Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good morning. I will call to order the July 7th, 2026 regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Supervisor Lavagnino. Supervisor Lee.

Here.

Supervisor Capps. Here. Supervisor Hartman. Here. And Chair Nelson.

Here. Please stand and join us in pledging allegiance to our flag. Ready, begin. I pledge allegiance

invisible with liberty and justice for all.

Next item of business is approval of the minutes from the June 23rd regular meeting. Can I get a motion? Hartman moves approval. Second. A motion from Hartman, second from Lee. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next item up is our County Executive Officer report. CEO Miyasato, do you have a report for us today?

I do. Good morning, Chair Nielsen and board members. I have a few announcements this morning. The first is to just highlight some accomplishments from the District Attorney's Office they'd like the public to know about. The Consumer Environmental Protection Unit secured a $1.25 million settlement with Kroger to resolve false advertising allegations. The District Attorney's Office also opened its new Sexual Assault Response Team, or SARC, clinic in Santa Barbara, expanding access to trauma-informed forensic medical services for sexual assault survivors through a partnership with Cottage Health and funding secured by Congressman Salud Carbajal. finally congratulations to senior deputy district attorney kathy martin and investigator robert parmalee who are recognized by mothers against drunk driving for their outstanding work in impaired driving prosecution and investigation so kudos to the district attorney's office This morning, I'm also pleased to share another video of the county's video series, Your County, Your Services. And as you know, these videos air on Channel 20 throughout the week and are also featured in our monthly county newsletter on CSB TV YouTube page and across county's social media channels in both English and Spanish. This month's video highlights the county's five health clinics and the essential services they provide to our community. While recent budget cuts have affected some services, and there is an item on your agenda today related to some good news related to that, we wanted to remind residents that our county health clinics are indeed open and continue to provide quality care to everyone who needs it. So 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 Health Department has five health care centers located throughout the county, open and ready to serve the community. The Santa Maria Health Center, the Lompoc Health Center, the Santa Barbara Health Center located in the eastern Goleta Valley, the Franklin Health Center, located on the east side of Santa Barbara, and the Carpinteria Health Center.

If you want to become a patient with us, all you have to do is walk in or call us, and one of our front office staff members will gladly serve you. How bad does it hurt?

For our clinics, we do offer everything across the board, whether that's urgent care visits, preventive care, wellness checks, Medicare annual visits, adult general medicine, internal medicine. We do offer some other services as well. I myself, along with other docs, offer medication assisted treatment for substance use disorders.

A lot of our staff, including physicians, are bilingual. We serve our low-income population as well as those with Medi-Cal, Medicare, and specifically we are open to those who don't have insurance. We offer pediatric screenings, women's health services, vaccinations here at the county.

So one of the programs we started a number of years ago, actually during the pandemic, was our expansion of our homeless healthcare services to street medicine. So at this point, once a week, we go out and do street medicine outreach in North and South County to provide care for folks experiencing homelessness. We really enjoy doing it. It's, again, another way to lower that barrier of care for people.

SenCal is your managed healthcare plan for those of you who have Medi-Cal. And we work very closely with SenCal to provide the most exceptional quality patient care that we can give for the community of Santa Barbara County.

Our doors are open. We want to be there for the community. Our job is to make it simple to get in and be seen, taken care of, whether that's for acute issues, urgent care issues, and again for some of those chronic issues, increasing access as much as we can for people. That's what we're here for, that's what we do.

County health clinics are open and ready to serve anyone who walks through our doors. Contact your nearest clinic today to make an appointment.

Thank you again to Kelsey for putting that video together and thank you to the Public County Health Department, all that they've gone through. It's been a tough year. We appreciate that and that they're still providing quality services. Thank you, Director Hamami. And just one more announcement, and that is the County of Santa Barbara is being recognized with a Zero Emission Vehicle Readiness Award from the California New Motor Vehicle Board for its leadership in advancing zero emission vehicles and charging infrastructure. Through more than $10 million in grant funding, the county has deployed more than 100 electric vehicles and installed 270 charging points at 21 locations throughout the county. These investments are reducing emissions and supporting a cleaner, more sustainable transportation network. Congratulations to the general services and community service departments for their outstanding leadership and dedication to this achievement. and at this time i would like to invite tim corcoran executive director of the california new motor vehicle board who's here with us today to come forward and present the award and receiving the award will be garrett wong and daryl francisco from csd ted tyburn and brandon casen from gs

Good morning. Today, the New Motor Vehicle Board is proud to recognize the County of Santa Barbara as a ZEV Readiness Award recipient. This award was launched in the summer of 2025 to support the California Transportation Agency's core four priorities of safety, equity, climate action, and economic prosperity. We recognize that nearly half of all climate changing pollution in California comes from the transportation sector, and encourage action for a cleaner future for all Californians, regardless of where they live. Advancement of zero emission technologies not only reduces emissions, but it improves public health, supports our most vulnerable communities, and reinforces safer, cleaner, and more sustainable transportation networks. As you know, this work does not get done by working in silos. Behind every charging station installed, every fleet transition planned, and every policy adopted, there are countless hours of collaboration, problem solving, and persistence. There are residents who share their experiences, staff who transform ideas into action, and advocates who keep the focus on fairness and inclusion. For local government, this commitment often looks like long board meetings in collaboration with multiple partners and stakeholders. Public works teams work tirelessly to adopt infrastructure in real time. Community partners work to build trust and ensure all voices are heard. And it takes leaders who understand that this work is not about any one single initiative. It's an ongoing process that requires creativity, resilience, and the ability to adapt and reiterate as the needs of our communities evolve and new threats emerge. Your threats remind us that progress is built collectively. It is powered not only by electricity, but by dedication, patience, and a shared belief in a better future. On behalf of the New Motor Vehicle Board, thank you for your leadership, your persistence, and your commitment to fighting climate change and reducing harm to all Californians by making the County of Santa Barbara ZEV ready. Congratulations on this well-deserved recognition. And I invite your team to come up and accept this award and certificate.

And we also have to thank the board. You've been pushing us sometimes unwillingly, but pushing us and leading the way on electric vehicle purchases and use. So thank you, board. And I think it shows through this recognition. Thank you.

Thank you, COO Misato. Vice Chair Hartman, do you have a, okay, saw your light on there. All right. Next word of a business is clerk's announcements. Madam Clerk, do we have any announcements or changes to today's agenda?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, I have just one quick announcement regarding public participation this morning. For information on the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and instructions on how to provide public comment on items listed on today's agenda or during general public comment, please refer to page two of the agenda. Individuals who wish to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance using the link provided on page two. 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 of the board's office at area code 805-568-2240 or by email at sbcob countyofsb.org that concludes my announcements for today okay thank you madam clerk um

Next item of business is our administrative agenda. I see that Supervisor Capp is your point 8, 20, and 27, and I also understand that 27 is being pulled by the public. Are there any other items that the board has? Not seen any. Any other items by the public, Madam Clerk?

Chair Nelson, members of the board, that's it from the public.

Okay, so I'm looking for a motion to approve the administrative agenda with the exception of 8, 20, and 27.

So moved. I'll second.

Okay, motion from Hartman, second by Capps. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, we'll go ahead and begin our honorary resolutions and start off with item number one. Madam Clerk, will you please read that item into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Capps. It is to adopt a resolution honoring the Friendship Adult Daycare Center's semi-centennial anniversary from 1976 to 2026. And joining us in person today, we have Catherine Westland, the executive director, and anyone else you'd like to join with you, Catherine. Whereas since its founding in 1976, Friendship Adult Daycare Center has provided innovative person-centered programs that honor individuality, promote socialization, and foster a compassionate community for older adults experiencing forms of dementia and related conditions, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's disease. vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia, and frontal temporal dementia, while offering caregivers essential respite, education, and encouragement. And whereas for five decades, Friendship Center has delivered individualized services that support physical health, emotional wellbeing, cognitive engagement, nutrition, and social connection, including bilingual programming in English and Spanish, thereby enabling older adults to maintain independence, dignity, safety, and purpose in a welcoming and engaging environment. And whereas Friendship Center has provided a trusted, safe, nurturing and uplifting environment for adults as a licensed community care program and accredited nonprofit organization led by a highly trained and dedicated team of staff. And whereas thousands of families across Santa Barbara County have received daytime respite, dementia related education, information, referrals and support, throughout every stage of their journey, with services based at the organization's long-standing campus in partnership with All Saints by the Sea Episcopal Church since 1979. And whereas Friendship Center exemplifies a community-funded, proven, compassionate social model of care, providing comprehensive fee assistance so that no individual is denied care due to financial barriers, and is distinguished nationwide as a unique nonprofit day program that makes a meaningful difference during a challenging time in the lives of many. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors does hereby acknowledge and honor Friendship Center Adult Day Care Center, celebrating 50 years of enduring commitment to compassionate care, its proven model of daily care services, its leadership and advocacy, and its dedication to improving quality of life for individuals and families, and extends sincere appreciation to its staff, volunteers, leadership, and supporters who have strengthened, sustained, and will ensure this vital support continued for years to come. Pass and adopted today.

Well, good morning, Chair, and thank you to all of the board members for welcoming us this morning. On behalf of everyone at Friendship Center, thank you for the incredible honor and for recognizing our 50th anniversary. And a very special thank you to Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Capps for taking the time to get to know our program and supporting this special recognition. For the past five decades, Friendship Center has had the privilege of serving older adults that are living with dementia and supporting the families who love and care for them. What began as a small community effort has grown into an organization that, so well described, has served thousands of families over the last 50 years and hundreds on a regular annual basis. But two things that are very special about our program is, one, the mission has never changed. We offer a place that promotes dignity, provides support, and it's just a place to have fun and enjoy life in a time that you don't really associate the word fun and joy. We offer that. The mission has stayed the same. And two, what we do is unique. Our services are unduplicated, not just locally, nationally. We are the only program that offers the services of our type without a required payment. So it is an honor to carry on this work and the recognition belongs to all of the staff, the members, the board members, the caregivers, volunteers, donors that have built us into what we are today. I am here just representing the legacy of what we are doing and the legacy that will be going forward for many years. So thank you very much.

Supervisor Lee.

Director, Catherine, I just want to say thank you for your work, for you and your team, for what you do for our community. When I visited there, I was able to meet former county supervisor Bill Wallace there. So it was an honor to meet him, see him. So continue what you're doing, and thank you again.

Thank you. I just want to give testimony to the fun that's had there and the music. And I didn't witness this in person, but I saw on the news on KYT just such an incredibly heartwarming story about the prom that you recently held with a real prom with dancing and strobe lights and all the rest. So good job just keeping such a fun spirit for everybody. Well done.

Thank you, Supervisor Capps. Next item will be item number two. Madam Clerk, will you please read that item into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution recognizing July 2026 as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color BIPOC Mental Health Month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, we have Tony Navarro, Director of Behavioral Wellness, and Maria Valencia, Behavioral Wellness Commission Chair. I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas the month of July is recognized as BIPOC, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Mental Health Month in Santa Barbara County and across the nation, providing an opportunity to raise awareness and focus on the unique strengths, experiences, and challenges that BIPOC communities face related to mental health and well-being. And whereas according to national data from the National Institute of Mental Health, approximately 56% of white adults with a mental illness receive mental health treatment compared with approximately 40% of Hispanic Latino adults, 38% of black adults, and 36% of Asian adults, highlighting persistent disparities in access to mental health services. And whereas systemic inequities, discrimination, historical trauma, and disparities in the social in the social detriments of health can contribute to increase mental health challenges and barriers to accessing care for many BIPOC individuals and communities. And whereas BIPOC communities possess tremendous resilience, cultural strengths, traditions, and community connections that foster hope, healing, and recovery, and July provides an opportunity to reduce stigma, uplift cultural strength, honor healing traditions, and recognize how resilience is shaped by lived experience. And whereas BIPOC communities possess tremendous resilience, cultural strength, traditions, and community connections that foster hope, healing, and recovery. And July provides an opportunity to reduce stigma, uplift cultural strengths, honor healing traditions, and recognize how resilience is shaped by lived experience. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge July as BIPOC Mental Health Month passed and adopted today.

Good morning, Honorable Board of Supervisors. My name is Maria Valencia, Santa Barbara County Behavioral Wellness Commission Chair and NAMI Santa Barbara member. NAMI National officially observes July as B.B. Moore Campbell National Minority Mental Health Awareness Month, also known as BIPOC. B.B. Moore Campbell started this legacy when she was struggling to find resources for her child. with a mental health condition and got involved in NAMI eventually became a family-to-family teacher, founded the affiliate in Inglewood, and became a staunch advocate. Her story is very similar to that of many of us NAMI family-to-family teachers, whom we can completely relate to. Bibi believed that if you could break the stigma in black communities, you could get more people access to mental health services. She stood for the marginalized and those who are invisible and have no voice, in particular black, indigenous, and people of color. According to NAMI National, it explicitly highlights that BIPOC communities do not receive the same quality of or access to mental health care as white populations. But through advocacy that is happening in this community and through your leadership and NAMI's mission, which in part is to hold on to hope, hope starts with us in breaking the stigma and a message to the public, hope is in the asking, asking for help. Thank you.

I'd just like to say a few words about BIPOC Month. This year's theme for BIPOC Mental Health Awareness Month is recognized on the NAMI national website is seen, heard, understood. With media content, we're fully displaying the phrase, our communities deserve to be seen, heard, and understood. In order to effectively address issues related to the disparate accessibility and quality of behavioral health care, County Behavioral Health, our partners and our allies cannot be colorblind. We must see and acknowledge the distinct realities of BIPOC experiences. For a variety of reasons, including systemic racism and historic structural oppression, BIPOC individuals and families in California, as well as here in Santa Barbara County, are often disproportionately overrepresented in data sets and statistical reports on issues that are long identified in research to be key factors for developing a mental health and or substance abuse condition. These include poverty rates, lower educational achievement rates, overcrowded living conditions and homelessness counts, incarceration rates for both youth and adults, and child protective services and foster care system involvement. Without seeing the ways in which the lives of our neighbors and their children in our communities are impacted by these issues, we cannot effectively address how to help them heal and thrive. Research by the former Kaiser Family Foundation, now known as KFF in 2024, noted that BIPOC respondents identified a lack of difficulty finding a provider who understood their circumstances and experiences as one of the key factors in not pursuing and or sustaining mental health services, despite acknowledging they knew they needed them. In order to address this gap and successfully provide culturally competent behavioral health care, we have to listen with empathy, not sympathy, and we have to have open and curious minds to ensure that those seeking help, and especially those from BIPOC communities, are heard and feel understood. We don't need to have shared experiences to help someone struggling with a mental health or substance use disorder. We actually don't even need to have a similar life experience. But to establish and maintain trust, which is necessary to reduce disparities in behavioral health care, we must recognize that the human experience is a diverse one and acknowledge that it is too often inequitable. It is only in seeing, hearing, and understanding trauma, symptoms, and illness in the full context of one's life experience that we can most timely and effectively bring them to healing and well-being. I'm going to end with a quote from a popular turn of the century novel here. Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery. Thanks.

Madam Clerk, will you please read administrative item number three into the record.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Capps. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Paul Lopez for his extraordinary contributions to his country and to the Santa Barbara community over his 101 remarkable years. And joining us in person today, we have Paul Lopez and a few members of his family, including his daughter, Paula Lopez. Whereas Paul David Lopez was born in Santa Barbara on June 22, 1925, and at age 18 left Santa Barbara High School to enlist in the United States Navy during World War II, serving with distinction aboard the USS Maryland in major Pacific campaigns, including Kwajalein, Saipan, Tinian, Litte Gulf, and Okinawa. And whereas despite multiple torpedo and kamikaze attacks that claimed the lives of many shipmates, Paul continued to serve with courage, later supporting Operation Magic Carpet and surviving the devastating 1945 Typhoon Louise while stationed in Okinawa. And whereas after his honorable discharge in 1946, Paul returned home to Santa Barbara and began more than four decades of exemplary service at the University of California, Santa Barbara, ultimately becoming the longest serving employee in UCSB's history at the time of his retirement in 1990. And whereas Paul again answered the call to serve his country during the Korean War, spending a year and a half in Kwajalein with a Navy CB unit supporting the development of critical airfields, further demonstrating his lifelong commitment to national service. and whereas Paul and his wife Gladys became pillars of Santa Barbara's Westside community, where Uncle Paulie, affectionately known as the Mayor of Chino Street, offered guidance and friendship to generations of neighborhood children, and in 2013 proudly received his long-delayed 1944 Santa Barbara High School diploma alongside his grandson. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby honor and celebrate Paul David Lopez for his extraordinary contributions to his country and to the Santa Barbara County community over 101 remarkable years passed and adopted today.

Thank you, honorable supervisors. On behalf of our family and friends who are here today, thank you so much for acknowledging what we've known for a long time, that our dad, our grandfather, is a remarkable man who answered the duty to call. I will say, though, that he was 15 years old growing up on the East Side when World War II broke out, and he was anxious to serve because as the son of immigrants from Mexico, He was a first generation American and he wanted to honor what this country gave to him and provided to him. And so he was chomping at the bit a little bit. In fact, I don't think he'll mind if I let you know that he was flat footed and they were not going to accept him into the service. So he learned the next time he went to go apply that he should take a pencil with an eraser and he erased that part that said he was flat footed. He suffered many losses, and I think a lot of people ask him the secret to his longevity, and we've talked about and acknowledged that it is the ability to overcome great loss and great sorrow. and he has lived an exemplary life for myself, my siblings, and his grandchildren. I answered the call to duty, but I'd also like to acknowledge his granddaughter, my niece, who is here, Leah Galindo, who lives on his property and takes care of him and makes it possible for him to stay in the home that we all grew up in on the west side. So it is pretty remarkable. He still likes to go out and garden out there. He gets mad at us because we've forbidden the ladders in the house. But he's pushing toward a long life. He's still making plans in his yard. So again, he's our hero. And we thank you for acknowledging this. Thank you.

Thank you.

YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING?

WELL, THANK YOU, CHAIR NELSON. I BET YOU ALL DIDN'T KNOW TODAY THAT YOU WERE GOING TO COME HERE AND MEET THE MAYOR OF CHINO STREET. and an American hero who clearly has impacted such a family, a legacy of people who have given back as well. So it's our honor, Supervisor Lee and I, to be able to work on this resolution. And I drive Chino Street a couple of times a day and I always pay tribute to you, sir. It's wonderful to have you here in person. We are together on Memorial Day because of your service to the Navy and clearly what a life of service, thank you.

Supervisor Lee. Mr. Lopez, I just want to say thank you for your service to our country and our community. I know you're known as the mayor of Chino Street, but I see you more as the hero of Chino Street. So thank you for all you do. And I just appreciate everything you do. Thank you.

Thank you. Tough act to follow there. Madam Clerk, will you please read administrative item number four into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number four is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Joseph Fletcher of the Treasurer Tax Collector's Veterans Services as the July 2026 Employee of the Month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, please make your way down to the podium, Joe Fletcher, Rhonda Murphy, Harry Hagan, Kim Tesoro, and Arlene Diaz. And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Joseph Fletcher, Santa Barbara County Veterans Services Representative Senior exemplifies the county's organizational values of accountability, customer focus, equity and inclusion, innovation, trust and ethics. And whereas Joseph Fletcher models the transformative behaviors of collaborative problem solving, alignment with the county's vision, risk taking, data driven decision making and strategic thinking. And whereas Joseph Fletcher's effectiveness in his position is a result of his can-do attitude, integrity, devotion to helping, vast knowledge of the benefits veterans and their families are entitled to, and ability to navigate the complex bureaucracy of the Veterans Administration. And whereas Joseph Fletcher has been an essential to the success of Santa Barbara Veterans Treatment Court, and the Santa Barbara County Veterans Collaborative. With his self-deprecating humor and down-to-earth persona, Joe connects with both veterans and peers, making all feel they are supported and cared for. And whereas Joe is the dedicated husband to his wife, Renee, and proud parent of his extraordinary sons, JB, Colt, and Luca, now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge Joseph Fletcher as the Employee of the Month for July 2026, passed and adopted today.

Mr. Hagan. Chair Nelson, members of the board. I'm very honored to present Joe Fletcher as the employee of the month for July. It's kind of fitting that, you know, your board has always valued and funded our office, our veteran services division. And obviously, you know, Supervisor Lavagnino and the stand down, it's always been, you know, something that you've prioritized and we appreciate that. So it's kind of fitting that it's a day where you're celebrating Paul Lopez, a real hero, from his military service, too. So a little bit about Joe. He's a local boy. He went to Dos Pueblos. Graduated a couple years after I did there, but we're classmates, I guess, right? His first post, I guess, when he was in the military in the Air Force was at Vandenberg. So he's always been somewhat committed to the community and the well-being of this community. Some of the skills you need to have when you work in the Veterans Services Division is obviously knowledge of the programs that are available, but also compassion and empathy for the people you're serving and Joe definitely recognizes that need of the people he's working with and he's an excellent example of county service and he's a great representative of the county when he's working with people. He's here with many of the veteran reps that he works with from our office too today. One little thing about Joe is that he's a big Dodger fan. He's got a bobblehead in his office. And the one thing that I always remember about you, Joe, is you always call me sir, no matter how many times I've told you to call me Harry. But I've stopped saying anything about that, because I kind of like it now that he calls me sir. So anyways, he's a super nice guy, and he's well deserving.

I DON'T DO WELL WITH RECOGNITION, SO I'D LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, MR. HAGAN, MS. DIAZ, MS. DESORO, MS. RIZA, AND EVERYBODY ELSE. I'M JUST TRYING TO DO MY PART AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER AND TEAM MEMBER FOR SANTA BARBARA COUNTY. SO THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

All right, that concludes our resolutions, and now we will take up the items that were pulled by board members and members of the public, and we'll start with the first one being A8. Madam Clerk, will you please read that item into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number eight is from the auditor controller's office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the sheriff's office overtime analysis report for July 2025 through May 26.

All right, thank you. Supervisor Capps.

Yes, thank you. I pulled this. We asked for these audits of the overtime issue with the jail. It's been an issue of concern, and I wanted to provide some transparency to this, which was one of the purposes, and also echoed by the grand jury asking for more oversight. And so I know that some progress has been made, and I thought it would be a good chance to highlight some of that progress, if that can be shared. I don't know if anyone from the sheriff's office is here.

COMMANDER HUDDLE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP?

OR IF WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THE PLATFORM THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME PROGRESS AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SHARE.

Morning, Supervisor Capps, Chair Nelson, members of the board. Yeah, I think, you know, from the Sheriff's Office perspective, I think we've really done a lot of work to track our overtime, to monitor our overtime, and to ensure that we're not utilizing overtime that's not necessary. You know, some of the efforts that we've taken over the past several months have been just a deep dive look at what's driving the overtime, what overtime we definitely need to keep the jail facility safe as well as the community safe, and then focusing on some of that other overtime that was present in the past in positions that were maybe in support functions or additional deputies in areas that maybe we could survive without and still keep that level of safety in the community and in the jails.

All right, thank you.

And do we know, I know a lot of the, you're doing, it seems to me from reading the report, you're doing what you can outside of the agreement with the board, between the board and the union. Is that an accurate assessment that it's, much of it has to do within the agreement and that really is between the, that's really within the MOU?

Yeah, Supervisor Capps, I think we've taken a hard look at many of the items that the auditor's office pointed out, essentially all of them, identified those that we have authority to control or dictate, and I think we've put some managerial controls around many of those items. There are several items that are still listed in that report that are meet and confer and labor negotiation items that as the Sheriff's office, we don't feel we have the control or the authority to dictate, but the items that we do, I think we've taken a hard look and tried to set some controls and boundaries around those.

I know that process is ongoing and also was identified with the grand jury report. Speaking of the grand jury, do we have a date yet? I know that's a process between the Sheriff's office and getting scheduled here within the board. Do we have a process, a date yet scheduled for when that comes back?

Chair Capps, Supervisor Capps, you're the chair. We're coming back after the break. It is on the long-range agenda. The sheriff's office is responsible to return a report within 60 days. That just goes directly to the grand jury. The county returns the report within 90 days that it gets approved by your board.

Okay, great.

As chair, we have it scheduled for August 25th.

Okay, good, and Chair, with your permission, I mean, we do have our auditor here. I didn't want to interrupt her if she wanted to add any of her assessment.

Thank you, Chair Nelson and Supervisor Capps. No, we just, we really want to acknowledge the sheriff and the efforts that they're making. HR has been working with the unions in order to look at the MOUs, and I think the data is speaking for itself. So, thank you.

And while we have Ms. Schaefer up there, I know the Board also requested to look at some other departments besides the Sheriff's Department. Could you give us just a status update of where we are with that process and when we might be able to get a report back to the Board?

Right. Chair Nelson, if you had requested that we look at the top five departments in overtime, we did, we're in the process of looking at the other four. Really, the next biggest one is fire, and then the three after that are really not the big users of overtime, but we'll bring that back to you. I think we're looking September.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Right. Any further discussion on this? Is there, Madam Clerk, is there any general public comment on this item?

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

Okay. Any further discussion here at the board? Okay. I will take a motion to approve staff recommendations, which I disbelieve is received and filed here. So moved. Second. Any further discussion on that? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next item of business is item 820. Madam Clerk, can you please read that item into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, administrative item number 20 is from the County Health Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the County Health Department fiscal year 2026 through 2027 budget revision and staffing allocation requests. And there's a forfeits vote required on this item.

All right. Thank you. Supervisor Capps.

Again, Chair Nelson, I pulled this because I thought it was of significant development with our budget process. We were all hoping that the governor would sign what the legislature had come forward with, which would provide some relief to our staffing challenges and layoff situation. And that indeed happened. And so again, it was put here on the agenda, but I believed it was worthy of some acknowledgement given the impact on people and our staff. So I wanted to highlight this and again, share the information to everybody.

Thank you. Good morning and thank you for the supervisor. Yes, we welcome this. This will buy us an extra year of funding as long as we can still see the UIS population. That shift in the payment system is delayed one year and it will allow us to restore 15 positions specifically in the clinics in order to increase productivity and get us to the new ratio that we are working on and specifically in redesigning some of the workflows so it is welcome news it also reduces our reliance on the fund balance so we can put some of that saving account back to to the fund balance and not use it completely so we can still plan for rainy days

And I know you were preparing for that with some optimism. What's the timeframe for those positions?

So right now we are going through the displacements. Once those positions are restored, we're looking at the displacements. And after the displacements are restored, then the rehiring would happen. We're hoping that. We can do it within one week, hopefully by Friday we will have a clearer picture. With the clinics, we are working closely with all our leadership and our clinical leadership and redesigning some of the workflows and specifically maximizing the scheduling process and ensuring that our clinical protocols are optimized.

Okay. So just so it's, I know it's pretty complicated and these are people's lives and these are important jobs and a lot of community members are quite anxious about what this means for their healthcare. Can you explain exactly what we're voting on today and why it requires four-fifths?

Yes. We're voting on, I guess, observed revenue of $6.6 million. Okay. And now we should make it clear that we are not getting that money from the state. So they're not sending us funds. But because of the delay and the prospective payment rate, this is the higher rate that we can bill for, then we will not see the reduced revenue that we expected.

I see.

Yeah. And because of that, we wanted to be a little more conservative not to, assume that we will have all 6.6 million, but we wanted to restore those positions because now we can support the workflows in a better way, especially it's going to buy us a year. Next year if the budget goes, then that 6.6 million is going to be gone. So we're hoping that within this timeframe we are going to increase our efficiency and increase our productivity.

I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR LEGISLATORS UP IN SACRAMENTO THAT FOUGHT FOR THIS MONEY AND WERE ABLE TO PUT IT IN THE FINAL PACKAGE THAT WENT TO THE GOVERNOR AND CHANGED HIS ORIGINAL PLAN AND HE AGREED. SO WE'RE GRATEFUL THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO THIS AND IT RESULTED IN NOT AS MANY LAYOFFS AS WE HAD AGREED TO IN OUR BUDGET.

Thank you, Supervisor Capps. I actually had a couple of questions as well in regards to this. Sure. I just want to understand, so this money's coming with and we're going to provide new services that we weren't necessarily going to provide next year or we were going to provide these services no matter what? Yes. We were, okay. Yes.

So again, we up till now are able to serve the UIS population. The state pays us the high prospective payment rate. The plan was for the state to switch from the PPS to fee for service come July 1st. And this was a much lower rate, and this is why we estimated that we will lose 6.6 million. But now because they moved it one more year, then we are able to still, still bill at that higher rate as long as we can still serve the UIS population.

Okay. And so then we're going to take that excess funds and hire back some staff. Is that what I'm hearing?

We are restoring 15 positions. We are restoring seven nurses, which will bring our ratio from 0.25 to 0.5 per provider. We are restoring four AOPs, two financial AOPs and two AOPs. We are also restoring two MAs that will work as floaters across all five centers. And we have a probably captured opportunity of billing for prenatal services, and this is why we are asking as well for the health education assistant. And that would specifically be for the CPSB program, which we can also bill for prenatal services that we can have at the clinics.

So we're going to serve the same amount of population we were going to serve previously. We've just now staffed up. Yes. Because we have some excess funds. Yes. Was there any discussion on whether we might potentially, because we backfill with general fund this year, right? Was there, I guess this may be a question for CEO Miyasato. You know, when these new funds came in, was there any discussion about potentially retrieving some of those general funds back to the general fund? part of this process?

Chair Nelson that's a fair question and there wasn't because we thought that the board's intent was to reduce the number of layoffs and bring staff back where we could and again as Director Homami said if we took out the general fund it could be used for other purposes but we believe that next year is also going to be a difficult year and so our strategy was to if there's any return to funds we would hold them aside because we believe that the the 27-28 year is going to be difficult but your board always has the option to ask us to come back with information if you think there's higher priorities and plus we haven't closed this year yet and we know that's uh related to the last item we're we're afraid of any more surprises

I understand, and I appreciate what we're trying to do in taking this opportunity. I guess my preference would be to look at maybe a balanced of restoring some positions and also restoring some of that general fund, especially knowing that next year's might be worse. And so that's my personal preference. I'm okay with the plan that you guys have. I'm not going to change the last minute, but I do think that we might want to look at that as some of these funding sources change over the next year. You know, I was okay with us backfilling with general fund as a stopgap, as a patch to restore services. But I think when those opportunities come for us to be able to recapture them, that general fund, because there are still significant general fund needs in our county, you know, from public safety to infrastructure that we need to balance as well. that we aren't doing this year because we are back filling these departments. I think we just need to make sure that those are some kind of a balanced discussion that we have here at the board moving forward. And I have asked for an item that we're going to have on the 18th to discuss some of the state impacts of the budget and what that looks like for us moving forward. This is obviously one of the big pieces, but I think there's some other pieces in there We in Santa Barbara County are ahead of the curve. We actually get our budget done prior to the state budget being adopted. And other counties actually wait and do it afterwards. But that can be a lot more painful for organization to have to make some late cuts to people. So I appreciate the way that our fiscal team does our budgets. And I think this is the best way and most prudent way to do it. But I just wanted to make sure that we look at those things as we move forward in the future.

Chair Nelson, we hear you, and we can provide as much information in August when we come back. The Department of Social Services will tell you they don't get their complete guidance from the state until the fall after they're getting. I think we can bring back information, no problem. But we did understand your board's direction when we had these conversations in January for the full board was the priority was the safety net. So we've been trying to ensure there is funding for the safety net.

Thank you. Supervisor Hartman.

Two points. I think this came up during the budget hearings and we were hoping this would happen and now it has. Dr. Hamami, could you just put a finer point on are we just hiring people and we'll have to let them go next year or are we bringing people back and then increasing productivity so that we can bill more even at a lower rate? and then maintain that level of service? Because I think your vision here is really important, especially given the other cuts to health that we anticipate and are seeing.

Yeah, that is exactly the plan. We know that with the new ratio and with the new workflows that that we're working with, especially for our providers, is going to take some tweaking. So this is a very welcome opportunity that we can at least soften the cuts that we were having. Definitely this bias only one year, and if we do not, produce results then unfortunately that would be something which we sure do not want to happen. So this is why we're working very closely with everybody, our providers, our clinical leadership and our teams to make sure that we understand what the challenge is on hand and how we need to change and we need to increase our productivity. There has been a lot of things that are currently happening in terms maximizing the schedule, double booking, the centralized scheduling. We're launching actually the centralized scheduling in the North County this August, beginning of August, and this will be the pilot to see how one number would serve all three clinics, and then we will roll it to all five. So with that, we are taking a little bit of the variations in how you fill the schedule and making it now a standard that, okay, this is what we, and our physicians are also understanding that it also has to be where we are being more efficient, and especially working on the no-shows and on the cancellations and all that.

all right um with that any public comment on this item madam clerk chair nelson and members of the board we have no request to speak from the public on this item all right um any further discussion of the board see none can i get a motion i will move staff recommendation okay second in the second by hartman any further discussion all those in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed motion passes unanimously thank you And this brings us to our last administrative item. And I believe that's item A27.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 27 is from the General Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the North Branch Jail Expansion Project Award Agreement for Design-Build Services, project number 23040. This is in the 5th district and there is a 4-5th vote required on this item, and we do have three requests to speak from the public on this item.

All right, this item is pulled by Supervisor Capps. Would the speaker like to go to public comment first?

I PULLED IT SO THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO HEAR ABOUT THE DESIGN PLANS BEFORE WE VOTED.

EXCELLENT. SHOULD YOU WANT TO HAVE SOME, DO YOU WANT STAFF TO ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PLANS ARE FIRST?

I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. THANK YOU.

Supervisor Capps to the chair. Good morning. I'm J.D. Patton, the assistant director for capital projects, energy and facilities maintenance within the General Services Department. Thank you for the opportunity to present here this morning on where we're at as it relates to the northern branch jail expansion project and what the next steps are going forward. Following a rigorous selection process, we have down selected to a single design build entity based on the solicitation and selection criteria that were laid out as put forward to the board here this morning. Working with each of those designers, we identified a number of best practices and opportunities that we have the opportunity to now incorporate as we transition to the next phase of this initiative. following or let me let me say one of the advantages of the design build approach is it allows for collaboration with our contractor our construction partner as well as many stakeholders who are engaged in the process as we transition to the next phase and award the contract we will continue that collaboration effort with the CEO's office, with adjacent departments and with the community to ensure that we get the stakeholder input to refine the design that's been put forward by our preferred construction contractor and then ultimately transition to construction to meet the timelines necessary.

Right. Thank you, Mr. Patton. Ms. Capps.

So just again on that, because I because of the intense community interest on this, can you speak or just emphasize the community engagement element?

Yes, ma'am. So Supervisor Capps, through the chair, as planned, we do intend to host a public engagement session following contract award within a couple of months of the contract award. We currently anticipate that happening in late August timeframe. That will be the details will be finalized once we are under contract with our design build partner.

Okay. Well, I look forward to hearing about that and helping to get the word out. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Capps. Supervisor Hartman.

A couple of questions. In the design, will there be enough space for activities like the public defender meeting space? And how do we assure that? I'm having a hard time understanding how the proposal is and how flexible and responsive you can be to concerns of the community or concerns that maybe haven't been fully identified or vetted yet. And one of them is, I think, space for attorneys to meet with clients.

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. Yes, ma'am. We still do retain flexibility and ultimately what the layout is going to look like within the scope of the project. We have had initial conversations with those supporting departments to understand what their space requirements are. One of the things that we are able to incorporate based on the proposal that we received is one owner enhancement which provided additional administrative space within the northern branch jail footprint to accommodate not only sheriff's operations but potentially some of those functions so now that we have the initial design or at least the conceptual design i should say in hand we have the opportunity to kind of inform what the configuration ultimately looks like to accommodate those in accordance with the priorities for the facility

So the board has voted five zero for one and a half pods. We do see that our jail population given lots of policies that we've invested in is declining. Are we absolutely committed to outfitting that half pod or can that retain some flexibility over time?

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I think one of the things we've emphasized throughout this process is building in flexibility. Um, so that, that certainly still exists. There are, um, challenges potentially with significant changes at this point. Uh, however, uh, we do retain flexibility, not only from what we've done previously, uh, but also going forward from both a site and a facility perspective.

And I'm not sure if you're the right one to answer this, but it's very important, to me at least, that we begin thinking about and designing how we decommission the old jail, South County Jail, used to be known as the main jail, to alternative and better uses. What we don't want is to have to have O&M costs for two jails when we're done with this. we need to reduce our O&M costs. That was a big incentive to try to put more units in North County. So can you speak to that? Are you the right person?

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I'll share what I can and if I need assistance, I'll pull it in. There is a larger transition plan that is underway or I should say kicking off later this week to understand how we will transition operations and facilities accordingly based on consolidation of centralization of services at Northern Branch Jail.

So not just how you move people, but how we use that differently. What options are there?

Supervisor, through the chair, my office is helping lead that transition plan discussion on how we eventually close down the main jail ACO.

Thank you. I just want to make it clear that we are planning on building one and a half pods. Consolidation operations in North County provides for a number of benefits, including the most expedited opportunity to close the main jail. What's nice about our campus approach right now is with the IRC. If population changes allow for a reduced necessity for the number of beds, then the IRC can be scaled in the future. But focusing on consolidation in the northern branch jail, that will provide a number of operational efficiencies and it's a newer facility.

Supervisor, I'll also add, so you asked us to make sure that we were looking at a plan. There is a kickoff this week with all the parties involved to start delving into that. We've already started delving into it. I know the grand jury had asked for the plan to come to the board by the end of the calendar year. We're having Assistant CEO Frapwell help lead this decommissioning review, and so he thinks we can make that.

That's exciting. So if I understood A.C.O. Horton, we probably need the 1.5 pods if we're going to fully decommission and that will be more efficient ongoing, is that?

Yes. Thank you. And Supervisor, I just want to be clear because I don't want the, we always speak shorthand here, but with the design of the one and a half, we are still building an inmate reception center of about 120 beds in the South County. And so that's why AC Horton said in the future, I think that we would scale that and then further reduce. But as the main jail is configured, as we talked about previously, that can be separated from the rest of the jail.

Thank you for clarifying.

All right. All right. Thank you. Let's go to members of the public who've also pulled this item. Madam Clerk.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we will begin here in Santa Barbara with Lawrence Severance. Then we will go to Zoom with Gail Osheranko. Lawrence.

Good morning, Chair Nelson and Supervisors. Thank you for considering this particular agenda item. I'm Larry Severance. I'm a member of the CLU League of Women Voters Criminal Justice Workgroup. I'm offering personal comments today, but informed by the work we do together. The design-build contract that you're asked to approve today will cost our county $167,380,000 to build 384 new beds. That's about $436,000 per bed. The operational costs based on last year's costs are going to be about $143,000. $810 per person. These are astronomical costs. Probably one of the most important things this board can do in the next few years is monitor how this design build goes. So the design process should consider the nature of our jail population. Many have substance use disorders. There's about 11% have seriously mental ill. The goals should overlap with our criminal justice policy to treat people humanely, to reduce recidivism, and safely reduce our jail population. These goals can be reflected and should be in every design decision. You as a board called for a jail data analysis to identify people who might be safely diverted from jail beds. The CCP delivered that analysis and based on its recommendations, there's now a collaborative jail population review and advisory team the leaders from each of the county's criminal justice departments that are charged with working together to safely reduce our jail population. Commander Sullivan's the chair of that group. The design considerations to meet goals that are key should be shared with the public, as I hear they will be, thank you. and with input elicited and reviewed by this board as construction proceeds. So here are the key elements that we feel, that I feel, and our group has discussed are critical for the design process. Integrates substantial flexibility so if the jail population does fall as we hope it will Parts of the jail can be placed out of service where no staff are required while not in use secondly specifically designed behavioral health unit capacity and treatment spaces for the significant jail population who need these accommodations to avoid leaving jail in worse shape than when they entered third Include sufficient confidential meeting spaces and access corridors that minimize custodial staff time. This is to enable attorneys to confer with clients, especially, for example, the Ready program, where we found that early representation results in a pilot study, 28% reduction in time in jail for those clients, where medical staff can meet with jail residents confidentially and class spaces that are available for programs to help folks that are in jail have some opportunities to improve their situation as they reenter our community. I'm thinking about Hancock College and similar training opportunities within the jail. In closing, please don't treat this vote today as one and done. Require periodic reports to the board with close review and input opportunities, especially in the design phase. Flexibility and forward thinking can potentially save the county millions of dollars in future operating costs. Now's the time to set milestone reviews to optimize the use of our public funds. Thank you. Thank you, Larry.

We will now go to Zoom with Gail Osharenko to be followed by Nancy Avocci. Gail.

Good afternoon, Chair Nelson and supervisors. My name is Gail Osharenko. I fully concur in the comments that Larry Severance just made, and my comments today are my own. I support the building of an addition to the North Branch Jail as rapidly as possible. We absolutely need to close all of the South County Jail except the IRC. Even the sheriff has called it decrepit. Recently, I heard that it is suffering from an infestation of rats. So the last thing I want to do is slow the process. However, I have noticed a distinct drop in the jail population since your decision to add the one and a half housing units back in April. Then the average population of both jails was 741. In the first five days of July, it dropped to a low of 663. I don't always see the daily count, but I have heard that it has gone as low as 647. So that's a tribute to the fact that your board approved the community corrections partnership plans to reduce the jail population. And it does appear that that report and the work under it is already beginning to have some effect. Then there's the Supreme Court decision, California Supreme Court in Kowalczyk decided on April 30th. It instructed trial courts not to set pretrial bail above the defendant's ability to pay. The decision states, quote, bail must be reasonable under the totality of circumstances in non-capital cases. So I believe that's part of what's bringing the numbers down, and I think it's likely to bring it down a lot more. I guess what I want to suggest today is that you ask the design team to do some prudent planning. Ask them to actually project how much excess capacity there will be if the current downward trends continue? And then ask, what would be the best alternative use of that excess capacity? By the way, crime has dropped throughout California and even in our county. So I think we really need to consider that we may be in a different situation. And I really appreciate that you had the General Services people give us a little more information and we're glad to hear that there will be an opportunity for the public to participate. Same choice for you today would be to save millions of dollars and renegotiate with the chosen contractor to downsize the addition. I realize that isn't very likely to happen. So if you don't downsize, I would ask the general services to work with the contractor to assess where we're going to be in terms of excess capacity and what alternative uses we might have for that. EXCESS CAPACITY. I NOTED IN THE CEQA DOCUMENT.

THAT'S YOUR TIME.

ALL I NEED TO SAY TODAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE WILL NOW GO TO NANCY AVOCE WHO IS OUR FINAL SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM. NANCY? CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. PLEASE PROCEED.

Chair Nelson and supervisors, my name is Nancy Avos, and I'm here today representing the Santa Barbara County Action Network, or SBCAN. SBCAN's mission is to ensure that Santa Barbara County grows in a sustainable and equitable way, where public resources are invested strategically to meet the needs of our community. We appreciate the work of county staff and the difficult decisions before you today. As you consider this significant investment in expanding the North Branch Jail, we ask you to keep three principles in mind. First, building additional jail capacity should not replace addressing the underlying reasons people end up in jail. Many individuals in our custody struggle with mental health conditions and substance use disorders. Those realities should be reflected in the design of the facility and in the policies that accompany it, with an emphasis on treatment, rehabilitation, and reducing recidivism. Second, we appreciate hearing that flexibility has been incorporated into the design. We ask that the board ensure this flexibility is clearly defined and demonstrated. Specifically, if jail populations continue to decline, can housing units be taken out of service in a way that reduces staffing and long-term operating costs? Those details matter. A facility that can adapt to changing needs has the potential to save taxpayers millions of dollars over its lifetime, and we encourage the board to verify that those operational efficiencies are built into the final design. Finally, we ask for continued transparency and public accountability. Today's vote should not be the final opportunity for public engagement. We encourage the board to require milestone reports during the design phase, including updates on the jail population, how the facility design is supporting the county's goals to safely reduce incarceration and opportunities for public input before key design decisions are finalized. This is one of the largest investments that the county will make. We just ask that it be guided not only by today's needs, but by a long-term vision that is fiscally responsible, transparent, and addresses the root cause that brings people into our criminal justice system. Thank you for your time.

that concludes public comment for it uh administrative item number 27. all right thank you back to the board supervisor hartman uh yes first of all i'm i'm really glad that we're doing a design build i think we learned from the previous construction that this is a good way to go it does beg the question for me who makes the final decision on the design is it the sheriff is it the criminal justice partners general services does the board have a role And is there, so often up here, we send things off and then it comes back and it's done, it's fully baked. So in terms of transparency, what more can we expect? How can we, I think of the North Branch Jail and we forgot some suicide. If there'd been more engagement, maybe that would have come forward. So I guess I put enough questions out for you.

Supervisor Hartman, through the chair. Yes, as stated previously, this does provide for a tremendous amount of collaboration across a number of stakeholders. We intend to establish a governance process through the project execution to enable those decisions to be made by the right people at the right time.

CEO Misata.

um supervisor hartman through the chair is a great question and sometimes we get confused even as a staff level you are the operator you are the owner of this building and you are the funder of this building just like you are of all county facilities you've delegated basically the operational control of building this to general services But that's why it's important. I appreciate the structure that JD and Director Lagerquist are bringing from their many years in the federal government of how to do this well. And so having a governance committee is gonna be great and help. And I think the CEO's office is there on your behalf. We are there in the conversations on your behalf. And if there are decisions where there's conflict points, we will try to work through them with general services, the sheriff's office, county council if needed to come to resolution. That's how we do our work. But if there are times where it needs elevation, we would figure out ways how to bring that to the board if it's a policy matter.

Who would be on the governance committee?

We're working through the details, Supervisor Hartman through the chair, working through the details on exactly what that looks like. Anticipate a tiered type of governance structure where daily decisions are being made by the project level team. Those issues and challenges are escalated as appropriate based on the criteria. So a three tiered, likely a three tiered that involves projects like team up through the CEO's office.

But I mean, one of the comments that we heard today from Mr. Severance and echoed by others is we want a jail designed to meet our policies. And as we've heard, we have a lot of people who are mentally ill, people with substance use disorders. So clearly, those need to be in the mix as well as public defender and the DA and others probation. So I think that I'm eager to hear more about how this unfolds. So when will it come back to us?

Supervisor, we can come back to you. We can talk about what are the milestones for which we can come back so the project hasn't gone so far afield to making sure we're in alignment with your policies. I also do want to say that one of the biggest advocates for ensuring we're having the right components in the jail for the population is, I can't see him, but... Chief Sullivan as well as, yeah, sorry, I couldn't see him. Yeah, to ensure that we are having everything in there that we need. There is tension always with the general services project is budget. How much budget can we afford? But that's why the design build process we hope will be fruitful for us.

I really appreciate Supervisor Hartman's line of questioning. I just think this is not a typical building, and so those who have skills that are unlike mine that do buildings, what i'm looking for and i think that's what you're getting is sort of an engagement plan an outreach plan how can we ensure that that's happening and if it's happening great but we we're looking to make sure that it is so that we can make sure that they the the folks that have the expertise about the things that supervisor hartman is raising are having the input at the right time so that we don't have to go back and make sure that these very important vital policies that we've passed here are not overlooked in the facilities that will contain them. And again, it's not a disparaging point, but it's just making sure that we see kind of the plan of how those inputs will be incorporated.

And if I might add something, we have a lot of transition happening. Right. And so we want to make sure that there's continuity with these principles.

Supervisors, through the chair, Tanya Heitman, ACO for the Health and Human Service Departments as well as Public Safety. To add just some background information for your board, the discussions I think one of you raised earlier about public defender space and whether there was going to be adequate space for them. That is something that is within my area to work with those departments, general services and the sheriff's office. We actually recently brought all of those probation, county health, public defender together to go through each of their programs and understand what their needs were by the number of staff that they anticipate, their wish list of the type of space, how they would be using it, et cetera. So I want to emphasize that there really is this collaborative relationship going on and that it's not general services operating independent of these other agencies we have included those departments and others in our community engagement efforts in the past and that would be the intent again i'll be working very closely with general services to ensure that that community engagement piece is truly you know inclusive that we have as broad of a communication plan around it as possible and that it's set up in a way that the community can really understand what's planned and be able to speak to the needs that they're seeing in a meaningful manner. There will be opportunities along the way to make some changes, and certainly what's happening with the population right now, should be one of the factors in terms of it's potentially changing the demographics within our jail. We're seeing an even larger number or percentage, I should say, of felons that are in there for some pretty significant crimes and a lasting of the misdemeanors. That in itself changes the dynamics of how we would anticipate housing to occur. and needs to be part of this process. So I just wanna add that kind of by way of background that there is much more work to be done, but this design team coming on board is key in order for us to begin those dialogues with them, with all of these different partners involved.

That's great. And you certainly have a variety of different perspectives. So who is the lead on the outreach to the community?

I have volunteered myself for that in prior discussions with General Services. They obviously will be integral. Chief Sullivan has participated with us in the past, and we certainly anticipate that he's going to be the primary for the Sheriff's Office on it as well. So it will be a collaborative effort. But myself and Kelsey, our PIO, will help with the communications plan and the organization. Excellent. Thank you.

Okay, thank you both. With that, we've done public comment on this item. We've had discussion. Can I get a motion on this item from the board?

Supervisor Capps? Yeah, I'm happy to move staff recommendation.

All right. I'll second. Okay, motion from Capps, second from Hartman. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, that concludes our administrative agenda. We're going to go into general public comment, and then after that, we'll take a small break before we start departmental items.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no request to speak on general public comment.

Okay, so with no general public comment, we'll go ahead and take a five-minute break, and then we'll come back to begin our de-agenda. All right, welcome back to the July 7th, 2026 regular scheduled meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We've completed our administrative agenda in public comment and we'll be getting our departmental agenda at this time. Madam Clerk, will you please read departmental item number one into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the Public Works Department and the Board of Directors, Flood Control and Water Conservation District. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Flood Control Benefit Assessment Program for fiscal year 2026 through 2027.

All right. Thank you. And we'll kick it off with Seth.

chair nelson members of board chris netton on public works i just wanted to start by introducing matt griffin our new water resources deputy definitely not new to the county but he's new in his position so he'll be kicking this off thank you thank you mr griffin cool thank you chris good morning chair nelson supervisors this item is for the annual flood control benefit assessment

in an effort to get staff more familiar with flood control business practices and administrative items. This presentation will be given by Seth Shank, our environmental compliance manager.

Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. I'm Seth Schenk with the Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and I'll be providing you with an overview of the Flood Control District's proposed benefit assessment program for fiscal year 2026-27. This voter-approved program began in 1980 in response to the approximate 60% reduction in revenues due to Proposition 13. The benefit assessment program is a fixed fee attached to parcels based on land use type and geographic location, with that revenue used to fund the flood control district. In 1996, the county went back to the voters with the proposed increase to the benefit assessment, and only the South Coast flood zone voted in favor for that increase. In Bullet 2, fortunately, Ordinance 3150 was adopted, which allows for an annual increase up to the Annual Consumer Price Index, or CPI, which has helped funding keep pace with inflation. The proposed action today is to enact the CPI adjustment for the next fiscal year. And as you can see from the last bullet, the proposed CPI this year is a 3.4% increase. This table has a data summary, which shows the various rates for different parcels, which are separated by the land use type or group across the top. and regional location or flood zone in the left-hand column. Group C is highlighted as an example. Group C has residential parcels and Group C serves as the baseline for all other groups. The rates for other groups are factored either up or down depending on land use and parcel size. For example, a residential home of 0.3 acres or less in the Orchid Flood Zone would increase to $5.92, which is a 20-cent annual increase. And a residential home under 0.3 acres in the South Coast Flood Zone would have a proposed assessment of $33.15, or a $1.09 annual increase. These images show the 2025 Buellton Basin Storm Cleanout and one of the major capital projects currently under construction, Lower Mission Creek Reach 4 between Gutierrez and Haley Street in Santa Barbara, as examples of work supported in part by the benefit assessment. In the 1996 ballot measure, the Lower Mission Creek project was specifically called out as a project to be funded by the benefit assessment. Today we are requesting approval of action items A through D listed in the board letter related to the annual increase in benefit assessment rates. If approved today, the item will return to the board on July 14th for a second reading and final adoption on the admin agenda. This concludes my presentation and we're available for any questions.

All right, thank you, Mr. Schenk. Questions from the board? I see no questions from the board. Do we have any public comment on this item?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no requests to speak from the public on departmental item number one.

Right back to the board. I guess you answered all our questions. I'll just say for the record, you know, I'm not a big proponent of increased fees or taxes, but I am always supportive of this one. It's an investment, really, is what it is. And your department does a really good job making sure that each one of these dollars that are coming off our tax bills go directly into projects. And I think people appreciate that. I think this is one of those that I could actually support in the future. You guys went out for some additional benefit assessment to the public because I think it is really such a wise use of taxpayer dollars. And so kudos to you, to your staff, and thank you for bringing this to us. I'll go ahead and take a motion for approval.

I'll make a motion to acting as a Board of Directors for Flood Control and Water Conservation District to move staff recommendations A through D and one through four.

All right, thank you. Supervisor Labanino, a motion there? Second. Second from Supervisor Hartman. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Great job. All right, Madam Clerk, we will now move on to Departmental Item number two. Will you please read that item to the record?

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 the Tri-County Regional Energy Network, 3CREN, 2025 impact report.

All right. Thank you. Director Armas.

Thank you, Chair Nelson, members of the board. Jesus Armas with the Community Services Department. As the board is aware, the county has been participating in the Regional Energy Network for a number of years, and we view it critical to update the board on the progress our membership has produced for the residents of our county. And so this morning, we want to update you on what occurred over the last year. Garrett Wong, our division manager, and his team who will work through the presentation. At the conclusion, of course, we're available to respond to questions or clarify any of the points made during the presentation. Garrett, if you would.

Thank you. Good morning. Garrett Wong here with the Sustainability Division as the division manager, but also as the co-director for the Tri-County Regional Energy Network, or 3CREN as we refer to it. We're here to present to you an overview of the annual impact report from 2025 calendar year of the 3C REN's impact across the Tri-County region, which includes Ventura and San Luis Obispo County. Next slide. We're also joined here today, followed by a presentation by the Central Coast Community Energy, which is also known as 3CE. So we understand that people may be confused if they do know about us and are also aware of 3CE, and we wanna make sure that there's a clear understanding between the differences between our organizations. So the Tri-County Regional Energy Network is a regional energy network, which is a formal institution approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. We are enabled to administer energy efficiency dollars, which are collected through rate payers. And then we're able to design, develop, and implement customer programs, workforce education, training, and other community activities to support energy efficiency and electrification in our region. The purpose of the Regional Energy Network is really to emphasize local needs and addressing local barriers, particularly engaging with what we call hard-to-reach customers, which we will further define in later slides. But we also complement the work that 3CE, or Central Coast Community Energy, does as well. So as you're very familiar, 3CE is the county's default energy provider. They buy and sell energy on behalf of our businesses and residents who are customers unless they decide to opt out. And they also have programs, incentive programs, that primarily promote electrification, both in the built environment as well as in vehicles. And we work closely together to ensure that customers who are trying to transition in the built environment, that they're able to leverage as many of the resources as both organizations have to offer. So we're here today to both present the annual report and impacts from 3C-REN as well as 3CE today. I'm sorry, I'll introduce my staff. So last year we had Lori Lariva, who's a program manager for 3C-REN presenting on the annual report. And today she's also joined by Juliana Joss, who is our newest program manager. And I'd be remiss if I didn't say happy birthday to Lori.

Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. My name is Lori and I'm here to first give you a brief overview of the history and structure of 3CREN before handing it off to Juliana. As you know, 3CREN was established to deliver energy saving programs and industry trainings that help reduce energy use, strengthen local job markets, support our efforts to achieve our local climate goals, and bring rate payer dollars back to our region that would otherwise not be spent here. Oftentimes, programs seem to serve lower middle income and upper income households, but 3C REN exists, sorry, 3CRN exists to serve our hard-to-reach customers and communities. And hard-to-reach is a term that we're going to use throughout the presentation. It's defined by the California Public Utility Commission as serving multifamily households, geographically isolated areas, customers for whom English is not their primary language, low- and middle-income households, small, medium-sized businesses, and Native American tribes. As with other regional energy networks across California, 3CREN uses funding from the California Public Utility Commission. The revenue and expenses associated with 3CREN activities are already budgeted and there's no impact on the general fund. Our county receives funding for all staff time, supplies and expenses associated with 3CREN and all 3CREN budgets and expenses are reviewed, authorized and approved by the CPUC to which 3CREN reports directly. As you can see in this slide, 3CREN is a collaboration between the county governments of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. Our three counties have had a longstanding collaboration that goes back to 2013 when we started jointly offering a regional energy efficiency program called Empower Central Coast through funding from the investor-owned utilities. We have a leadership team that includes one member from each county and makes high-level decisions about the Wren, and each county leads at least one of our seven programs. We also have a team member from each county on each of the program teams. Ventura County is 3CRN's administrative lead and is responsible for contracting, budgeting, and reporting to and liaising with the CPUC. 3C REN has a proven track record of success that has been recognized by the CPUC. This has enabled us to expand our programs and expand our impact across the counties. In this timeline of growth, we see that in 2018, the CPUC officially approved the formation of 3C REN and its $50 million business plan. This enabled us to launch our first three energy efficiency programs in 2019, offering residential incentives, workforce education and training, and codes and standards support. Based on the success of the initial programs, 3CRN submitted another business plan requesting $155 million to continue the existing programs and launch three new programs for 2024 through 2031. this business plan was approved in 2023 and three new programs were launched toward the end of 2024 to provide commercial incentives and technical assistance for agricultural operators and our critical community facilities most recently with the board's support 3c ren submitted a new business plan in 2026 requesting 227 million dollars to continue this work in providing incentives, trainings, and technical assistance through the year 2035. In total, 3CREN has secured $205 million to invest in the tri-counties for staff, for workforce training, and for financial incentives. We have hopefully another $227 million investment on the way pending the CPUC decision. This is a snapshot of our services, which we'll provide more detail on in a minute. But before we get into the individual program highlights, this is a quick 2025 overview of achievements shown across the tri-county region, as well as achievements in our Santa Barbara County region. So 3CREN launched, excuse me, 3CREN reached 1,000 households and businesses with energy upgrades. These looked like efficient refrigeration for our businesses and appliance upgrades like heat pumps in homes. Nearly half of those projects last year were located within Santa Barbara County. The incentives and rebates that we provided for upgrades totaled $5.5 million last year. and that was across the tri-counties with 60% of those incentive dollars serving residents and businesses in our county. We also had 2,803 training and event attendees, and we served 158 energy code inquiries by phone, email, or in-person site visits. For a deeper dive into program highlights, I will turn the presentation over to Juliana, our other program manager.

Thank you, Lori. Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. My name is Juliana Joss, and I will start our program highlights with the single family residential program. The single family program offers incentives to residents and contractors for any home upgrade that saves energy. The program pays incentives based on a year of tracking metered data. Incentives are highest for hard to reach customers. In 2025, the program supported mostly heat pump water heater and heat pump HVAC projects across 342 homes across the Tri-County region. 69% of those projects served hard to reach customers. 65% of 3C REN single family projects occurred in Santa Barbara County. Of the 224 projects in Santa Barbara County, 89% served hard to reach and 91% occurred in the North County regions of Guadalupe and Santa Maria as displayed on the map on your screen. Moving into multifamily energy savings, the multifamily market is diverse and every property is unique. To accommodate each site's individual needs and goals, the program is designed for flexibility whilst maximizing energy savings. This includes no cost technical assistance from start to finish, along with substantial rebates. 92% of the projects were equity target sites, thus illustrating 3C REN's commitment to hard-to-reach customers. On average, the program covered 84% of project costs by combining 3C REN and other program rebates, such as those from Central Coast Community Energy. One example is an affordable senior living community with 135 units located in District 4. The program leveraged 3CE, the low income weatherization program, and 3C rebates to completely pay for the property's new central water heating system. Again, there was no cost to the customer for this upgrade. 2025 was the commercial energy savings first full program year, and we exhausted our budget by mid-year. Like the single family program, this program assigns incentives based on measured energy savings. The program served 53 businesses. These are mostly taquerias, corner stores, small markets with lighting, refrigeration, and water heating upgrades. Of note, 100% of these businesses served are hard to reach. 70% of these businesses that received energy upgrades are in the North County regions of Guadalupe and Santa Maria. The commercial market poses different challenges than the residential market. But in its first year, the program has already displayed innovation. The program achieved some of the first metered commercial electrification projects in the state. That's converting gas water heaters into heat pump water heaters and established partnerships with PG&E's on-bill financing program to ensure zero out-of-pocket costs for customers. Building Performance Training, or BPT, is a workforce development program for current and aspiring professionals in the construction trades, design, real estate, and beyond. The program is a key resource for industry professionals on the Central Coast through its convenient classes and certifications. In 2025, the program hosted a total of 125 training events with over 2000 total attendees. Notably, BPT partners with the top training organizations and leading experts across the state. Staff partnered with 74 different organizations to provide these workforce development and education offerings. 2025 also marked a year of expanded in-person offerings. The Energy Code Connect Program, or ECC, supports local governments and building professionals with resources for enforcing and complying with the California Building Energy Efficiency Code, or Title 24. The program hosted 20 energy code events in 2025 and fielded 158 coding queries through its one-on-one on-call service. Every year, ECC holds two building forums, one virtual, one in-person. In 2025, the in-person forum was held in Santa Barbara and focused on wildfire resiliency in buildings. The forum featured local practitioners, including Santa Barbara County's very own fire captain, Captain Chris Olmsted. Given that Santa Barbara County is home to the first net zero building in the Central Coast, attendees also had the opportunity to tour Santa Barbara County's Emergency Operations and Fire Communications Center. The tour was hosted by Office of Emergency Management Director, Kelly Hubbard. Finally, technical assistance. Technical assistance is crucial for both critical community facilities and farmers. They need this support to ensure upgrades will achieve energy savings and make sense for their facilities needs and goals. Serving critical community facilities, the Energy Assurance Services Program completed three audits in the Tri-County region, including two in Santa Barbara, the Unitarian Society of Santa Barbara and Allan Hancock College. Audits included advanced analysis to forecast energy and bill savings, For example, if these three sites implemented the energy efficiency measures recommended, these are lighting, window and door sealing, timers, et cetera, it would remove 191,000 kilowatt hours of electricity from the grid every year. For agriculture energy solutions, in 2025, the program served five growers, which represent a range of agricultural operations and crop types, from vineyards to cannabis to a water district serving agricultural producers. This concludes just a snapshot of 3CREN's 2025 program accomplishments. I will now pass it back to the sustainability division manager, Garrett Wong, to close us out.

So just to reiterate, the Tri-County Regional Energy Network is a local government-run organization that is able to receive revenue from the California Public Utilities Commission, which is paid for by all utility ratepayers. If it weren't for 3C REN, these dollars would be going elsewhere to other counties, other jurisdictions, other customers, and leaving this jurisdiction, this county. And so by implementing programs that help to overcome barriers that customers typically face when they're considering energy upgrades or are considering utility programs, we're able to reach customers that otherwise the utilities either may not serve or won't serve due to a variety of different reasons. And so some of the things to consider are the different types of benefits that customers can receive through the public purpose charge. One of them is through discounted utility rates, otherwise known as CARE, which stands for the California Alternative Rates for Energy. And the other are the direct financial incentives, which are the rebates and incentives that people receive if they are making technology changes or retrofits. So we specialize in the latter. And we would also like to emphasize the education and promotion of care as well to make sure that all eligible customers in our county are receiving those discounted utility rates. So that way, collectively, our region is maximizing the amount of benefits that we receive for which we're already paying for. So we're happy to take questions if the board has or the public has any. Thank you.

All right, questions from the board? Supervisor Hartman?

Yeah, I have a couple. First of all, you just, congratulations. It looks like those, at least the first two sets of programs, Santa Barbara County is pulling beyond its weight compared to our neighbors to the north and south. So I assume that's, you're really hustling out there, so appreciate that. When you talk about serving hard-to-reach customers, you talked about Guadalupe and Santa Maria. I just wonder if you could elaborate a little bit about Lompoc, which also has underserved customers. They are not served, however, by PG&E, so maybe that is the issue.

Yes, that's correct. Given that Lompoc has their own publicly owned utility or POU, they actually cannot receive incentives from our incentive programs. However, they are welcome to participate in our workforce development offerings, our energy code service. We also have the DIY home energy toolkits that are in the Lompoc library. And we are also here as a resource. Both the commercial and residential programs have concierge services available in English, Spanish, and Korean. And so we are able to point customers in the right direction. And we're still here to serve Lompoc residents even if they cannot receive incentives.

Good to hear. And when you talk about hard to reach people and the subsidizing utility rates, where do seniors fit in that?

seniors could fit into that in a variety of ways and we see that happening through our seniors in the community for whom english isn't their primary language seniors who are lower income and so they qualify as hard to reach based on their income level and also and how do you reach the hard to reach One way that we're able to reach seniors is through our multifamily program. And so we're not actually directly outreaching to the individual senior residents, but rather to the property owners of senior housing, of affordable senior housing. And through the property owners and property managers, we're able to bring them our multifamily incentive rebate program and help get upgrades for the entire property that serve all of the residents there.

So this program or this set of programs is really to help people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford this. So you're not really focused on who are the biggest energy users and trying to reduce that way, but really to help those who might be left behind if they didn't get some additional support.

Yes, we're absolutely there to serve customers and serve hard-to-reach customers. But in addition, we do shape our incentives and our rebates based on energy upgrades that do achieve the highest energy savings. And so a lot of times we're looking at heat pump water heaters, heat pump for HVAC induction stoves. And so we are both able to target and serve the hard to reach customers while aligning our incentives with the measures that are going to have the biggest impact.

So I remember maybe five, seven years ago, you couldn't find somebody to install a heat pump. Could you talk about your training program and how, what, is that the biggest impact or how now you see them everywhere?

Thank you, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. It is remarkable to witness kind of what we're seeing is a heat pump revolution, even in just the past year, couple years. And I'd say that there's many factors that contribute to that and our workforce development program, building performance training or BPT is definitely a part of that. Like I mentioned in the slides, we don't do this work alone. We're so lucky that we have excellent relationships with the leading heat pump experts, electrification experts, and contractors across the state. And our trainings, both virtual and online, are co-hosted and co-partnered with them. And we are also the first to promote other opportunities that may exist in this space, such as those offered through the utility companies. And we are really interested in not just our installing water heaters, but a whole market and workforce transformation. And it's really an honor to be a part of what is currently happening.

That's exciting. And my last question is just about agriculture. You mentioned, I think, five different entities that you were working with. I'm not sure how that fits with your hard-to-reach mandate, but just hoping we can do more there and wondered if you could elaborate a bit on that for me.

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. With our agricultural program, it is still new in its development and related to agriculture, I would like to add that our multifamily rebate program initially launched with a farm worker housing project. And so under the multifamily umbrella, we are able to serve multifamily properties of so many types, apartment complexes, senior housing, dormitories, farm worker housing. And so these are relationships that we're building across the three counties to try and serve all of these different people.

So just to follow up a bit, so in agriculture is it mainly water pumps or what, where would you get the most savings in energy use?

I'm not directly working in our ag program to report on that, but what we have heard from customers through their audits is that rebates to upgrade water pumps are one of the things that they are most interested in. But I could imagine there also being increased energy use as we think about our cannabis growers and the measures that they're taking are going to be taking regarding the air quality.

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. I just have a few questions. In the presentation, you talked about these funds coming from the investor-owned utilities. But those funds are really coming from rate payers, right? I mean, it's kind of a misnomer. It's like basically saying Harry Hagan funds the county, right, to say the investor-owner utilities do. So I think in presentations, I think it's really important to reflect the accuracy of that. So I just wanna make sure that that in the future is more reflected and it might be also good for us in some of these presentations to know how much Santa Barbara County's paid into the public purpose amount moving forward so that we have that information as well so that we know what we paid in there and what we're potentially getting out in return.

Supervisor, Chair Elson, excuse me. We take the point and clearly this is in some ways the investor-owned utilities collecting ratepayers money that then gets redistributed. So it's not really investor-owned, it's really ratepayers as you point out. So acknowledge that remark. We also are mindful of the question that you just posed. You've also asked us previously to try to address. We've had some challenge getting reliable information from both of the investor owned utilities. We're trying to capture a correlation between what is levied and what is ultimately available for use. And we're still working on it. And as soon as we get that information, we'll certainly share that with the board. but it has been a bit of a challenge. We're also finding that the investor-owned utilities approach this type of opportunity differently. We have one that is more proactive than the other and has seen some participation in rebate programs of this sort. And so it has been, it's a challenge going through the CPUC to get the reliable data.

Okay, it shouldn't be. I mean, it's right there. I looked at it on my bill, and I see the public purpose tax there, and there's also the franchise fee tax. And so all those are there, and obviously they're able to collect the franchise fee tax, and they pay out to the jurisdictions. So It shouldn't be. So send the email, CC me on it, and then we'll follow up and make sure we get that number. It shouldn't be a hidden or a secret by any means.

I appreciate your assistance. Thank you.

So that was my, I think that was my main point here on this. Any other questions from the board? Oh, Supervisor Capps.

Just one question. I appreciate the effort with the hard to reach population. That's obviously challenging. Are there efforts with renters and can you describe those strategies?

We have programs that serve renters two ways. The one that I had mentioned before was our multifamily program. And so the incentives for upgrades are not going to the renters individually, but rather to the property owner to implement measures in all the units across the entire property to lift up the conditions of the renters. Separately from that, we have programs in all of the libraries throughout the county, the tri-counties actually, that provide these tool kits. They're a toolbox that is full of energy-saving tricks and minor installs that residents can check out from a library, take home, THEY CAN SWAP OUT THEIR SHOWER HEAD, FAUCET AERATORS, INSTALL WEATHER STRIPPING, AND READ ABOUT OTHER WAYS TO REDUCE THEIR UTILITY BILLS BY USING ENERGY AT CERTAIN HOURS, FOR EXAMPLE. TO REACH RENTERS, WE REACH THEM THROUGH THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND THEN WE ALSO REACH THEM THROUGH OUR PUBLIC LIBRARY TOOL KIT PROGRAM.

MOSTLY WITH PROPERTY OWNERS, YOU ARE GOING FOR THE BIG APARTMENT COMPLEXES, MOSTLY?

We're actually able to focus a lot on smaller complexes as well, kind of naturally occurring affordable housing where a unit, where a complex might be, you know, 5 to 15 units. And so our multifamily portfolio is a mix of these smaller mom and pop units as well as larger units that are, you know, 100, 135 units as well. Great.

Well, thank you for the information and for the work. it's painstaking to reach these populations and to do so day after day. So thank you.

Thank you. I remember my other question. So just trying to understand the function of this public purpose tax that's on our bills. Does when we do an investment plan that we send to the PUC, does that impact that rate on a local level or is that just pulling from a pool out there so when the puc assesses that public purpose are they doing that in a regional way or are they doing that just straight across throughout the state of california a flat rate so because what i want to also understand is if if we ask for more money does that mean that that basically just goes on our locals bills or are we just asking for a bigger piece of the pie that's at the state level

John Nelson, the public purpose charge is relative to the customer's utility consumption. So it's a percentage of their consumption. So it doesn't necessarily increase based off of the regional energy networks or any other program administrators requests for funding. What ends up happening actually is that what we're seeing is the utilities are actually pulling away from energy efficiency programming and regional energy networks or CCAs for that matter are actually stepping in to occupy that space now. So there's less requests coming from the utilities to implement energy efficiency programs, and we're helping to fill the gap.

And we're doing that through a fee that's on their bill, right? It's not coming out of the profits of the investor-owned utility, right? It's coming out of the fee.

The fee is assessed and the customers are paying it. The other part I guess I would also emphasize is that the public purpose charge is a very small portion of any customer's utility bill. Right, it is. The majority of the funding or the majority of the utility bills going to the utilities for their infrastructure, investments and maintenance and we're seeing a shift where the generation portion of your utility bill is also becoming less because thanks to Central Coast Community Energy and other CCA programs that are trying to provide lower cost energy. So these aren't necessarily the driving forces for cost increase that folks are feeling when it comes to energy affordability and we're very keen to address that issue both through energy efficiency as well as through legislative and regulatory efforts as well.

So answer my question the public purpose programming charge is just a percentage. It's not a programmatic cost. Correct. Okay. Great. Thank you. That clarifies it for me. Did I ask Madam Clerk whether we had any public comment on this item? I think I asked. Maybe I didn't.

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

All right. Thank you. Any further questions from the board? All right. Seeing none, I think this is receiving a file. I'll go ahead and take a motion from one of my colleagues.

So moved. I'll second.

Okay, a motion from Hartman for staff recommendation and a second from Supervisor Capps. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, moving right along. Some of the same players, I think, or at least we have some guests here. Madam Clerk, will you please read department item number three into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, Departmental Item Number 3 is from the Community Services Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Central Coast Community Energy 2025 Annual Impact Report.

All right, Director Amos, do you want to kick us off or get us started? Right to Mr. Brent.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR NELSON AND SUPERVISORS. SPENCER BRANT HERE WITH CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITY ENERGY OR 3CE. I'M JOINED TODAY BY OUR DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS DAS WILLIAMS AND OUR SENIOR CUSTOMER ACCOUNT MANAGER JUDITH YOUNG. WE'RE HERE TO GIVE YOUR BOARD AN UPDATE ON OUR ENERGY PROGRAMS, OUR PORTFOLIO, AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A SNAPSHOT OF THE STATE OF ENERGY IN 2026. First, a little bit about where we fit in. And Mr. Wong did a really good job of explaining the division between 3CE and 3CREN. I'd like to explain where we fit in in the energy delivery ecosystem. We are the public agency that provides electricity to communities along the Central Coast. so the investor-owned utilities pgd and southern california edison deliver it and maintain the poles and wires 3ce's job is to purchase the energy itself from sources like wind solar geothermal and energy storage our customers benefit from competitive rates a cleaner energy mix and the energy programs that i will walk you through today 3CE NOW SERVES 30 CITIES ACROSS FIVE COUNTIES AND OVER 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE. THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA PLAYS A KEY ROLE IN OUR GOVERNANCE. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE SUPERVISOR JOAN HARTMAN AND CEO MONA MIYASATO WHO SERVE ON OUR POLICY BOARD AND OPERATIONS BOARDS RESPECTIVELY AS WELL AS THEIR ALTERNATE SUPERVISOR CAPS AND DIRECTOR ARMUS. WE KNOW THAT Before I dive into the programs, I wanna talk about something that's really top of mind for our customers and for your constituents, which is the cost of energy. So whether it's prices at the gas station or monthly utility bills, customers are feeling the squeeze and you can bet that we hear about it. Why does it seem like energy bills have risen so much in the past decade? The California Public Utilities Commission is directed to analyze the primary cost drivers behind electricity bills. And what they found this past year is the three largest cost drivers are investor-owned utility wildfire mitigation costs and liability, cost shifts resulting from net energy metering, and distribution infrastructure investments. The challenge for 3CE is that we're a community choice aggregator, which means we only control about one third of the utility bill, and that's the generation charges. But we recognize that all three of these cost drivers are either the result of or exacerbated by climate change. and lowering emissions that are causing climate change is central to 3CE's mission. Over the past year and a half, we've seen major changes in policy affecting energy markets domestically and globally. But despite all of that, we continue to see renewable energy contracts coming in at competitive prices. That includes generation-only resources, but it also includes energy storage, which can best be compared to the fossil fuel peaker alternative. As more of 3CE's long-term contracts come online at good prices, that means the ultimate beneficiary is our customers. And you can see that reflected in our rates. In January, our policy board of directors voted to reduce our generation rate by 25%. That is a meaningful, tangible reduction. We build our rates based on a cost of service methodology, meaning we only charge customers for the cost of purchasing energy and administering the agency. Our sound financial management is why we carry an A credit rating and zero debt. That means we can tell customers with clarity and confidence that we're doing everything we can to get them the best energy deal available. And here are just some of our renewable energy projects in action. This list is just a list of projects that are either online or coming online new for the first time in 2026. Together, they represent over 600 megawatts of new generation capacity and 250 megawatts of storage. One that I'd like to highlight is the SunZia wind energy project. Located in Corona, New Mexico, SunZia is the largest wind project in the United States. And its direct current transmission line delivers that energy directly to California. 3CE has contracted for 205 megawatts of output from SunZia for 15 years. This is really critical because wind generates energy at night and during those critical peak evening hours, which gives it a really complementary load profile to many of our other energy resources. Another project is the landfill gas facility at Regen Monterey. At three megawatts, this project is modest in size, but it punches above its weight for two reasons. First, it's baseload power, so it's generating 24 seven. Second, it's our first generation resource located within our own service territory. At 3CE, we actively prioritize local resources, but candidly, we are not seeing very many renewable energy projects in the permitting queue in our region. When there aren't projects available near our communities, we miss out on bringing investments to the local workforce and competition for contracts increases, which means less leverage for 3CE to negotiate prices that lets us pass on savings to customers. That's one of the reasons that permitting reform and certainty is a major priority for us legislatively. Regen Monterey is proof of concept for what can happen when we cite renewable energy in the communities that we serve. We'd certainly like to see more of this. And I'll close by adding that this is why our policy board recently directed staff to establish within 3CE a Department of Energy Solutions. This will be a department that can work on our in-house capability to develop, own and operate renewable energy and storage projects. This will be the first time that a community choice aggregator has built this kind of internal capacity. So it's generating a lot of excitement. The goal really is to develop the tools and expertise to help our communities develop renewable energy. And we will be doing that in close consultation and collaboration with the member agencies we serve. 3CE is on a path to provide 100% renewable energy, and this chart shows our progress towards that goal. The jump from 24 to 26 reflects that wave of contracts coming online. This year, we're tracking towards 50% renewable, and our current contracts for new energy resources put us on a path to be at approximately 77% by 2029. That's 10 to 15 years ahead of the state's goals. And this is what that looks like in sort of a snapshot in real time, hour by hour. This is what the grid looked like last Tuesday. Green represents renewables and carbon-free, purple showing energy storage, and blue representing nuclear, gray for fossil fuels and imports. Carbon-free resources were a majority of what was on the grid each hour of the day. And you can see that storage is filling in during those evening peaks. You'll also notice the orange curve showing energy demand. During the middle of the day, there is more renewable energy than California can use. That's why battery energy storage is so important. Whether it's physically co-located with solar or not, it is still helping shift that renewable energy that customers have already paid for to a time when we need it most. Taking a step back, this chart also tells a larger success story. California has brought online a lot of new clean energy in the last few years, so much so that on 279 days last year, clean energy made up 100% of California's energy supply for at least one hour out of the day. That is major progress, and we think it's worth celebrating. Now I want to shift gears and talk about our energy programs. We have a variety of offerings that provide customers post-purchase rebates, technical assistance, and more. Our flagship program is Electrify Your Ride, which provides rebates for electric vehicles and EV chargers. It supported over 2,600 installations this fiscal year. We saw a real spike in demand with this program, which we attribute to rising prices at the gas pump and the sunsetting of federal electric vehicle tax credits. So this program is currently on temporary pause as of July six, expected to reopen on October 1st, pending board approval with an extended eligibility window for those that purchase between now and October 1st. Our other residential programs include Electrify Your Home, which covers heat pump water heaters, heat pump HVAC, and induction ranges. I will also add that these building rebates are stackable with the incentives that you heard about that 3C REN offers, as well as other sources like the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District and state programs. We also support new construction electrification and agricultural equipment. And our hourly flex pricing program allows participating agriculture and commercial customers to shift usage away from on peak hours and benefit from real time prices. Finally, we're excited to announce in the coming months two new programs. One is revamped technical assistance for commercial customers and public agencies for electric vehicle charger siting and installation. This is also being expanded to provide technical assistance for public facing EV chargers. And secondly, our virtual power plant program, which will provide customers an ongoing incentive to enroll home batteries in a way that will help support grid reliability for all of our customers. For the county and other public agencies, electrify your fleet, plan your fleet and charge your fleet, cover the full fleet life cycle from planning through procurement to infrastructure. Our electric bus program is available for transit and school fleet applications. And our reach codes program provides no cost technical assistance for planning and building staff to develop stronger energy efficiency standards. Each member agency has $300,000 per fiscal year available to draw upon for the charge your fleet and electrify your fleet programs. And I really want to commend the County of Santa Barbara because routinely you're one of our top member agencies in terms of utilizing these funds. And you can see that here. Since 3CE service began in Santa Barbara County, we've provided over $12 million in rebates to customers and member agencies. One of those projects that I was mentioning is the county's progress on fleet electrification. Our rebates helped fund 60 new charging ports this year at the Betteravia campus and six new electric vehicles. Two other customer facing projects that I'd like to highlight is one that was mentioned in the 3C run presentation as well, low income senior housing facility, heat pump installation. Another is a electric loader project through our ag electrification program, which paid out $36,000 to a small winery. These dollars are helping communities we serve be a part of the transition to clean energy. With that, that's the end of my presentation. I'd like to pass it to my colleague, Mr. Williams, who is here to give a brief state and federal policy update.

Thank you, Spencer. First, I'd just love to say what an honor it is to be back here with the county family presenting to you today. At a state level, 3CE is sponsoring two bills through our trade association. AB 1761 by Rogers would require greater transparency in how the PCIA regulatory fee that customers pay to SCE and PG&E is calculated and disclosed. Even though our customers pay it, we have no way of determining what contracts go into this calculation. And we feel like we want to be standing up for our customers. The one contract we have figured out as a part of it is embarrassingly over market. And we think that Sunshine will help address this cost issue. In the past, regulatory analysts have caught errors totaling $300 million in how this fee was calculated. So we think more transparency is needed for rate payers. SB 1138 by Padilla addresses resource adequacy transactability. That is very arcane, but it is important that RA used to be required in daily amounts. It is now required in hourly amounts, but we do not yet have the ability to trade hourly and so we have to over procure on your part and so are other load serving entities we think a little bit of market forces could reduce our our costs the calculation we have is about $170 million on a typical year would be saved. And I want to thank the county for your letter of support on AB 1761. Both of these bills passed out of their house of origin in late May and are proceeding through the committee processes in their second house. 1761, in fact, passed appropriations. We think it's going to be headed to the governor's desk, but the big question is whether the governor will sign it. Load growth driven by data centers is a priority this legislative session, and it's a priority for policymakers in Sacramento as well as us. We are engaging with this legislation on both the question of whether we can insulate current rate payers from the potential costs of adding new resources to the grid for data centers, but also wrestling with the fact that some of the solutions would infringe upon CCA autonomy. And I'm pleased to say that our trade association and we have been engaged at a deep level on this, even rewriting some of the pieces of legislation in a way that accomplishes what environmentalists and labor and consumer advocates are trying to do without infringing upon CCA autonomy. We're also engaged on this issue at the federal level, where we recently met with FERC commission representatives, both commissioners and staff, to discuss their proposed rulemaking. Avoiding cost shifts onto customers and ensuring that large loads are supporting clean energy development is our main goal. We also had a chance to join a national coalition of community choice aggregators in April, meeting with members of Congress and committee staff in support of preserving clean energy tax credits for geothermal energy storage, as well as support permitting reform and certainty for projects. As I mentioned before, we can't buy energy that we can't get permitted. which energy projects do or do not move forward has clear consequences for what our customers pay on their electricity bill. Lastly, the biggest spec bill that we expect in energy policy this year does not yet have a number or language. We expect that by the end of session, there will be state legislation that will address the operational lifespan of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right. Questions from the board? Supervisor Hartman.

Let's see. The first is one of the promises of 3CE and CCAs generally was to bring more governance and more resources locally rather than off to, officers and shareholders of the investor-owned utilities. And I think that 3CE is realizing that promise where you showed the kinds of programs that you're reinvesting in here. I wonder if you would first mention your new office and describe where that is and who's working there. And then would you talk more about virtual power plants and how that has an opportunity to realize some of our shared goals?

Well, it's important to note that one of the reasons why Santa Barbara County 3CE customers are getting such a good deal, i.e. community reinvestment, is the interest that the Board of Supervisors and that county staff have shown in this. The county has blown through the allocation that we normally do just about every year. That is, the county requests more funds than we typically budget for each jurisdiction and every year we've said yes because some jurisdictions aren't using their whole portion. And then ditto for individuals. Individuals have really utilized it at good rates. We would like that to be more, particularly in programs that reduce emissions dollar for dollar in the most efficient way possible, such as the success in heat pumps that we've seen in Santa Maria and the success countywide that we've seen in EV rebates. The virtual power plant issue is an exciting new territory for us. The idea that programs will begin in October is essentially a performance payout to anybody who joins our system. And the more, you know, kilowatts that they put to it, the more rebate they can get and they will get a continuous rebate for joining what is called a virtual power plant. And what a virtual power plant is, is that if multiple users, myself, Joan, various people throughout the county are all on the system and can use resources from their batteries when it is needed the most such as the crisis events that we showed you last year at our presentation. That use has been determined to have monetary value by the CPUC and we wanna see that implemented here at a local level.

And could that affect customers' bills?

It sure could. It could affect customers' bills in the positive. So this is not something we would assess. This is something we would return to customers if they participate. And if you have a battery in your home or conceivably a little down the line, if you have a vehicle that you plug into your home, I'll be the first in line to try to do that. Then we will have a rebate that will be part of that virtual power plant.

All right, thank you. Supervisor Hartman, Supervisor Lee.

Hey, Mr. Williams. So I'm glad you brought up data centers. Are there any plans to regulate or talk about in-house mini data centers at homes? I know Navita is pushing out this pilot program where they're going to install these many data centers that people can install at the residence. Have you guys talked about that?

Still look into that? That has not been a source of legislative work this year. Okay. And is a little bit outside of our legislative scope at this time. The main thrust of what the legislature is trying to address is that by I suppose the most conspicuous example is in Lake Tahoe where the residents are having their electricity service canceled by their current provider in order to serve a data center. And that means those residents are going to have to scramble to find a source for their electricity in a relatively, in this business, a relatively short amount of time. The other thing that this legislation is attempting to address is if an entity that's building a data center attempts multiple applications at once, and then drops them. So if 3CE, PG&E and SCE all are trying to procure an additional 50 megawatts for a large load, we all buy those, but they only build one, then that means the rate payers for those other load serving entities would be stuck with the bill. And that is what this legislation is attempting to address.

All right, thank you. I had a little bit question about the legislative affairs on the permitting reform. It said on your on your sheet there said more on a federal level is the permitting reform that you guys are advocating for. Can you guys go into that? Are you guys doing advocating for permitting on the local level or at the state level as well?

Absolutely. I think one of the issues that we as a unit, myself, Spencer, and Sophia up in the northern parts of our territory need to address all the time is questions from planning departments about different types of energy development. And this has happened extensively in Monterey County, San Benito County, even here we have participated and will be with you next week for the utility scale solar ordinance. It's important that you have a trusted entity to tell you what's happening in the industry right now so that our regulatory regimes

protect the the residents but also facilitate the affordability and clean energy goals of those residents yeah the feedback i'd give you is i think that i think everybody up here on the board wants permitting streamlining but i do think we also still want to retain local control And so I know that there's a lot of efforts out there to bypass locals and having some say in the process. So I know I wouldn't be supportive of that and I think it'd be inconsistent with our legislative platform. So when we're larger members on that end. But I mean, I think we definitely want to see ways to deal with CEQA and other exemptions and process that could reduce those timelines, but still retain the local control that's so important to all of us. So just giving you feedback from at least one supervisor.

Well, I can tell you that a local control is a principle that we stand by that is a priority for the board and for our CEO, Rob Shaw. The permitting regime for a state level is facilitates the continuity or confluence between our clean energy affordability goals and local control. Because unfortunately, if a regime of permitting gets too restrictive, the developers usually just leave the local permitting regime and avail themselves of the state permitting regime. And so we try to help local jurisdictions balance that where they will be able to exercise substantive local control while not having developers leave the local control process. Understood.

supervisor nelson if i may on the permit side you'll recall that this we have a clash between expediting and then local control the state last year adopted through the budget trailer bill essentially a six-year moratorium on any modifications a local agency may want to make to its various technical codes building and the like and arguably it was intended to address the conditions and the fires emanating in and then the Pasadena area, but has broader implications. So we're constrained from any considerations in that area for a period of time.

Sure, when I talk about local control, I'm not talking about additional regulatory burden that the locals would try to put on a project, but just having discretion is really what I think is important to all of us, is that we're the voice of the residents of this county, and I think we want to have discretion on potentially project siting, project impacts, and I think we need to make sure that we retain that as much as possible without just giving that over to the state or maybe interest that lobby for exemptions. And so that's what I'm always concerned about. I think there's always a deal to be made. And I think that we are five smart people that are representing people in this county. And I think we can figure out and navigate that appropriately. So Supervisor Hartman.

Yeah, just one final question, given we have your expertise here. You showed a chart that mainly we're getting our daytime energy from renewable sources. So the real key is storage, how we get energy in the hours in the early evening. And I wonder if you could talk about battery innovation, both what 3CE is doing and just more generally.

Well, I will say that battery technology is changing in a positive direction all the time. We are not seeing any projects statewide being proposed with nickel, manganese, cobalt chemistry, for example, anymore. That was a very efficient chemistry for pushing a lot of energy through in a small amount of space, but it was not as resistant to heat and therefore fires as the current chemistry that is used, which is lithium iron, lithium ion phosphate technology. We're also seeing innovation in various other forms of batteries, sodium, vanadium flow. There's a host of different ones. We have not yet seen any commercially available. We go out to the marketplace every year to see what's out there and because it's part of our mission to help emerging technologies that could be part of this. but the technology we have right now is improving the fire codes have gotten better because of some of our engagement in state legislation last year and most of all the state is able to get through high use events, high heat events because of the pace of batteries. In this area, the reliability factor is just as important as the affordability and clean energy factor. And what we've seen in recent heat events is the amount of batteries on the grid has avoided it becoming a crisis.

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Hotman. Thank you, Mr. Williams, Ms. Brandt. 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 this item.

All right. Any further questions or comments from the board? Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion to adopt staff recommendation, receive and file.

So moved.

I'll second.

Motion from Hartman, second by Capps. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passed unanimously. Thank you very much. All right. We are running a little behind, so we're going to start to keep going and see if we can catch up a little bit. I will make an announcement here at some point after consulting with the clerk on what our time management looks like, but we will go ahead and move forward with item number four. Madam Clerk, will you please read item number four into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number four is from the planning and development department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the applicant appeal of the director incompleteness determination for the Sandoval 12 recoverable living trust accessory dwelling unit case numbers 26 CDP 25 and 26 APL 9. This is in the first district.

All right, before we begin, we'd like to see if there's any ex parte communications to disclose on behalf of the board. Supervisor Lavagnino. I have none to report. Supervisor Hartman.

None.

Supervisor Lee. None.

One quick second. None.

Supervisor Capps, none. And I also have no ex parte to disclose. So with that, we'll go ahead and turn it over to staff. I believe, Director Plowman, are you going to kick us off?

Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the board, good morning. Today we have an appeal of an incompleteness determination for an accessory dwelling unit. We have Willow Brown who's been working on this case. She will be presenting and we also have Travis Sewards available for questions.

Ms. Brown.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Willow Brown, and I will be presenting the applicant's appeal of the Director's Incompleteness Determination for the Sandoval-Keel Revocable Living Trust, ADU. The project site is shown in blue on this map. The site is 0.52 acres and is located in the Toro Canyon plan area for a supervisorial district. It is accessed from Serena Avenue and is located in the single family residential zone district. Here's a site plan and a photo of the proposed ADU. The structure was permitted as a 526 square foot garage. The applicant has submitted a coastal development permit application to convert the garage to an ADU. The application was deemed incomplete because additional information is required to determine that the ADU is consistent with basic health and safety requirements as requested by the Carpinteria Summerlin Fire Protection District and County Flood Control. the applicant filed an appeal of the incompleteness determination. Pursuant to the government code, a determination on appeals of ADU incompleteness are required within 60 business days of receipt, which would be July 29th. The applicant submitted additional appeal materials last Thursday, which insinuate that the application was submitted and fees were paid on February 28th and that the application was deemed complete on March 2nd. Sorry. however the payment submitted on february 28th was the 80 processing fee and the county's adopted fee schedule for submittal of any application once all the required intake forms were uploaded the county invoiced the coastal development permit application fee which was paid on april 8th applications are not accepted for processing until all intake fees are paid and the acceptance of an application package is not a determination of application completeness which is clearly stated on the coastal development permit application checklist The incompleteness determination for the ADU application is limited to items required by the Carpinteria Summerlin Fire Protection District and County Flood Control to determine if the ADU will meet basic health and safety requirements. The outstanding incomplete items consist of specifying if the single family dwelling has fire sprinklers in order to determine if the ADU will be required to have fire sprinklers. showing the fire turnaround on the plans to ensure a fire truck will be able to safely enter and exit the site in an emergency, showing the location of the closest fire hydrant along the access route to ensure there is adequate water supply in the case of an emergency, and delineating the location of the flood hazard areas on the site in order to determine if the proposed ADU is in these areas, and if so, what is required to ensure the structure meets all safety requirements, prohibitable structures in a flood hazard area. I will now go through the appeal issues and staff's responses. The first appeal issue is that the incomplete determination unlawfully imposes discretionary conditions on a ministerial ADU approval, including offsite requirements to widen roads on neighboring properties. However, no action has been taken on the ADU application and therefore no conditions have been applied. The incomplete items are requested so that the county has sufficient information to determine the ADU's consistency with applicable standards and take action on the application. The second appeal issue is that the application is to legalize a habitable living unit that has been documented as such prior to 2020 and that the ADU should be processed pursuant to government code section 66311.7. This government code section lists allowable reasons to deny an ADU application and as previously stated, no action has been taken to approve or deny the ADU. additionally there has not been any documentation provided that shows the structure was a habitable living unit prior to 2020 and therefore at this point this government code section would not apply The third appeal issue is that the incomplete determination included 68 unspecified submittal checklists that the ADU application has to comply with. The incomplete determination clearly outlined what items are actually required to deem the application complete. These consisted of items from flood control and the Carpinteria Summerlin Fire District as previously outlined in this presentation. These items are required to determine if there is adequate fire access and fire protection water supply and to determine what flood requirements apply to the structure. Due to the need for more information on the ADU application to determine that the project is meeting all health and safety requirements, staff recommends that your board deny the appeal, find that the ADU application is incomplete, and determine that this action is not a project for the purposes of CEQA. Staff is available for any questions, and we also have representatives from the Carpinteria Summerland Fire Protection District and County Flood Control available for questions related to their incomplete items. Thank you.

At this time, we'll ask for a presentation on the appellant. Ms. Sandoval? Ms. Sandoval, you're going to have 10 minutes to do a presentation. And if you don't use all 10 minutes, we'll reserve that time for you to do later on in the rebuttal. Yeah, take your time.

Really quickly, where's the timer?

We'll get it up here for you in a second.

Okay, fantastic. Good morning, Chair and members of the board. I am Diana Sandoval for the applicants and appellants. Before I say anything else, I must say this clearly for the record. We appear today under protest. We do not waive any of our statutory rights as we have informed Planning and Development and County Council in writing. Ministerial ADU application number 26 CDP0025 was approved by operation of law when the county failed to act within the deadline state law mandates. Deadlines that the state housing authority had already put the county on written notice for violating. We are here solely to exhaust our administrative remedies. Our appearance does not concede that any discretionary process applies, that this hearing is authorized, or that any action remains for the county to take. Other than the ministerial act state law already require, confirm the approval and issue the permit. We are a regular family that relied on the promise that the state made. The ADU would be ministerial, objective, affordable, and fast, something any homeowner can do without land use lawyers or paid expediters. We are legalizing an existing unit for our aging parents' future use. We did exactly what state law requires to legalize an existing ADU. The law is short and deliberate. ADU applications shall be approved or denied ministerially. No discretion, no hearing. 15 business days to determine completeness or to deem it complete by operational law. 60 days to approve or deny it or deem approved by operational law. And pre-2020, units get amnesty path under section 66311.7, which I'll refer to as the amnesty statute. Every date on this slide is either from the county's own file or supplied by law. February 28th, application received, fees paid. March 2nd, first incompleteness determination, cured in four days. March 9th, the county confirmed in writing, we met the submittal requirements. March 27th, at the latest, the application is deemed complete by operation of law. April 23rd, a second incompleteness letter with all new demands is issued, which the statute forbids. May 26th, the application is deemed approved. The decision has already been made, not by staff, not by the board, but by California law. What remains is the ministerial act of issuing the permit. Planning and development has been on notice. The State Housing Authority flagged these exact violations on October 31st, 2025. On December 12th, 2025, the County conceded that the statutory deadlines in its own written words to the State Housing Authority, 11 weeks before we applied. And today's board letter admits twice, no action has been taken to approve or deny the ADU application. Past day 60, that admission has exactly one statutory result, approval by operation of law. Staff just told you this application was submitted April 8th. The county took money from us on February 28th, emailed us about it on March 2nd, confirmed in writing March 9th. The clock runs from receipt. Staff doesn't get to pick the date. Before turning to what staff did say, no, what staff did not say, our May 3rd appeal led with ground A.1, and I'll read its heading verbatim. The determination constitutes error in a prejudicial abuse of discretion in failing to comply with California ADU statutes. That was the foundation of the entire appeal. The board letter is conveniently completely silent on it. On the central legal question, whether the staff complied with California's ADU statutes, staff says nothing. Silence is not a rebuttal. And notice what the board letter does instead. It raises for the first time brand new rationales that appear nowhere in the first or second in completeness determination. A board letter is not a lawful vehicle for a third round of moving gold posts. Staff writes, no action has been taken. They offer that as a defense. That is the violation. The statute converts inaction past day 60 into approval. Staff's own sentence is the proof. What does state law require? One checklist. The amnesty statute requires the county to post on its website and its permit checklist, the health and safety code 1792.0, 17920.3, conditions that would deem a pre-2020 unit substandard. Those conditions are the only grounds for denying legalization. One checklist. What did staff send us instead? A link requiring compliance with every checklist planning and development publishes. All of them, including absurd checklists like oil and gas production plan checklist, the cannabis order abatement plan checklist, and surface mining checklist. The law promised us one checklist. Staff sent us 68. And the one link staff never sent, the amnesty page that state law requires. The state housing authority couldn't find it on the county's website and gave the county notice. The county conceded in writing on December 12th. The county will update the county website to provide this information. As of this morning, it still isn't there. Next, the board letter contains a material false statement. Staff wrote, the applicant did not submit an application identifying the detached structure has ever been documented as a habitable living unit. The county owned file states otherwise. Our application work... Our application work description from the county's own system reads, quote, conversion of an existing detached structure with a documented history as a habitable living prior to January 1st, 2020, pursuant to California Code Section 66311.7. That is not buried in attachments. It is the work description initialed by staff into the project file. The county's own records and Ms. Brown's communication established that the same pre-2020 history staff now says was never identified. The county took our application under the amnesty statute, took our money, and now tells this board we never applied under amnesty at all. Staff wants the amnesty statute both ways. It says the amnesty program does not apply when it protects us, yet invokes the health and safety code exceptions that exist only inside the statute. You cannot claim that amnesty statute exception while denying the statute application. So I asked staff directly on the record, does that amnesty section six, six three one 1.7 apply yes or no. I don't expect an answer. Staff has continuously moved the goalposts and keeping its options open requires never committing to one, but this board should notice that the department asking you to affirm its determination cannot state its own legal position. Who pays for the county's violation? We're being charged line by line, the estimate, eight hours, $2,500. The board letter estimated 25 hours, $8,200, more than triple. The county's own labor log shows what we were charged, two and a half hours producing the unlawful April 23rd letter itself, about nine hours writing the board letter. The county advocacy against this appeal And the application was deemed approved May 26, yet 12 and a half hours were billed after that, starting the very next day when staff charges to calendar this hearing. ADU amnesty forbids penalizing the applicant for seeking legalization. All charges are paid under protest. We demand for the unlawful charges to be refunded with interest. The state promises a 60-day answer, one objective checklist, a cost-based fee, a reality 129 days, shifting lists, triple fees, and a public hearing that the statute says cannot happen. State law is explicit. An ADU application shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. Yet the county published a notice of public hearing that omitted the applicants are challenging the county for violating state housing laws. AND INSTEAD TOLD THE COMMUNITY ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION BY THE PUBLIC IS INVITED AND ENCOURAGED. THE COUNTY INVITED THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH ON A PERMIT THAT PUBLIC HAS NO LAWFUL ROLE IN WHILE CONCEALING THE ACTUALLY DISPUTE IS THE COUNTY'S OWN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. The lawful path is simple and it's ministerial. Confirm the approval by operation while direct staff to complete ministerial processing and issue the permit immediately. Refund the unlawful charges with interest. We object to any continuance. It would only compound the delay that statute forbids. Members of the board, 10 minutes is not sufficient to outline all the ongoing violations of state law that planning and development is engaged in with respect to this application. All our written submissions are incorporated by reference herein. Nothing I have said and nothing I have left unsaid for lack of time waives any rights, claims, damages, or remedies where expressively reserved All are expressly reserved. The board follows the law by performing the ministerial act, not weighing it. Issue the permit, refund the charges, and let a family finish their ADU. I yield my time for my rebuttal. Thank you.

Thank you. You got 40 seconds extra there. All right, so at this time, Madam Clerk, is there any public comment on this item?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we do have one request to speak from the public on this item.

Okay.

We are going to remain here in Santa Barbara and go to Todd Amspoker. Todd?

Is that, real quick, so those materials that have been given to the board already at this point? Okay, okay. I'm concerned about the board having to consume these materials and make a decision based on these materials in a very tight time frame.

It's very brief and I'll describe it.

Ms. Sandoval, I'm handling it. You'll get a chance in your rebuttal to do that. So before we go too far into your public comment, you're more than welcome to do a public comment. I'm just concerned about this being the record if we're needing to act upon it. I haven't seen it, I haven't read it, and so I'd hate to make that a part of the record in that case.

Understood, thank you.

And Chair Nelson, members of the board, since this is the first, the clerk is seeing this, we would need to vote it into the record for it to be accepted.

Okay, so we'll go ahead and do public comment. Actually, give me a second here. I want to make sure that... doing this appropriately and make sure that you have your proper due process and you get a chance to voice your your um i don't know opposition or support i actually don't know so i just want to make sure we're doing this appropriately madam county council can you give us some direction here

Mr. Chair, members of the board, as part of public comment, the speaker can address these materials, explain them, refer to them. If under the procedural rules to be part of the public record, they would need to be voted in by your board since they're more than a page.

Okay.

I guess at this point, so would they still be distributed? It can be distributed.

Mr. Chairman support. Yes, it can be distributed and it'll be a public record. And as I said, the speaker can describe them, talk about them during his time. It's just whether or not the board wants to accept it as an official part of their record. And that's a forfeits vote.

OK, great. So let's go ahead and I guess so distribute them and then we'll go ahead and get you started here in a moment on your public comment.

Yeah, the same.

Madam Clerk, just for the record, so these documents, we have not yet accepted them into the record, but they have been distributed. They are available in the back of the room as well as to the appellant and to staff.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, these have been just made available to the board, the staff, as well as the appellant. We are currently making more copies for the back of the room and as well as

putting that online which might take uh anywhere from five to ten minutes okay well i think we'll go ahead and proceed with the public comment this time and then we can make sure that those are fully in the record and potentially open up public comment at the end if there's any necessity after everything is online um so with that mr amspoker is that correct yes sir thank you please proceed thank you good afternoon members of the board my name is todd amspoker

I'm an attorney at Price Postel in Parma. I represent Robert Seidler, who is the owner of the property immediately to the north of the Sandoval property. Thank you. My client's property has a recorded easement on a driveway over the Sandoval property that has been in place since 1915. That driveway services a historic farmhouse on the southern part of my client's property. That driveway has been used for many years for access to that historic farmhouse. For several years, Ms. Sandoval has maintained an immovable bamboo fence, which has blocked my client's access through that driveway. This culminated in a jury trial in Santa Barbara Superior Court in January, 2026, which resulted in a court judgment from Judge Anderle of the Superior Court, awarding my client all the relief he requested. I'll describe that in a minute. I want to make sure it's clear we have no objection in concept to an ADU on Ms. Sandoval's property. The issue relates to the county's incomplete letter dated April 23rd, in which Ms. Sandoval is attempting to evade. The incomplete letter states two items among many others. One, the incomplete letter says that the illegal bamboo fence must be designated on Ms. Sandoval's plan as an unpermitted fence. As Ms. Sandoval knows, that fence is the subject of a county zoning enforcement action, which Ms. Sandoval is attempting to evade. The ADU application also in the complete letter states that the ADU application states the wrong address for the proposed ADU of 3200 Serena Avenue. 3200 Serena Avenue is the longstanding address of the historic farmhouse on my client's property. Back to the judgment that Judge Anderle issued. On page seven, you'll notice that Ms. Sandoval was ordered by Judge Anderle to remove the illegal bamboo fence and allow my client access through her property. Also, the judgment refers to that mailbox. In 2025, without permission or notice to my client, Ms. Sandoval illegally removed my client's mailbox for 3200 Serena Avenue and replaced it with a locked mailbox for her exclusive use. marked with my client's address of 3200 Serena. Judge Anderle ordered Ms. Sandoval to remove her locked mailbox and to return my client's mailbox to the mailbox station on Serena. The Carpenter-Rayo Fire District has provided Ms. Sandoval with the address of 3202 for her ADU. It's still not clear to anybody why Ms. Sandoval cares about what address her ADU has. other than perhaps retaliation against my client, who's obtained a judgment in his favor against her. We've provided you some photos. The first photo is of the illegal bamboo fence. The next photo is my client's original mailbox, which Ms. Sandoval took away. Third and fourth page is the locked mailbox that Ms. Sandoval installed, which Judge Enderly has ordered her to take away. Here's our point. Assuming you agree with staff's recommendation, we don't think there's anything that needs to be done. But if you determine, I'm just, my last sentence? Quickly. If you determine that Ms. Sandoval's application should go forward, her ADU application needs to be corrected to designate the illegal bamboo fences unpermitted and also to correct the incorrect address for the proposed ADU. Thank you.

And that concludes public comment on this item.

All right, thank you. Going through my script here, I wanted to make sure I didn't see opportunities for the board to ask questions of either the staff or to the appellant. We definitely wanna do that before rebuttal. So I'd like to go ahead and ask questions of staff at this time or the applicant about these requirements.

So we need to expedite ADU permits, but we do have to look at public health and safety, right? And I assume that the flood control issues and the fire issues deal with health and safety.

Yes, Supervisor, thank you very much. So the flood or the fire comments are, and they're here too to answer questions, but do they have the access required to safely provide fire emergency services? For the flood issue, they're just asking for the location of the flood zones on the property through discussions with them. They've made it very clear, the flood control department, if it is located in a certain flood zone, there are strict building requirements that this habitable structure would have to meet in order for it to be safe.

So I guess I'm wondering if an applicant refuses to provide the information, can you just deny the permit within the timeframes and be done with it?

Supervisors, I think we usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt and we tell them, you know, per law, these are the issues that you did not address on your complete checklist in hopes that they provide it and then we can move forward with an action

on the project if someone just refuses to provide the information yes we can just take that action and deny so this is my first experience i believe both on the planning commission and now on the board where we have an appeal of an incomplete determination and it's an it's a bit of a puzzle

It's Supervisor Hartman through the chair. It's not common. We've had one other one fairly recently in Richard's Ranch project, but it is not common. Usually the applicants work with the department to come into compliance and then we can move forward.

Okay. Supervisor Lee, you have some questions?

I do. So the applicant keeps saying the state promised this and promised that. So if the state said that you can build 18 story building on your property, I'm sure we have a process to allow, disallow that, right? We don't have to keep the promises that a state, wherever they made promises in our county.

Supervisor Lee, I think I would answer that by saying we're fully aware of what the state law requires for ADUs. Once you have a complete application, we are supposed to take action to approve or deny that within 60 days. We're fully aware of that. We just never got to the complete state of this project. She is still incomplete. We have not taken any action. We are happy to work with the applicant if she provides that information to move this project forward.

so there's nothing to decide because the application is not complete it is not complete incorrect all right i've got a few questions here as well um so if we did find it was complete today i guess i have a question about process um it's basically since it's going through the appeal process is the next timeline kind of being told at this point or if we found that it was complete would automatically now be approved as well because we're probably past the timeframe that we needed to approve the project. So I don't know if that's a question for staff or council here. I think I just need to understand that as part of the process.

Chair Nelson, the application 60 day timeline to approve or deny an ADU is from the date it's deemed complete. So if it's deemed incomplete, that wouldn't start another timeline.

Well, but if we determined it complete today, is that deemed complete today or was it deemed complete previously and therefore that timeframe started and it might be an approved project at this point? I think that that's important for us to understand.

I think Supervisor Nelson to the chair, I think that's a very good question. And I think we need to confirm that the date would not be retroactive

So we need to resolve that. So that's something I need to know here. I think that's an important question for this process.

So we're going to research that while, if other board members ask questions.

I still have some other questions, but if you, so can we go ahead and bring up the slide five in the staff presentation? I've got some questions about that. Madam County Council, do you have an answer for us?

Mr. Chair and members of the board, yes. So if the board decided that the application was complete, it would be deemed complete as of today.

Okay, so then I would start a timeframe for staff then to go ahead and give conditions on the project, right?

Mr. Chair, it's 15 days, I believe, from the application being deemed complete.

From submittal.

Okay, so it's 60 days from submittal. There are a lot of ins and outs with these dates, but why don't you clarify, please?

Chair Nelson, it's typically 60 days from the submittal of a complete application to approve or deny, but we would need to look into if the submittal date would be considered today or the date they submitted the application materials.

Okay, I think that's an important fact for us all. So I wanted to go through slide five to ask a few questions. I know in our checklist we're asking, I guess there's a checklist that these are the four items that we're looking at right now, why it's incomplete. Do we know whether, I mean, do we know, or does Carpinteria Summerlin Fire Protection District know if there is fire sprinklers within the existing residence? Because, I mean, wouldn't they have to get a permit to do that?

Chair Nielsen, we do have a representative from the Carpinteria Summerlin Fire Protection District to answer that.

Welcome, sir. Thank you. I'm Mike LaMonaco. I'm the fire marshal for Carpimere Summerlin Fire. So what was your question? Yes. So you guys don't have any record of which structures have sprinklers or not? Not necessarily. We rely on the application to denote those because we're not going to go in the house and look. We don't.

I understand. But is there any public record of when sprinklers are installed or that just gets done without a permitting process?

no they go through a permitting process but it isn't a guarantee that we have a record of it if it was done long enough ago it may not be in our records okay so we we want to clarify and it's it's a really simple question where normally it's a yes or no on the front cover sure i was asking if that should be in the public record somewhere we looked for it we didn't have anything and that's why we make sure it stays as a condition because based on that we make decisions afterwards all right if there was no fire turnaround

Would that still need to be on the plans?

Yes. So what our request is that we need to make sure that we have access and water to properly protect that property and the residents. So what we ask for, and it's in our checklist, is a scaled turnaround to make sure that the turnaround meets our needs so we can actually get back out once we go in.

And I understand that on the conditions. I'm just not sure if that's needs, you know, it sounds like a yes or no question on the application. So I'm kind of going through these. Right. So.

Supervisor Nelson, the county has the ability to put on a checklist requirements and the fire department has identified that on their checklist. So it's completely legitimate that they ask for this information on an application. They are not interested in improving projects and sending them and spending money that do not meet basic fire access requirements.

Okay. So, but that could be a condition of a project though. It could be fire access.

It could be a condition, sure, but I, yeah.

All right, so then the next one is showing location of the closest fire hydrant. Is that also the public record? Do you guys know where the fire hydrants are at?

We know where fire hydrants are. Okay, so I'm just kind of curious on why that's an item. So part of our checklist process is the access and the water requirements. Because what ends up happening is we're going to create a legal document with these plants. So it's not our plans to draw. And so we want everything drawn in scaled out. So in the future, if in 20 years, we're all sitting here having questions about a building, we do have that record. We do have that knowledge.

Okay. And then thank you again. I just want to make sure that those things are already in the public record. That's kind of my, my concern about it being on a complete checklist. And I guess my next question is for flood control on whether you guys know where the flood hazards are.

Chair Nelson, we do have a map of the flood hazards. We have that overlaid on GIS and aerial image. Yeah. Those are not rectified to survey quality. In this case, the flood hazard is very close to the unit. The quality that we have, it can vary up to 20 to 30 feet. So in this situation, we require the applicant to do a survey quality check to compare their structure with the flood hazard zone.

So when you're within 20 to 30 feet of a flood hazard delineation?

We're not sure. When we can't make that determination based on the information we have, we require a survey quality, yes.

All right. Do we have that information in the record as part of this appeal?

Which information, Supervisor? It's a mapped GIS layer on the county website. Correct, yeah.

All right. Thank you. Those are my questions. All right, so that's the questions from the board. This time is a five-minute rebuttal from the appellant. And so welcome Ms. Sandoval back up, right? Is that correct?

Yes, Chair Nielsen and members of the board, that is correct. A five minute rebuttal plus the 40 seconds carry over from the presentation.

actually got one more question i got one more question why miss sandoval is coming up um could the board make determinations on completeness on a few of those items but not all those items today or do we have to either say that they're all complete or none of them are complete because there's four items that we're saying that are needed for completeness that are not we could find that all four weren't met. Do we just need to find for one, two, three, four?

Mr. Chair and members of the board, I can look at this a little bit further, but The board can't change the checklists. The checklists are set. But if there was evidence that that item on the checklist had been met, then I think the board could decide that item was complete.

Okay, thank you. But unless all of them are complete, you would- Then it's still incomplete. Correct. Yeah, functionally. Okay, thank you. Ms. Sandoval, it is your time to come up here for a rebuttal. I know it's a lot coming at you quick, but it is the time for you to come up here and present your rebuttal.

Mr. Chair, just one item. So we have these additional submittals. They are online. I don't know if there's any public comment related to those. The board hasn't taken an action, so I'm just not sure what you want to do with these. Obviously, the appellant can comment on them if she'd like to during her rebuttal time as well.

Okay. So personally, I didn't see that it had any relevance to the completeness, so I didn't make a motion, and I didn't see my colleagues make a motion, although if one of them wants to make a motion, I'll put it in the record. I wouldn't be supportive, but it's a four-fifths vote, so I don't know if anybody is interested in that. I think there's plenty of information here just about the consistency outside of that. Ms. Sandoval, so you have five minutes and 40 seconds for rebuttal.

Chair and members, For the record, nothing raised in public comment is before you. This is a ministerial completeness appeal under government code section 66317, limited to objective standards. We object to consideration of any matter outside of this application. Also, I object to Mr. Amspoker's misstatements and distraction tactics. For the record, Mr. Amspoker is not an impartial witness. He represents both the Carpinteria Summerland Fire District and the ultra wealthy neighbor. Interesting he didn't disclose he's also the fire department's attorney. His role is to advocate for his paying clients, but the board's responsibility is to base its decision on the evidence and applicable state law. I object to the misstatements by staff and refer this board to the record and applicable state law. There's been a lot of misrepresentations regarding the law here, including about checklists. Anyway, again, I refer the board to the record and applicable state law. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Ms. Sandoval. Any further questions of staff or questions for Ms. Sandoval, actually, as well? So Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Levin, you know.

Yes, I had a question for Ms. Sandoval.

Ms. Sandoval, please.

State law does favor expediting permitting of new housing, particularly ADUs, but it does have additional requirements for public safety. It seems like a fairly straightforward thing. So what's really at issue here?

Well, without waiving any of our legal rights, remedies, damages, or claims, I respectfully refer to the board the applicable provisions and any other controlling state law governing this matter. So the issue primarily is the planning development continues to move the goalpost. And the county has been in notice by the state authority that they are violating the very same laws that I'm advocating for right here.

So you object to filling out a checklist about whether there's a turnaround where the hydrant is, where the flood control?

Can you rephrase your question? Sorry about that.

Yes. There are those items that were on slide five about why your application is incomplete. And it's simply a checklist. And I guess my question is, what's the big deal? I mean, why not just fill this out?

So the deal is that the county is moving the goalpost. So I asked on the record, does the amnesty statute 663117 apply? Yes or no? Can we please have the staff answer that? Because that will answer my question for you.

This is, Ms. Sandoval, this is a completeness hearing. So what we're trying to do is we're not trying to look at the entire project and we're not looking to necessarily approval. We're looking very narrowly at completeness. So these are the four items that we're looking at and we're going to make a decision on based on today.

sir what i'm asking you is what state law requires if this is a 663117 application which it is they have their own completeness checklist and that's the only grounds the county can count consider those are not in that checklist that state law requires So I'm asking the county and staff to please put it on the record. Does the amnesty statute section 66317 apply? Yes or no? Can we please put that on the record to have a complete record for your decision today?

All right. Thank you, Ms. Sandoval, for that request. But we'll keep on the questions of the board. Supervisor Hartman?

So that raises a question, and I see that our county council is looking, but I would like them to weigh in. But thank you, Ms. Sandoval. I appreciate better understanding what your position is.

Supervisor Levinas, do you still have a question?

Well, I think Supervisor Hartman hit exactly what I was trying to get at. Do you want to build this or do you not want to? I mean, I'm trying to figure out. It's pretty easy. I mean, we have gone, we've burned a lot of time here, and we're really spinning through the spoke here, and I'm just trying to figure out, you know where the fire hydrant is? You know where this is? It's just, do you want to do it or don't you? Or would you rather just argue about it? That's the part I can't figure out.

THERE SEEMS TO BE DISCONNECT. FOR STATE LAW, THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY OPERATION OF LAW, AND IT IS COMPLETE.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WOULD RATHER FIGHT IT. I GET IT.

PLEASE FINISH ANSWERING THE QUESTION AS YOU ASKED, SIR, SO I CAN MAKE MY RECORD.

GO BUILD THE RECORD.

THANK YOU.

KEEP GOING.

WITHOUT WAIVING ANY OF HER LEGAL RIGHTS, REMEDIES OR DAMAGING CLAIMS, I RESPECTFULLY REFER THIS BOARD TO STATE LAW. YOU'RE NOT ABOVE THE STATE LAW, SIR.

Yeah, exactly. Yes, understood. While Supervisor Hartman waits for County Council on her question, any other questions from Supervisor Capps or Supervisor Lee here? All right. Supervisor Hartman, you might have to defer now to staff comments, and then we'll come back to County Council if that's all right. Now turn back. Thank you, Ms. Sandoval. If we have some additional questions, we'll ask you to come back up.

Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead and turn it back to staff while we wait for county councils. Thanks, Supervisors. Willow, if you could pull up the slide.

I think we just want to reiterate that we strongly believe we met all the requirements under state law. This shows you the dates that the application was submitted. We did deem it incomplete within the 15 day timeline. And to Supervisor Nelson's comment, we just have called it incomplete. We have not taken any action on this ADU application.

and one thing to add there was an application submitted in march but the fees were finally paid in april and so that's when we start the process when the fees get paid and that was communicated to the applicant at in march all right thank you other other questions from the board mr chair and members of the board so under state law there's two different sections that

talk about how we process the adu that's at the stage where we're figuring out approval or denial so we are at the stage of a complete application so we haven't gotten to that next stage and so what the staff has determined is that the checklists have not been met so the application is incomplete which is what they're saying they haven't taken that any other action yet sure all right thank you um

Now back to the board for deliberations. Supervisor Lee, since your district, you want to kick it off?

Thank you. Oh, it's pretty clear to me. So based on all the information before me, I'm going with the staff recommendation and I'll make the motion to accept A, B and C. All right.

So motion by so comment and already a motion by Supervisor Lee. Is there is there a second there? We can still discuss that motion. Yeah. Is there a second on that motion?

I'll second, and then we can open it.

Okay, so there's a second on that motion of the staff recommendation, but we'll have further deliberations and discussion. Do you want Supervisor Levin?

I'm just curious, how many ADUs have we processed ballpark-ish in the last couple years?

Several hundred.

Okay.

Yeah.

And how many were deemed incomplete?

It's a good question, but probably a fair number of them get deemed incomplete, and it's a pretty standard process that we work through with the applicants.

And then you just go back and forth with the applicant and work it through?

Correct.

Okay. Supervisor Hartman, do you have any further deliberations? I've got a couple comments.

Well, it seems like the appellant may be mixing up two different parts of the law and pre-application deemed complete and then once it's deemed complete. I think that that has cost everybody a lot of time and even the appellant a lot of money. And I'm sort of puzzled about why we're here, but we have a motion and a second and I intend to support it.

Okay. Supervisor Capps.

I'll weigh in with my support for the motion and the second. I was hoping that there might be some resolution today. Sometimes a date on the books gets some incomplete, gets some movement, and again, we have spent a lot of time, and I know the There's a lot of energy going towards this, and I just wish it had been more productive.

Thank you, Supervisor Capps. As far as I'm concerned, I think a lot of our requests are often superfluous in the county, that we ask for a lot of things that might necessarily not need to be there that should already be in the public record, like fire hydrants. If that was the only one on here, I'd say it was complete. We have that in the public record. We know where they're at. we shouldn't be deeming something incomplete. Fire sprinklers, we should know whether they are, or we should assume that there is, and then if we want the higher standard, maybe that we'd have that option for an appellant. So if those are the only two completeness items, I might be able to deem this complete. On the other hand, there are two items here that I'm still very concerned about. I've heard from flood control that this is close enough that we needed to dive in on the flood standards. And I also appreciate the turnaround. If that's not delineated, that's something that's important to look at. I looked on a map and realized that it's a very long driveway out to this property. And so it's not just a... a house that's just right on a front edge of another street so um those two items right there uh is enough if only one of these items that we've deemed um incomplete is enough so to support the motion so like i said i think we i could have gotten there if there's only a couple of these items, but I think there's two items there that I think are important enough for completeness so I can support staff recommendation for denial and Supervisor Lee's motion. So Supervisor Hartman.

Yeah, that raises a question for me and something I think I heard in the comments. I mean, is it your duty, P&D, to fill out the application? I mean, please comment on that.

Yeah, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So it's the applicant's duty to fill out the application and respond to the checklists. And as we're all aware, the state has gotten very prescriptive about making sure you have checklists so that the applicants know upfront what it is gonna be needed from them. And so it's their obligation to submit the information that is on the checklist that is pertinent to their property and their application.

So that begs the further question, can you assist or would we have information that could help somebody get through this?

So Supervisor Hartman, through the chair, we often help applicants work through issues where they may have questions or may need additional information. And so, yes, we can assist applicants and often do. But they are the ones who are supposed to actually do the application.

That's correct. Because that's a record that you rely on in the future. That's correct.

SUPERVISOR HARTMAN, GOOD EXAMPLE. OTHER DEPARTMENTS ASKED FOR RECORDS AS PART OF THEIR INCOMPLETE LIST AND MS. BROWN PROVIDED A BUNCH OF THOSE RECORDS SO WE TAKE THOSE THINGS OFF THE COMPLETE LIST. WE ABSOLUTELY TRY TO HELP OUT TO REDUCE ANY INCOMPLETE ITEMS.

DO THINK A LOT OF OUR PROCESS SOMETIMES REQUIRES THE HIRING OF PROFESSIONALS TO DO ALL THIS STUFF WHICH I THINK IS UNFORTUNATE ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ASK FOR PEOPLE TO PRODUCE INFORMATION THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN OUR OWN RECORDS. I DO THINK THIS NEEDED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BECAUSE OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD SO I STILL THINK WE COULD HAVE A SIMPLER PROCESS FOR APPLICANTS ESPECIALLY IN SOME OF THESE AREAS OF PUBLIC INFORMATION. I THINK THAT'S REALLY INFURIATING FOR THE PUBLIC FOR THAT. BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE MY VOTE HERE AND I THINK THAT WE'RE TALKED OUT HERE. We have a motion and a second, and I don't see any further discussion on the motion. I think we can go ahead and do all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The motion to deny passes unanimously. All right, we're going to, I think, try to get one more item in before lunch, and it's going to be a short lunch today, only half an hour. So, yeah. So Madam Clerk, we'll roll right into this. Madam Clerk, will you please read departmental item number five into the record. And those of you for department item number six, sorry that we couldn't get to that before lunch, but we will only have a short lunch before we, about a half an hour. So we won't be long. So hang in there.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number five is from the treasurer tax collector public administrator. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding 15 Miramar Club LLC appeal of the treasurer tax collector's transient occupancy tax and tourism business improvement district audit final determination.

All right.

Thank you. Ms. Haggerty, are you going to go ahead and take it from here? Oh, actually, before we get there, we need to check for ex parte disclosures on this communications. Supervisor Lavadino?

None to report.

None.

None from Supervisor Hartman.

Supervisor Capps, any ex parte disclosures on this item?

Not on this one.

Okay. And I do not have any ex parte disclosures as well. Supervisor Lee, do you have any ex parte communications to disclose? No. Okay. Thank you for the patience there. And go ahead and take it from here.

Okay. This is the 15 Miramar Club LLC appeal of the treasurer tax collector's transient occupancy tax audit final determination. And I'd like to go and begin with an overview of the Santa Barbara County transient occupancy tax or TOT ordinance. So every hotel, motel, and short-term rental operator in the unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County is required to collect TOT from transients who stay for a period of 30 days, consecutive days or less. Operators are required to register their short-term rentals with the county tax collector within 30 days after commencing business. If any operator fails to collect and remit the tax to the tax collector, then the tax collector may obtain facts and information to determine and assess the tax interest and penalties due from the operator. So the next is an overview of the Santa Barbara County or Santa Barbara South Coast Tourism Business Improvement District or TBID plan. So lodging business owners within the TBID pay an assessment and the funds are used to provide programs that increase demand for room night sales. This assessment is levied upon and a direct obligation of the short-term rental operator. And this assessment is required to be remitted to the treasurer tax collector on a monthly basis. So the audit overview for 15 Miramar Club. So unreported short-term rental activity for 15 Miramar Club LLC was noted on our TOT compliance software. Two letters were sent to the operator requesting that the operator complete the application for transit occupancy registration certificate, which is a TOT certificate, and begin remitting TOT to the county for a short-term rental business. The operator did not respond to either letter. So 15 Miramar Club LLC was selected for a TOT audit covering the period of April 2022 through March 2025. The tax collector reviewed various confidential financial documents and rental activity reports and the final audit determination was the amount due to the county was $192,250.74. So 15 Miramar Club LLC has the following appeal requests. Request number one, 15 Miramar Club LLC requests a waiver of the $38,656.96 assessed in penalties and interest. Our response to that request is the tax collector's website and the short-term rental platform used by the operator has clear instructions on the responsibility of the operator to collect and remit TOT to the county. The request number two is that 15 Miramar Club LLC requests a payment plan arrangement for the TOT and TBID amount due. Our response is County Code Chapter 32, Article 3 does not have a provision for the creation of a payment plan for outstanding payment obligations. The tax collector's proposed findings are as follows. The amount due from 15 Miramar Club LLC is $192,250.74 consisting of $153,593.78 in transient occupancy tax and tourism business improvement district assessment and $38,656.96 in penalties and interest. This amount is assessed against 15 Miramar Club LLC and is immediately due and payable to the County of Santa Barbara treasure tax collector upon the service of notice by the clerk of the board. So the Board actions are as follows. The staff recommends that your Board take the following actions. Conduct a hearing to consider the appeal of the final determination of TOT and TBID interest and penalties assessed by the Treasury Tax Collector on 15 Miramar Club, LLC in the amount of $38,656.96 and uphold the Treasury Tax Collector's determination and deny the appeal request for a waiver of penalty and interest. totaling $38,656.96. Denied the appeal request for a payment plan arrangement for the TOT and TBID assessment amount. and adopt the findings proposed by the treasurer tax collector. And finally, determine that the above actions involve government funding mechanisms and or fiscal activities and are not a project subject under CEQA. And that concludes my presentation.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Haggerty. Any questions from the board before we get to the appellant's presentation? All right. There'll be other, yeah, if you'd like to wait. Service of Caps?

No. Okay. Officer.

All right. This time it would be the 10 minutes for the appellate's presentation.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board. My name is Olesia Kurnosova, and I'm the CPA for the 15 Miramar LLC. I'll be brief. Thank you. I appreciate the time here. We do not dispute, on behalf of the 15 Miramar Club LLC, we do not dispute the fact that the entity failed to register and didn't pay the taxes on time. We just wanted to bring forward special circumstances of the case. and just explain why this happened and why we didn't do things on time. We are new to the client. The client since passed away, but we did contact our prior accountant as well. So the circumstances of the case is such that the property in question was purchased by Amber Andrews on March of 2022. She was... She had health issues that time, and she has cancer. And when she purchased it, she was not doing well. But by her profession, she's a matchmaker. So she was trying to foresee what's going to happen with her and sort of like provide for the family. She was the breadwinner for the whole family. She had three minor children. and husband who was older and he was retired basically. So she knew that she has to do something for the family and rental seemed to be kind of easy solution for her. She wasn't really a business person. She was the matchmaker, so she was beautiful and she was trying to impress the man and people. But she had three kids, so she said, I'm just reconstructing this from what I hear from the family. So she basically wanted to find something that produces income. So she did buy the property at cottages at 15 Miramar. She was the sole person who actually was registered as a sole person. She was the sole owner of it, and there was nobody else. As she was trying to deal with this real estate, the cancer took course through the wars, and she had to undergo procedures. She was struggling for her life, basically, at the time. I don't think she intentionally meant to disregard the registration and regulations and everything else, but I think she was progressively ill and I don't think she was looking for, evade taxes and certainly she was she was if she was well, I'm sure she would have complied but registration and paying the taxes But she was in and out of the hospitals and she passed away in April of 25 I want to say that since then the estate and the son the older son started helping with a real estate and The state is compliant now. They pay taxes. They remit taxes as it should be and We don't dispute the fact that yes, we everything was late, but we just wanted to mention that circumstances were such that You know the owner wasn't wasn't feeling well and was just basically ill all the time. And we also spoke with our prior accountant who did income tax returns and he said he couldn't file taxes either. He was late for 23, 24. The income tax filing was delayed and we saw it. We're still dealing with that, certain items that come late. And it's not just Santa Barbara County. I'm sure she was not intending to avoid registration or paying taxes. And all we're asking is to basically waive the penalty. I think this is a special case. I mean, to me it's a special case. I cannot say that the state is like cash rich, but they will pay the taxes, the one that still remain for the past periods, they will definitely be paying them, even though we cannot probably pay them immediately, but the taxes will be paid. That I can promise. And the LLC will stay compliant. We'll make sure of that. And we have a bookkeeper now who does the filings regularly, pays the taxes, and we'll do what we can to stay compliant. And that's basically it.

All right. Thank you. Questions for Ms. Was there any attempt to even pay any type of the penalties at all?

When we got the notice, we were already the accountants, and I said, let's try to present the case first, because I know when we deal with the IRS, for example, they usually take it as a valid consideration. And I said, why don't we try it first? We were just trying to see if we could waive the penalties. We're not disputing the tax amount, which is the penalties, which are 20%.

Okay, and I just want to make this clear. So you're asking the penalties be waived because the owner was ill?

The owner couldn't attend to the business affairs and they couldn't register on time because she wasn't even probably thinking about that. I would think if you terminally ill, I don't know what I think about. Would I think about paying Santa Barbara taxes or would I think about my kids? Just saying.

Did she attempt to at all contact anyone to help her? Do you have any documentation?

The older son at the time was like, I want to say 19, and two minor, other smaller kids. I think he was helping her, I mean, as much as he could, but I don't think he was experienced in any kind of, you know, registration issues, register paying taxes. I mean, he's better now. He's co-executor of the state. I mean, we're still dealing with things.

Okay.

Yeah.

And are they here right now or just you representing?

They live nearby, but I didn't want to bring them because it's upsetting to them. I mean, the mother was 56. I just didn't want to say, hey, let's tear them or...

PAIN THEY SUFFERED I MEAN THERE WAS A YOU KNOW SHE SHE SUFFERED FOR A LONG TIME I JUST WANTED TO HELP THEM HERE BASICALLY THANK YOU ALL RIGHT THANK YOU SUPERVISOR LEE SUPERVISOR CAPS YEAH I'M SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT THE ILLNESS AND UM BUT I JUST JUST BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE I HEARD AN ANSWER WAS THERE AN ATTEMPT TO WORK OUT A PAYMENT PLAN OR BE IN TOUCH WITH THE WITH THE COUNTY

We heard from the county that basically they'll take the payments as we make them. So we didn't attempt to make a payment plan, no.

All right. Supervisor Hartman, then I have a question as well. Please.

Sorry, I'm still trying to understand this. So she also had a husband who was retired?

He's retired. He was never in the business. He trains horses or some kind of a, he's not a veterinarian. They call him a horse whisperer. I don't want to judge that, but that's what his profession is. Horse whisperer, if there's such a thing.

There is.

Okay, I guess it is.

All right, Supervisor Lavagnino. Thank you. My question's more for staff. So I know what happens when somebody doesn't pay property tax. You know, we have something that we can attach to, and it's a long process, but I never understood, what happens, and not just a rental, but let's say we had a hotel or something that just quit paying TOT. What is the recourse, and is it laid out in statute? Or has that ever happened? I mean, I know it happens on rentals.

So Supervisor Levine, you know, through the chair, property taxes are a lot different. So if you were like, say, the taxes on your house, it's secured by your house. That's a secured tax. So it will go down that process. And if it doesn't get paid after a certain period of time, then it, you know, gets recorded in power to sell and, you know, go down a different path. This is a little different. So these are kind of more like unsecured taxes. So We could try to put a lien on the property. And so in your example of a hotel decided they were going to stop paying because they're closing up shop or maybe they're selling or whatever it might be. We will try to contact that hotel at that point and get those taxes paid through the escrow process. This would be a little bit different. the applicant is correct when she asked about a payment plan there's nothing in the ordinance that allows that correct but as i've told other applicants that have come to me i've said you know we're in the business of collecting taxes not sending them back to you so if you pay me a certain amount then i'm going to apply that to your bill if it's not paid in a reasonable amount of time we'll probably have to put a lien on that, you know, go through the different process. And so that's kind of how it's handled in this case.

Okay. So there's nothing, we've been through this before. So the ordinance is pretty cut and dried. There is no grace period. There's no...

Yeah, so if it was property taxes, we could look into, there's areas that are a little more grayer that we could actually maybe apply. But the ordinance is pretty black and white in this case for us. When we're compiling it, we're trying to be very objective and just do the mathematics and try to keep the emotion out of it. But if it was property taxes, we could take some of that into effect then.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question. So we began this audit in 2022. When did the short-term rentals begin on that property?

I think she bought it and right away she put it to rent. So I think April of 22 and she, I saw the charts, she started renting in basically May.

So just the period that we audited is that the operations just happened to be the same three years that we went back and audited?

Yeah.

Okay, because I think we only get to go back three years, if I'm correct, right?

I think she purchased it on April of 22, so I think that's the first month that...

Okay, I want to get some clarity from... So, did you guys in your investigation determine that the audit period was the same type of operation, or did you guys have any detection that there was operations prior to your statutory period that you were able to audit?

We actually only audit back three years. So we only look three years. We didn't look any further.

So we don't know on your guys's side, whether that happened and that three years just happens to be the only three years that they owned it. Okay. All right. Um, okay. That's, uh, the information there, I guess our next step in this appeal is to ask if there's any public comment on this item. Thank you. We'll, we'll get back to you here in a moment. chair nelson members of the board we have no request to speak from the public on this item all right actually i'm going to have you come back up um it's a rebuttal do you have any you've got five more minutes if you want to discuss anything else or have any more additional rebuttal okay um so the can you mind if just come up and say that you'll wave your rebuttal

At this time, we waive the rebuttal.

Okay, thank you. All right, but while you're up here, it seems like Senator Hartman has a question for you.

So, I missed your relationship to the LLC?

I'm certified public. We do their taxes now. The prior account was located in Arizona, and he had so much difficulties getting the tax information from Amber and her entities, he basically resigned. He said, I cannot deal with this. So, the son engaged us.

And if I understood you correctly, you're saying that the IRS has some flexibility or forgiveness and so you thought you would inquire here if that were possible.

The IRS has a clause that says if the act was not caused by malicious intent but as a reasonable excuse, you can present your reasonable excuse and we'll consider it. So that's how we work with authorities.

And does this create a financial hardship? It is. So I don't see evidence of that. Not that we have that as a factor that we can consider, but I'm not sure you've made that case.

Me neither. I'm sorry, I didn't understand.

Were you looking for her to respond to that?

Yeah. What are the implications for the family, the LLC, if they have to pay this penalty?

They have struggles with cash flow right now, so it just will take them longer period of time to recover and just stay on track. Financially, basically, they're just not doing great.

That's all. Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, Supervisor Hartman. All right, thank you, ma'am. Back to staff, any further comments from staff? Okay, no additional staff comments. Back to board for deliberations. Anybody like to deliberate or make a motion?

Sure.

Supervisor Lee.

It's my district, so I'll go first. I want to help, but I just cannot find the findings to help you and your client get to where you want to be. So based on everything that I've seen, I don't know if you want to deliberate or raise for a motion.

I don't think there's any further questions from the board, so I think we're ready. I mean, I'm comfortable with the motion. All right. And we'll then open up for discussion after there's a second, if there's a second.

So I'm inclined to go with staff recommendation A, B, C, and D. Okay. Which is to deny the appeal.

Which is to deny the appeal. All right. All right. Is there a second for that motion?

I'll second.

Second from Supervisor Hartman. All right. Any further deliberations on that motion? um yeah i i guess i'm going to support this motion um you know it is uh i know i feel for the people who get stuck in these situations but there's a basic fairness and obligation that we have up here to enforce these rules and um uh i'm comfortable with it um i did have yeah it doesn't matter in the emotion so yeah i support the motion supervisor

Yeah, it sounds like the problem isn't cash, but cash flow. And so I think the Treasurer's Office has been somewhat accommodating and would encourage however you can help within the parameters you have to work within, so.

All right. All right. Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Lavagnino.

And I think it's also important to know that this has been a long time when people have been doing this. So I think that you go into this business now, you're fully aware that you need to be paying TOT. I don't know how long the Airbnbs and VRBOs have been around, but it's no longer a new gig. So this is part of the deal. And we need to send a message that, unfortunately, you have to pay your taxes.

Yeah, I was going to make the same point, and also that it's just a fairness issue to all the others that are, you know, I feel I've been, I've gotten behind the eight ball before just on IRS stuff, and it's no fun. Once you get into that web, it's difficult to get yourself out. But this is a fairness issue to everybody else that is paying their TOT on time. And I just want to give a shout out to the staff as well, that this is... this is kind of what we're expecting from that office is that it's not easy and obviously it's not fun to do these track downs. But as I said, this is one of the reasons why, you know, that I will support this is just for all the other people that are out there that are making it on time. And you go on the website for these other hosting facilities and you know, the information's right there. I don't like doing it, but it's the law, and that's what we're here to uphold.

All right, thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. So seeing, I think we're all discussed out here, so if we can, we've got a motion and a second.

And Chair and also members of the board, I just wanted to clarify that's for staff recommended actions A and B.

A and B, let me just double check. Yeah, that's right, A and B. A and B, yes. All right, motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Oppose? The motion passes unanimously. All right, we're going to go ahead and take a short lunch break here before we get to Department item number six. Madam County Council, will you please read for us what we're going to be discussing in closed session during that break?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. In closed session today, the board is scheduled to consider conference with labor negotiators. The employee organizations are Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff's Association, the Santa Barbara County Probation Peace Officers Association, Santa Barbara County Sheriff Managers Association. And the agency designated representatives are CEO Miyasato and Human Resources Director Christine Schmidt. And the time estimate's 30 minutes.

Okay. We may go a little long, but we're going to try to keep to it and be back no earlier than 1.35. All right, welcome back to the July 7th, 2026 regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We're just coming back from closed session. Madam County Council, can you report out on what we discussed?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board met in closed session for employee organizations, Deputy Sheriff's Association, Probation Peace Office Association, and Sheriff's and Managers Association for labor negotiations, and the board took no reportable action.

All right, thank you very much. Now we'll get back to departmental item number six. Madam Clerk, would you please read that item into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number six is from the treasurer tax collector, public administrator. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding Jeremy and Megan Raff's appeal of the treasurer tax collector's transient occupancy tax final audit determination.

All right, before we get started, let's go ahead and disclose any ex parte communications. Supervisor Lavigneau, do you have any?

None to report.

Okay. Supervisor Hartman?

I did meet with the RAFs in person in my office. I don't have the date. It was maybe 10 days ago.

Okay. Supervisor Lee? I met with the RAFs yesterday over Teams. All right. Thank you.

No.

And now Supervisor Koepp. I met with both Jeremy and Megan RAF over Teams yesterday, and we discussed the history of the project, the operations, and all their their community engagement that they've been involved in so all right with that we'll go ahead and turn over to the treasurer tax collector and miss rafferty for your presentation please

This is the appeal of Jeremy and Megan Raff for the Treasurer Tax Collector's Transient Occupancy Tax Audit Final Determination. So I'd like to begin with an overview of the Santa Barbara County Transient Occupancy Tax, the TOT Ordinance. So every hotel, motel and short-term rental operator in the unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County is required to collect TOT from transients who stay for a period of 30 consecutive days or less. Operators are required to register their short-term rentals with the county tax collector within 30 days after commencing business. If any operator fails to collect and remit the tax to the tax collector, then the tax collector may obtain facts and information to determine and assess the tax interest and penalties due from the operator. So for this audit, there was unreported short-term rental activity. It was noted on our TOT compliance software for Jeremy and Megan Raff's Dare to Dream Farms. A letter was sent to the operators requesting that they complete the application for a transient occupancy registration certificate and began remitting TOT to the county for their short-term rental business. The operators submitted the application and remitted TOT for the period of September 2023 through February 2024. The RAFs were selected for a TOT audit covering the period of April 2022 through March 2025. The tax collector reviewed various confidential financial documents and rental activity reports and the final audit determination was the amount due to the county was $65,840.11. So Jeremy and Megan Raff, their appeal requests are as follows. It's request number one, the Raffs request a waiver or meaningful reduction of the transient occupancy tax penalty and interest totaling $65,840.11. A response to that request is the tax collector's website and the short-term rental platforms used by the operators have instructions on the responsibility of the operator to collect and remit TOT to the county. Request number two is the RAF's request a payment plan arrangement. And the response to that is County Code Section, County Code Chapter 32, Article 2 does not have a provision for the creation of a payment plan for outstanding payment obligations. So staff's proposed findings. are the amount due from Jeremy and Megan Raff is $65,840.11 consisting of $50,664.25 in transient occupancy tax and $15,175.86 in penalties and interest And this amount is assessed against Jeremy and Megan Raff. And it's a due immediately and payable to the County of Santa Barbara treasure tax collector upon the service of notice by the clerk of the board. So the board actions, staff recommends that your board take the following actions. Conduct a hearing to consider the appeal of the final determination of the transient occupancy tax interest and penalties assessed by the treasurer tax collector on Jeremy and Megan Raff in the amount of $65,840.11 and uphold the treasurer tax collector's determination and deny the appeal request for a waiver or meaningful reduction of the TOT penalties and interest totaling $65,840.11. and deny the appeal request for a payment plan arrangement and adopt the findings proposed by the treasure tax collector. And finally, determine that the above actions involve government funding mechanisms and or fiscal activities and are not a project under CEQA. And that concludes my presentation.

All right, thank you, Ms. Rapporty. Treasury Tax Collector's Office before we hear from the appellant. I did have a question for clarification about the audit. So the audit period was April 2022 to March 2025. Again, one of your three year windows you looked at. It appears that they paid in September 2023 through February 2024. So So they didn't pay before they paid and they stopped paying? I just want to make sure I understand.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. All right. Thank you. We're gonna have time for the phones presentation. We'll have 10 minutes.

Good morning Chair Nelson and members of the board. My name is Megan Raff and my husband Jeremy and I own Dare to Dream Farms in Lompoc. We are here asking for relief from a $65,000 transient occupancy tax audit assessment connected to the years before the county adopted the current agricultural enterprise ordinance framework. We are not asking to avoid compliance going forward. We are asking for a fair transition into compliance, one that does not claw back the community-serving work that this farm has built. Our primary request is full relief from the base tax penalties and interest. It is important to understand what Dare to Dream Farms is and what it is not. The executive director of Santa Barbara County Food Action Network described Dare to Dream as a working family farm that keeps its gates open to the entire community. Another supporter called it a cornerstone of the community, where families gather, children learn, friendships form, and people leave more connected to the land and to local agriculture. This is not an absentee short-term rental investor or an exclusive hospitality operation. We were a farm first, and the farm stays have always been supplemental. The core of Dare to Dream is agriculture, food access, education, and community service, and that has been demonstrated through more than 80 letters of support to the board. Our community has described the farm as a vital community hub, a tangible link to our community's agriculture, access to fresh local food when they needed it most in COVID, fresh healthy food accessible to our community, consistently the first to step up for a local fundraiser, support a neighbor in need, or back a community initiative. Fair, honest, and endlessly generous, a community farm more like a family than a business.

This assessment concerns the years before the current Ag enterprise ordinance framework was adopted. I participated in the county's farm stay ad hoc committee with John Park because we believed a workbook framework was coming and wanted to help create it. Lompoc council member Jeremy Ball described this period as one where the rules and expectations were anything but clear. This is exactly the point. This case arose during a county regulatory transition. This is not a short delay from the first farm state conflict in 2017 to the ag enterprise ordinance taking effect in 2025. Operators are navigating nearly eight years, most of a decade with uncertainty. We understand the county must bring operators into compliance, but the way that transition matters, as the county has seen in other emerging regulatory areas, the goal should be to bring operators into compliance, preserve future revenue and protect the public interest, not eliminate the operators the framework was designed to regulate. If the Ag Enterprise Ordinance was created because working farms need diversified income to survive, then enforcing the transition in a way that strips away those programs those farms provide works against the purpose of the ordinance itself. This is not a bill we can simply absorb. The assessment is more than 20 times our prior year's net income. This year, we also lost approximately $6,000 per month in federal funds. LFPA supported food purchasing revenue that supported our operations and food distributions. So this assessment cannot come from excess profit. There is none. It would come from cuts.

If enforced as is, the first cuts are the community-facing programs. It would be the least profitable but most meaningful work of our farm. The CSA boxes, the honor system farm stand, the free or low-cost educational programming. We'd sell the costly livestock that are not profitable, the pigs, goats, cows, and then self-guided tours, learning opportunities for woofs, and internships would slowly die back. We would likely lose full-time positions and year-round commitment would be reduced, and Jeremy and I would be forced to fill the labor gaps ourselves. Rather than serving the community with the free school visits and the youth programs and special need adult tours and civic leadership community outreach, we would likely have to move farm stay units into mid or long-term rentals to stabilize our income, and the county would lose the public-facing agricultural tourism and education connection that the Ag Enterprise Ordinance was designed to support. This is the harm, not just the bill itself, but the operational contraction that's required to pay it. Ultimately, if the farm can't manage in a reduced capacity to pay the bill, we may be forced to shut our doors and turn to outside jobs. Across more than 80 letters of support, the same themes repeat. The community does not describe Dare to Dream Farms as lodging. They describe it as food access, education, employment, mentorship, and a network of small producers and community partners. That matters because public comments help measure the public benefit. They show what's at risk is not just one private business, but a working farm that has become community infrastructure for Lompoc.

The letters describe Dairy Dream as a free agriculture learning space. Families, school groups, youth groups, homeschoolers, and special needs adults come to the farm to see animals, walk the garden, learn where food comes from, and experience agriculture directly. One customer wrote that the county should probably be paying the farm for the education it gives by allowing schools to tour for free. That matters because many of our programs are not profitable, but they are very valuable. They help youth understand agricultural, food, animals, land stewardship, nutrition, and responsibility. Those are Santa Barbara County's own food action plans, values, and action. Dare to Dream directly supports goal 10, food and agricultural literacy, and goal 11, building the next generation of food system leaders through hands-on learning. If we are forced to claw back non-revenue programs, this is exactly the kind of public serving work that disappears.

The letters also described Dare to Dream Farms as a food access point. Customers described the CSA boxes, the honor system farm stand, affordable produce, SNAP online access, COVID food response, produce donations, and the ability to buy food directly from a farm they know and trust. One customer wrote that when she could not afford full price fruits and vegetables, she was able to feed her family by visiting our honor system farm stand, where we encourage our visitors to round up or round down. Another wrote that the honor system created a sense of community trust. This activates several food action plan goals. Goal two, increasing access to healthy food. Goal four, strengthening local food distribution. Goal 13, supporting a resilient regional food economy. If the farm contracts, the community loses access, trust, and a direct connection to local food.

The letters also show that Dairy Dream Farms is a training ground and workforce pipeline. We provide local employment, long-term mentorship, WOOF and internship opportunities, and hands-on agricultural experience. One former WOOF guest, now a physician with public health training, wrote that his time at Dairy Dream set the foundation for his professional career in medicine with a focus on food, nutrition, and human health. That is just not a nice story. That is workforce development. It's public health and it's food system leadership. This supports Food Action Plan Goal 11, preparing future food system leaders, and Goal 15, building collaboration and community capacity across the food system. The Ag Enterprise Ordinance was meant to help farmers like ours stay viable so future farmers, doctors, and community leaders can be inspired in Lompoc.

The letters also make clear that this is not just one farm. It is a network. Dare to Dream supports Route 1 farmers market, small regional producers, local fundraisers, community events, youth programs, and civic efforts. Networking with other small producers became especially important during COVID when restaurants and schools closed and some farms suddenly had food with nowhere to go. Dare to Dream served as an outlet connecting that food, local food with local families who needed access to it and increased its reach by 500%. Shelby Wild of Route 1 Farmers Market wrote that Dare to Dream is often the first call when there's work to be done to serve the community. If this farm contracts, the network of regional partners, producers, and community serving organizations contracts with it.

This is where the board's role matters. We understand the concern that there'll be no precedent for the relief we are requesting, or that this could open the door to other operators asking for relief. Staff administers existing frameworks. The board can shape policy when the framework does not fit the case before it. This is a moment to focus on results, not just rules. The result the county says it wants is viable working farms that protect our culture, educate the public, expand food access, and strengthen the local food system. This case gives the board a practical way to find a narrow transitional standard. A working farm, agriculture as a primary use, lodging as supplemental income, activity during the nearly eight year pre-framework period, and documented community benefit. If relief is viewed through a public funds lens, the record shows a clear public purpose in areas the county has already named as priorities through the food action plan. Food access, education, jobs, workforce training, small producer support, civic service, and future compliance. This is a policy choice to preserve a working farm whose public value has been clearly demonstrated, not special treatment. Heather Klein put it simply, this board has an opportunity to exercise discretion in a way that is both fair and consistent with its stated goal of supporting local agriculture.

We're asking you to help us move forward under the current framework without destroying the community-serving work that got us here. One supporter wrote that granting relief would not undermine county policy. It would affirm the county's stated commitment to supporting working farms, encouraging agricultural innovation, and fostering economic resilience in rural communities. That is what we're asking for, a fair transition into compliance that preserves our working farm, whose public value has already been demonstrated, and whose public purpose aligns with the needs the county has already named. Thank you.

Thank you and well-timed. All right. Questions for the refs at this time? Yes. Supervisor Hartman.

uh... so you are very much involved in the development of the ag enterprise ordinance and during that period uh... the county allowed home stays and short term rentals on ag one and other properties but ag two properties were not allowed that right uh... and you started I guess what I, did you know about TOT or how, explain, because we get, you know, these ordinances were drafted for hotels, people who are in this business. Help us understand your knowledge at the time, where you were coming from.

We started our first short-term rental in 2016. It was just a small trailer that we had purchased for our own personal use that we had grown out of as our family grew. I did not know the TOT taxes were due at that point. And once we started developing the Ag Enterprise Ordinance, I also didn't know what the TOT taxes were going to look like applied to the farm stays and the home stays because they could have been various degrees or could have been a reduction in what the TOT owed was going to be or completely not owed at all. There are other instances like in Portland, Massachusetts and New York, just to name a few, where there are exemptions for TOT tax on agricultural farm stays.

Thank you. And I'd like you to elaborate a little bit more financially. You mentioned the federal money you got and what that means now that it's not there. And just elaborate what this penalty would mean for you. I mean, you'd have to either shrink your operations or stop farming and get outside jobs. But help me just understand the numbers a little more.

I mean, when we first received the funding, which was directed through Shelby Wild through Whitwin's Farmers Market, she was the aggregator for that program. It was huge. It was huge for a lot of local farms in Lompoc. And we, not knowing that the federal government would rescind that and claw that back, we purchased a tractor that we're still paying on. And we're trying to figure out ways to make that work. We are trying to increase our CSA subscriptions, so we're currently trying to market that to make up for that gap, but it's still not going to make up for $6,000 a month as it is. I mean, we hope for maybe $1,500 to $2,000 if we put the work in to get and retain that. So, yeah, it's a huge hit already for theirs. So, I mean, we don't have the money in the bank as it is. There are some winters where we have to take out loans just to keep going. And we pay that off in spring because spring does we get busy and we just don't do produce. We sell chickens to people who want backyard chickens as well. And that's primarily where we get our income, which happens in springtime.

I would say it's also important to note that Lompoc is a marginalized community. When we originally started our CSA, we had maybe 10 to 14 subscriptions, and we would renew those every 13 weeks, every three months. It was very difficult to get people to keep renewing. Right before COVID in December of 2019, I completely redid our CSA so that instead of people having to pay in advance for their food because Lompoc can't afford three months of groceries up front, it became a pay-as-you-go subscription and people can cancel at any time they want. And they do. I mean, that's the bottom line is that small farms and the tiny profit margins that are there selling bundles of carrots. While it's it's not much to us, it's a lot to our community and it's very hard to reach them where we're at. So we did try and incorporate snap online access, but it's also hard to reach them there, too. So it's a hard way to make a living, but for those who know about it and need it and want to learn about it or are curious or understand its benefit, we are a light in the community.

Thank you. I have a quick question. What's a CSA?

It is community-supported agriculture. The traditional model was that the idea was that the community pays the farmer in advance for all of their time and effort, the ability to buy seeds, plant them, and harvest, and then they would receive a share of that food going through the months that they became a member for.

A co-op? Yeah.

Essentially. Yeah.

All right. Just curious. Thank you. I just wanted clarification. I wasn't sure. I didn't know the acronym. Supervisor Lee and Supervisor Kemp. Thank you, Chick. Are you a nonprofit?

We are not. So you're a for-profit business?

We did not imagine that it would need to function as a nonprofit in Lompoc when we started it. We were caring for Jeremy's grandfather for eight years. The primary reason we started a farm was because we wanted him to stay at home and have people that he knew and loved care for him in his end of life and not have to be moved to a home. So it's gifted generation. Jeremy's mom and his aunt weren't able to do that. So we moved in and did that straight out of college and like short, corporate jobs in San Luis Obispo, I had no idea what I was doing. And if I could go back, I probably would start it as a nonprofit because the community that it serves needs that kind of funding to support it. But that's not how it started.

Good. And my follow-up question. So your basis of not paying TLTs because you were not sure about how the Ag Enterprise ordinance would have gone, correct?

We didn't know how it was going to pan out, and we were like in that regulatory gray area when we were just waiting for the county to figure out what they were going to do. I mean, it bounced around so many times with the ad hoc committee. We tried pulling out just the farm stays and just do a farm stay ordinance, and then with no agreement or a motion for it to happen on that, that got rolled back into the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance. And then all the different facets of that and how that panned out, like equestrian trails, I mean, you've all went through it and know what it looks like now. So it was just a lot of different voices. And I understand it took a long time, but the way that it panned out was just very difficult for us to know what to do.

Did you ever consider paying for it and then asking for reimbursement down the road?

I didn't know about the concept of paying under protest when I paid those months. I think it was like six or seven months worth. And then one of the reasons why we stopped paying is because we had to take a loan. The farm had some unexpected expenses that we had to take care of. So I knew that eventually, once the ordinance passed, we were going to have to pay. Because I could see how it was developing. I know it was very important to me and the supervisors that the TOT tax was to be attached to the farm stays and home stays. But under my understanding, I didn't think we'd have to pay for the back months, that it was in regulatory compliance. And I should have paid those ones under protest, but I didn't know the concept at the time.

And were you given letters saying what you were in violation? And do you, if you did receive it, do you disregard it or?

The TOT tax?

Yeah. Did you get any letters from the county?

No, one case sent me a letter saying you need to file and register as a TOT operator. I did call and talk and ask like how could we, why were we being asked to do this when the county hadn't figured out what this was going to look like or what the rules were. um and they were very adamant that we needed to still register despite what the county was doing or not doing so it was it was very stressful um but we did register and we do have the certificate so did you start paying when you got the letter or did you not um yeah we paid and then up until the point that like I said we were I thought we were operating in the gray area and it was stressing me out every single month paying these taxes because I didn't think that they should be due personally because they we weren't clear on what the rules were and what the tax was going to be um because we weren't operating as a hotel we weren't a hotel so it wasn't traditionally what should be i think applied to a farm state we weren't acting as like a short-term rental like the group that was before us um this is a completely different ball game it's not where people I mean, they do go to have leisure time, but it's mostly to connect with the agriculture of the land. So to me, it's a different system. And our overhead and our ability to keep these running and keep the customers happy is a lot harder than a normal short-term rental, because people have expectations of going to stay on a farm. And then it gets there, and there's flies, and it's stinky sometimes. Dust and spiders. So trying to mitigate that so we still have a good experience for our guests that are staying with us is extremely difficult.

And my last question is, did you at any point contact an attorney to ask for their professional advice, or did you just by yourself decided that this is a gray area that you should not pay?

I don't really contact attorneys. Okay. I don't blame you.

It's also I think important to recognize that the farm doesn't have a lot of expendable income to contract with attorneys and so for us it's always been a scary thing thinking that you needed to have an attorney on retainer. That's a big chunk of cash to So in our heads, it was not, that's not an option that came up. Yeah.

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Capps.

Well, actually, Supervisor Lee asked a lot of my questions. I mean, I do want to say, I mean, your mission is incredibly impressive and aligns with a lot of my values. And you made the point very compellingly that the farm stay aspect of your work is very much a small piece of the entire mission. And it's beautiful. And it's clearly, as illustrated by these, uh very persuasive letters um such a part of the community but it it does seem to me just again given the fact that you did pay the tot from september to february and then you sort of intentionally stopped i mean did you know the risk or did you discuss the risk sorry yeah go ahead we were simultaneously getting cease and desist letters from the county

um to stop with the short-term rentals and then also having letters from the tax collector that we should be paying tot but if we stopped the short-term rentals after what we'd invested the farm would have gone under it was all sunk costs at that point to get all of the short-term rentals going um so i mean

Like I said, I wish I would have known about paying in a protest because that's every time I wrote the check, I certainly felt that way. So, yeah, I mean, we probably knowing what we know now, we should have kept paying and then try to recoup that back afterwards. But we're farmers like we're out there working our butts off every single day and I don't have time to figure out all this other stuff. The short term rentals. The reason why we did it in the first place was to stabilize the income of the farm so we wouldn't be stressed out every single winter.

Sure, but I did go on your website, and it's beautiful to look, and the reservation system looks fairly professional and, you know, like a glamping type situation. And so, I mean, it is, it's not sort of, I mean, you do have a professional look to those who want to stay. And so I would imagine thought goes into the fact that with that comes obligations, correct? I mean, anyway, I made my point. I think you go see where I'm coming from. Yes, ma'am.

Supervisor Lavagnino, then I have a question. Okay. Thanks.

So first off, I think you're a TV show basically. I mean, you guys should be. And shout out to the kids back there. It's not easy sitting in here and being quiet. And I know my grandkids wouldn't be able to do that. So you're doing something right for sure. Yeah, this is, to me, it's completely different than the items that we've been hearing before where people are in the business of short-term rentals and not being there present. And I get the whole ag ordinance. So I'm looking for a path of how to fix this. I do see on your website that you do have the TOT detailed out now. And so, but it's gonna be complicated on how to fix it, I think. And I don't think we just can, you know, waive everything. I don't think that's inside the ordinance. And I don't know if we have to do this today, but I mean, I'd like to see something, you provide a great service to the county and have you demonstrated that it's been $65,000 worth of nutrition assistance and education, probably to me. So I don't know how I square that because I'm not a lawyer, but That's kind of where I'm at is that this is a very unique circumstance. And I appreciate staff bringing it because I think it's a good eye opener for us of all the different kinds of things that are out there. I didn't even know you existed. And now that I'm gonna go home and talk to my wife about it, I'm sure she's gonna want me to get out there and try to use your facility. But I do think that there is I think what one of your people said, Melissa Musgrove said, we should be paying you for the community benefit. I just think it's kind of like, if we could come to some sort of agreement that there's a wash or something, that's kind of what I'm looking for. Like I said, I don't know how to do that and the mechanics of it. And maybe not all of it, because when you stopped paying, after you started paying, that is an issue I have. But when you weren't paying before the ordinance passed, I can get over that. So I don't know how we break that down or however that works out, but that's kind of where my thought process is right now.

I just have one more question on the RAF, and then we actually got to go back to staff for additional comments, and then we'll get into deliberations here, and you guys will get a chance to rebut as well. So since March of 2025, when this audited ended, have you guys been paying monthly from, do we have a record of paying from 25, from March 25 till June of 2026?

We are late every once in a while, so I pay the penalties and interest on that. Okay. But yeah, we- Okay.

Since the audit has started, you guys have gotten back on to at least somewhat of a semi-regular routine. And as far as the permitting goes, it's still not necessarily permitted under the county's.

Not yet. I want to know how this shakes out with this, because if we need to change some of them to mid to long term rentals, it change what our permitting pathways it's going to look like.

Understood. OK. Thank you. Those are my questions at this time. At this time, we'll go ahead and go to public comment. You guys can sit down for a minute. We'll have you back up here in a few. Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item?