see if we do have an overdose and they did participate in the program. Not ideal but the flip side if those who did participate in the program are not going to emergency rooms, are not re-incarcerated and are not experiencing overdoses that would just be another feather in the cap of what a strong program this is and a sign of how important this investment is.
I see Assistant CEO Heitman here.
Please add if you'd like. Supervisor Capps to the chair, I can't help but interject into this because it's an exciting portion of Cal AIM that I think it's a good opportunity to highlight as part of Cal AIM there is a portion that's called behavioral health linkages and it is the warm handoff essentially to those providers in the community and MAT is a focus of behavioral health linkages to ensure that each of the individuals that that program. When the jail goes live Be Well needs to be fully operational with behavioral health linkages but they are using this time in advance to start their ramp up and they're actively engaged in assessing, connecting and beginning that data collection about who is actually making it to the next appointment.
Not only for their medication assisted treatment but for their behavioral health care as well. Great.
Good, well that's interesting data to see in the future. Okay well I had a question my next question has to do with staffing because I know that's also been an area of focus and the report notes that there's been 22 new positions and I just am wondering if these positions have been fully filled? And if you also, if you can speak to vacancies and turnover rates for physicians. I know these are very challenging positions to fill so I don't ask this question lightly but if you could speak to staffing shortages and if those are affecting care anything that any lessons learned or challenges that you are really hoping to change in the upcoming year?
Supervisor Capsley, Chair. So the vacancy rate right now is around six and a half percent. It's been fluctuating between five to 10%. The board of Supervisors is currently in the process of submitting a vacancy letter which would say their vacancy rate is quite low. They fill their positions fairly quickly when they do have somebody leave for whatever reason that they have a vacancy or created as you can see in the board letter that was submitted, the numbers for the shift compensation has started to drop but also what's not Okay great so the 6% is this current year 2026 or that That's correct.
Okay, so that must be an improvement because I understand from the report 2025 there was 1.8 million in credit so that must be more than a 6% vacancy. So we're making improvements?
Yes, that's correct. Also the numbers don't necessarily correlate with the vacancy rate it's more of the shifts that were unfilled so if they have someone who calls out sick goes on a maternity leave and they don't have somebody that can fill in those vacancies still shows a vacant shift and we get a credit for that specific shift being unfilled. So the position may actually be filled but if someone is out for you know whatever vacation sick family medical whatever that that is still going to be a credit to us
okay Okay, great. So the trends are moving in the right direction for 2026 in terms of staffing vacancies?
Yes that's correct.
Excellent. All right now my next questions are related to grievances which again is a big category of this report and something that's been a focus on it in terms of the numbers and I think it's hard for the public to understand how high the grievances are and an area that I previously or that I learned by this report is that The person or the team that reviews grievances is actually outsourced. That is a contract and I'm not sure if someone from the sheriff's office can speak to this but you know, I've sometimes made some criticisms about our county using contract workers for things that could be used in-house but this was this is one concern that I have is that sort of the complaint department is not internal when it comes to health care in our jail and I just was hoping someone could speak to that.
I don't know if that's CEO Heitman or somebody from the jail because to me it would seem, I'd like to ask the question if you're looking at grievances and an outside person and no disrespect to that person is the one sort of taking in those grievances how then are those lessons learned and incorporated so that there be fewer grievances in the future? And if is there a movement to move that entity, to move that process in-house.
0:39 – 0:4413 turns
Supervisor Capps to the Chair, Tanya Heitman ACO. The Sheriff's Office specifically the custody division is monitoring the grievances and they do have some staff that are tracking the grievances but as you called out there is a contractor that is reviewing those and is the primary contact with the family members when or other loved ones that have concerns about what's happening within the jail It was put in place many years ago at a time when the system was very different and over time it hasn't really evolved as much as we would like. We are in discussions now with the custody staff about shoring up grievances, both the tracking of them, the response to them, ensuring that grievance forms are available on tablets. There's a number of different initiatives ongoing around grievances And I am discussing with them the possibility of moving that grievance coordination with the family members in-house or looking at how we can do that differently.
That will engage it more with our current environment and our current level of advocacy so that everything is fully aligned.
Yeah, I appreciate that and I just want to make sure. I mean the nature of my question is that the grievances are taken seriously and are incorporated into learning and planning because again the vast majority of the grievances are deemed unsubstantiated and I just hope they're not sort
Dismissed. I agree it's important to element and I think it would be helpful you know for there to be more dialogue about the grievances but I will say that there is a certain number of the grievances that are not sustained because they are multiple grievances potentially over the same thing that when individuals are in custody and they're frustrated with the environment and everything that's going on sometimes they're making grievances over something that is So some of it is legitimate, you know not being sustained because they're inappropriate but others maybe deserve a closer look in terms of.
It's not that we did anything wrong but there might be opportunities for improvement, might be opportunities for further engagement with that inmate or with another loved one that may have more information.
So I'm going to turn it over to the board of Supervisors. Thank you so much for having me here today. I'm a position County health director to provide some ongoing audits of health care in the jail and would like an update on when that next audit would be coming to the board.
When they have an annual report, we would do an annual report as well.
I'm definitely putting you on the spot with this one but I just am hoping that process has been productive. Doing the audit? Yeah, just the oversight and the process.
Yes.
Okay.
In the board letter it will all be laid out but yes it has been productive. And we have seen improvements.
And I think that's something that we've seen across the system. What we're hearing is that the sheriff's office is very happy with their level of collaboration, the assistance that Dr. Adam and her staff are providing. There's a lot more beyond the auditing that Dr Adams able to do in care coordination ensuring that the care that WellPath is providing in collaboration with say a local hospital, is better coordinated and more seamless. So there's some very specific medical insight that she's been able to offer that is immensely valuable and I think across the system we can safely say that everyone's very pleased including WellPath they've benefited from her assistance as well
Well, those are my questions and again a lot of really positive information here. And I just acknowledge how complex and intertwined a lot of this work is and the fact that so many of the inmates are getting this medically assisted treatment with their addiction is just very reassuring. Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Caps. I think you stole most of my notes actually there so that's great. I won't go as in depth as I was planning on based on some questions that have been asked and answered but I will go kind of a reverse order on the grievance process. So those numbers also reflect people who just if they leave our system like they are released and their grievances Then unsustained, is that how that works? Or do we pull those out of the numbers because I mean those obviously are not necessarily addressed if somebody's transferred or pulled out of the system. I
think Lieutenant Harmon can answer that.
0:44 – 0:5116 turns
Chair Nelson it is not pulled out. It's still looked at but if they were released before the grievance can be answered that's documented but it's still if there was an issue that could be fixed for future interactions or addressed that will still be logged and documented So there's still an internal process to all of our grievances. They're submitted to, if it's a medical grievance that goes to the facility coordinator of the particular jail that that grievance is received in. They review it, review the chart. They will document and answer a response, determine whether it's founded or unfounded. And then that will come to me for a review as well. If I have any questions or concerns, And so the grievance report that you guys are referring to from earlier.
and custody. That still gets investigated all the way through, or do you guys reach back out to that person and go through that? Or
does it work? There's not really a way to reach out to them once they're right out of custody but we will still look at it and based off of what information we have try to figure out, determine whether it was founded or unfounded.
Okay. And just a discrepancy I saw in the reports is the grievance amounts were different between what the sheriff reported and what WellPath reported. I don't know if there was a reason for those being different amounts. I don't know if anybody I can speak to that. I think sheriff reported 548 grievances and well path reported 507 so there was a. reporting error, clerical error but something to be looked at so there's some consistency.
Hopefully our numbers are the same.
That is something that still I think some of the kinks are being worked out we have had to change the grievance process quite a lot since the Murray settlement and that is one of things that's been a constant thing that's being reviewed and we're trying to correct and get better with. A lot of that too is some of the I don't know if that accounts for all 30 of those or 30 some odd difference in account but Some of our grievances will get routed directly to our quality assurance unit for an ADA purpose. And that still falls under medical, but if that's not getting routed to medical they don't know about it. So medical is reporting on the ones that actually go to them versus which ones we see as medical because if it's an ADA it's still going to be a medical issue.
Okay thank you Lieutenant Harmon and I would actually just kind of where Supervisor Capps was mentioning about a third party reviewing this you know I'm actually I don't necessarily have a concern with that, but I do want to see Public Health get the chance to review that because I think Public Health is kind of our ears and eyes into this relationship. That's been the reason we put it in place and I was going to ask Dr. Adam with her involvement in the reviewing of those agreeances.
Supervisor Nelson or Chair Nelson, we are involved in the review of the substantiated grievances so WellPath has a process and their CQI nurse looks at any substantiated grievance. It's a corrective action plan and then that is brought to the MAC meeting which is monthly and then they go over the corrective action plan and then we monitor the corrective action plans to ensure that they're enforced.
Okay, that's helpful.
I think chair Nelson that you bring up a very good point though, that we have an opportunity now with county health that we didn't have before. That could reduce our costs as well as make it little bit tighter and more efficient.
Again, I have a lot of confidence in public health especially are doctor Adam who's been the main point person for the county here to be able to her years and eyes and her team to review these on behalf of this board transitioning over to the vacancies because that's been one there is I've You know I'm glad to hear that the numbers coming down because I think that's the start is making sure shifts are filled before we can deliver the level of care.
How much has those vacancies led to clinical issues right? I mean it's one thing you have vacancies and you know everybody's getting seen but some of these issues that we've had either with a remedial plan or with some of these grievances, how much of that has been I'm going to go ahead and ask a couple of questions. The first question is, how do we
make sure that we're not And the timeliness of that attached the well path report because as you're seeing today, you're seeing the well path report without the audit and really it only gives you one view into the system when you combine it with the audit results. You have a much more wide view and can see where Staffing impacts particular audit areas, maybe others are more policy-driven or administratively driven.
But as part of the auditing process when there are concerns raised WellPath will have an opportunity to to indicate what their plan to remediate that concern is. And in the past, we've often seen that those were very directly tied to staffing concerns. So going forward, we do anticipate County Health bringing the next report as Dr. Adam indicated and I believe September but Really would like to align the well path annual report with an auditing report so that in the future you have a really good wide view of the situation and that the well path report comes within 60 days of the close of whatever period if it's a calendar year or fiscal year either way that it comes more timely so that the board can see in more real time what has happened and how it's being addressed.
That's great. I think what we're looking for is the whole picture and I think that's the kind of missing piece here, but I mean it having Dr. Adam here is also important because I think that even when we have a report, we have her presence too and review here so that gives me a lot of confidence in moving forward. So I'm satisfied with where we're at today looking forward to having that aligned in the future and happy to progress is being made. So thank you.
All right any other questions from the board? And Madam Clerk is there any public comment on this item? Should've asked that earlier.
Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no request to speak from the public on A33.
Okay so this is a receiving file can I get a motion?
So moved. Thank you. Second.
So we have a motion from Supervisor Capps, a second from Supervisor Hartman any further discussion? Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right one more administrative item If we will, and that is item 835 that was pulled by Supervisor Lee. Madam Clerk can you please read that into the record? Oh sorry, Supervisor Hartman Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Look, you're in the headlights there Supervisor Lee. Sorry about that. Please Supervisor Hartman.
0:51 – 0:5515 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the Board Administrative Item number 35 is from the Social Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding a memorandum of understanding with Federal Correctional Complex Lompoc for the provision of eligibility workers
Supervisor Hartman.
Sure, so I was delighted to see this. I see that the agreement goes back to 2015 and I just wondered whether the CalAIM work that we're doing at our jail is spilling over to the federal facility or if they're entirely separate? What do we see going forward?
At this point, this item is just to update the request of the Federal Correctional Complex. Our ongoing 11-year process of going out to the prison complex approximately four times a year to provide information about our programs. We're not actually signing people up at those encounters and our presence there isn't the request Of the federal correctional complex, so I imagine that there's potential for you know some things to move in that direction.
But at this point this is distinctly different in terms of the nature of the activity than what we're doing locally with with the jail.
Yeah, so I would be interested in understanding more about that. I know people in the city of Lompoc for example that's where some of the people at the facility come and to make sure that they have the warm handoff and the supports that are needed as well. So how in our county system would we begin to explore whether that's a possibility?
I can ask the staff that are engaged in this project to try to find out more data related to how many of these people when they're released actually stay in our county. One of the interesting things, of course is you know some it's a federal facility so a lot of these people will be going to other parts of the state in which case what we're sharing with them on our visits would still be relevant but if they're leaving the state going to other places then it wouldn't So we can dig into looking at, you know how many of the people when they're released stay local and then have that conversation about what more could be done to have them be more like beyond just informed but kind of be in line for being engaged with services at the time of their release.
So we can certainly pursue that.
Okay. That would be great and I know that you're a short timer so if you'll let me know who, you know who would be following up with this then then I can be in touch because I think it's a really important thing to at least explore
Right, yeah. Assistant Director Rachel Lipman is the person that's you know over these programs but I'll have conversation with staff to ask them to try to see if what data we can get regarding you know where these people are actually going just kind of not the people were meeting with but just in general how many people stay in the county versus go and that would help us understand you know they impact any sort of further intervention could have.
Thank you so much.
All right, any other questions on this item? Seeing none. Madam Clerk is there any public comment on this item?
Chair Nelson and members of the board we have no request to speak from the public on A35.
All right.
Move staff recommendation.
Right. Got a motion for Supervisor Hartman. Second by Supervisor Lavinino. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passed unanimously. All right that concludes our administrative agenda. This is now time in our meeting where we for general public comment, Madam Clerk is there any request to speak on general public comment today?
Chair Nelson and members of the board we do have one request to speak from the public in general public comment and we are going to zoom with LaWanda Lyons-Pruitt.
0:56 – 0:596 turns
Good morning Chair Nelson, members of the board, LaWanda Lyons-Pruitt representing the Santa Maria Lompoc branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. You know us as NAACP. I'm here today because my heart is very heavy and my heart is heavy over the ice killing of Johan Sebastian Guerrero, age 26. Yesterday in Biddleport, Maine, Mr. Lorenzo Salgado-Aroha on July 7th in Houston, Texas and then lastly I just want to acknowledge the death of 18 year old Nolan Wells in my home state of Mississippi on July 4.
To me, just these three deaths represent racism. Racism that is being normalized It can't be normalized. We will never let it be normalized and we're never gonna be silent, and we're gonna speak up. Our hearts should be heavy. We shouldn't be outraged. All three people were human beings. There was Mr. Aroha smiling celebrating his birthday with a cake in front of him There was Mr. Guerrero saying to us, I tried to stop.
This cannot be normalized and then we have the Patriots or whatever they're called on July 4th on Metro subway Reminder of the past Klu Klux Klan with a young African American woman there in the midst of all that. We cannot normalize ICE being at our jails, blocking our lobbies, blocking the doors. I know of one of our members and his wife who was at the North County Jail, and they were just doing hospitality with coffee and donut.
I scooted them out of the way, actually lifted them out of their chair and moved them out of their way on county property. This cannot be the norm. ICE has a badge, and they're supposed to be law enforcement. But many of us know we should call it what it is. They're thugs. They're glorified thugs. And they're killing Americans, not just Americans but our residents.
We need
to be outraged. Thank you.
Thank you for your time. Thank you.
And that concludes general public comment for today.
All right. We will now begin our departmental item and we'll start with the Department Item 1. Madam Clerk, would you please read that item as a record?
0:59 – 1:1220 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Departmental Item Number One is from the Treasurer Tax Collector Public Administrator. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding California Municipal Finance Authority issuance of qualified 501c3 bonds on behalf of Step Up Housing
All right,
Mr. Hagan.
Good morning Chair Nelson, members of the board. I am Harry Hagan, Treasurer Tax Collector for at least another five and a half months, I am. So this item today before you is a TEFRA hearing or Tax Equity in Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Had to kind of try to remember that. Section 147F of the Internal Revenue Code provides the process for a qualified nonprofit organization to access municipal funds.
Part of that process is for you to hold a public hearing, being the jurisdiction of where this project is located and so this item was heard by the Debt Advisor Committee in June and it was recommended that you hold a TEFR hearing Issues that relate to this project can be vetted by the public or by yourselves. And so members from the project, Michael Potter is available in person and Anthony Stubbs from CMFA which is California Municipal Finance Authority which is the issuer of the debt is here also or he's on Zoom that can discuss any of the financing In summary, the financing is an amount not to exceed $60 million.
The project is estimated right now at $45 million. It's located in Orcutt. And the most important piece I always like to remind you is that you're not responsible for the repayment of the debt either legally or morally. That is the responsibility of the applicant, step-up housing in this case. And if you have questions regarding the project Or the financing. Representatives from both organizations should be available to answer those questions.
All right, thank you Treasurer Hagan. Are there any questions from the board at this point? I've got quite a few actually so I'll get into them in a minute but I also want to see if there's any public comment on this item.
Chair Nelson and members of the board we have no request to speak from the public on departmental item number one.
All right, I guess my first question for you Mr. Hagan is the reconciling the request for $60 million versus a $44 million project and why such a large delta?
So that might be a question better for the project, to the applicants. I can tell you that most of these types of things does have a cushion in case something happens. I think 83% of it is for the acquisition of the project. The rest is for either the reserve or for rehabilitation of the units. And I think the rehabilitation would occur as people vacate those units, but I'm not the expert on this project by any stretch. That's not our role as the county.
All right, I guess probably want to hear from the. The purpose for the Delta. So the 60 million dollars is what we call a not to exceed amount and as mentioned at the current project
There are unexpected project costs that arise. Anything that would bring the total tax-exempt bond amount above that $60 million would require an additional TEFRA hearing, so we'd like to add a The actual bond amount that will be issued will be somewhere in the 48 million dollar range current projections are such that it's just that number
acquisition prices 33 million but then another 15 million dollars of additional.
Hello Supervisor, my name is Michael Potter. I'm the Chair of the Board of Step Up Housing. We are a non-profit organization with a mission statement devoted to creating and supporting affordable housing. This project in Orkut that we're acquiring, the total debt is going to be $45.7 million And the of that we have a purchase price of 33.2 million, we've got 4.9 million in in plus little bucks extra with respect to reserves both for the debt and including items that were going spend on the project beyond that the additional funds are with So that's how we
get just for a public and transparent process. It's a lot of soft costs, you know of you know the taxpayer supported bonding so I mean it is one to call that out, you know another 12 million dollars of soft cost there on top of the purchase price. That's why I was got had some concerns as well as not to exceed but actually my big and that's I guess minor issue compared to what my bigger concern with this project is is that You know, this these units already are market rate for the orchid areas. Am I is that correct? They it's a market rate project that is currently a market rate project but the rents actually fall below the affordable housing numbers some of the AMI numbers that you guys will even actually have to rent these out so actually by deed restricting it we're actually going to potentially have rents go up in some of these categories right
We're going to have a rent reduction on 33 units that's 26% of the project for an average of 13%. And increase in other areas. We could increase another area as rents go up both 80% am I and 25% at market? Those will go up we project, you know usually by CPI but they will be the 80%. Am I rents are going to be capped so 75% of the project At 20 at 5055% 80. Yeah, those rents are going to be restricted with respect to the allowable increase each year determined by HUD
sure understand and my point is and this is a point for the board is those numbers actually higher than the current rents. So I know this is different for the South Coast where you guys don't have this problem, but the current roads we're in right now are a couple hundred dollars up to about $600 below even like Section 8 standards. It's actually in Orchid our market actually works because we have a balance of supply. I mean and they're still high for a lot of people's purposes, but they're still significantly below some of these deed restriction numbers so this is actually where Injection of affordable housing can actually kind of mess up a market because now these are not available to market rate tenant in the Orchid area.
So I actually have some concerns about this actually being a public benefit so because of that on top of the fact that when we approve these bonding then do with a Tefra hearing, we're actually I guess authorizing these to be potentially moved off the tax rolls So you're talking about, you know over $300,000 off of our property tax rolls every year that would come into the County General Fund or distributed between the county and schools. So I don't see a public benefit here. I mean, I know what your mission is But I think that maybe makes more sense in a market where you have some out of alignment or market rates are maybe above affordability numbers. But unfortunately for you in this circumstance, you're actually going to be raising rents by making it an affordability project, which is a concern for me and my constituents.
So that's a concern.
One thing, just because permitted rents under an 80% M.I., under a regulatory agreement could be higher than market they won't be higher than market. Market is going to dictate with respect what the rents are so just because we'd be permitted to increase the rents or charge more that doesn't mean people are going to sign up for that and as I said before immediate with respect to 120 unit project is 33 percent of the units will receive a rent reduction As we go on in time, the reason we came up with this program in 2021 is because we saw communities where rents are going up five and six percent. And then some years they don't go up at all. This regulatory agreement it's gonna run for 15 years so while the benefit today may be 33 units the benefit four or five six or years could be the entire project
What I'm saying is right now, 100% of this project falls under affordability in the county under our standards that we just went through our housing element. So again, I don't see the public need to take these into a deed restricted situation. Actually, I do think as what I've seen with a lot of these developers like yourself that go into these projects you do need to top up those rents to those affordability numbers to make the whole thing pencil I get that and then you guys can use subsidies to do that. So what i'm saying is a manipulation of our market in the Orchid area that is obviously working so, I'm all for these TEFRA hearings when it's new construction where we're adding more inventory to our system but you're going to be taking off 120 plus market rate I'm going to make a motion to approve this.
And I'll make a motion to do so at the time that we All right. Other questions? Supervisor Levenham and then Supervisor Hartman.
Well, it feels like we're you know like in the eighth or ninth inning here totally and I'm just curious like what kind of communication has been going on between developer and district office because you know this is the first time hearing about it. I got it on Thursday afternoon okay yeah so yeah I mean, is there a shot clock on this or is there an opportunity for these two to sit down and kind of figure this out?
Obviously we don't want to shove something into the fourth district that they don't want. That doesn't work but at the same time we're a county dying on the vine for housing so
This is a this isn't pretty new housing. And so I'm if the board might want to do continuance on this, is that an option? I don't know if that's it so we can have some discussions but again, is this concern for our office that we're taking out market rate and how would the impacts look like on our entire I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. Easy, we just usually approve a bunch of them and maybe that's why the applicant thought that would be the case here but I think this is a difference one. I did talk with County Council whether we have potentially grounds to do that and sometimes tougher hearings we just have to approve them but I believe at this one there's actually enough here that we would have legal defense in actually denying this one if we can't come to agreement on what that looks like.
I'm sorry, we have been in contact with the debt advisory committee. And also I did send a letter to Supervisors Nelson's office and your Chief of Staff on June 16th offering to come down and answer any questions. I hadn't heard back so maybe that was just miscommunication that you didn't see that or weren't aware of it. We are in a very tight timeline. In the projects that we acquire in the real estate world when they go to sell it, usually the market rate players will go in and have a 30 day due diligence, 30 day close if they're able to do that.
We were hoping that we could get the tougher approved because we have a closing date of August 6.
1:12 – 1:1816 turns
You've got two options here and I don't know what the votes are going to be. Actually Supervisor Hartman, do you want to make some questions? And I can...
Well yeah that this comes so late and that the applicant actually did reach out to your office gives me some pause but what gives me the greatest concern is we have these hearings and we don't have any review Internally by our housing people to let us know, is this a good project overall? I quite frankly don't understand from the debt advisory committee perspective how much debt were allowed in our county. How this is allocated whether so I think it raises some bigger questions for us going forward And I'd like to see that addressed somehow.
I feel like I want to ask staff, and we don't have staff to ask about this. It's not really our treasurer's job to do that kind of analysis of the housing impacts I guess I'm curious, it seems to me you're upgrading these units. You're not just buying them so that if the rents would increase for some of the units then you're getting improvements for those. We don't know what's going to happen with the pressures The development at the base, the doubling of the daily population there. I assume it's going to drive prices up so I'm really attracted by the deed restrictions going forward.
I'm not quite sure what to do
All right. So going back to, sorry what was your first name again? Michael Potter. Thank you Michael. So I'm gonna make a motion to deny it or we could go ahead and make a motion to continue. I can make one of both those motions. I don't know if I'll get a second or I'll get support here But would you want some time to continue? Again, I apologize if you reached out to my office. That didn't come to my attention or else I would have been happy to had a further conversations with you. I don't know if it continues is the same thing as the denial for you for your financing purposes. It essentially is.
I mean
that's
just we're not asking for any We're asking to implement a federal program with respect to the debt. We've lined up the capital markets that they would invest because of what we do in our product, they're investing in the bonds so and we're putting on this regulatory agreement which will go for 15 years. So I'm sorry we can't reduce rents with respect 100% of the project from day one but we can do just our little part
Well and my fear is that we're actually not going to reduce rents. And so, and we're actually gonna take more out of our market the market that's working again if we want these things to work we should have a healthy market and this takes that out of that that market um so I'm concerned about that from an economic point of having some balance there in my area. So again we have to make it public you know that there's public good on this and if it doesn't actually reduce rents long term or you know we don't see that here I don't see the public good here I'll end up making a recommendation.
Chair?
Yeah, do you mind if I do make my motion and then you guys can comment on the motion or actually I'll go ahead and let's I'll go to Supervisor Caps and then Supervisor Hartman before I make a motion. Supervisor Caps?
Well I just had a question if there's any value to even just tabling this till the end of the meeting to have more of a conversation. I'm just in an uncomfortable spot because this is in my district. Didn't dive into it the way I would have had it been, so voting on something of these consequences that's usually rather routine, I haven't had a chance to do.
Okay. Would you, would my colleagues maybe, may I can talk to the project applicant at the break and maybe get some more comfort? I'm not sure if I can but did anybody have a problem with me discontinuing until the end of the meeting? No, but I'd always like to know, so what is the plan? What's your plan for Knollwood? Right now it's operating healthy, right? I mean it's providing rents that are...
Well somebody is going to buy it. We don't know who is going to buy it. It could be somebody that you don't like buying it and raises the rent. Sure
but right
now
the market works right now, right. That's the whole point. You know their one bedrooms are $400 over under the Section 8 numbers right now There are 2 bedrooms or up under under the section 8 numbers by $560 a unit. I mean, so there's already the market and these are pretty The market markets working and what I'm concerned about is this doesn't have a public you know they're asking for us to say yes, this is a public good for our market. I'm telling you I'm concerned about that from a economic point of view when you take out those out of the mark they're not no longer market rate that impacts the rents, you know the subsidies that come into typically deed restricted it changes the market and so that actually may actually have the inverse impact I can't make the public good determination on this one.
But again, maybe I can talk to Mr. Potter offline here during a break. Can
I make a set? Yes. I would like to maybe make a suggestion if we can tap for hearing with respect to the allowing public comment on this. If once we get through that and then with respect to the overall financing, if the Tapper is convenient concluded then I can have a discussion with any of you offline or after the meeting and We're not going to go forward with the project if we don't get the county in which were and isn't to be supportive. The rents they're going to go up anyway, all we're asking is a regulatory agreement that would restrict those rats so market goes up the rents go up.
1:19 – 1:2215 turns
I'm going to go ahead and continue this item to the end of the meeting here. Maybe I'll get a chance to talk to Mr. Potter on our break, so I'm going to suspend the hearing. So if Madam Clerk or Madam County Council can I just as chair move this to the end of the meeting?
Mr. Chair that's fine you're just trailing it till the end.
Okay I'm gonna go ahead and trail this to the end of the meeting hopefully I'll get a chance to talk to Mr Potter during a break. All right so we'll go ahead and I'll trail that and we'll go ahead and move on to department item number two
Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Community Services Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a consumer price index adjustment of the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 library special tax rate for county service area number three greater Goleta and this is in the second and third districts.
All right.
Chair Nelson, members of the Board of Supervisors. Today you will be receiving a brief presentation on the CSA Library Measure L special tax levies for fiscal year 26-27 The Community Services Department annually coordinates changes to the CSA 3 special library tax by the Los Angeles CPI. Measure L was a voter approved measure in 1990 for library services delivery in the Goleta Valley.
For 26-27, the adoption of this resolution, the parcels in CSA 3 will be increased by 3.2% the Los Angeles CPI for the calendar year 2025 per its resolution. This increase will result in total assessments of approximately $263,000. A $9,000 increase from the prior year. Staff recommendation are as follows. Adopt a resolution that confirms the report and adjusts the fiscal year 26-27 library special tax by 3.2% and determine that the adoption of the resolution is not subject to CEQA.
This concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.
All right, thank you Mr. Young. Any questions from the board on this item? Madam Clerk is there any public comment on this item?
Chair Nelson and members of the Board we have no requests to speak from the public on this item.
Supervisor Hartman, do you have a question or want to make a motion? No. I was
ready to move staff recommendation.
All right. Got a motion from Supervisor Hartman.
And I'll second.
Second from Supervisor Kaps. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Motion passes unanimously. Moving right along we'll go to department item number three. I guess this also Mr. Young as well
1:22 – 1:277 turns
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. John Nelson and members of the board departmental item number 3 is from the community services Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding fiscal year 2026 through 2027 or get in Providence planning community facilities district special tax levy this
Good morning again Chair Nelson, members of the Board of Supervisors. Today you will be receiving a brief presentation on the Orchid and Providence Landing Community Facility District special tax levies for fiscal year 26-27 The Community Services Department annually coordinates changes to the special tax levy for both community facility districts. Orchid CFD provides funding for sheriff, fire, parks and flood services within the CFD.
The assessment was unanimously adopted by the board in 2003 as a condition of development aimed at mitigating fiscal impacts to the general fund. Per the CFD's original resolution, the special tax is to be adjusted annually by the greater of 2% or the Los Angeles CPI which is 3.01%. With the adoption of this resolution, parcels within the CFT will be increased by 3.1%, The Providence Landings assessment was approved by the board in 2005 and maintains a 12-acre community park.
With the adoption of this resolution, parcels within the Providence Landing will increase from $672 to $692 per parcel, a $20 increase. In recent years, Providence Landing has experienced increased park operation and maintenance costs which is driving the need to increase the assessment for the first time in 15 years. The proposed special tax levy is adopted to, if the proposed special tax is adopted 267 parcels will be levied generating approximately $184,000 for park operations and maintenance. This increases this is an increase of $5400 from fiscal year 25-26 Staff recommendation are as follows.
To adopt resolutions levying the special taxes, to certify the lists of parcels subject to the special tax levy including the amount of the tax to be levied on each parcel and direct the clerk of the board to file the certified list with a county auditor controller and then finally to determine that levying of the fiscal year 26-27 ORCUT and Providence Landing CFD special taxes are not subject to CEQA This concludes my presentation.
All right, thank you Mr. Young. Questions from the Board? I have a few questions in the Providence Landing Park there so make sure I understand and this is somewhat rhetorical just got one of my colleagues to get a little of the history here The people who live in proximity to Providence Landing pay a parcel tax that pays for that park that's there. Is the park just for their use?
No, Chair Nelson, that park is open to all members of the public.
And so it's a county park paid almost 100 percent by the surrounding property owners in that neighborhood? Yes, that's correct. Do we have any other examples of that in the County? Not to my knowledge. I didn't think so, just was wanting to check and the assessment that they're paying right now it's been flat for 15 years essentially right? So they've been able and so the relationship is a little unique so what happens is the assessment is pulled from these houses and then they actually run a Is it a company or they run a non-profit that runs the park, right? The neighborhood.
Some of the HOA members essentially.
There's a Providence Landing Housing Association that really takes in the funds and then decides how those funds are spent
Okay, and then it maintains this park. And they do a pretty low number considering the quality of the park, the size of the park and whatnot. This also just for is also a big fire safety zone for the area. It's got a huge public benefit but there's little to no subsidy from the county on that? Chair Nelson, that's correct. Okay and right now the rate is set at something below what we could charge though too right? I mean there is a max rate do you have that number by any chance?
1:27 – 1:3423 turns
I don't have that number offhand, but roughly it's about 50%. Okay.
So we're paying as well with 50% so so even though we're making an increase this year, it's significantly lower than the maximum that was described when it originally was kind of founded lower than what people are disclosed when they purchase these properties as well that they're in a CFD. So I just wanted to point that out and so we collect these funds and then we send a check to them and that's done by think by the 15th right?
They'll get that money by tomorrow, at least the first installment.
Chair Nelson, that's correct. All those documents are in process as soon as this item is adopted by the board and we will process a payment to the HOA.
Okay great thank you. And then shifting over to the Orchid Community Facilities District so that pays for part of the Orchard Community Park but also that's paid partly by the general fund as well my understanding and then it gives money towards flood a small amount but a predominant piece of that goes to fire and sheriff is that correct?
Supervisor Nelson, that's correct. Fire and Sheriff receive approximately 80% of these funds.
Okay and do you know of any place else in the county where we any residents that pay on top of their you know for additional fire and sheriff services?
Chair Nelson, we do have CSAs that I'm going to bring that up because I just
want to get on the radar. It's very unique, the way it's done in Orca and then the fire piece was actually before the fire attack shift as well so you know there was something that's always been a Conversation, I'll just say is the fact that Orchard residents are paying multiple times for the same services where other places that doesn't necessarily happen.
And so just one down on the radar for other people that are sometimes interested in these types of things. I do know the board with the support of the CEO's office and the Sheriff's Department we did move some of those sheriff's costs now into paying for the community resource deputy So that we're actually seeing actual net benefit of actually increased services in the Orchid area. So that's a change that's coming from these funds, and so I just wanted to point that out since I had that opportunity too.
Again, it's an area I think that we should continue to look at especially in the Orchid Area as we look at investing in that area where they do pay more taxes than other areas proportionately. Yes, it is disclosed when they buy their homes that that's an extra tax there but it's also something where I think we have an obligation to make sure that services delivered are commensurate to the taxes that they pay so something that I just want to always put on the radar.
All right with that, are there any public comments on this item? Supervisor Levenham?
So what does the county
provide for that
park financially?
Supervisor Lavinia, if you would clarify Providence Landing or Orcutt. Actually very little in terms of actual services, I guess just oversight and administration.
I was just looking at their website and they were talking about that it's funded some but by the county and I was kind of curious what portion that was or what?
Supervisor Levinino through the chair Jesus Armis again largely when this project was approved it was predicated on the CFD being formed to support those operating expenses and to reduce the impact on the County General Fund Our level is relatively limited. We provide some oversight and some management, but through an agreement when the project was first approved, the county agreed that we would effectively contract with the HOA to take responsibility for maintenance. And as Chair Nelson has indicated it has worked well. The HOA has done a credible job there. We think the park looks good.
One of the reasons why these are so different is these are the only two CFDs in the entire county. Now that's, that may change depending on some activity in the South Patterson area but this is a unique situation. It is not unique however in other governmental agencies cities and counties frequently rely on CFD as a way of lessening impacts on general fund operations
Supervisor Hartman.
Just a follow-up question, who has insurance liability?
In respect to this particular park the HOA does.
So I mean I think that brings up a point that's something I you know will be advocating for in the future just um you know I haven't had the problem spending my entire time working with the board. I inherited it from Supervisor Hartman after redistricting but i do think that there's probably a good reason for us to I know that they, you know, try to run. They run a tight ship over there already and they provide quite a bit of services then not only are they doing park maintenance but also doing reservations and they're also doing additional You know, they have 4th of July out there. They do a lot of community benefits. This is not just for Providence Landing but for the entire community. We don't have a Parks and Rec Department but they're the closest thing that we do have in the Vandenberg Village area so I do think that it is ripe for additional county investment when times are better to help lessen the impact on the HOA as they manage this county asset for us.
So that's just an editorialization on my part What I did want to get to is, was there any public comment on this item?
Chair Nelson and members of the board we had no requests to speak from the public.
Okay so
all
right so no public comment on this item. So again I'm okay with just raising by the CPI at this point for these two items. Again that's something I think needs constant evaluation. It's some it's again a unique tool that we were using in the 2000s in our county that is unique to these areas and sometimes Is it necessarily equitable and something that I think we should look at as a county is to try to make sure you know if they're paying more that we give them additional services for those types of things. If they're already paid their property taxes on that, as well so just the general philosophy that I have that I hope that we can find ways to really show a commensurate action on the board an expenditure for what they are paying extra. So with that also, I would support the motion.
Supervisor Hartman?
Well, I just wanted to underscore something I heard Director Armas say and that is that we may have more CFDs given parks and trails under our housing element. So we'll have to think about this in a bigger context but I'm prepared to move staff recommendation.
Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Joan Hartmann · Seconded by Roy Lee
Show transcript
1:34 – 1:462 turns
Okay
we're gonna go ahead and just take a five-minute break here before we get to department item number four. All right, welcome back to the July 14th 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We're back here in Santa Maria and coming back after a short break and we're having department item number four. Madam Clerk will you please read that item into the record?
1:46 – 1:545 turns
Good morning, everyone. My name is Barbara Johnson and members of the board department item number 4 is from the information technology Department planning and development Department. The public works Department, the fire Department and County Health Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the progress of the
information officer and we are here, my colleagues and I to provide an update on how the county is using Acela software. The county has been using Acela for over 20 years. I believe it was 2008 or almost 20 years I should say. 2008 is when we first adopted Acela and in the last six years We have gone to move too quickly here go back one there we go. In the past or over the last 6 years, we've moved from the on-premise version of a cell a software to the cloud version of a seller and all 5 departments that are using a seller are now in the cloud so that was a big lift to move to the clouds so that was And so this morning you are going to hear from each of the different departments we have 5 departments that use a cell as mentioned earlier public works planning and development.
The CEO cannabis division County health And so you're going to hear from each of the different departments on their how they're currently using it when they're finished. I'll come back up and provide a bit of a summary of the road map of where we're going with a cell in the next few years. So two years ago what we observed was that each of the departments were using a cell but there was. A need for some improvement in regards to just overall collaboration overall are we utilizing a cell as effectively as we could be on so we recognize that we really needed to form a steering committee We've had a number of meetings over the last couple of years. Involving all of the departments that are using us coming together on a monthly or bimonthly basis to discuss how we're utilizing it.
How could we more efficiently use it? How can we collaborate just create better overall visibility into how each department is using a cellist so Again, more collaboratively together on Acela. And so ITD is part of the other five departments we sit in on that steering committee. And then in early 2025, what we also observed was that each of the departments were using different consultants or third parties to do some of the work with Acela to provide some guidance with Acela. That type of thing and we recognize that we really needed an in-house Acela expert to come in and look at how we're looking at look at how the five departments are utilizing Acela and making recommendations on best practices And so we brought in an individual from a company called Tech Systems who had a lot of experience with Acela and his name is Orlando Mora.
So he came in as a contractor over a year ago, and has been instrumental in helping us better understand where we could go with Acela, how we could utilize it He's been working with us for a number of years. And we've been able to do this much more efficiently than we had then and so as is part of that steering committee and has also been working with each of the 5 departments on more effective ways of using a cell. So that's been very beneficial Breakdown of the overall licenses. You can see that Planning and Development is the largest user of Acela, over 50% of all licenses are assigned to their department followed then by Public Works, County Health, County Fire and CEO so it's just a breakdown of the number of licenses, Acela licenses by department So I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Lisa Plowman, who's going to give us an update on how a cell is being used in her department.
Thank you, Chris. Good morning. Next slide, Joe. So just some history on a cell as. Mister chairman mentioned director chair when in 2008 planning and development purchased the cell software to allow for permitting it was an online permitting but it was a software that we used on premise And then in 2021, we migrated to the cloud environment which was a big step as Director Jergwin mentioned. And then in 2022 in July, we completed that migration and that was the fundamental step to allow us to move to online permitting.
In 2023 of July, we completed the online citizens access improvements that have been working on. So we developed master applications both for our planning permits and our building permits which facilitated the online permitting and then in 2024 we continued to make improvements to the citizens access portal. And that included changing our credit card vendors to be compatible with a cloud environment So the first thing that we did was develop an automated system. Developing these on-demand permits, which you well prepared video by Kelsey. We have to appreciate that this morning and developed an automated system that since notifications to different stages in the permit process.
And then it also enhanced the communications between So this is a slide that shows two different screenshots, screen captures. This is what the applicant or the public can see when they go into the OSELA system through the Citizens Access Portal. On the left is a planning record so that's a planning permit And it lays out the different steps that have transpired and the green checks are completed tasks and the hourglasses represent tasks that still need to be completed. So in the planning record, you can see that The application was submitted, staff was assigned and in this case you can see that the only two departments that actually need to review that permit are Flood Control and Transportation under Public Works. The other departments were not sent that application because they're not a reviewing department.
And then on the right side is a building permit record, same sort of setup. You can see what has been completed and what is still in progress. And so this gives the applicant the information they need to understand like which departments have completed the review and which departments are still in progress completing that review. So this has been really a fundamental shift for applicants who used to have to spend time going to the different departments to figure out what was happening with their permits.
Next slide. So this next slide, this is a video and we have Mr. Joe Dargle here with us who's our Deputy Director of Permit Resources Division and he's going to give an intro to this video and then present it.
All right, thank you Director Plowman. So earlier this morning you saw a video that showcased the on-demand permits and this next video is really intended to build upon that and show the applicant's view from the very beginning to the end of the process where they get an issued on demand permit so I'll go ahead and hit
play
1:54 – 2:0514 turns
It's not.
Chair Nelson and members of the board perhaps we could just come back to the room planning staff is going to look for that video online played in another way.
Sorry for the delay. We have two videos for you so this is an important step.
So while we're waiting, Supervisor Hartman?
Yeah, I noticed that a number of the permits are to be over-the-counter like water heaters and things. I recently had a water heater changed out and I don't know if I got a permit or not. I mean the repairman came and so how do we
sort that out? Supervisor Hartman through the chair usually your contractor will So we're going to go ahead and get started. Thank you so much. plan for an improvement like this, get the permit online and then be able to implement it. So it's but you know it just depends on whether the contractor pursues it.
And do you have education programs out there? I mean a water heater you want at that same day really so I just wonder how widespread people comply with that or how they know anyway.
Right yeah that's a challenge for us to track definitely are we ready
Yes, Director Plowman and members of the board. The video is ready.
you Thank you Mister Dargill.
Yes, and back to you Director
Plowman. If we can get that other video queued up that would be great. So the next slide if you can move to that this just shows how we have steadily increased the number of on-demand permits over the last few fiscal years and so as people are getting more familiar with the system they're actually using it You can see just this year, SolarAPP was one of the steps that we took to create on-demand permits. We've had 524 last fiscal year so that's great. Those are applications people can get online and the solar provider can make that happen in 20 minutes or less.
Next slide. So there are some permits that cannot be on demand, but they are simple permits. And this is one example that we wanted to share with the board that were consistently working to try and minimize the time it takes to issue a permit like this so I'm going to talk a little bit about the on demand permit. There are certain circumstances where there are conditions attached to a structure perhaps it's a historic structure about the roof type and so the team has to take a look at the actual application to ensure that there isn't a condition associated with that we did have one But this shows that we've been declining in the time it takes to move these through the system.
This next slide, The future enhancements and our roadmap for this next fiscal year. So we're going to continue to increase the on-demand permit types which include HVAC, heat pumps and window replacements those type of simple permits. We are implementing an online inspection scheduling system stand alone streamlined ADU building application And then an online film permit application.
The next item is E-Permit Hub or what we call our digital plan room and this is, you can
move to the next slide. Thank you. So this really is an enhancement of a system that we had put in place when we moved to the on cloud version of Acela. Acela did not have this product available yet and so we were working with other software, but this product E-Permit Hub is really going to refine the process and improve it I think significantly and this has to do with our joint plan review between all departments So we decided to move to E-Permit Hub. We kicked that off in April of this year following board approval of our contract. We're expected to go live in March of 2027 and the benefits of this system, and we have a video showing you what it's going to be like for the plan reviewers but it allows for digital file validation meaning it automatically validates the files that have been submitted by the applicant to the county It controls the sheet version so it makes sure that each department is reviewing the same set of plans.
Before we had an online system, you didn't know which department had which set of plans and that could complicate things. It increases the transparency with a joint review of the departments And then it allows for automated publishing which means you can stamp the plans in software. And then the conditions that will be visible to And this, so the next slide is the video that we wanted to share with you of what ePermit Hub environment is like. And this is an example of what our plan reviewers will be able to see. So if you could play that please?
I realize that video moves pretty quickly, but it does. And has some pretty jazzy music. But the last part of that video shows how the applicants can go into that environment and answer the questions that are posed by the plan reviewers. And I think that's a very useful tool for communication back and forth. And with that, I would like to turn it over to Mr. Chris Sneddon, Director of Public Works.
2:05 – 2:117 turns
Good morning chair members of the board. In Public Works, we did start off working in the planning and development platform years ago. And then in 2021, we developed our own module for flood control for development review. It works together with the planning and development platform but it has technical resources and things that we use in water resources specifically and it's developed for our workflows.
We then used that to branch out in 2024 and developed a module for transportation. And in that module, we actually folded in not just development review but all of our encroachment permits and other permit types. And then our surveyor, we implemented that module last year. And so with that, all of our divisions are up and fully running and we're moving into kind of the fine tuning mode of our Acela implementation.
The improvements are similar to the things that Lisa just talked about, a lot of the improvements. And the way we really think about it is in terms of customer service and communication and transparency, that's like one big benefit to this Acela implementation and something we want to keep on our mind as we improve it. The other thing is efficiencies, building in efficiencies wherever we can. And then the data using the data that's given in this system to improve what we do. So if you look at the graph on the right, you can see there's a pretty tremendous number of permits that were having our system at any given time and so That's a lot of different customers that we have the opportunity to have a good experience with the county and to try and make their experience better with the county.
And so, we keep that in front of our mind as we're developing our workflows. The other thing is with these numbers is even if you're making a small efficiency improvement, if you times it by the number of applications that you have in, that can be a huge efficiency saving for the county as well. And that's also what we keep in mind as we look forward to the future Is again, keeping in mind ways that we can improve all these aspects of what we're delivering particularly with efficiencies and the communication tools.
And so, and data so like looking at the right we can have different kinds of reports different kind of performance metrics that we set up or key performance indicators and then a seller will give us reports on how we're doing on that. The other thing on efficiency and customer experience is trying to eliminate that kind of lost time or those gaps when an application is sitting in somebody's court, and it could be moving. And if you go to 10 years ago when people used to walk in with 12 printed out plan sets and go to multiple buildings and drop those off and get comments back. There was a lot of lost time in figuring out where things were, and at what stage the permit was in. So we're really trying to eliminate those both internally where it is with the different departments as well as is it in the applicant's court or is it in the county's court?
And these kind of workflows and visualization tools are really good for that to make sure that we're not Having miscommunications or lost time on applications that they're always kind of moving. The future items in terms of E-Permit Hub, mobile apps, GIS those types of things. The resources that Chris talked about earlier in terms of having a dedicated fixed resource who can implement things consistently across the department and can know exactly how we're doing what we do so that They can make targeted improvements that are customized to specifically what the county does is really critical for what we're doing. So, we're looking forward to using those resources to continue to improve efficiency and workflows and automation and reduce redundancy in all those great things that this program can do.
And with that I'm going to turn it over to the Fire Chief to talk about their department.
Before we go over to Chief Huff, so you had that E-Permit Hub is a future item. So where are we at with implementation for planning and public works of the E-permit hub?
So as was noted on the slide, we kicked it off in March of this year and we expect to have it fully implemented or we kicked off in April and we have it fully implemented
That's okay for your department is that
that's for all departments. That's for planning and development and then I know public works is also investing in the permit have and I'm not sure what their schedule is exactly. What I should say is they will be working in our environment so all the reviewing departments will have access to E permit hub when they're reviewing planning applications Public works will be using a permit hub for applications that are specific to public works.
Yeah, turn Nelson and on a similar timeline.
Okay. Thank you.
2:11 – 2:172 turns
So this has been much more than a software platform. It's been a real transformation to the fire prevention division throughout in the way we do business. We used to operate very much in a silo. In 2023, we went online with Acela in the cloud version internally We did this so that we could get used to the workflows and set processes and get our staff familiar with the product.
In 2024, we went live externally with the public. The online applications minimize the need for customers to travel into our offices Applications can now be submitted 24 hours a day rather than during business hours. The system automatically captures required information, reducing incomplete applications and staff spends less time processing and doing logistics for reviewing plans.
In 2025, customers now have the visibility to see where they are in the process. That leads to greater transparency and fewer status inquiries and staff can now focus on inspections rather than logistics. From a leadership point people expect to interact with government the same way they do with banks airlines and even Amazon this really moves us towards those expectations next slide So in the future, a future state. We continue to refine our processes within the Fire Prevention Division and the biggest thing I can say is in August of this year we're going to start accepting credit cards via this platform for all permits and fees within the fire department that's a significant change for us We also utilize this platform for the three cities that we serve, so there's a lot more than just the county.
It's actually interfacing with all of our cities and that's all I have. I'm going to now hand it over to Lars Siefert from County Health.
Good morning. The County Health Department Environmental Health Services has also migrated to Acela for its permitting, inspection and billing management while EHS is currently on a separate instance of Acela the platform is the same as the remainder of the county departments and programs and retains the same customer experience overall. Since 2002, Environmental Health Services was utilizing Envision Connect now considered a legacy Acela product. DHS migrated to the Acela Civic Platform in May of 2023 and we currently manage approximately 128,000 legacy permit records in our database going back for quite some time.
EHS has continued to implement product improvements with the goal of allowing all applicants to interface with the system and to create uniformity in the applicant experience across the county. And that's where we're really pleased with the process that were all coming together and really increasing the visibility, and also the connectivity across departments.
Next slide. There are currently a couple of unique aspects to the environmental health version that is still outstanding due to work process flows and state requirements. And I'd like to highlight these for your board today. For example, many permit records managed by Environmental Health have specific permitting and ongoing inspection requirements under state laws such as for CUPA or our program that oversees hazardous material handling Public water systems that serve small communities and for solid waste facilities such as landfills or other transfer processing facilities.
A large number of these permit types of health permits are renewable permits, which is a little different. And these annual operating permits are issued and renewed on an annual basis with some of our common categories shown here on the screen. EHS processes approximately 8,000 permits per year for renewal eligibility in addition to reviewing other on-demand permit applications and plan reviews.
Another quick unique aspect of environmental health regulatory programs are state data reporting requirements most notable the California Environmental Protection Agency requires that CUPA actually communicates its data it's a cell of data directly with the state's environmental reporting system so EHS uploads and syncs Acela inspections, permitting and compliance data directly into the state's database at least once every two weeks. So these are a couple of things that are just a little bit different from the other county departments and programs and why some of our initial work has been on in a separate tenant or instance of Acela Civic Platform.
For our on-demand next slide please For our on-demand and EHS plan review projects, we're currently coordinating these with planning and development. And as you saw in an earlier screen the EHS plan review step is actually just built into the workflow process in the planning development Acela platform. EHS has continued to support also processes for joint review of construction plans. And we are seeking methods to integrate common project information where we can, so that applicants have the most current information on their permit application review status and we think that's important for just that coordination across our permitting environment.
Other enhancements on our near-term implementation plan include incorporation of County GIS into Acela Citizen Access, establishing opportunities for permit holders to renew permits and pay annual invoices. This would be a huge customer benefit and that's something that we're striving to move forward as well. And to increase access to public information, such as information about food inspections of our local food facilities. We want to make this information readily available to the public online so that they can have insight and eyes on things that are interesting to them and their health and environment.
Also, we're standardizing our food and facility inspection checklists using Acela. It actually has given us an opportunity to standardize some of our processes internally and I think that will be a benefit to the public as well. So this concludes the County Health Department update and I'll hand it back to Chris Cherguin.
2:17 – 2:234 turns
Thank you Lars. So I'm going to wrap up this with looking at the future, what's our roadmap for Acela so go ahead and go to the next. Thank you. So as you already heard, planning and development is integrating E permit hub and then public works is also scoping that as well looking at how that could be used in their department like any software company they're always coming out with new modules new upgrades things like that and so Assella has what's called a public portal and an open counter, which just think about that as it's kind of their upgrades or their new modules. And so we are definitely going to be moving in that direction over the next few years.
One of the complaints about Assella previously has been just the citizen access or the user interface of Assella has not been the greatest interface. And so Assella has really put a lot of development into that aspect of their software. And so that's what public portal and open counter do. They make that citizen user interface much, much better. The other thing that we're looking into is using AI as part of this process. So Acela will be implementing in the future AI into their software that comes as part of these packages.
But we've also spent some time we've met with three or four other Companies in this space that specialize in different aspects of this process using AI. And so we're just seeing what's out there and seeing are there tools out there to continue to improve on the overall process, and are we taking advantage of what's out there in the market today and in the next few years?
We're continuing to meet with those vendors and making sure that we're our road map is you know really well informed and that we're heading in the right direction through all of this. So, you can see it's a software that's heavily utilized in the county. And prior to us have prior to ITD bringing on an independent contractor to help guide us. You know, it was it was difficult to kind of to wrangle all of this and say okay we're are we all heading in the same direction?
And so one of the things that were looking into right now is taking that independent contractor role And so we're looking at that. And then I already touched on a so we've been meeting with companies in that space as well. So that's what we're looking at over the next few years, we made significant strides over the past few years and I believe you know if we come back in a year or 2 with an update you'll see quite a few upgrades and improvements in overall permitting and licensing ecosystem to any questions for us yes, let's go back to the board of questions.
Supervisor Kaps.
Well, I'm thrilled with this. It's really well first of all it's just great to see you all integrated talk about breaking down silos and working together and this is just a tremendous achievement to provide such advancement with I want to start by saying thank you for having everything online and I agree with Chief Huff. This is what the public expects they don't really differentiate between how they order something in the private sector and how they expect their government I'm going to ask you a question about speed because I think a major reason why we make this kind of hefty investment is for faster approvals and what I didn't hear yet is it does this track how your work improves both internally and externally for the user.
Thank you. Supervisor cats through the chair. So it's a very good question and it's something we are monitoring. It depends kind of on the permit type. So yes, like the speed of these on demand permits or the smaller permits those move more quickly when We've had a lot of good feedback. In terms of like applicant participation in the as well as what's happening among the departments, but I think one of the things that's been really fundamental to this process is we've developed what we service level agreements with all And then we work with the departments if we have a slowdown in one department because they maybe are missing a staff person. We make them aware of the slow down and so I do think it has increased the pace at which we can review applications and we're tracking that data so we know where to put the focus in terms I think over time, just get better and better.
And I think the use of AI will really help us when we can bring that on board is I think one of the issues with AI and Chris hasn't had a chance to talk about this is the cost is quite high. I think that will help as well. I don't know if any of
2:23 – 2:2811 turns
Supervisor Capps to the chair. I think that's what we're talking about and some of the things that we're working on is getting exactly that information and working on reports that really specifically identify areas where not just we or another department at the county, but the applicants there's areas where they could speed up the process as well on their end so that's exactly the type of reports that we're trying to be able to generate in the coming year
So does the technology do that itself? Would it issue these reports?
Yes, so the technology definitely can do that. It can provide improved reporting and the nice thing is that it's because we're all sharing a similar cloud environment is that we have access to data in the different departments. And so yes software or SLA definitely can do what you're looking to do. I think the next iteration where AI gets involved is AI brings in intelligence too early on detect things quickly Right. And then alert us say, hey this needs to be changed.
And so I think we'll see further enhancements in terms of overall just the process when when a cell starts embedding more AI into their solutions.
Sure like the applicants are slowing down on this feature or something and that's a basic. Yeah OK anyone else?
The other thing it's going to help us do internally is set new KPIs and performance standards which were outdated. So we're in the process of, you know, it needs a little bit more time to kind of see where we're at but that'll help also. It will help us with staffing levels and workloads and all these other things as well so there's more to come. Thank
you. Thank you very much. I'm curious about how you or how your so-called customers have evaluated this. I saw in the video that Joe has gone through the process but has a non planner for example, gone through the process because I did see a lot of acronyms and you know, I'm you know, a foe of acronyms. But if it have you invested in that and in the user experience to make sure
Supervisor Capsley, the Chair. So we agree that the user experience is not what it could be and that's one of the things we're investing in with Acela is that they've committed to improving the user interface. I mean, I am a planner and I did apply for a permit through the city and the Acela experience was not great, right? So through the Citizens Access Portal improvements And what we used to call Permit Wizard, but it's going to be open counter. That is going to change the interface and it'll make it easier I think for the general public to be able to come in and apply online and not be sort of pulled into a world that they don't necessarily recognize.
So yes, that's foremost in our minds is to make sure that it's as friendly as possible. We have a process for feedback. And I mean the struggle you you work with
Yes, thanks Director Plowman and members of the board. So we do get feedback from the public from time to time about Acela. I
know we do.
Yeah that's right and there are limitations to the things that we can improve and then there's also things that we do have the ability to update so we are working constantly to work with our folks in the Acela folks to improve those and we track any feedback that we get as well So that we can kind of know from short term as well as long term what changes that we can integrate into the system.
Okay, well I'd be really interested. It doesn't have to be a board item or anything but as you're learning particularly on those two fronts just how review times have improved both for the applicant and for your staff and then also too just how you're constantly improving the user experience. I just know I'm not in the tech industry but certainly have friends who are and just how much they invest in that user experience and constantly are iterating as things get more intuitive and I just think we It's one thing to make this huge investment. But if people are giving up partway through, we're losing. So I just would love to hear in our follow-up conversations about those two things but again my comments do not mean to detract from my overall enthusiasm for the progress here.
Thank you.
2:28 – 2:3817 turns
Well, it is great to see this kind of integration. I think one of the biggest issues has been for anybody applying for permit is the linear nature of it and then you go through this process and you hear here that you need something different that you didn't expect and then you got to start over so the e-permit hub I guess is going to be our solution to that issue And so we're going to have it by March of next year. And could you just elaborate a little bit more for me, so I better understand and can explain to others that we're finally
resolving this? So Supervisor Hartman through the chair, I think what I would like to say is migrating to the cloud environment We have that process in place now where people can understand and see where their application is. So that's been in place for a couple of years, and that's really improved communication I think between the applicants We're going to be looking at planning and development as well. The other departments what he permit hub is going to do is it's going improve that make the user experience better for the people who are reviewing plans.
And then the different departments to be able to see the comments from to a particular plan set. I don't know, Mr. Dougal do you have something you want to add because you're working very closely with it?
Yes thank you Director Pahlman. So I think there are a number of improvements that E-Permit Hub will bring to the system. I would start with at the beginning when an applicant is uploading plans that interaction is going to be more intuitive and the system is going to be able to identify more issues up front So that it doesn't go to staff first and end up in a resultant loop where just back and forth. And so, a lot of those small issues can really be identified before they click submit. So that is going to be an improvement.
The other thing I would say about the staff view of the system will be that comments on plans, as well as just overall comments for the project will be better communicated in a more intuitive fashion that an applicant can then see in a clearer way that then is responded to more directly in the system. And so when staff goes in and sees that an applicant has responded say an incompleteness item or an inconsistency with code, the staff can see how they responded and then immediately right then and there they can say accepted or rejected. And so there is a clear chain of custody for each of the items. So I think that's going to speed up the overall process and make it more clear for the public.
So the example I always give was my own experience with an ADU or residential second unit and getting my LUP and using the existing septic. And then learning down the line, I needed a whole new septic larger in two. So those things people need to know up front. And I guess I'm asking is do they get that now? Is that e-permit hub? That's the exemplar of What
goes wrong with the linear process, right? Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So today I think that problem has been mostly solved because what happens is the application comes now in online and it gets distributed to all So that those different departments can be reviewing and providing comments all at the same time. So it used to be a lot more linear in that an applicant would take their role of plans and go to one department, the next department, then the next department, and they would learn things as they went.
Our objective is to try and get all of that information to the applicant up front so that they have that in their first round of review.
Okay. But so the applicant will get the feedback, so they've got to integrate it in their own mind what that's all requiring. So one thing that I've heard some people say is well this requires new training of staff to be saying the chain of custody and how has that process gone? And is it really working or I mean it's a big change for
employees Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So the department has invested quite a bit in training our staff as we've taken each step to improve this system and so each time we make a change, we pull our teams together that are going to be affected by that change and we do a One of the objectives of developing the Permit Resources Division that we did is, and putting Mr. Dargill in charge of it, is he is really overseeing a lot of that with the help of the other deputies but he is sort of the point person as we're making this transition and so I think that's been helpful but we do invest a lot in making sure our employees understand the system and just it's continually fine tuning right? You know as we find a problem.
We then train our staff on it.
So to some extent the technology is shaping the workflow and how we have to Adapt and I think in some ways that's a good thing. So that sort of internally, you think oh we do this technology and it's done but it requires a lot to go there
is a lot of work that goes in behind it yes.
And your coordination I think is really symbolic of what we're eager to see. I guess the other thing that I'm just trying to understand more is it'll allow us to get More analysis and more reporting across the board about how time is spent and GIS, where things are happening. And so I think you know Considering the kind of reports we're going to want to generate will be an important aspect of this because that'll provide the feedback and that'll provide more information to all of us about you know how development projects are occurring in our county. I don't know if you could speculate about that at all but it seems to me like it's gonna be It's going to open new horizons. I like this, we're lifting to the cloud, uplifting our whole operation
I can briefly respond to that so supervisor Hartman through the chair. The data is there and so really now it comes down to what are the different reports that we're looking for and I think each department is going to have their unique reports but then I think there's going to be others, the board years, you know, the CEO's office that may want to see kind of a summation We've already begun the integration of GIS into Acela and so we're already starting to see some reports coming out from combining maps and everything into Acela. And so I think we're just going to continue to see improvements on more and more of those reports as time goes on.
And I think building on something that Supervisor Caps noted, you know a report card to the community or how we're improving things. I mean, I think that would be really helpful or we're expecting a lot of new growth in North County, you know how we would track that? I think it gives us a tremendous opportunity to let our community know more what we're doing not just on an individual permit but more globally countywide.
Agreed. All right thank you Supervisor Hartman, Supervisor Lee and then I have a couple questions as well.
Thank you great work i'm very impressed so my question is is there anything we can do to speed up the film process? Is that a question for a different director or
Supervisors Lee through the chair. Right now, we transitioned the film permits to our Development Review Division and they do get processed fairly quickly but this on-demand film permit is the step that we want to move towards so that it is even faster than it currently is.
Thank you and this is a question for Chief Huff. Is there a surcharge with using credit card payment? Is it 3%, 4% on top of it?
Yeah I'm not sure let me speak into the mic
2:38 – 2:4611 turns
For all the people watching on TV, go
ahead. Yes there's a common surcharge that we charge for processing and 2.95% seems like the number. We'll be able to take ACH as well so not just credit cards and that's at 1.5%, I believe. Good thank you for confirming that. $1.50.
Thank you those are my questions. Right, thank you. Thank you for that. Yeah I think that's important to have the ACH option. I know that Treasure Tax Collector offers both and you pay for the credit card piece if you need to or you can use ACH is either free or $1.50 nominal so that makes a lot of sense. Well I just wanted to say how happy we are where we're at today You know I was staffed before I got elected and I spent so much time chasing down projects.
And it was always a lot of finger pointing, you know applicants said it was the county, county says the applicant. Somewhere it was being mailed somewhere between South Coast and North County. And who knows if it was in the mail or not, or whether somebody was just making up his excuse? Well now I think we have a system in place where there is some accountability for both sides and I think that was what hugely important. It's actually one of the issues that I had when I was running that said that this is something that I wanted to see happen and you know we got that started in 2021. I remember I met at that time with Director Plowman and Mr. Wilson and I was aghast when they told me would take two years to implement this And we're getting there.
I sure hope even with the permit have March of a goal that we can hopefully get that sooner. I think that's a really important piece in this system that we need to get to so I'm appreciative of that. To go on the thread that supervisor caps is pulling on about you know tracking this type of stuff what I want to eventually see his reports on how long things are sitting on whose desk, you know, way that you improve processes is create a little competition and accountability in some daylight.
I know when I have a constituent that asks what's going on with the project? I go on there and I look at it and I see who is that and sometimes our office makes phone calls and say hey how much longer should they expect and amazingly it's usually done that day so things are sitting on people's desks and just needs to be reviewed And I know everybody, it's to get busy. But you know if we can tighten those things up on our level that's going to be a huge benefit to our constituents and the public and that's going to move the speed of business through as possible if we can get rid of these roadblocks on our end. I think that's helpful Are there alerts that kind of pop up? I mean, I think that's something that'd be really important too is like if it's sitting on you know when it gets transferred to FHIR does FHIR get an email saying that's there or if it' s there for longer than a week do does it come back up are their tickets kind of I mean how does this system work because that seems like that would make a lot of sense to me on the accountability of just work management.
Is that you know as soon as something's been there for five days or three days or whatever that it goes hey have you reviewed this yet and then If it goes past a certain point, does it go up elevated? What does that process look like? Mr. D'Argo?
Yes, Mr. Chair. So there are a number of ways to track different tasks that have yet to be complete. So one of the ways is as a filter system and that's the daily use that users will go in and they see all of their different list of all their projects that they have. And those can be ordered based on the due date and severity. So that's the primary tool because it's the most user-friendly for staff, because you can just click in right there and clear the task, review the plans, get it done.
We also do have email notifications that can be sent out depending on the permit type so that does take a little bit more work in development of like a scripting, the tech behind that And so in some cases for on the planning side, for like a development review case if there's a discretionary permit. We do have notifications to staff for the Permit Streamlining Act 30-day legal requirement to get feedback out within... If you're within five days you get an email every day until that task is cleared and so that is something that could be expanded further to other tasks. That's not the only task those notifications live on we have multiple tasks like that that notifications exist like that
I think that's where the power of this comes from is when you guys be able to get that back up because we're all busy and you're managing 20, 30, 40 projects. You forgot that one dropped off it pops back up and that's where the ability to get some type of benefit. The other question I had was, will this allow kind of time tracking for staff like when you know when they're in the environment that's when they're tracking their staff time? You know we're very very expensive and so you know like a law firm often when they're working on a case they kind of log in and they're getting their time tracked. And it also has that workflow so there's greater accountability to their client.
Is there any piece that we're going to have in here to kind of have some time tracking for our staff our very expensive staff Because I think it's really important for us to be able to see what that is. You know, you're paying $300 an hour, what are you getting during that $300 an hour? And so if you're working in opening that file, that's a big part of the tracking system. Again, that's what happens in the private sector. Are we getting some of that accountability as well?
Mr. Chair and members of the board, when someone is in the ASEL environment there's a number of records that could be open at any given time So there is not currently a tracking mechanism to show like, hey this planner or the staff member is in this record for this number of time. But different departments do have time-tracking methodologies in place in Acela. So for example, the planning module for Planning and Development planners log all of their time that's spent to a case to that case and so In the PowerPoint slide that Director Plowman had up that showed the status of the planning and building permits, if you were to drill down into those items you can see the comments from staff as well as the associated hours for that comment. And so staff, that information is available to the public.
Okay I think this is really important something we should look at. We are the most expensive agency I think in the state on our staff time and so it's really important to be able to show people I think those are my thoughts. Any other questions from the board? Madam Clerk, is there any public comment on this item? So I believe this is a receive and file, directing staff to work on recommended future priorities. I think the idea is that we want implementation of AI.
I know I support everything that was up there that they were looking at that Mr. Sherwin had mentioned bringing on staff. I think having an analyst there that kind of looks over all the departments I think it's really important so I think we can adopt these recommended actions Can I get a motion?
Move A through B on our staff recommendation. A
through
C. And C.
Second from Supervisor Kaps. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right thank you. Right we're definitely behind schedule but I think we can get to the next item before we had a break for closed session. So while everybody's transitioning, Madam Clerk can you please read them item number 5 into the record.
2:46 – 3:036 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board departmental item number five is from the community services department it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the 2026 Community Services Department homelessness update to the Board of Supervisors.
All right, thank you. And if you're here for the solar item that's going to be after closed session which will be somewhere between I think 45 minutes to an hour just so if you guys are planning your lunch break that's going to be solar item will be after closed session lunch. So with that we've read this item in the record Director Armas?
Thank you chair Nelson members of the board. This is armistice with the community services department or here as part of our annual presentation to the board regarding our experience and our efforts at addressing experience within our efforts at addressing homelessness in Santa Barbara County. We have in prior years provided a lot of data which we're also going to share some information with you in that respect but also want to highlight a couple of important initiatives that you'll hear toward the concluding part of this presentation.
With that as a brief intro let me invite Joe Dasvanek, our Assistant Director, to take the next steps and also introduce our colleague.
Good morning Chair Nelson Honorable members of the board, I am Joe Dysvonik, the Assistant Director for Santa Barbara County's Housing and Community Development Division which is in the Community Services Department. Today I'm here with Jet Black Meritz, the County Homelessness Assistance Program Manager and together we will provide your board an update on recent efforts to address homelessness in Santa Barbara County.
In today's update we will present the following information First, I will start us off with an overview of the key trends seen in our homelessness response system over the past year where we'll look at overall numbers. Then Jett will dive into some specific subpopulations and take a bit talk a bit I'm sorry specifically about vehicular homelessness. Next we will provide a snapshot of the funding landscape relative to homelessness programs and then we will provide an update on encampment resolution efforts and an overview of encampment locations around the county In our final segment, our team will present how staff proposes to reshape the future of homelessness response and prevention in Santa Barbara County.
So first let us present the larger trends we saw this past year in our homelessness response system. Because we explained in much detail last year as to why HMAS numbers provide the most accurate and in-depth method for understanding the true nature and extent of homelessness I will not be diving into that topic this year. However, suffice it to say that comparing the two sources, Pitt versus HMIS side-by-side over the years demonstrates a few points worth mentioning.
First, the overall number of people experiencing homelessness in our county is far greater than unsheltered Pitt counts efforts convey. In January 2025, the unsheltered Pitt count results concluded that nearly 25 individuals should be the benchmark we use when describing how many people in our county were experiencing homelessness. However, a more informed annualized number provided by our HMIS system indicates that the real number is in a ballpark twice that amount.
Second, we noticed the trend of an increasing unsheltered pit count number while the HMIS data actually demonstrates a slight decrease in overall numbers through the years. So again, when making decisions on how and where to spend what is becoming increasingly difficult funding to secure for homelessness. It's imperative that we remain well informed and continually improve our ability to understand the true nature of it.
Here we see the top five trends in our homelessness response system as mentioned in the last slide. The good news is we have seen a 6% decrease in overall homelessness while Well first, pardon me. Yeah sorry regarding the neutral trend we're not seeing any noticeable changes in the geographic distribution of homelessness throughout the county as the overall numbers in each region appear stable I missed the second trend there which is the number of people accessing services for the first time decreased by 31% which is also a tremendous trend in a good way Moving to our two troubling trends shown in red, the first is a significant decrease in the time that people are remaining unhoused after they are entered into our Coordinated Entry System or CES.
On average, the number of days people are remaining unhoused after CES enrollment is now 190. 190 days which represents an increase from 134 days when compared to 2023. And finally our last negative trend is the number of people transitioning into housing While it's still fantastic news that just over 1,400 people have transitioned out of homelessness and into permanent housing during the past calendar year which is a number that actually represents a slight increase when compared to last year.
It is a 7% decrease when compared to 2023. So next I'll turn it over to Jet to discuss a few more topics regarding overall trends in our Homelessness Response System. Jet?
Thank you. So the chart on the slide shows a very distinct crisis and correction cycle over a five-year period for individuals accessing homeless services for the first time. HUD defines first-time homelessness as someone who has not had an episode of homelessness in the past two years. During the pandemic, emergency funding and eviction moratoriums acted as a dam keeping vulnerable households stabilized. When those supports ended there was an influx of people falling out of housing and entering the system for the first time which peaked at over 2,200 people in 2023.
The good news is what happened next. There was a steady decline from 2023 through 2025, as Joe has just mentioned. This downward trajectory wasn't an accident. Instead of waiting for people to enter shelter we began to scale upstream interventions like shelter diversion and prevention pilots. This drop was also supported by the local rollout of California's CalAIM initiative. By partnering with CENCAL, we unlocked healthcare-funded community supports to catch medically vulnerable residents on the brink of homelessness and keep them housed.
Next slide? Next I'd like to talk about the Local System Map. This visualization is generated through HUD's Stella Performance Platform, which is a tool designed to track how households move through a local homeless service system. Rather than looking at an individual or static point in time, Stella tracks unduplicated households over a multi-year period to identify specific service pathways—the exact combination of emergency shelter, transitional housing and rapid rehousing that households experience before exiting the system and moving on to market rate or other subsidies.
This map outlines the localized system pathways and outcomes captured through calendar year 2025. At the front door of the system on the far left, 2,735 unduplicated households were served within the Homeless Service System over the course of the year. From that point of entry, Stella maps how those households were distributed across different initial interventions.
66% of those households entered emergency shelter or safe havens, spending an average of 158 days enrolled. 22% bypassed the emergency shelter entirely and moved directly into rapid rehousing. 10% utilized transitional housing staying housed for an average of 144 days while 2% engaged directly from street-level homelessness to permanent supportive housing. Moving across the diagram to the point of housing, which is that dashed line about two-thirds to the right are the exit metrics. It took an average of 190 days for a household to successfully enter permanent housing after their initial system entry.
This timeline highlights the systemic bottlenecks and the efforts required to navigate from crisis to stability. When looking at exits to permanent destinations on the right, the overall system exit rate to permanent housing sits at 32%, representing about 509 out of 1,610 total exiting households. However, looking at the data by specific STELA pathways it reveals where the system achieves the fastest housing rate.
Households that engage with rapid rehousing achieve a 71% permanent housing placement rate. Permanent supportive housing pathways yield a 43% exit rate to permanent destinations. Household exiting directly from emergency shelter without transitioning into a housing program only achieve a 17% permanent housing success rate. This confirms most households require dedicated subsidies before permanent housing can be successfully obtained.
Finally, the bottom of the map Stella tracks system recidivism among households that successfully exited to permanent housing 8% subsequently returned to homelessness. On average, those system returns occurred within 100 days of exit. Ultimately, the Stella's map, the Stella mapping process underscores that while the front door of the system faces heavy volume, the utilization of rapid rehousing and supportive pathways remain the most effective drivers for permanent housing stability.
Next slide. So next I'll dig into some subpopulation details. This data looks at the percentage change within distinct demographics from 2023 to 2025. Over this three-year period, there was a 3.2% decrease in families with children and a 4.2 percent decrease in children overall. While we are successfully keeping or we are successfully keeping families from falling into the system and moving those who do into permanent housing quickly.
22% spike in youth ages 18 to 24. Transitional age youth, many exiting local foster care, justice systems or experiencing family instability are hitting our local housing market and falling out of stability. Traditionally adult services aren't built for them and this spike underscores the urgent need for more pre-housing loss, youth specific models and supportive services as well as prevention in reach at local schools.
The older adult population grew by nearly 7%. This silver tsunami consists heavily of fixed income seniors who cannot keep up with permanent housing. Once seniors enter our system, their medical and mobility vulnerabilities make them difficult to house causing them to stay in our database longer and requiring them to seek care out of the area and away from their homes.
Santa Barbara County needs low-income eldercare facilities of which there are currently none. On a positive note, our veteran population remained completely flat at 0% change proving that when we have dedicated sustained federal and local funding pipelines combined with a one team approach we can successfully hold the line. Next slide please. Next I'm going to talk a little bit about vehicular homelessness which is also a growing demographic trend within our county, as I'm sure you're all aware. There's been a notable rise in vehicular residency and between 2022 and 2025 point-in-time count data revealed that the number of individuals living in vehicles grew from 675 to 962.
Historically the Homeless Management Information System did not differentiate whether someone was living in a vehicle or strictly unsheltered outside making the static point-in time count the only available metric Moving forward, however, vehicular status is being recorded in HMIS to allow for real-time tracking and reporting. County staff partnered with researchers from UCSB and SimTech Solutions to develop and deploy a qualitative survey in place of the annual point-in-time count this year.
This study specifically focused on individuals living in vehicles who had not yet accessed traditional homeless response services. Fieldwork was conducted by trained outreach staff at known vehicle clusters alongside a self-administered option. The analysis indicates that a significant portion of the population consists of working households facing systemic barriers to traditional tenancy, despite maintaining a stable baseline of income and a history of housing stability.
There are several key trends from this study. Economically these individuals continue to actively contribute to the local economy. Nearly 44% rely entirely on employment income concentrated in low wage or informal sectors such as hospitality, domestic work, or gig labor. Affordability. The median household income for these respondents sits at $2,000 per month. While this provides a consistent financial baseline it's not enough to sustain a home.
The need for prevention. The data reveals a degree of prior housing stability. The majority of this population is not experiencing chronic lifetime homelessness, 50.7% transition directly into vehicles from traditional rental housing or even home ownership. This highlights an ideal window for targeted prevention and diversion interventions. And then there's the housing intentions. When asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 7 how important near future housing is, the answers were evenly distributed with about one-third indicating it was very important, one third were ambivalent and one third said they had no intention of finding an alternative living situation.
The traditional homeless system is primarily built to serve the most vulnerable, chronically unhoused individuals who actively present themselves for help. To address this growing vehicular population support systems must be intentionally designed to realign with income realities, high housing costs and flexible service needs. Resolving this issue requires affordable housing and homelessness prevention to become a core function across multiple departments.
To this end, interdepartmental coordination of services and strategies has already begun which we'll discuss later in the presentation. I'll turn it back to Joe.
So now we move on to our encampment resolution efforts. So after four years of encampment resolution efforts totaling nearly $21 million in state funds and over $1 million in federal ARPA funds, CSD efforts have removed over 1,300 total encampments across the county. 686 of which were on county controlled property and involving over 900 individuals who are living in those encampments.
Of those 900 plus individuals, over 330 of them have achieved permanent housing. Here you can see the locations of known encampment sites around the three geographic regions of our county. South County, Mid-County and North County. The orange dots represent vehicular homeless encampments and the blue dots represent traditional outdoor encampments in parks, creeks, riverbeds and other areas.
Next we move on to the homelessness funding landscape. So we wanted to show your board the current posture of our funding sources. The dollar values you see here represent the value of all current contracts overseen by our Homelessness Assistance Program team, by fund type and source of funding. Overall we are currently managing $32 million in contracts with 24 million coming from state grants, 7 million coming from federal grants and a little over 600,000 from the County General Fund which are specifically used to support warming shelters and shelter operations.
As the bullet points next to each chart indicate, state funding continues to be appropriated only on an annual basis which makes long-term planning difficult. This past year new wrinkles have appeared as the directives that guide the spending of federal and state funding have become decoupled requiring a lengthy legal analysis to accompany every grant application so we can properly assess and mitigate risk to the county before accepting or sometimes even applying for funds But despite these issues, the tremendous funding landscape you see here represents the success and is due to our outstanding technical capabilities and tenacity of our homelessness program staff led by Jet here sitting next to me.
In fact just in the last month and not included in the totals being shown here CSD applied for another $11 million dollars in serve five grant funding and just today Your board approved when we asked for permission to apply for another $12 million in substance abuse outreach funding geared toward our unhoused population. And this substance abuse outreach funding is from a federal source with which CSD has never interacted before.
So my point here is that despite the dwindling resources and growing political friction between federal, state and local governments, our team just keeps our head down move forward and we've actually grown our grant base in the face of this chaos. So next I'll turn it back over to Jett to describe to your board some new approaches we are taking across the county to address and prevent homelessness.
3:03 – 3:1811 turns
So in addition to adopting the Homeless Management Information System's annualized data as the primary metric for reporting homelessness, CSD is strategically moving toward prevention and retention. The objective is to expand the current system from a traditional reactive model to include a comprehensive proactive framework of prevention diversion and housing retention collectively known as PDR.
Recognizing that early intervention is the most cost-effective solution to housing instability, the strategic focus centers on investing in housing problem solving strategies. The goal is to stabilize individuals and families before they ever enter the shelter system or experience unsheltered homelessness. The program utilizes the standard Homelessness Prevention Assessment Tool or HPAT. This tool objectively assesses how vulnerable a household is to falling into homelessness.
Operationally, the prevention program relies on a coordinated network of countywide access points. This network includes the Bilingual Housing Problem Solving Hotline, Coordinated Entry Sites and Targeted Community Outreach. When an individual or family in a precarious housing situation connects with one of these access points, they are directed to a Good Samaritan Homelessness Prevention staff member. This specialist engages in targeted problem-solving conversations equipped with the authority to offer flexible short term resources to resolve the immediate crisis.
However, cutting flexible funding checks is only a small part of the prevention work. Using trauma-informed motivational interviewing techniques, case managers walk clients through all of their options, help navigate to more affordable units as needed and most importantly work to craft a long term stability plan. When a client is once again stably housed they're left with a suite of tools and resources so they can maintain that stability.
Next slide. This slide illustrates the operational flow of the Homelessness Response System in Santa Barbara County, so these are real numbers reflecting our system. It provides an overview of the shift that must take place to achieve functional zero. On the left, system entries average 230 individuals per month. This represents the continuous volume of individuals experiencing new or recurring instances of homelessness seeking services.
On the right, system exits average 197 individuals placed in housing per month. While local programs and community partners work hard to maintain a steady rate of placements, monthly entries outpace monthly exits. Because incoming volume exceeds outgoing capacity, the system creates a substantial backlog in the center. Currently there are 1,187 individuals on the housing queue within the Coordinated Entry System.
These 1,187 individuals represent varying levels of acuity, vulnerability and prioritization all competing for a limited pool of permanent housing. As a direct result of this imbalance, the timeline at the top indicates that it takes an average of 190 days more than six months from the moment and individual X's enters the coordinated entry system to the day that housing is secured. And you'll remember that number from earlier in the presentation in the Stella mapping system.
These four metrics are what define the framework for us to achieve functional zero next slide. Achieving functional zero does not mean that all housing crises will cease entirely. It means the regional response system is structured to resolve those crises immediately. To reach functional zero, the current equation must be inverted and turned into what you see on your slide now.
Expanding system capacity specifically through permanent housing placements and targeted homelessness prevention is required so that monthly exits consistently equal to or exceed monthly system entries. By establishing this equilibrium, the metrics can shift. The average duration from system entry to permanent housing placement should drop from 190 days to 45 days or less.
The housing queue should be more dynamic. The backlog of 1,187 individuals is eliminated. The queue becomes community dependent meaning it functions as a fluid short-term triage registry rather than a long term waiting list. Functional Zero does not mean a housing crisis will never occur. It means that when it does, the system possesses the immediate capacity to ensure the experience is rare, brief and non-recurring.
I'll turn it back to Joe to talk a little bit more about how we will achieve this.
So in our update to your board last year, I commented on the complexity of homelessness and alluded that staff was working on a better overall approach to address that complexity. More specifically, last year I stated that many economic social and political factors converge to influence the ability of any particular community to foster environment where housing can be attained and maintained by the majority of its residents. For example cost-of-living wage disparity inflation exorbitant property values lack of affordable housing drug proliferation and addiction reduced public health and social services availability all just to name a few Most of the phenomena that start and grow homelessness in our community are simply beyond the scope of anything for which the Community Services Department could provide meaningful solutions.
So rather than establishing a goal to quote end homelessness, we found it more achievable and therefore more worthwhile to set a goal of making homelessness less frequent, more brief, and working to achieve a dynamic where the number of people exiting homelessness is at least equal to or greater than the number of people entering homelessness. A more succinct way of phrasing this concept is simply to say that our goal should be to eliminate chronic homelessness and achieve functional zero.
I said this last year, and now we have adopted that mantra as our mission statement. But in order to set the path of making this aspirational goal a reality, staff realized what I mentioned a few sentences ago, that this issue is far bigger than CSD. So in order to make a meaningful impact, we would have to enlist the leadership resources expertise and funding already addressing housing instability food instability as well as homelessness elsewhere in other county departments.
We needed to identify what those elements are and then unify us into a team So after eight months of high level discussions and planning, last month we received the concurrence of the department directors of the behavioral wellness, county health, probation, social services and community services departments to establish a unified yet interdepartmental team. To bring all of our county resources to bear in a synchronized way to prevent and reduce homelessness.
The sheriff's office and public defender will also be playing major roles in this effort. Now because there are still a series of policies and procedures that we intend to be developed and approved by the end of this calendar year, not too much detail can be described here today. But I do want to personally acknowledge the courage and selflessness it took for each department director and their teams to give up a little bit of individuality for the greater good and demonstrate an enthusiasm to participate in the Santa Barbara County Homelessness Alliance Response and Prevention or HARP as we call it To create a foundational structure, JET surveyed each of the participating departments and distilled down what their individual goals were when addressing homelessness from their perspective and use that to build the operating principle and goals of HAARP.
These four principles are shown here funneling together becoming the energy structure and language that will compose this effort. Because this is a receive-and-file presentation we're not here today at that ask for any resources But I did want to take the opportunity to allude to some of the major coordination efforts we will be making throughout the county soon.
One of the fundamental needs is a unified data hub. We do not want any single person to fall through our safety net cracks anymore, so multiple data systems have to learn to talk. It won't be easy but the county has already started efforts along these lines already, so I know we can do that. We also plan to heavily leverage Workday to help us track and coordinate resources from a unified homelessness perspective And I'm sure we can do that.
And finally, although we do have the nod so to speak from the service oriented departments that actually affect housing instability and homelessness directly. We will be a listening action for many of the support departments to better establish the authorities needed to function the way we think we need to in order to optimize every dollar and every day that we work toward this mission.
So Chair Nelson members of the board thank you for your time today Listed here are today's recommended actions to one, receive and file this presentation. Two, acknowledge the required CEQA considerations and as always we look forward to your questions comments and direction I now turn it back over to Director Armas for his final thoughts and comments
I would think there's a lot of information shared with you and I know the meeting is extending so let me be brief. We're most proud of the effort and success we've had in bringing the different departments together to break down the silos that have been discussed previously, to get a commitment and express commitment of working together to look at how we can effectively, jointly utilize existing resources to achieve the mission of addressing chronic homelessness and realizing functional zero by the end of the current period of the housing element. A lot of work to be done but we think we're on the right track and we're very appreciative of our colleagues in the other departments and their willingness to sacrifice a little bit for the betterment of the community.
Thank you.
Thank You Director Armes. Questions from the Board? Supervisor Kaps.
Yeah, thank you. That's an incredible amount of information and I appreciate the way it was presented and I really appreciate working with you all your department is exceptional to work with how fast you are in responding to the public often a public that has some concerns usually for my office. It's around encampments but it just is a well-oiled machine and the results are evident. So thank you for just again tackling such a challenging human issue that's based in compassion but with such professionalism and And I have to say, you know this H.A.R.P., even though it's actually a wonderful acronym of bringing everyone together and I wanted to ask on that and teeing off of Director Armis' last point of bringing folks together are there outcomes that you're hopeful for in the first year of this?
Or is it just merely getting everyone on the same page? Are you looking for faster referrals, fewer Assessments, shorter times for outreach. Have you gotten that far in terms of some specific tangible goals?
Thank you Supervisor Capsley and the Chair. We're still working through some of the details but I would say that sort of big picture objectives would be to recognize how we really braid the funding resources from each of the departments to effect a meaningful outcome. Because often each of us will look at it as our individual resource and looking at joining them together is a pretty impressive opportunity to realize results without necessarily seeking additional resources.
Joining them together produces a better outcome, we think. The other I believe is kind of an organizational cultural shift that will take time in terms of everybody beginning to view this as a collective area of responsibility, not an individual area of responsibility. And that's where we think we will realize some success. It's great that we have the director's endorsement but we also need to make sure that at the line level we're all rowing in the same direction.
Yeah, I believe other jurisdictions have the you know actual departments where they tackle homelessness whatever they might call it so that makes a lot of sense. And I appreciate this and I'm interested in this and emphasis on prevention and makes a lot of sense and since I've been supervisor learned a ton about how homelessness is really housing issue and so really that previous departmental item on faster permitting I'm going to talk a little bit about the affordable housing initiative. The affordable housing initiative does actually is homelessness of initiative in one large part because the more that we build affordable housing, we will be preventing homelessness so and we are building a lot of affordable housing mix particularly excited about the biggest affordable housing project that will be soon be built What are some other prevention strategies that you are most enthusiastic about that you would like to share or elaborate on?
Supervisor Capps, through the chair. I think what the county does as a whole in its essence is homelessness prevention. Small business support is homelessness prevention. Education is homelessness prevention and so by elevating the concept of The homeless as an insular thing and expanding it much broader and saying everything that we do is working to prevent homelessness. How can we work more closely to do that? I think that's going to be one of the greatest achievements of HAARP, is actually expanding what is homelessness and what could be homelessness.
Yeah, that's a important point to often think about. In the same way I would argue we're also in the business of preventing poverty as well and especially now too just to editorialize you can certainly add to it with federal funding becoming less certain banding together is all the more important if you wanted to add to that how this potentially could save some resources.
And I think to answer you a little more concretely, by developing a unified data hub as they've done in San Francisco and Los Angeles we could have very targeted prevention efforts. We could say this person has access food stamps, they're falling behind on their child support payments and they're connected to our behavioral wellness system. They would be a perfect candidate for a homelessness prevention service whether or not they recognize that they may be falling into homelessness. And so being able to offer someone services before they even think they may need them, I think we'll be able to really control the inflow into the system.
An example is having conversations with the Department of Social Service who often is seeing the symptoms that were just described and that gives us an early alert and potentially allows us to intervene at the front end rather than after the situation reaches a more serious level.
3:18 – 3:269 turns
Yeah, that was the entire concept of HAARP really was to bring together. I mean we're looking at these different departments and to use a submarine analogy everybody has these different periscopes that are sort of in one direction and fairly limited in their breadth. And as he said like social services they can detect when people are starting to experience perhaps housing and food insecurity and other issues You know Aperture to see that behavioral health sees folks who are falling into issues that may lead them to homelessness and we only find it. We're only finding out people are homeless after they show up in an encampment a lot of times and by bringing all that information together, and that's why we mentioned a unified hub of data. We can you know almost from a sort of an AI perspective see those trends that are appearing before and tackle them before they develop into homelessness which is what we're trying to do here.
Yeah, and I wanted to talk about vehicle homelessness. Again that's something that as we go out and about in the community people are still surprised about how many people are living in their cars and I think the majority of them are working and we just did a wonderful event about the new family site, the new Dignity Move site that will have families living there children and again had I'm wondering if you can elaborate on the report. If there's anything from this
Yeah, like Joe mentioned we are positioned to respond to homelessness as a crisis. And so I think the tricky population for the vehicular population is the group of people who are there because they want to be there. They've decided that the math of living indoors does not make sense and they can live a fuller life if they forego paying rent by living in their vehicle and our department is not Equipped to deal with that we have lots of you know come inside. We have shelter ways to serve people who want to be served, but I think we're going to have to look beyond the services available through our department in order to address that kind of cultural shift We are going to continue using encampment response dollars as well as outreach workers and partnering with new beginnings to reach those people who do want to come inside and do want to seek help because that's what we're able to do in this instance.
There are ways in which if there's an encampment near your sports field or is it concern to you that we do have an encampment team. We have, we do respond to constituents and it seems to be slightly more frequent maybe the word is getting out that we do have a response and I just again want to commend how responsive you all are And if maybe Joe, you can walk through or what does that look like? Because again I do have some there are some encampments near softball fields and so I get I've been getting some requests to just you know some concerns and questions. Can you walk through the process of how you handle that and what the public can do if there is an encampment that it's causing concern or at least questions?
So ideally what we wanted to get to, and this sort of ebbs and flows through time in terms of our communication. So I think what we need to do is get... We have a flyer that simply has two items on it that people need to know. It's an email or a phone call but generally email, it's an encampment response email that goes to me, Jet and our Encampment Response Manager Catherine Soto-Vazquez is sitting there. And so when we get those emails, we generally will acknowledge response, you know, receive the email within 24 hours and then address the concern in 72 hours in some way hopefully resolve it or it might take if it's a large encampment and we may take a little longer to address it but That is the goal. And I think like when we went to, our team went to Lompoc and we were talking with their Public Safety Commission about some issues and then we shared that flyer with everybody so everybody was well informed.
I think we just need to do a better job of getting that back out to your offices so you could share them with constituents because really what's probably happening now is that If you live in Santa Ynez Valley and you walk out and there's an encampment across the street in a field of several people that you've never seen before, you're gonna call law enforcement. And say what are they doing there? Or code enforcement might get involved. All of our police departments and sheriffs' offices around the county know to call us or they know our email most of them so we just need to make sure that we circulate that information to those agencies as well so they can call us first or simultaneously with law enforcement depending on their situation But ideally, we would like to have that knowledge out there to everybody so they can contact us directly.
And a lot of them do. I mean it's non-stop with the emails and so we stay on that but I do think that we, like I said, we sort of ebb and flow on that communication. We probably need to circulate that again.
Yeah again I you're very responsive when we reach out and a lot of times the constituents don't you know they're apologetic. They don't really want to, you know be that person who but they also do have concerns in there and it sometimes are in the roadway or near a bus stop and it's an impeding And so I just appreciate how you respond with the right protocols that have compassion as part of it. And we do have shelters and we do have places and the right protocol, so thanks for explaining that. I do think it might be a good time to circulate that information. So those are all my questions. Thank you, Chair. All
right. Thank you Supervisor Kapp. Supervisor Lee then Supervisor Hartman. Thank you. Can
you talk about challenges and progress you made with RV encampments? Has new beginnings been looking to places where we can ask these RVs to go?
I may ask our cabin response manager. She manages the surf three contract, but I can say that just RVs have always remained a difficult You know problem in the vehicular homelessness area because a lot of folks are just they're just more attached to them. They are dangerous by nature if they're not well maintained, they have you know very sophisticated electrical systems and other systems involved in them that if they're not maintained they can cause great harm.
They also as we know have their own internal water and sewer systems that can spill out into any part of the community they park But the main issue is the size doesn't really, if we accumulate a large number of RVs in one space. We don't have a place that would be amenable to that I think in the county or acceptable to the community because of all the issues that I just mentioned and the fact that people are very reluctant to leave RVs in particular because they do see that as their home so we're kind of in this crux situation there.
I really yeah, so we don't have a good solution for that one. That is something that sort of alluded us for quite some time and I don't know if you have anything more Catherine if you want to come up the chair there and add but that's something we're always thinking about and just have not cracked the code yet.
3:26 – 3:3113 turns
We do work with New Beginnings to identify new lots within different jurisdictions. So they are working in mid or here in South County and Goleta, they have space for RVs it's always limited because of the size as we've said there's a lot of ordinances with oversized vehicles that We're seeing that reduction there and are
Thank you. And how's the coordination with the cities and state? So do you guys work together,
push each other? Yeah I would say through the multiple venues that we communicate with the cities especially on our affordable housing side as well. We have consortiums and all sorts of agreements We have elected leaders forum that we bring in members of the community. We usually will take this presentation sort of as a roadshow to all the cities I think i met you there just before you came to the county so we stay in pretty good contact with some it depends on which city it is sometimes we're talking to the city manager more, sometimes we're talking to sort of a code enforcement officer, sometimes it's the chief of police and so every city I could give you the person that I talked to directly is different positions that they kind of take homelessness on as their thing to do.
But yeah, we have I mean, I feel like we have great communication with the cities and as far as the state, I mean it's as good as it can be. It's mostly a lot of emails and sometimes they get wrapped up in you know their bureaucracy but I don't have any real complaints and there's been some turnover I think and a few agencies up there but it's good. They know who we are for sure and we know them. Thank you.
All right, thank you. Supervisor Lee, Supervisor Hartman and then Supervisor Labadino?
My first question has to do with the shelters and the practice of purchasing or reserving beds and that is limiting our full use. I didn't know that happened and just wondered if you could explain that a little bit more.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair, yes. It's a practice that is not terribly common across multiple jurisdictions and we just had a new provider come into town and they were sort of surprised that that's how we ran things but it's creating this artificial scarcity where our bed utilization sits at about 90% but we regularly hear from outreach workers as well as departments with reserved beds that they do not have access to those beds so there is some misalignment there.
Who reserves them and how and what right do they have to them? How do we unwind that system?
So a bed purchase is based on bed nights and it's done by county departments or external organizations. One of the external organizations that come to mind is Cottage Hospital so I know community services typically through the SURF program will reserve beds, behavioral wellness for behavioral wellness clients, probation for people exiting the justice system as well as Department of Social Services typically for their adult protective services clients and so it allows them to say these are our beds No one will go into these beds except for our clients and we reserve the right to refer an individual to those beds. If an individual is not referred to that bed, it sits vacant for that evening. And so that means that someone coming in off the street would not have access to that bed because they're not a referred client.
And so the practice of reserving beds came about a few years ago and it's almost like a game of chicken, where if one department does it another department has to do it. And then the external agencies have to do it just to make sure that they have beds that are available for their clients. So it's a double-edged sword where we have clients that are able to leave the jail and go directly into a reserved bed. But then we would have a B-Well client who would not have access to a bed, even if there's a bed sitting vacant. And so we're working across departments to create a county master service agreement for one specific shelter and we're seeing how that goes and how we may be able to work this system where It's not at the exclusion of individuals who need those beds and so it's an evolving system but the concept of purchasing beds is not typically common practice across other areas.
Does money actually change hands?
Yes.
So it's a benefit to us so we don't want to give it up but we want to figure out how to
restructure the operator may factor that into their operating budget. We're going to have reservations of X number will calculate that in our budget And we know that we're assured payment and what is being described as trying to reach a better equilibrium where we have the capacity but not restricted use of beds such that they're not available when the payer is not even using it.
My next question is how many permanent beds do we need to be coming online every year to meet functional zero goal?
3:31 – 3:3911 turns
Supervisor Hartman through the chair, it's a very nuanced answer because if you think back to the slides we have the four elements of functional zero. We have the inflow, the outflow, the number of days people spend in the system as well as the housing queue and so to call out a specific number at this point it would be an inaccurate number because we need to be able to get that number of days people spend in the system down to 45 Once we achieve that number, then we will know all right. This is this is the golden ticket number for permanent beds that we need and shelter beds that we need but until we get that number down to 45 days, we won't know our optimum inflow outflow or number of permanent supportive beds
That's a terrific answer. Thank you and that was an amazing chart. I guess my other question you intimate, I mean I guess what I keep thinking how expensive it is to build and you have a teaser in there that maybe are Short term housing at in Santa Maria, maybe these houses can become permanent. And I just I get I mean, I know the location couldn't but I just what is your most creative thinking about how we're actually going to get people in housing?
I gather some of these houses now have a lifespan of 90 years, 100 years. So it's not the kind of house we think of as a residential unit but it's better than living in an encampment and it may be better even than living in an old RV.
Let me offer one observation, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. Think of the project that Supervisor Kapp made reference to a few moments ago. We're looking at the Calle Real campus in a manner that responds to the needs of families over a longer period of time. And those units are viewed as permanent with a 55-year commitment. So we think that moving in that direction will ultimately be appropriate. The question, of course, will be what kind of funding is available to support those kinds of significant undertakings? The other is, as mentioned, better utilization and better management of existing resources. The discussion we had just a few moments ago about available beds can also help us in that respect. And then ultimately where we emphasize the prevention side, that's where we're going to make the most progress.
If we can prevent the condition of homelessness in the first place, we will have made significant progress
So that leads I guess to my last question or comment. So our HMIS system was upgraded and now all the providers at least community people use that and now you're, at least in my mind, you're going to develop something like an Acela for internally so that we better coordinate. Is that a good way to think about it?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. Yes, so right now we use the Homeless Management Information System as our system of record for homelessness. What was interesting is when we had the HARP meetings with manager level staff and we showed the same numbers that I showed you for Functional Zero everyone in the room said well those aren't our numbers and I said yes that is exactly the point we want to know your numbers And so what they're doing in Los Angeles is very interesting. They have a data hub that HMIS feeds into and DSS, their system feeds into it as well as behavioral wellness as well as probation and that hub is what their system of record is. So the Homeless Management Information System would not change but where that data goes and how it interacts with other data generated by the county would change and then whatever that future system would be would be the system of record for tracking homelessness prevention and reaction.
And so I imagine there's lots of issues of privacy to work out and CENCAL would be perhaps a partner as well at some point.
Absolutely we do have the health care privacy concerns, there's also privacy concerns from the justice system as well as all the concerns around the funding that comes through the Department of Social Services and so we'll be interacting probably quite frequently with County Council to figure out how to navigate through all of those different privacy concerns as they come up once we move forward with this process.
So next year, instead of the Acela team we're going to see. Okay? All
right thank you Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Lavinino.
Yeah and that's what I was going to mention is that it's really cool that on some of these big ticket items that we've seen so siloed in the county for decades is that we're getting everybody on the same page and so you know I don't have any questions I just uh you know it's been a big issue in Santa Maria This team has really done amazing work and really just turned everything around where it's actually hard now to go out and find an encampment somewhere. You gotta know where to look, but it's just not in your face every single day like it was. And so it's great for the community, it's great for those suffering from this, and you guys do amazing work, really happy.
Thank you Supervisor Lavinia and I want to piggyback on that too. I think that in the Santa Maria Valley, I think we're maybe the shining example and I think that's been a combination of the work that you guys have put into it but also a combination of enforcement. You know we've called a spade a spade. We've really in this valley said hey sleeping outside is often trespassing or there are legality issues there. I don't think that it's legal to sleep in your car anywhere in this county I think it's important to understand that even if you're on private property and go to planning development, it's not allowed to sleep in a car. It's not allowed so I think you know part of is setting up bar and that expectation and the and it's not to do that because we were heartless but because we want people to move towards services.
We want people get case managed so that they can move through that process and I think when we cut holes in the safety net let people fall way through is that's where there's So if you are experiencing these issues, you need to go and get the help that you need. We have all these services that we're bringing along to you if you like them they're available to you or not this may not be the place for you and I think that's really what I hope that we can continue that mentality because you know we know that obviously housing is a piece of this but also there's mental health and addiction piece as was noted here.
There's some people And you know, again we have to tell them that I'm sorry. It's it's nice that you want those lifestyle but it's not legal. You know, we have a social contract. We have laws and and I think it's really important that people abide by those And I think that's really important is to distinguish the definition of homelessness, because I think that there's part that we're talking about here. That are those that are encampments or in vehicles?
But that's the definition is much broader than that right? I mean when you guys are looking at those numbers, you're talking about people who live in multiple people living and homes qualify often for being homeless. We also, you know like multiple families right? I mean that's one under the definition. We also have obviously those that are in shelters are still considered part of our homelessness numbers is that correct?
3:39 – 3:4412 turns
Chair Nelson, yes to an extent. To make it more complex there's two definitions of homelessness. There is the McKinney-Vento definition and then there is the strict HUD definition. McKinney-Vento is what school districts use and they count what you're referring to doubled up couch surfing that counts as homeless for our purpose its literal homelessness so people sleeping outside in places not meant for human habitation in vehicles or shelters would be considered homeless for the numbers we are able to count under HUD rules.
Okay, perfect. I think it's really important for us to make sure we know which definitions we're using when we look at those different numbers. When we are working on the vehicular homelessness issues, that's something that I'm you know it's kind of come to my attention more recently. You know, I think it's really important that we cite vehicular homeless shelter opportunities in places that are appropriate that aren't necessarily near sensitive receptors and also in areas where the need is because you know something that I've noticed seeing some of our providers or maybe looking at areas where there's no homelessness now bringing You know, I think everybody wants to deal with what's going on in the vicinity. But if we're transferring, you know, I guess homelessness services from one area to the other, I think that's problematic and I think it's something that we need to be have our eyes on especially providers is really getting our arms around those problems in a more strategic way than just kind of passing I think it's important for us to be able to bring.
The responsibility out to different areas that are addressing those concerns for themselves. So, I mean, I don't think people that are communities that are dressing. The homelessness issue in an effective way that the results should be listed to also put more homeless services there. And I think there's you know, Supervisor
Nelson, last year I think you suggested and your colleagues approved prohibiting vehicular parking proximate to agricultural areas. Are you suggesting that we should take a look at something that deals with safe parking in relation to sensitive receptor locations so that we are
clear
about where they can and
cannot be cited? It's concerned when you look at it, especially maybe near a school is something that I think we should be looking at as far as again where appropriate. You know what? I'll be the first person to go fight for and have a community meeting but I think it needs to be done in a strategic fashion. I know that there's been some proposed that next to sensitive receptors in the North County and I think in the South Coast and I think we need to keep an eye on those and maybe have something in place to direct those two more appropriate locations when possible.
All right, other questions from the board? Supervisor Hartman your light's still on are you just okay. Before we take make a motion this Madam Clerk do we have any public comment on this item?
Chair Nelson and members of the board we have no request to speak from the public on this item.
Excellent well I think that's because everybody has such good questions and it's such a great presentation nobody had any additional questions so any other question for the board or from staff that like to give any further comments too?
If I may, Chair Nelson. I just wanted to express on behalf of our department and HCD division in particular our appreciation to the board for the support you've provided both financially allocation of resources and assisting us as we embark on dealing with some very difficult and sensitive issues It's clear that the board views this as an important community issue that needs to be addressed with empathy, but also clarity. And so we've appreciated the dialogue we've had with you and of course, as I look at Mr. Horton, we can't be remiss in acknowledging the strong support we received from the CEO's office in making sure that this receives the attention it deserves. So thank you to the Board and to the CEO's office.
Well, thank you Director Armas and again thank you to the CO's office as well. With that I'll go ahead and take a motion for staff recommendation which I believe is received in file with direction.
So moved A and B.
Second. So motion from Hartman second from Lee any further discussion? Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Right, so we're going to go ahead and break for closed session here. Before we break for closed session, we'll be coming back. We may have the TEFRA finish up the TEFRA hearing before hitting utility scale solar. I've requested some additional information that if I have that in time, I think we can get that one knocked out and then we'll finish up today with utilities scale solar hopefully. So before we at this time Madam County Council, can you please read out to us the items discussed in closed session today?
3:44 – 4:482 turns
Thank you, Mister chair members of the board in closed session today. The board is scheduled for one item of anticipated litigation significant exposure to litigation based on the facts and circumstances listening agenda as well as anticipated litigation for deciding whether to initiate one case And three items of existing litigation. Torgeson versus the county which is a Santa Barbara Superior Court case and then two cases in the federal central district, Flying Goat Sellers versus the county and Sable Offshore versus the county. And the time estimate is between 30 and 45 minutes.
I think it's going to be at least 45 so let's go ahead and plan on being back no earlier than 130. All right, welcome back everybody to our July 14th 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in Santa Maria. We're just returning back from our lunch closed session. Madam County Council can you please report out from closed session on the items that we talked about?
4:48 – 4:5317 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair members of the board. The board met in closed session on one item of anticipated litigation based on the facts and circumstances listed in the agenda. One item of decision deciding whether to initiate civil litigation. Torgeson versus the county Flying Goat versus the county and Sable Offshore versus the county and the board took no reportable action.
All right. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and return back to our departmental item number one.
Mr.
Chair, sorry
I apologize if the board did take one reportable action which is the site the board did authorize unanimously to initiate civil litigation what that litigation will be, but it becomes public after we have filed.
Okay excellent thank you very much with that we'll go ahead and return back to Department item number one at the TAFRA hearing.
Chair Nelson, members of the board. Departmental item number one just as a refresher is from the Treasurer Tax Collector Public Administrator it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding California Municipal Finance Authority issuance of qualified 501c3 bonds on behalf of Step Up Housing.
All right, thank you. If I could just take the chair's prerogative as well as just this is in my district. I asked for it prior to lunch to be continued until later on in the day so I had a little bit more time to talk to step up housing, the potential buyer that's applying for these TEPFER bonds and I was also trying to work with planning staff to better understand what this means actually for our housing element or housing element inventory. So I'm still getting some more information. I'm going to still continue working Mr Potter I'm not yet to a place to be able to vote for it, but I am a lot more comfortable with it right now. So I'm not going to be making a motion to deny it at this point or asking for a continuance if one of my colleagues wanted to continue to pursue it.
I probably would be abstaining today as I work through some of the particulars with Mr Potter As we over the next couple of days on making sure that I want to my goal here all along is to make sure that I'm protecting a market. That's working and making sure that the rents stay competitive where they are, and it's a healthy housing market in this in the Santa Maria Valley at least the unincorporated Center Valley that I represent so that's the goal. That's I think we're both committed to getting that accomplished and so we're going to keep talking that through. So just want to update the board on the discussions and as part of maybe ex parte communication on the conversation I've had to this point, so reporting that back out to the board. I do believe I need to make public comment available if there's anybody in the public that still like to speak on this item.
Chair Nelson members of the Board I am not aware of any members of the public who would like to speak on departmental item number one but I will look make any comments in regards to the latest.
All right, so I think Mr Hagan, I think you guys are still looking for potentially a board board. You brought this to us. I think it's up to us now to take action on your recommended actions here is that correct?
Chair Nelson members of the board that is correct
okay all right so we've had a robust discussion And update and now we have a recommended actions. It's gone through the advisory committee and has been forwarded here to the board. Yeah,
I'm prepared to move a through C in our board letter today but I would like to ask a question so doing that you as as Mister Potter explained I believe that that creates the authorization but you can still Have meaningful conversations about this.
That's my understanding as well. And they're in a tight time frame, likely they will be moving forward the next week or two towards closing. They're within that period of time that they need for closing so it probably... The expectation should be not that this is not going to go through. The expectation should be this could be moving towards the purchase after this decision is made today. So I don't want to send that false opinion that I might talk them out of it in some way if something I don't come to conclusion but we are going to work on together common goals to protect the local housing market
So I have a motion.
Roll-call vote Moved by Joan Hartmann
Show transcript
I'm going to second, but also with the with the first off. I want to say thank you to the chair for kind of working out and now we do get these tremendous amounts of information right at the last minute always in so I think it's important for us to work this out. I think that says a lot. I would encourage you to also be constant communication with the 4th District so that this moves in the direction we all hope it is and as successful as it is. So, with that, I'll give my second.
Okay, so we have a motion for Supervisor Hartman and a second from Supervisor Lavinino. Any other further discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, could you do a roll call vote?
Roll-call vote 2–0 motion for Supervisor Hartman and a second from Supervisor Lavinino. Any other further discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, could you do a · 2 under review
Show transcript
4:53 – 5:055 turns
Motion passes four with one abstention.
Thank you all right so that concludes Department Item 1 thank you for sticking with us Treasurer Hagan and and thank you guys for both for being here. All right moving along our sixth and final departmental item for the day is Department Item Number 6, Madam Clerk can you please read that out into the record?
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mister Nelson members of the board department item number 6 is from the planning and development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding amendments to the county land use and development code case number 24 or D 28 article 2 coastal zoning ordinance case number 20 for our D 29. Montecito land use and development code case Coastal land use plan case number 26 GPA 6 and uniform rules for agricultural preserves to adopt the utility scale solar project.
Good afternoon, members of the board. As Ms. Alexander indicated today we have the Utility Scale Solar Program for the Board's consideration. We have Zoe Carlson who is the lead planner on the case, Matt Hernandez whose first board hearing so he is one of our newer planners And Whitney Wilkinson, who is our Supervising Planner and Alex Tuttle who's our Deputy Director.
So I'm going to turn it over to staff, but I did want to let the board know that. You know the departments and we've taken us quite a bit of time to get here for a variety of reasons challenges getting consultants and whatnot so I think spent a long time coming and I think we're glad to be able There have been some requests that the board will hear from outside parties about possible changes and we can talk about those through the process about what's viable and what's not viable based on our environmental review.
With that, I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Carlson.
Thank you. Greetings Chair and Supervisors my name is Zoe Carlson and Matt Hernandez will be presenting with me today We will begin with a brief overview and background on the project, including the prior board's direction. We will summarize the proposed amendments before you today. We'll talk through the recommendations from the Montecito Planning Commission and the County Planning Commission.
We'll discuss the environmental review for the project as well as staff's recommended actions. In 2014, the current utility scale solar regulations were adopted which established a 600-acre utility scale solar photovoltaic overlay within the Cuyama Valley. And this overlay was created to allow for the development of a utility-scale solar project that has since been developed, as well as a subsequent project that left very little remaining capacity within this overlay for utility-scale solar projects.
And in 2019 your board adopted the strategic energy plan Which included recommendations for increasing renewable energy development, including solar. So in 2021 your board directed us to make the amendments to allow for utility scale solar in agricultural public utility industrial professional and institutional as well as coastal related industrial zones throughout the county.
Your board also directed staff to make amendments to the uniform rules to allow for utility scale solar on land that's under Williamson Act contract. In 2022, after an unsuccessful solicitation for a project consultant we did get a successful second solicitation for a qualified consultant to support us in preparing the amendments as well as developing the programmatic environmental impact report And in 2023, staff kicked off the project through researching other jurisdictions' regulations for utility-scale solar and developing our initial framework.
We did conduct outreach with solar developers, landowners and other interested parties to better understand the range of interests for solar within the county We also presented to the Agricultural Advisory Committee, or AAC at various stages throughout the project. And they were supportive of solar on agricultural lands and were concerned about restrictions for solar projects that would supply power for onsite agricultural operations.
The screen is not black. Particular concern with the AAC was an increased need for electrification of farm equipment and the need for solar to support that. Staff did also secure a $100,000 grant from the California Clean Energy Planning Program for the development of the ordinance amendments. The Utility Scale Solar Project includes amendments to the Land Use and Development Code, the Montecito Land Use and Development Code as well as the Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinances.
We also have companion amendments to the land use element and the coastal land use plan for consistency And our package also includes amendments to the uniform rules to allow for limited development of utility scale solar on both prime as well as non-prime contracted lands. Programmatic environmental impact report was prepared for the project that does require a statement of overriding considerations The proposed amendments in all three zoning ordinances include a tiered permitting structure that would be created for both solar energy systems and facilities.
And they clarify the permit requirements as well as establish development standards for solar systems and facilities that include battery storage. The amendments also clarify but do not change the permitting requirements for standalone battery energy storage systems. The proposed zoning ordinance do include amendments to remove the existing utility scale solar photovoltaic overlay from the land use and development code.
I'm now going to talk through the permitting structure in a bit more detail on the next slides. So solar development is classified into three tiers, with the smaller Tier 1 solar energy systems and the larger Tier 2 and 3 are solar energy facilities which I'll discuss on the next slide. The permitting structure for these smaller Tier 1 solar energy systems did change as we went through the Planning Commission process, and this slide shows the current proposed Tier 1 solar energy system permitting framework.
Tier 1 systems could occur in all zones and in the inland area they would be exempt from planning permits. Within the coastal zone, they would still continue to require a Coastal Development Permit unless they were mounted to an existing building in which case they would be exempt. Tier 1 includes building integrated and roof-mounted systems, as well as solar canopies that allow for parking or some other use below them. And all of those can be of any size.
Tier 1 also includes small ground mounted systems up to including half an acre on undeveloped areas or up to and including five acres on developed or improved areas. Staff is also proposing up to an additional quarter acre of paired battery energy storage systems for these types that would allow for a total project area of up to 5.25 acres There are also restrictions on how power is used for certain Tier 1 projects in certain zones.
For agricultural resource management, recreation, residential and mountainous zones power must be produced primarily for onsite use whereas in all the other zones it could be used for onsite as well as offsite use. Although these Tier 1 systems would in many cases be exempt from planning permits, they would still require building electrical plumbing and solar use permit.
This slide shows the proposed permitting framework for the larger solar energy facilities. The Tier 2 facilities are called community scale solar energy facilities, and they're greater than half an acre and up to including 30 acres. Tier 2 facilities would be allowed on agricultural professional and institutional and various industrial zones and would require a minor conditional use permit Tier three facilities or utility scale solar energy facilities would include projects greater than 30 acres.
And tier three facilities would be allowed in the same zones as the tier two facilities, however they would require a major conditional use permit. For both the tier two and tier three facilities proposed within the coastal zone, a coastal development permit would be required And for projects in the public utility zone, both Tier 2 and 3 facilities would require a development plan that would be in lieu of the conditional use permit.
Both Tier 2 and 3 facilities would be allowed on undeveloped or existing developed land, and would be subject to various applicable permit requirements as well as development standards. Staff is not proposing a maximum size of utility scale facilities because there are various factors in addition to discretionary review that may constrain the size and the location of these projects, and Matt will discuss these on the next slide.
5:05 – 5:173 turns
Thank you, Zoe. As mentioned, Tier 3 utility scale solar development would be constrained by several regional and site-specific factors. Proximity to transmission lines and substations as shown on this map is one such constraint. While zoning may allow utility scale solar in certain areas, development potential greatly depends on whether a project can connect to the grid in a cost effective manner.
Other factors may also affect whether it is cost effective to develop a project These factors include topography and other site conditions, environmental and cultural resources, geotechnical conditions, and natural hazards. Projects would also need to comply with development standards that I'll discuss in greater detail on the next slide. As mentioned these amendments include development standards for solar that are more rigorous for the larger tier projects.
These standards build on existing solar standards for utility-scale solar in the LUDC, incorporate applicable measures from the program EIR and include best practices to improve consistency. All solar projects including projects that are exempt from planning permits would need to comply with applicable development standards in the zoning ordinances These standards include site coverage, size, height, sensitive biological resource protection and other requirements associated with paired battery storage.
There are also standards derived from mitigation measures in the program EIR and from solar development standards retained in the existing zoning codes. For example, projects must avoid conversion of prime or important farmland where feasible and permanently preserve off-site agricultural land at a rate of one to one if conversion is necessary. Battery storage would be allowed as an accessory use to a solar energy project and would need to be commensurate in size with the solar system or facility not to exceed a quarter acre for Tier 1 projects.
In order to allow solar development on lands under agricultural preserve contract, amendments to the uniform rules are also needed. Staff worked with the Agricultural Preserve Advisory Committee or APAC to discuss and refine amendments to the uniform rules consistent with board direction. The map on this slide shows agriculturally zoned lands in green and those subject to uniform rules in agricultural preserves in red hash. This represents 68% of all ag zone lands The proposed Uniform Rules amendments would allow limited commercial solar development on Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracted lands.
The amendments also include solar-related definitions, prohibitions for open space and recreation contracts, and procedures for solar use easements. The table on this slide shows the proposed standards for prime and nonprime contracted lands. On primeland, solar development would be limited to 10% of the premises or 10 acres whichever is less with a minimum premises size of 40 acres.
On non-primeland, solar development would be limited at 10% of the premises or 100 acres again whichever is less with a minimum premises size of 100 acres. There's a minor difference between staff and APAC's recommendations for limits on premises size on non-prime contracted land. Staff's proposal is allowing up to 15% of the premises or 100 acres, whichever is less whereas APAC recommended a more restrictive 10% standard and that recommendation is reflected in the proposed amendments shown here.
Staff presented both staff's proposal and the APAC proposal to the Agricultural Advisory Committee, and the AAC was supportive of staffs less restrictive proposal of 15% of the premises. Your board has discretion to select the APAC proposed amendments or different limits to the uniform rules as you see fit. Staff presented a previous iteration of the ordinance amendments to the Montecito Planning Commission.
The MPC unanimously recommended adoption of the CZO and MLUDC amendments as originally proposed by staff, and also recommended certification of the program EIR. The planning commission received comments from the Clean Coalition requesting fewer permit requirements for certain small-scale solar projects. At the request of the County Planning Commission, staff returned with revised ordinance amendments that downshifted the permitting requirements for a number of small solar projects.
This included solar canopies, certain ground-mounted solar projects and allowed a slight increase in the size of paired solar and battery storage projects that qualify as Tier 1. The planning commission also recommended a 16,000 acre countywide cap for Tier 3 utility scale solar facilities. This would limit the total acreage to about 2% of total agriculturally zoned land within the unincorporated county.
This proposed cap is not a requirement of the EIR and your board has discretion to change or remove the cap as you see fit. Staff also incorporated the changes from the planning commission made to the LUDC and CZO into the MLUDC for consistency, as shown in Attachment E of the Board Agenda Letter. The County Planning Commission also recommended adoption of the land use element and coastal land use plan amendments, as well as recommending certification of the program EIR.
The county prepared a program EIR for the Utility Scale Solar Amendments Project and the draft was circulated in August through October of 2025. Future solar projects will be able to use the analysis of this program EIR as part of their own environmental review. The final program EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts related to three issue areas.
Aesthetics and visual resources, agricultural resources, and cultural, tribal-cultural, and paleontological resources. These impacts are primarily associated with the larger Tier 2 and Tier 3 solar projects. Because the specific locations and designs of future facilities are unknown at this time, some impacts would remain significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of mitigation measures.
The final program EIR also identifies potentially significant but mitigable impacts in a number of issue areas such as air quality and biological resources. The mitigation measures identified in the final program EIR have been incorporated as development standards in the zoning ordinances where possible. Where not possible, they would be applied as mitigation measures for future projects that tier from the program EIR as applicable.
Because the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, certification of the EIR requires a statement of overriding considerations. As required under CEQA, the program EIR evaluated alternatives to the proposed project. First, the no-project alternative, a county would not approve the proposed amendments and utility scale solar facilities would continue to be allowed only within the existing 600 acre utility scale solar photovoltaic overlay Staff worked with APAC to develop Alternative 2, which would limit or prevent the development of Tier 2 and Tier 3 solar energy facilities on lands that qualify as prime under the county's uniform rules.
This alternative would also establish additional limitations for facilities on certain non-prime contracted lands. Finally, Alternative 3 would remove the potential for Tier 3 utility scale solar facilities in the coastal zone The program EIR identified Alternative 3 as the environmentally superior alternative. However, it would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as a proposed project.
The County Planning Commission discussed and considered this alternative but ultimately recommended allowing utility-scale solar in the coastal zone. Finally, staff recommends that your board makes the required findings including CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations Certify the final program EIR and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Adopt ordinance amendments to the LUDC, MLUDC and CZO. Adopt resolutions amending the Land Use Element, Coastal Land Use Plan and Uniform Rules. And finally, adopt a resolution authorizing submittal of the local coastal program amendments to the Coastal Commission. While staff is recommending approval of the Planning Commission and Agricultural Preserve Advisory Committee's recommendations, the Board ultimately has discretion to make changes to the limits such as the countywide cap on utility-scale solar development as well as acreage limits for utility scale solar on contracted land.
That concludes our presentation and staff is now available to take any questions that your board may have.
All right we've got lots of questions or maybe some of us do. Supervisor Hartman?
Yeah, I'm happy to start out. This started long ago and the world has changed radically since we started. One of the big areas where it's changed is the new field of agri-voltaics and that is that with the design of solar arrays it's not either or it can be both and And so you can mount the arrays higher, you can get them further apart. You can track them with the sun so that it can, that the plants can get more sunlight. So our EIR finding that it has an impact to agricultural resources, the Williamson Act cap or limit and the cap that is being proposed seem to come from an either-or model rather than A both and model.
I met yesterday with the Strawberry Commission, and they told us how in Ventura because of the March heat wave that they're going to be in the red this year. And because of the current heat wave today's a great day for this discussion. Strawberries in Santa Barbara County are gonna be lucky to break even The benefits of agrivoltaics is that they can reduce the heat, stress and air temperature. They can lower water evaporation. They can provide more worker comfort and additional farm income so I think we I mean, you have to manage it well and there you can't but strawberries are really good crop that can be grown under a raise. So I just want to put that out there for us to think about because I believe this kind of marched forward without this knowledge and it's a new area they're doing a lot of this in Europe but it is particularly well suited for strawberries That like cooler climates and we're seeing warmer climates here, and it is our biggest agricultural crop.
So I don't know if anybody has any thoughts about that but that's where I'm coming from.
5:17 – 5:2213 turns
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. Agrivoltaics certainly came up in consideration and preparation of the EIR and also drafting of the uniform rules. And as you noted, it is sort of an evolving and somewhat of a newer technology or approach. So I don't think we saw enough evidence or case studies to We were a little reluctant to necessarily require. A farmer doing more of the typical or historical approach of the ground mounted.
So that's kind of where we landed is there's certainly nothing that would discourage or prevent someone from doing that, but we also didn't want to sort of distinguish it from the other type and as was noted, there is no upper size limit for outside of the Ag Preserve for solar so a project could be designed in a way
Okay, maybe I'll come back to this later.
All right, Supervisor Lee? Good. I have a couple questions about Cuyama. So has Cuyama hit its 600 acre cap yet?
Supervisor Lee through the chair, I believe there are two projects solar projects that were developed within the 600 acre overlay and it's very close to the cap. It might not be quite at it but I don't believe it's feasible to develop much more solar within that existing overlay.
So how would this proposed 16,000 acre cap affect the current Cuyamaca?
Supervisor Lee, we're proposing to remove the cap on the overlay to allow it in the broader county. So the cap for Cuyambo would no longer apply.
OK, good. Thanks for confirming that. So if there's a leak or spill or fire with the materials and the battery storage be toxic meaning how would they affect the groundwater as well? Do you have a comment about that?
Supervisor Lee through the chair. So you're asking if there was a fire at a solar facility, if there are regulations or safeguards in place to essentially prevent toxic releases?
Yeah especially battery storage so they will be mitigations to prevent that right?
Yes, there are a number of development standards that we would apply especially to the larger tier 2 and tier 3 projects that require safety plans. Plans that would prevent fuel ignitions during construction and operation. Emergency management plans for response so that fire and other first responders have procedures in place should an incident occur
Good. Following up, so how would the county prevent advocate applicants from dividing one project into multiple tier two projects?
Supervisor Lee through the chair. So Both a Tier 2 and a Tier 3 are both conditional use permits with the same standards that would be in place. Really, the only difference is the decision maker. A minor CEP is zoning administrator versus a major CEP is the County Planning Commission so I don't know that there would be much incentive for developer to try to sort of parse out their project into multiple Tier 2 projects as opposed taking it forward as a single application. But as with all of our projects that come through our door, we look at the whole of the project and if an applicant is proposing multiple smaller projects that all function as a single operation then they'd be treated as a single application and processed accordingly. Good thanks for
that my last question is so let's say someone comes in with a 40 acre solar project on the Gaviot Coast So I want to confirm that is appealable to the board, correct?
5:22 – 5:4120 turns
Supervisor Lee through the chair. That's right. It is.
Thank you. That's my question. All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Kaps.
Yeah, thank you. This is a landmark day because I know so much work has gone into this for several years and through different bodies and I want to pay respect to the Planning Commission and the work that they did, and all of you. So thank you for getting us here almost to the finish line here. And if you could just speak to the importance of storage and how I know it's in the presentation but if you can just elaborate So I'm going to turn it back over to you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. I just want to make sure that we're not just focusing on solar but also on battery and the
Supervisor Katz for the chair. Yeah, thanks for that question and you know it's interesting because this project has been in the works for a while and there's been a lot of advancement and increased understanding over the years when we started out the board direction was to provide and accommodate for solar There was no discussion at the time of battery storage.
So that was more or less our marching orders from the onset, but we have over the years, over the last few years as we've heard more input and received more information and increased our understanding about the importance of battery storage for these types of projects, we have looked for opportunities to accommodate The situation where you want to combine or pair battery storage with a solar project.
We shied away from doing, focusing on standalone battery energy storage just because that has a lot of separate issues that may come along with that. But we have tried to work with the Clean Coalition and their requests, and the Planning Commission. And through our amendments provide for the sort of the typical combination where you have battery storage to support a solar project. And I know they're in their most recent comment letter There's a request for addressing at least some limited battery storage, standalone battery storage which we're prepared to discuss today and how that might be incorporated into the overall package.
Yeah I mean could we could we discuss that or do you want to get to other comments? The
batteries better storage
yes
yeah I think I'm
ready.
Let's do it. A lot of discuss there yeah
I mean, I do see the merits of having some element of this. I understand that there's some procedural I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. I don't have any specific barriers but they've they've made a compelling argument as to why. I mean, we're this as it is has battery solar and connected but having the ability in this in initiative to be able to have stand alone at least to some degree and that
So in anticipation of this question we did put together a backup slide that we could pull up to this, you know perhaps pull up. But as we wait for that to happen, so the request from or the discussion at the plan. I'll start with the Planning Commission. The discussion of the planning commission and the request that was made at the Planning Commission was to allow for a standalone battery energy storage up to a quarter acre.
And sort of in line with what I was indicating earlier, the staff's position was we were focused with this project on paired battery storage and we're trying to stick within that scope of work. And so the Planning Commission recommended against addressing standalone battery energy storage, but did carve out the opportunity to allow up to us additional acreage specifically up to a quarter acre.
And so the request. The new requester has expanded slightly from that and is now a request from anywhere from a quarter acre up to an acre for standalone battery storage did evaluate battery storage as a component of a solar project. And so there are some opportunities within the context of the EIR to sort of have that cover or an amendment to the project to include standalone, but there are some limits there in terms of what was assumed in the EIR and what was evaluated.
Staff would recommend that we focus on sort of that quarter acre size allowance for standalone battery storage, which the EIR did evaluate and did contemplate as part of an accessory to a solar project. And so feel like the EIR would That allowing for standalone would not trigger any new impacts or require any new analysis that wasn't already considered in the EIR, but going beyond that could very well require additional analysis and sort of delay the project or require more work. So I think staff's recommendation would be to allow for the standalone battery storage up to a quarter acre Um, which again is an alignment with what the Clean Coalition's original request had been and would support sort of the microgrid type of project that you often hear about.
And the other consideration is where would it be appropriate to site those standalone battery storage projects? It's one thing where it's supporting a say someone's solar array in their backyard, which would be a limiting factor in terms of how big that battery storage would be. But if you start allowing these standalone battery storage projects perhaps in a residential community that might not be the most appropriate place for that so staffs recommendation would be to confine those stand-alone storage areas to more of our commercial and industrial zones as opposed to our residential and recreation zones.
And our resource management zones, which are more of our very constrained, very hilly topography mostly in the South Coast. We think we can do that. What we would do is process or prepare what's called an EIR revision letter, which essentially explains how the that amendment to the project would not trigger a result in any new impacts that weren't previously evaluated and require any recirculation or preparation of additional analysis.
All that does take a little time, so we would request if you board wants to move forward with that. That we have a continuance to be able to come back to you at a later date with that package.
That's great, and the Clean Coalition showed a picture of the Velocito Energy Storage Project in Carpinteria right next to a substation which seemed like a good use. So yeah again I'm supportive of trying to see what can work and if it's a quarter acre and wouldn't have the impacts that would need a CUP that would seem like it could so anyway I'm supportive
Thank you Supervisor Capps. Supervisor Hartman, do you want to comment on that? I've got some comments too but go ahead.
Sure well it's on that point of battery storage and I'm with Supervisor Capps on this that I'd sure like to see it in many markets now battery storage is cheaper than building a new gas plant And California now produces midday, now more solar than the grid can use. In 2024 the state curtailed or couldn't use about 3.4 million megawatt And that was a 29% jump from the year before. So that's clean power that we've already paid for and we're just throwing it away because we don't have enough storage, and we can't really shift it to the time of day when we actually need it. So I think that is really central, that they're not just nice to have. They're the thing that captures the investment that we've already made and what happens with these batteries if we restrict it just to solar paired projects then it ignores all the solar that we've already built And the standalone batteries can be cited close to where they're actually useful for the grid at substations and congestion points.
So I think that's why we need to decouple them is to try to take full advantage of the solar arrays we already have, and to be able to cite them where they would be most useful. I'm eager to see that we move forward within the EIR that we did, to the extent that we can with the revision letter because. We're going to have much more electricity demand coming and we want to get ahead of this and batteries are the way to do it. Batteries are what saved us from PS more PSPS is because The PG&E and SCE both threatening PSPS events today, they can actually tap batteries that's in their queue to go first to prevent brownouts and blackouts. So we need to step up with batteries. And I see that Das Williams was here. I just wanted to note. Oh there he is.
He started this effort when he was on the board And I hope when he comes up in public comment, he could talk a bit about the technology and how it's much safer now than it has been in the past. And new developments that are occurring that will make it even safer in the future.
I'll defer to
President Labadino and then I'll ask my questions. Go ahead. Yeah, I think we're probably going to say the same things. You know, I was really actually shocked. I didn't know that what you referenced that we are producing. I saw it in the last week's presentation of that we're actually producing more solar than we can actually use in a day which is amazing. That's something that I wasn't sure we would get to and we got there relatively quickly So I don't, I'm not anti-battery storage. I think that it makes sense that that's where we would go. What I am opposed to though is exempting anything until people get comfortable that this is a safe form and There's reasons why people don't think it's safe there have been accidents in the past and obviously as somebody that supports oil and gas industry.
I understand that there are problems with any energy that you're going to have things happen anytime you have man plus energy, you end up with problems and it's how we address those problems or how we anticipate those problems One of the things I don't want to do is get in a position where we're reciting a battery storage unit in an area or someone's going to have a concern and they don't really have the outlet to come to public comment and talk about it.
So, I think what we saw up in San Luis Obispo, the problem there and you know, I can hear all day that it's different technology and that's great The concern that I have is I don't want to get in a position where something doesn't come to the Board of Supervisors. A decision is made, a project is approved. It then falls into it becomes a problem that there's an accident.
Board members are then on the hook because we are the forward facing folks that are supposed to be reviewing this and they never even saw I don't have any problem with battery storage as long as it's transparent. We do proper noticing, people show up we hear about it you know people get information we vote on it and it moves forward. I think that's all I'm looking for so Yeah, I want to give a shout out to staff. I know this was a long time coming and the way we kind of hitched the wagon of battery storage to the end of it makes sense. We don't want to start off...we don't want to approve this and then go hey let's kick off a 10-year battery storage ordinance because by the time that gets done there'll be a
new technology.
Micronuclear in your backyard so i'm down for all of this. It just needs to be open to the public transparent That's all I'm looking for.
Yeah, you know, I could jump in on that. That's where I'm at as well. And I want all these things to be permittable but I want to make sure that there's a review process and they're not exempt that, um, you know, I think people elect us to be able to be their eyes and ears out there. And if we say right now that it's allowed everywhere with a permit and all you have to do is check the boxes and you get your permit That I think right now we're proving it in a lot of different places that we're probably all uncomfortable with. Potentially, I know I am and so I think that's where that's as important is I think there could be projects that are exempt if they're within certain setbacks you talk about zonings. I'm talking probably more setbacks from sensitive receptors and certain zoned areas urban areas residential areas Residential neighborhoods, urban rural neighborhoods things like that we can look at.
I think that's the big thing is trying to move it away from populated areas. So I think if they're closer to those, there's shorter setbacks. Those are things that should move up the decision making tree for us so that somebody has an opportunity to potentially either bring it to the board or it goes to Planning Commission. They have a hearing and they can appeal it to the board if necessary.
So I think that that's a really important deal. The Clean Coalition had their little picture that they had in their letter to us but if you scrolled out just a tiny bit You end up seeing a church, a high school and a bunch of houses. And I think that you may be fine in Carpinteria but I don't think that necessarily fits in all of our communities so having battery storage. I know that as Supervisor Hartman mentioned the technology is better than it was in Moss Landing I'll remind us all when they built Moss Landing, they thought that was the best ever and that would that wouldn't happen. And so there's a lot of things that you can't foresee in the future. And that goes to one of my other issues that I'm concerned about on the environmental impact on batteries is I don't see anything in here on impacts to groundwater and the soil from potentially a fire or any type of, you know issue.
So I think that's a big question that agriculturalists have been asking for quite some time. We have groundwater basins here that are essential to what we do in this county And battery acid leaking, I don't know whether toxic substances that are in batteries that could end up in there. I have not yet seen a study. I've asked about it in other places and nobody has been able to provide something to me to say hey this is fine.
So you know development standards would probably have to be some type of liner to make sure that doesn't happen if you look at most battery storages they're on concrete pads And so that's something that we're really concerned about and making sure that we if there's a fire and then you're applying water to try to put it out or whatever substance You know, we do all these things for oil and gas. I don't know why we're not doing them for battery storage as well because these are all things that we're talking about in those factors but we're not having the same conversations with this industry and so it sounds like we're probably coming back with something potentially. We're not getting that done today but I just want to put on record the things that I'm concerned about before I can eventually approve something.
So I'm looking at distances from sensitive receptors On top of the zoning and then I'm also looking at potentially impacts to agriculture, not just immediately but you know long term especially if there's an incident how that's done. And who pays for it at that point? You know eventually insured and bonded for that That might be something that needs to be in place to make sure that that liability when that company goes out of business, that doesn't end up on the landowner. It doesn't end up on the taxpayer in those circumstances. Supervisor Plowman looks like you have something to respond.
5:41 – 5:4612 turns
Supervisor Nielsen, I wanted to just we can certainly look at these issues as we come back and so that might help you with the decision that you want to make. One thing I did want to say is that in oil gas we have areas of containment right? So those are the types of things that can be included in these types of projects and it sounds like what your looking for.
Absolutely yeah
okay
and we want to I mean i'm not trying to create an excuse to not approve them, I just want to make sure that containment is important for all this and I think nobody argues with that but I don't see that in the environmental document and I don' see that in the standards and so that's what gives me concern when we're actually asking looking to maybe expand the BESS here is that okay what are we doing about those types of things?
So those are my concerns on the BESS conversation And I was kind of surprised, to be honest with you. I knew we were going to have utility scale solar and then I opened up all my stuff and I realized how much this is kind of a battery ordinance for the most part for us or at least some of the big changes that we're looking at. So those were my initial questions.
Other questions? I have the discussion of the cap. You know, and what goes into that cap because I think there's been a lot of comment on the cap at least from our agricultural organizations. Right now we have you know, I think it's been recommended 16,000 that came out of the Planning Commission is that right? But I think our AAC, our Agricultural Advisory Committee that we all point people to recommend 8,000 I think they also recommended that we look at making sure that's divided north and south or PG&E and Southern California Edison.
Yeah, Supervisor Nelson their letter recommended we divide that 16,000 acre cap between north and south of the one area of the county wasn't burdened with all of it right? I think they have some concerns that the agricultural land that's the way I read the letter
Actually, I think they recommend 8000 and I think or actually one of them.
Yeah, I think the grower shipper recommended 8000 split and then AAC I think it was 16,000 split. Okay gotcha
so I'm very interested in the gross shippers position and I was also understand want to make sure understand what goes into that cap number do the existing inventory already have in Cuyama would that be a part of the cap as you guys haven't designed right now?
Mr. Chair, board members, it was really designed to apply to new tier 3 projects. So the existing I mean it could be structured either way but the existing solar projects at Quiamo were not considered to be part of that. Okay so 8,000 new?
And then why Tier 3 and not also bringing in Tier 2 into that cap?
Supervisor Nelson, board members. The focus was just on the Tier 3 at the Planning Commission discussion just because there is no upper limit to the size of those facilities so there was concern that there could be just a runaway train that comes through I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. So I'm not going to focus that, but that was the thought process. I believe in coming up with that number and focusing in on the utility scale for those larger projects.
Okay? So my thought is it you know if we're trying to limit the impact agriculture doesn't matter what's a tour or two or three. It matters for three, it matters for two. You know as far as the ag impact if that's what the caps therefore so just wanted to add that is part of the conversation as well and that's where I'm at on that is I like to see two and three and I like the 8000 number split north and south on Southern California Edison and PG&E is where I met with that. The other issue that Grower Shippers brought up was their request to expand the tier one onsite exemption up to 15 acres I think it's at five acres right now. And so, you know there's and I do appreciate that solar adjacent to especially coolers is a really big deal for agricultural operations to be able to defray some of the cost have some redundancy.
I think even the battery storage is going to be really important for those. So again, I'm not anti-battery storage. I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5:46 – 5:5310 turns
Mr. Chair, board members we could certainly look at that and see if the EIR would or if that would create any potential issues with the EIR evaluation and have that when we come back at the next hearing I will note that as currently set up There is no, for the Tier 1 category there is no size limit if it's a solar canopy type of design on an area that's maybe already improved or disturbed.
So if they were doing, they could you know there could be a scenario where they can get that 15 acres with the solar canopy design if they're not taking out like an active ag area or something like
that. And that's a Tier 1 I'm talking
about just
aggregating Tier 2 and Tier 3 I'm sorry, I've got back to my cap on there. Say that
again. So currently under Tier 1, the exempt category there is no size limit for the solar canopy design where it allows for the dual use so you could have a scenario like with an ag cooler where if they're proposing the solar canopy over say like the parking area or some disturbed area already improved area they could get up to that 15 acres and still fall within the tier one but it is limited to areas that are already disturbed or developed As opposed to taking out like undeveloped or active ag land.
Okay, I think it's more the undeveloped is what they're looking at because we do have a lot of just the topography throughout our valley is not some of the topography is not necessarily suitable for agriculture production but still adjacent to maybe a cooler you know because we have these coolers that are kind of strategically throughout the valley. You know there's hillsides that are appropriate for And I think that's what we're kind of envisioning when we're talking about making sure that expansion is a little bit larger because it still might be agricultural zone grant ground but might be greater than the 5 acres. That's contemplated here.
And if we do more on the battery storage, one last point is I think we need to have a definition of kind of battery storage that's behind the meter and in front of the meter. Right? So I think in front of meters more utility right so it's part of microgrid system versus behind the meter which is kind of protecting your investment there and how you're going to use it onsite. Right. So I don't know if those definitions were really delineated when we're talking about I think that's something important as we develop this
out. Mr Chair, it's interesting you know our current regulatory framework for solar essentially has two categories. We have utility scale which is limited to To Koyama, the 600 acres in Koyama and then there's everything else. And everything else is sort of behind the meter so you can't do any sort of commercial solar that is being sent back to the grid. And we were criticized by the solar industry for the way our regulatory structure is currently set up because of that. So through this process, we've kind of tried to move away from the sort of regulating based on behind-the-meter or front-of-the-meter and focus more on the use in terms That's how we've sort of structured the tiers and allowed for the, I think the expectation is that most of the tier projects would normally be for on-site use but not necessarily limited to that in most situations.
And the battery storage would allow for sort of some flexibility in terms of how that energy is used. We do indicate that in certain zones like residential zones, AG zones are sort of resource management zones. That they're really situated or it's best that those be primarily preserved for the on-site use as opposed to becoming mostly a commercial operation.
Yeah I think the issue comes when the in front of meter behind the meter it's it's the impact and who benefits from that impact. Right I think if people the impacts on their site, it's a risk that they're taking for a personal benefit for their property versus it being a you know a regional solution right where then impacts on that property but in fact you know it helps the whole entire community but it most directly affects that person or the people that are adjacent to that so that's where I think there's a difference with the way it's received is based on the you know who benefits for the potential negative impacts that might come from a battery storage project.
And I think that that matters to people, it matters to me. All right Supervisor
Hartman? I guess the first issue is this split between north and south. I don't know exactly what you consider north but if it's above the tunnel There's a lot of ranch land. I mean, most of the ag is above the tunnel. So if you were going to do something like that, I think it would have to be proportional to the ag land rather than just a so-called 50-50 split. That doesn't make any sense.
We've got a lot of landing on the Gaviota Coast
5:53 – 6:0022 turns
I don't think it compares, but let's look. I'd like to see the acreage because I believe that above the tunnel is a lot more and some of the Gaviota Coast is above the tunnel.
I'm sure we do. And I think I think the idea was Southern California Edison versus PG&E if we're trying to split the load. So whatever that looks like.
Yeah. Is that a really relevant distinction here?
Yes.
PG&E versus SCE and how many acres of solar?
Yeah, I think so for the impact
I guess it depends again if it's in front or behind the meter, but I don't think that's a relevant distinction either for this purpose. I'd like to talk about exemptions. I think having every battery project come to the Planning Commission and the Board is a very expensive thing especially for a very small project And especially when we're trying to expedite and streamline, I would think maybe a zoning clearance if that were.
But I guess I'd like our planning staff to once again remind us of the implications for the different levels of permit.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So exemptions obviously are exempt, so there's no planning permit and straight to building permit which so there's no notice, no opportunity for appeal. Zoning clearance is a permit but it's not noticed, it's not appealable. So if the concern or interest is to make sure people are aware If the applicant does not have an application or have an opportunity to object or voice their concerns in a public forum, zoning clearance would not accommodate that.
Sort of your lowest tier to allow for more Right now, stand-alone battery energy storage is actually allowed in a number of our zone districts. But it's CUP and there's no distinction whether it's quarter acre or five acres. It's a CUP across the board. There may be one zone where it's a minor CUP I think in the
PU. Public Utilities.
Where it's an LUP in the PU Public Utility District. We don't have a ton of those around the county but there's a handful
All right. Thank
you.
Any other questions from the board before we go to public comment? I think we've got a good amount of public comment on this item. All right, Madam Clerk, do we have public comment?
Chair Nelson and members of the Board, yes, we have 14 requests to speak from the public on this item.
Okay.
We will begin here in Santa Maria with Joshua Medrano to be followed by Claire Weinman. All right,
we're going to go ahead and close public comment at this time.
Well, good afternoon supervisors. This is quite the meeting I do not admire you having to sit through everything but I do admire the fact that you go through everything so diligently. My name is Joshua Medrano. I am the Executive Secretary Treasurer of the Tri-Counties Building Construction Trades Council and I am here in support of the staff recommendation to move forward as you all know with the building trades we are on the forefront of technology And when we start coupling battery storage and we start bringing that in a conversation, there are knee-jerk reactions.
I do commend you for wanting to learn more about these systems. The Building Trades is happy to offer tours of local facilities, to bring in guest speakers that are experts on the subject matter to help qualm some of those concerns. If we can be of any service, please reach out to us. I know that we have quite a few supporters on the line so I won't take up too much of your time but please reach out should you have any questions and look forward to you moving forward as staff recommends. Thank you for your time. Thank You Josh.
We will now go to Claire Weinman to be followed by Ben Schwartz. Claire?
Good afternoon, my name is Claire Wyman with the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. We appreciate the robust discussion that you've been having on this today and we support a diverse and resilient energy portfolio for the county. We're here today to respectfully request two modifications to these sweeping amendments to safeguard our county's agricultural vitality.
First, as discussed we request expanding the Tier 1 on-site use exemption from 5 acres up to 15 acres. For active agricultural operations especially essential infrastructure like coolers and processors this expansion is vital it would allow local operations to better incorporate incorporate renewable energy manage rising power costs reduce strain on the grid and maintain crucial operational resiliency through public safety power shutoffs We would like to see this cap ideally distributed throughout the county. This acreage total would meet the We remain deeply concerned about the threat of best fires and smoke plumes to agricultural employees, lands and crops as recently witnessed in Moss Landing.
PG&E and CASO recently contemplated adding new additional high-capacity voltage lines in Santa Barbara County, in northern Santa Barbara County so we can't count on existing grid and substation capacity as a limiting factor. We can't risk the disproportionate conversion of prime farmland, particularly in Santa Maria and Lompoc Valleys. Furthermore, the rapid growth and high resource consumption of data centers which have caused grave concerns in places like Imperial Valley warrant caution.
If a blanket cap is adopted we urge the county to exercise discretion to distribute this acreage equitably across the entire county rather than allowing disproportionate concentration in a single area. As also discussed, we note that only counting tier 3 projects towards this cap creates vulnerability for agricultural resources. These common sense adjustments will support nimble agricultural operations without placing an undue burden on any one portion of the county.
Thank you for your time and consideration of agriculture's concerns. Thank you.
Thank You Ms. Wyman.
We will now go to Ben Schwartz to be followed by Benjamin Oaks.
6:00 – 6:064 turns
Good afternoon, Chair and Supervisors. My name is Ben Schwartz and I'm the Policy Director with The Clean Coalition. We are a non-profit and have been involved in this process since the very outset. The first task that I worked for with The Clean Coalition in 2019 was actually identifying this issue and commenting on the Strategic Energy Plan. So first I'd like to thank the staff and the Planning Commission for getting this process this far. It's definitely been challenging, and the Clean Coalition along with Community Environmental Council and Sierra Club Santa Barbara Ventura Chapter submitted a letter to the board recommending adoption We are happy to hear the dialogue that has occurred today and definitely support 0.25 acres of standalone energy storage, this is in line with our initial recommendation to the Planning Commission.
And I think the fact that the planning commission was willing to include up 2.2 5 acres of paired storage definitely sets the foundation for including stand alone energy storage. I'd like to point out that the county has passed a strategic energy plan as well as an energy assurance plan that specifically identify energy storage as crucial to meet the county's reliability and resilience goals along with effectively decarbonizing And this is the exact type of policy that will help enable that. But standalone storage is a critical aspect of it and should not be left to the future into the current market, about 80 to 90 percent of new net energy metering projects. So that's typically rooftop solar. Those are projects that are either solar plus storage or standalone storage.
That's also true for the larger utility scale queue as well. Solar plus storage is dominant and standalone storage is dominant, and we are continuing to see more programs developed that allow everyday folks like myself or you who have solar and storage on your roofs to help participate not only to help the local grid but also to help the broader grid in delivering real substantial megawatts of energy that ensure that our grid can continue to function I'd also like to point out that the local grid store project in Goleta has been called on before in 2024 to help ensure that the grid can help continue to function and stay online.
So, I do think it's very important that we look at the benefits of energy storage and the value of it in the context of the county and the state goals But I also do understand that considering the potential hazards is warranted as well. I'd like to point out NFPA has a number of studies on contamination and when we are concerned about batteries, the type of batteries we use now do not produce battery acid so that's no longer an issue. There are others there are systems in place for drainage for safety for grading and I'm happy to talk about that with you. Thank you.
We will now go to Benjamin Oaks to be followed by Spencer Brandt. Benjamin?
Good afternoon Chair and Supervisors, my name is Benjamin Oaks a policy intern at the Clean Coalition and I'm here in support of adopting the amended utility scale solar ordinance with the allowance for small-scale standalone storage. Local solar is crucial for developing microgrids which ensure that vulnerable customers are guaranteed resilience during grid outages This is a real opportunity for the county to modernize its utility-scale solar policy, enabling communities to access the renewable energy and storage they need to ensure reliable and resilient flow of electricity.
This not only addresses the county's energy needs but also its economic development goals. This policy is critical for the county to meet its energy goals, as outlined in the 2019 Strategic Energy Plan. The proposed ordinance would align the county with CEQA and streamline permitting for local solar and storage projects on the built environment. As it currently stands, this ordinance requires all standalone storage to have a conditional use permit. The same permit burden as massive utility scale solar farms over 30 acres.
The proposed amendment includes standalone storage projects up to one acre in Tier 1 streamlining these projects from a planning permit requirement. This proposed amendment is a natural extension from the framework adopted by the Planning Commission, which is for 0.25 acres of additional storage paired with solar and storage projects. 0. 25 acres of stand-alone storage will always have a smaller footprint than 0. 25 acres of storage paired with solar.
Regulating small, standalone storage projects similarly to large-scale utility solar projects produces inconsistent results and artificially reduces the viability of these projects. The Planning Commission supported an additional allowance for paired solar and storage projects but they acknowledged that they were not the right entity for making this decision.
The Clean Coalition agrees with the County Planning Commission that the Board of Supervisors is the right body to add this amendment because the board created the framework for the Utility Scale Solar Ordinance and now has opportunity to make sure that vision is complete. Approving this amendment represents significant progress in achieving the goals outlined in the strategic energy plan and unleashes local renewable energy where it's most beneficial. If passed, this amendment will ensure that the county is poised to achieve its energy strategy while avoiding the need for another years-long process of aligning with state law to streamline small energy storage projects. Thank you for your time.
We will now go to Spencer Brandt to be followed by Doss Williams. Spencer?
6:06 – 6:124 turns
Good morning, Chair Nelson and Supervisors Spencer Brant here on behalf of Central Coast Community Energy. I just want to take the time to add a little bit of color to some of the questions that you have received today both from yourselves and members of the public on issue energy storage safety. The most compelling statistic that we have found comes from the Electric Research Policy Institute which found that in the time period between 2017 and 2023, energy storage deployment grew by 25,000%.
But during that same time period, energy storage failure rate which failure includes heat incidents and fires but it also includes other malfunctions. That rate declined by 97%. So that is really a reflection of what we see with the advancements in technology which is really the changing of battery chemistry from the former nickel manganese cobalt to the lithium iron phosphate, which is really the standard across the industry at this point in time and really has promoted greater safety outcomes.
I can tell you that from a legislative perspective, 3CE has supported energy storage safety including Senate Bill 283 the Clean Energy Safety Act which requires local fire authority consultation by applicants that are proposing battery storage with the local fire authority. It also requires the local fire authority to be involved in inspections as a part of the project and requires the facilities meet the rigorous NFP 855 standard, which is widely regarded as the toughest safety standards in the industry.
I also want to share that the issue of energy storage safety is something our policy board has grappled with as well. One of the incidents that has been referenced by a number of speakers at the Moss Landing facility is in our service territory, and so we are very familiar with how the County of Monterey has had to tackle energy storage safety. They've done incredibly extensive monitoring in the aftermath of that incident, which found a number of things including no evidence of heavy metal contamination soils at six monitoring sites conducted by the University of California.
No air quality risk to the public health throughout the life of the incident as monitored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and no contamination to drinking water tanks or wells Really, there is certainly a lot of community concern when you see the images that you see on TV. But I think it's important that our decisions are grounded in the science and the actual environmental monitoring of an incident like that.
Thank you very much for your time.
We will now go to Doss Williams then we will go to Zoom with Anna Citron.
Good morning, Chair Nelson and Supervisors. Das Williams on behalf of Central Coast Community Energy. We are a not-for-profit locally governed energy provider serving more than 1.2 million customers across five central coast counties. Our job is to procure affordable, reliable and clean power for our customers who are the residents of the communities you serve.
Here's something we've learned doing that job. Solar is essential and it's the most cost competitive resource available to us, the cheapest power we can buy on your behalf. We have over 918 megawatts of solar in our portfolio and that's new power purchase agreements, new steel in the ground. But solar is only part of that equation. You need storage to go with it.
It lets us take the midday sun we've already paid for and shift it to 6, 7, 8 in the evening when demand peaks and grid power's most expensive and dirtiest. Local storage has been hard to come by even though it is permittable in this county. And so the question is like many things that we want in this county. How do we make something possible to be truly permittable, not just in theory? And so we hope that as a follow-up you could expand Tier 1 or I mean Tier 2 for a minor CUP requirement for midsize battery projects. We support So we're going to start off with a little bit of background on solar. The quarter acre exemption. That's that's only enough to build 3 megawatts. That's it like one stack. That some out that one little property is going to use truly what you would call a utility scale project.
Utility scale solar is not legal in the county of Santa Barbara. That means not a hypothetical rancher, a real rancher in Los Olivos that wanted to do a community solar project and now can't? If you do not pass this ordinance they are out of options. They cannot go find a developer for a utility-scale solar project. It means that the farmers of Cuyama I'm going to talk a little bit about what's going on with PG and E. And I want to start by saying that we cannot entice PG and e to upgrade their transmission because there's no not enough acreage left in the cap You know the I remember that is the many discussions we've had over the years. That the birthplace of environmentalism needs to permit solar that is still a central question and we hope you move forward and pass the ordinance today.
Thank you miss Williams.
We will now go to zoom with on a citron to be followed by Isabelle Stice on it.
6:12 – 6:188 turns
Hi good afternoon, you hear me. Yes, we can please proceed Great. Good afternoon, Chair Nelson and Supervisors. I'm Ana Citrin, Legal and Policy Director for the Gaviota Coast Conservancy. This ordinance is an important step forward to achieving a sustainable energy future for our county. As part of your approval we urge you to include important protections for agricultural land including the countywide acreage cap for Tier 3 facilities on agriculturally zoned land And protections for Williamson at contracted lands that sustain open spaces and the agricultural economy on the Gaviota Coast and throughout the county.
We also urge you to retain all mitigation measures and development standards that protect the natural and cultural environment from the adverse impacts of large solar facilities. Thank you.
We will now go to Isabel Stice, to be followed by Steve Koldrean. Isabel?
Good afternoon. Can you hear me well?
Yes, we can. Please proceed.
Amazing. Good afternoon again Chair Nelson and Supervisors. My name is Isabel Stice and I'm representing the Clean Coalition in support of adopting the amended Utility Scale Solar Ordinance with an allowance for small-scale standalone storage. I wanted to start out by saying we greatly appreciate the work of staff And beginning the conversation to include Tier 1 treatment for standalone storage projects up to 0.25 acres. With my time today, I wanted to touch on a few points important to consider in this conversation.
First, standalone storage represents an opportunity to provide significant value to Santa Barbara County particularly given the county's unique geography and established resilience priorities. The strategic energy plan recognizes the value of local storage in addressing the county's exposure to grid disruptions, and the Energy Assurance Plan emphasizes its importance in maintaining operations at critical facilities during outages.
Since the ordinance update began in 2019, the importance of these local resilience solution has only grown as was highlighted in our submitted comments by the fact that in 2026 Santa Barbara County was found to rank in the top 1% of counties nationwide for disaster risk. Along with these outages, local customers continue to experience reoccurring problems with voltage fluctuations and power quality issues that can disrupt businesses of all sizes and critical facilities even when the power remains on. To date broader utility solutions have not fully resolved these issues allowing appropriately sized standalone storage would give communities and businesses access to a local resource that is uniquely positioned to address these challenges in real time.
As discussed as well in our written comments and comments today from Ben and Benjamin of the Clean Coalition, I just wanted to again emphasize that the 0.25 acre allowance for paired storage recognizes that compact storage projects with limited land use impacts can qualify for streamlined permitting. Applying that same principle to standalone projects we believe would be a reasonable continuation of the framework developed through this process.
Small-scale standalone storage systems support strategically located systems such as batteries near substations, community microgrids and resilience hubs that can provide substantially greater resilience and grid benefits while maintaining a relatively small footprint. As a last quick important note, I wanted to emphasize that a tier one treatment for standalone storage systems would not remove regulatory oversights. These projects would still require existing building permits and existing building and electrical permits compliance with the development standards fire department review and all required inspections.
Overall the exemption of tier one treatment to standalone storage would build on the progress already made by staff Thank you for your time.
Good afternoon. My name is Steve Colden with the Operating Engineers Local 12. I just want to voice our support for this amendment and you know, although we do support those that work in oil and gas we also recognize that you know amendments like this give us a pathway for our local workforce for our communities and for getting clean energy to the communities as well. That's all I have thank you.
Thank You Steve
We will now go to Nancy Avosi to be followed by Michelle Ambrose. Nancy? Hi, can you hear me? Yes we can please proceed. Nancy? Honorable Supervisor yes. Oh you know what we are having a little bit of time hearing you. You're breaking up just a little bit
6:18 – 6:2411 turns
Okay, can you hear me now?
Oh yes. That's
nice and clear.
Thank you.
Great. Chair Nelson and Honorable Supervisors my name is Nancy Avos and I'm the Executive Director of the Santa Barbara County Action Network SBCAN. As an organization that is committed to advancing a sustainable future for Santa Barbara County we strongly support the proposed utility scale solar ordinance amendments. We believe that this is an important step towards reducing our dependence on oil and gas While expanding access to clean renewable energy for decades, our county has been deeply tied to the oil and gas industry. And while that industry has played an important role in our local economy, we know the future is clean, renewable and sustainable.
This transition is also an economic opportunity expanding utility scale solar will create local jobs in construction. Electrical work, engineering operations maintenance and the skilled trades. Santa Barbara County is uniquely positioned to lead this transition with nearly 300 days of sunshine each year. Pairing utility scale solar with battery storage allows us to capture clean energy during the day and use it when demand is the highest improving grid reliability reducing dependence on fossil fuels and making our energy system more resilient. We appreciate that this process has included comprehensive environmental review and mitigation measures to address potential impacts. Responsible planning means balancing renewable energy development with the protection of ag land, sensitive habitats and the character of our communities.
We are encouraged that solar and energy storage facilities on ag land can be designed to have to be reversible allowing the land to remain available for agricultural use in the future. We encourage the board to adopt these amendments and to include standalone battery energy storage systems in the ordinance. Storage maximizes the value of local renewable resources by ensuring the clean energy we generate doesn't go to waste. For that reason, we also encourage the board to permit standalone battery storage systems of up to one acre where appropriate. We appreciate the board's recognition of solar energy as a viable and important part of Santa Barbara County's energy future. Let's power Santa Barbara County with what we have in abundance, our sunshine, our skilled workforce and our commitment to resilience.
Thank you to county staff for all of your work and for preparing recommendations for standalone battery storage systems. Thank you.
We will now go to Michelle Ambrose to be followed by Martin Rodriguez. Michelle?
Good afternoon Chair Nelson and County Board Supervisors. My name is Michelle Embreez. I'm a policy advocate for CAUSE, the Coast Alliance United for Sustainable Economy here in Santa Maria. I am here today in full support of the county moving forward with the amended solar ordinance and encourage the board to include up to one acre of stand-alone battery energy storage systems which would allow us to maximize our energy efficiency In a time where cuts to health care pose a significant threat to your constituents, improving the health of residents in this county should remain a priority. Meaning that moving forward with solar energy can alleviate the damages air pollution has on public health which include anything between cancer, respiratory disease, heart disease and other conditions our county should jump at that opportunity.
Approving this ordinance gives you the opportunity to not only cut millions in mortality costs but also improve the quality of life for thousands of people, especially the lives of people of color who have historically been disregarded for so long. So long as big corporations and industries can make a profit despite their maximum amount of pollution I think the county is on the right track to protecting its constituents by prohibiting new oil drilling projects, but we shouldn't just stop there. Our communities want clean energy, we need affordable energy, resilient energy and we need our local government to start putting the needs of community over big industries especially right now.
We will now go to Martin Rodriguez, who is our final speaker on this item.
And Martin, we have unmuted you on our end. If you can please unmute on your end to provide your comments?
Good afternoon Chair Nelson and Board. This is Martin Rodriguez, sign workers local 433 president of Tri-County Building Trades. We support the amendments to the county codes there is some room for improvement on the battery storage but we're on the right track any job creation for the skilled and trained local workforce is a plus having board discretion is generally a plus The, we're at a crossroads with our energy right now with the killing of the offshore going on and the embattled oil and gas industry. I mean this is all we have left at the moment.
I feel like this is a plus just like my friend Doss spoke. I mean here in California this is the ground zero for this clean energy But you can't get anything built, so this will go a long ways to rectify that problem. We are in full support of this and thank you for your time. Thank you staff.
And that concludes public comment on this item.
All right thank you All right, back to the board. Actually I have a question for staff before we get too much further on kind of understanding what we're going to get done today versus what might get done at a future hearing so can you help me where we're at with this? I know we're having this conversation about batteries and things that we want to add and you know before us today what's before us today what's potentially deferred to in a future meeting that you guys can't get done today. I think it's helpful for maybe starting our conversation there
6:24 – 6:3420 turns
Mr. Chair, Supervisors, so what's before you today the package does not address standalone battery storage other than clarifying how it's currently permitted and regulated. So if you were to take action today on the current package it would just be it would allow for the paired battery storage that is ancillary or supportive of a solar but not standalone There's the 16,000 acre cap that the Planning Commission recommended that your board is considering the sort of the pros and cons and how to maybe assign that. So if your board has interest in modifying that cap in some way or eliminating it or however we would need to get direction on that.
That in particular Depending on the board's interests, could be a pretty simple straightforward fix that could be done today. But when you add elements like standalone battery storage or expanding the exemption level for So we're going to be looking at a number of things. We've been working with solar on ag properties to support onsite use. Those are the types of changes that we would want come back to your board with further discussion and review of what the sequel analysis would allow us to modify without having to do additional work.
15% which is what the staff recommendation was. So there's a gap there
that
we need to give direction on.
And I appreciate your direction on that again, that's just changing to a number so that's something that can be done pretty easily and quickly. What yeah what's in the ordinance package today it represents the Apex recommendation of that 10%. So if your board did want to adjust that to 15% or some other number we would want that direction. So that we could return to your board with a full package that would hopefully represent everything you're interested in.
The other things we heard today is if we are to explore standalone battery storage that we'd be looking at perhaps some information on appropriate setbacks from sensitive receptors and opportunities for ensuring proper containment and treatment of hazardous materials. And I believe that's it.
Okay. So when you talk about CAP, when you talk about Okay so it'd be the only best that has been approved today potentially would be something with a solar component, right? That is correct. Okay so it would basically be fed by that adjacent solar power therefore and what side of the grid is that on? Is that going to be before or after the meter?
It could be either yeah okay it would just have to have some relationship to that solar but how that solar is used I think that's actually might be fairly important in this conversation about citing right because if you're going to do a solar site, it's usually going
than adjacent to sensitive receptors, right? Is that I mean that's kind of is that we're seeing that in the
zoning here. Certainly for the larger tier two and tier three that's what we would anticipate for the smaller tier one which would be permitted in all zones you know there's a potential. I think what what we've seen a lot of you can just look across the street are those solar canopy type of designs on existing developed built environment that could potentially support I'm going to go ahead and get started. I'll start with the battery storage element to that there are the code does establish a minimum setback requirements which come primarily from the fire code so where they have depending on the size of the battery and the type of the battery system would
Gotcha. All right, so let's take these issues out. I'll go ahead and any further questions actually for staff before we can start to deliberate to Reza Hartman you have some additional questions for staff or do you want to start deliberation?
I can do both unless there are other questions with regard to the cap if if we set a cap how hard is it to up it if we wanted to do that in the future
good question Supervisor Hartman through the chair, not hard. I mean you know you're now saying we were coming to you several times a year with ordinance amendments including like cleanup packages here and there and so again the cap is come out of the hearing process so it's not like triggered by some CEQA component or something like that. So it's really a policy decision that could be modified at
Okay, so what I would favor is exploring expanding Tier 1 from 5 to 15 acres for solar arrays. I think that's a good idea if our environmental analysis would allow for that. With regarding a cap, you know 8-16 why not 10? But I would like to see that distributed throughout the county as grower shippers said in South County we have 147 thousand acres of agricultural land.
And 500,000 in North County above and below the tunnel. So there's a lot more agricultural land in North County. So I think a cap should we should distribute proportionately in other words. And then that gets us to the issue of standalone battery. I think we could go up to a zoning clearance, but I am not for making small battery storage onerous. It's very expensive to go through to the planning commission or going to the board. I mean it's $5,000 or $10,000 so I would like to see that come back So I think that's a great idea. And we're going to be able to do that with revision letter with clear development standards for containment and what setbacks would look like.
So let me ask some questions clarification the 5 to 15 that be an amendment has come back not today is that what I heard from you guys. Okay, so that's going to be deferred and I Maybe 10 and maybe distributed north and south based on acreage agriculture acreage. Okay, I know that maybe another way to look at is electrical use to North and South side. Maybe that's something again. That's why I was that was the point I was trying to make was you know demand so that's kind of that was where I was going at so So that's so you're thinking maybe bringing it down to 10. So kind of a little bit of a compromise there and then, of course, it could be brought back at a later date as far as stand alone best. You're saying that should come back or it needs to come back?
It sounds like has come back so that can be deferred. So not necessarily that might be a fight for another day because we kind of determine what those setbacks look like and what those additional development standards might look like So today's decisions would simply be the cap and the distribution of that cap. And And that's going to be deferred, right? We're going to defer that as part of staff recommendation. I'm trying to get down with it. You are trying to
organize our meeting and I just wonder could we come back with all of it making some decisions. I think it's odd to try to split it up.
So we can defer everything until a future meeting.
We make conceptual motion. Yeah,
Mister chair so we have a suggestion you could certainly give us a conceptual motion about what the board supports today and then give us direction what to bring back. We were planning to come back on a date certain looking at September 1st
sounds good
as a day and so you could say yes, we support the current program. I just want to remind everybody that we're just doing an ordinance
6:34 – 6:3919 turns
How many times have we gone back to the cannabis ordinance? Yeah, but so yeah. So I'm saying is where I don't want anybody to get in a fight over what acreage is and all this because we can we can figure that out as as the thing matures. We'll fix it.
Yeah, I appreciate the compromise supervisor Hartman's trying to bring about here. So, I'm with you. So if you've got a bunch of feedback from us, you know, we're here. Sounds like could most of us agree to about 10,000 acre cap to start and then we can figure out
some
different.
I was with 16 but I'm open to listening.
And we could always bring it back if we hit the 10 pretty quick and doesn't seem like it has massive impacts to the community based on
impact.
I think the whole idea even, I hate to say the cannabis cap was it was like hey let's see what we get to and then reevaluate the system. And I think that's what really everybody thinks the cap would be is just a little bit of a break to make sure we don't go overwhelmed and over speculated and see some massive impacts. It just it's really a check valve for the board to come back to us if we hit the cap I think there's a lot of people out there that think we'll never hit the cap or even get to 8,000 right?
You know that we have a lot of solar already so I think it might be an easy ask in that sense. So please.
I'm okay as long as we have a date certain. I will note that this item was also going to be with an item related to oil and gas which is part of a big picture to move us away from fossil fuels and that has been kicked twice so if we have a date certain I'm on board.
September 1st. Mr Chair, Supervisors I did want to get clarification on the cap there was discussion right as currently presented it's only applicable to Tier 3. There was some discussion about applying Tier 2 towards that cap as well so appreciate your board's guidance on where you stand with that Supervisor Hartman.
Well, I'm with Supervisor Capps. I wouldn't have a cap but I'm you know in the interest of compromise and working together so I would be eager to hear how my colleagues feel about the combination. I
would rather as it is a safety valve let's put both two or three in there if we hit 10,000 acres That's going to be front page news, right? I mean that that's a big deal. So we hit with two and three come back to the board see what those impacts are to the community. Are they significant then maybe we stop there if it's if it's not that significant that we're just taking up pretty much land that doesn't have a lot of productive use and there's and there's a big demand out there that I think the whole board will be open to going farther. I think it's an opportunity for us at 10,000 gosh that's a big number to say okay what do we how do we want to proceed with accounting from there
and Agrivoltaics, they're going to come and save our
strawberries. And so I think that's a number that we're looking at 10 and maybe bring back just a couple of different ways for us to distribute it north and south if that's an option. Supervisor Hartman brought up You know, available lands. Maybe also just look at energy use just another thing to a data point for us to look at. Any thoughts on the 10% of non-prime contracted land that APAC had recommended versus the 15% that staff had? I was really indifferent there. I don't know what anybody else thinks on that number and we've got to give some feedback on that one.
Then I'd go for 15.
Okay again these are non prime contracted lands I don't think it's, neither one of the ag organizations really called that one out. That was more of an APEC concern. So I think we're OK with staff at this point moving forward. You can come back with some best permitting options right? That's the next part of this as well. And I know that I had asked for and insisted more containment issues just making sure that's kind of vetted out You know one of the things that you know we hear from people advocates that it's very safe now.
Well I think one of the ways that you determine safety is through insurance and bonding, and that might be something that we need to make sure projects have is that because if that's really if it really is that safe it'll be really cheap to insure and bond it if it's really not that safe it's risky then insurance and bond markets will tell you it's expensive so maybe that's maybe some bonding for potential I think that's a really good point. I'm not sure if we're going to
be able to look at that
and maybe look at that to come back. We will look into that. Yeah, it's not that might be something nice to add to it. Any other issues?
You know, perception's reality for us for a lot of this stuff. So a lot of times people haven't been educated about what the new science is they're still looking at the videos of Moss Landing and that's what they're talking to me about so I need your help and everybody else's help to get everybody educated on that as well. I think we can do that through these hearings and kind of talk about the new technology is but the fact that you know we just need to hear more about it and learn more about it
6:39 – 6:4527 turns
I would love that because we do have another side that's actually fear mongering on this issue and it's not helpful. It's a technology that is being vilified. I'm so excited to be here. It's been a long time coming and it's been very serious to me and as we've been sitting here, you know, we got an e-mail from our director of emergency services about tonight and that he warning and shut offs and see is also sending out notices and so this whole effort is about resiliency. That's why we need batteries and that's why we need solar. We educate. I think everyone's in agreement, I'm all for it so let's use that platform.
Supervisor
Hartman? And we're members of the JPA 3CE they invest our money in these various projects so they know a lot so we should you know it's not like they're just another one we were part of them they're part of us so we should rely on them for some information about this
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. And I just want my last thing and I'll just preview that when I in September 1st when this comes back to us is that I am still looking at the permitting tier of exempt. You know a 15-person farm tour takes a zoning clearance. A small drainage improvement, a greenhouse those take LUPs getting potentially an exempt battery storage being easier than those things just does not seem We have a lot of things that we need to be able to make sure are equitable in our planning code. And so I mean, understand the need but these things are fairly significant land use changes and when you have when we have permitting structures that make those things higher levels just does not seem to fit his is my thought. So that's the part will be looking at when we bring this back to the board on
We're talking about the grower shipper request about up to 15 acres being exempt on. Agricultural land that was previously developed. Okay, it's going make clear that that would that's what we're talking there and
I would say
It doesn't say that in their letter, but
I'm going to say it for him because I do think that's something that should be looked at. I mean if there's a hillside that can't have production and productive agriculture on it, I think that should absolutely be
So what we'll look at is what we can cover in the existing E I R and so if we can cover some sure like that then we can. If it has been analyzed
in
some
great. So as a crop caps,
sorry chair and
yeah, I think
we were punting so I didn't do closing comments on doing a piecemeal but this is my last comment I just wanted to thank the speakers that we really had diversity of voices and. Of course our environmental community that's been We've been pushing along here for a long, long time on this. But also we had labor here today and I want to take Josh Joshua Medrano's invitation up to come see one of these projects and actually really learn about it up close so again just thanks to everybody who turned out and who has been there all along for this for a long ride. We just have a little bit longer.
I just
want to make sure that staff has captured all the board's correction. So Lisa, can you read back and reaffirm everything that you're going to be bringing back? Thank you.
Yes. So on the cap, we're going to bring back a 10,000 acre cap. That would include tiers 2 and 3 in those will be options for We will include a 15% cap on non-prime ag land so we will change that in the uniform rules. With regard to BESS permitting, we will provide more information on the containment We're going to look at standards which exist and actually do react. We do talk about it in the E I R some question about whether we can bond require bonding for those facilities in the event of an accident. And then also will look at setbacks We will look at the up to 15 acres of exempt solar on agricultural lands and under, yeah that's your one.
Great thank you those I think that was really well but Supervisor Hartman had a good point what is what would be some sensitive receptors? What would you?
Residential uses schools those types of things okay yeah fairly well described in the environmental review world.
Okay
great. Not ecological Right,
okay. All right are we all comfortable with that? So with that direction can I get a motion to continue this to September 1st?
I move we continue this till September 1st.
With direction yes and a second from Supervisor Katz?
Second. Okay all
right so we have a motion in the second any further discussion on this motion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passed unanimously. At this time we're actually going to briefly go back into closed session, one of the items that we were discussing as an
6:45 – 6:476 turns
update
for four of us. So Madam County Council would you please read what we're going to go back into closed session to get updated on.
Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board. The board previously recessed to closed session and I reported out on the only reportable item at that time which was a decision to initiate litigation and we are returning to closed session on one item and that's Sable Offshore Corp versus the county and the time estimate is about 15 minutes.
We'll be back in 10 or 15. Welcome back to the July 14, 2026 meeting of Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We're coming back from a brief second closed session. Madam County Council can you report out from closed session please?
Thank you Mister Chairman members of the board. The board met in closed session on one item of existing litigation, Sable Offshore Corp versus the county and the board took no reportable action.
All right thank you and at that point now we'll be adjourned today's meeting to August 18th in Santa Barbara. Yep all right see then.