UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:00 – 0:011 turns
¶. ♪ Ready, begin.
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
wanted to make that correction We have a request on item 820 on the agenda today. That's from County Council, the request that the board approve the proposed amendments to the conflict of interest code for the Santa Barbara County Education Office. There is a request that the board take a separate vote on that item on the administrative agenda and then finally I just wanted to note just for the record that on item A9 which was a resolution today Honoring Dale and Michael Nieceson for their induction into the Santa Barbara Hillel Hall of Fame. That's from Supervisor Wolf, and I just wanted to note that was also co-sponsored by Supervisor Farr.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Supervisor Farr, you had an interest in A11?
Yes, Madam Chair. This has to do with the development mitigation fees and we discussed this previously at the Board and the need to bring this as a regular departmental item. I realize this is just the regular annual update that we need to do to verify the increase that's already built in and I'm certainly supportive of that But I do think that we need to talk about the whole issue in a regular departmental item. And I know that Supervisor Wolf and I think some other members of the board said the same thing when this came up before, so I don't know whether we want to delay action on this for the departmental item or whether we want to go ahead and move forward with this but give direction to staff to definitely come back as soon as possible with a D agenda item because this is a really important issue.
Ms. Waller?
I certainly think that we could do either of those. My suggestion maybe is to move it to the departmental agenda and maybe make it the first one, and we can get a report from our auditor controller in that regard. So that would be my suggestion. That way you can still deal with that today.
Madam Chair, Ms. Waller actually I think that what we need to talk about is greater than what's in this report. I think it has to talk about the fact that we have such disparity in fees, the fact that there are other parts of the county besides just the Gleda and Orchard Community Plan areas that need fee studies to do with fees to do for libraries and public administration Sheriff and Fire, and so on. So I think it's probably a bigger order.
We could go ahead and continue just to answer questions on this particular report, but that's only part of
it. So, I think what we'll need to do is just move this to another day on the departmental agenda. And I notice Mr. Caldwell has a comment to make on this particular item. So Mr. Caldwell, if you'd like to make your comment now as long as we're talking about D11?
Madam Chair, members of the Board. Thank you. I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. As you know we've complained
bitterly about... Mr. Caldwell hold a minute. We didn't even read this into the, did we? I'm sorry. All
right. Madam Chair, members of the board. This is items from the auditor controller. The request that the board receive and file the 2009-2010 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report for the Countywide Orchid and Goleta Development Impact Fee Programs.
And Mr. Caldwell's in Santa Barbara today, Mr. Cameraman.
He's looking for
me.
There you
are.
I'm Andy Caldwell representing Colab. As you know, we've been concerned about these fees for a long time because of just how steep they are. For instance, if somebody wanted to build a 7-11 in Nolita it would cost them $650,000 for traffic fees alone. And another thing that we have brought up over time is the fees. The fees in Goleta, in almost all cases are double or triple what they are in Orchid but in some categories they're less and we think that if a fee is based on a mathematical formula based on transportation infrastructure costs etc., etc., they should all be proportional across the board but the main point Is that there's some jurisdictions out there that realize that right now, the thing they need most is additional tax revenues coming into their jurisdiction.
So they're cutting these fees. They're basically saying, look you know we need hotels because hotels are going to bring property taxes, sales taxes, TOT taxes and a multiplier effect. So instead of charging these hotels X number of thousands of dollars per square feet, we're going to waive the fee to try to induce investment in development. And this is something that I believe Carpentaria has done. I think City of Guadalupe's done. I think there's other jurisdictions around the state That are saying, look you know these fees are so prohibitively expensive it's putting a kibosh on investment and development.
And so we think that you should look at your fees comparing to other jurisdictions. We think you should ask the auditor controller to go down the fees one by one and explain why there is not a strict proportionality between Orchid and Goleta. In every category. I know that there was an artificial lowering of child care fees in Goleta, so it's $600 per student and it's several times more than that in Orkin.
Well, that's some form of a subsidy and or reduction for a reason. So we do think this should be on the D agenda that we think there's a whole lot to discuss and debate. Thank
you, Mr. Caldwell. Thanks for being here. Supervisor Wolfe?
Thank you Chair. I agree that we need further discussion on this and whether or not we need to enter into or talk about doing a justification report but Mr. Geist just came in and I'd like to ask him, is there any problem with us putting this particular issue off to another date? Or is this time sensitive that we need to move forward with this increase in fees?
Sure, members of the board. I think it'd be okay to hear it on a department agenda.
What is our timeline? Do we have a...
We're probably late but I don't think there's a consequence for being late.
I'm sorry?
I don't think there is a consequence for being late.
You don't think there's... But if we don't increase the fees now and then there's some development that happens they would be under the old fees
I would say that would probably be not that familiar. I'll ask my staff to maybe address that.
Supervisor Carbajal, you wanted
to... Yes. If we end up deciding today or coming to the conclusion that we can hold off which seems to be the direction some of my colleagues are hoping is the case, I am interested in exploring the waiving and mitigation fees within a window to incentivize folks who have big commercial projects that have been approved or are waiting, but they can't seem to get the capital such as one in my district.
To perhaps look at that as an incentive to get going within a window, a year, half a year, year and a half.
I saw Ms. Waller make a note
So I'm very interested in at least contemplating that, but also understanding the cost-benefit analysis of doing so. Because oftentimes people say, well it will spur certain implementation of these projects, but with this carrot dangling out there that's abstract, I would like to understand what is this cost-benefit analysis That everybody tends to advocate for with when we discuss this.
Thank you, Supervisor. Mr. Guy.
Madam Chair and members of the board, maybe my former staff member Mark Paul can address this issue since we kind of inherited this fee reporting and impact fee development from the Planning and Development Department a few years ago where they used to prepare these fees studies. And so we're just kind of the conduit. And maybe Mark can explain what we're doing with this report
Tossed him the ball, huh?
There's two parts to the report. The first report is just a report as of June 30th on what the balances were. The fees are actually in there only for informational purposes only. Under the current ordinances it automatically has a fee increase every July 1st so this is actually fee increases that have already been implemented or being used right now.
Supervisor Wolff, does that get up for you?
Right, so I think then if this is okay with Supervisor Frey that we just move forward accept this report and then direct staff to come back to us on a more comprehensive discussion on these fees.
That certainly works, that certainly works. Okay so we'll just leave it with the A agenda and go on ahead. Okay Supervisor Carbajal?
I'm in agreement with that but I guess I'm looking at council should this board decide when we have a discussion in the near future from a broader perspective that we want to consider the waiving of or incentivizing mitigation fees being waived can we do that irrespective of the action were taking today?
Sure. Madam Chair, Supervisor Carball, the short answer is yes your board can always
0:12 – 0:157 turns
take a different action you're not bound by this there may be a timing issue and we'll identify that when it comes back thank you
Thank you at this point we're still on the A agenda and Dr. Johns will get to you in just a bit but right now Supervisor Lavinino you have several items that you'd like to talk about
I do I've got some Thank You madam chair A38, 39, 43, 44 and 45. One of the interesting things after I got elected was I found out that I get to appoint people to some various boards and commissions. After spending some time researching these, I know we all struggle with filling those positions. So I did want to recognize publicly The folks in our community that actually step up and do some of the hard work. These folks have been serving for a number of years, and I'm very glad that they have decided to stay on and continue serving.
If I could have you stand... Most of these people are from my district, and they came all the way to Santa Barbara, so I'd like to recognize them. Victor Tognazzini with the Fire Board of Appeal. My Planning Commissioner would be Dan Blau. Trent Benedetti with the Santa Barbara County Finance Corporation. I think Eddie Taylor might be in Santa Maria, he's going to serve on the Human Services Commission. Eddie thank you.
You couldn't get a ride up with Trent or what? They left you there?
And
then we also have Bob Nelson who is going to be on the Santa Maria Cemetery District Board so I really appreciate The service, this is kind of what the county's all about. These folks serve, you know they don't get paid and they show up for meetings and we really appreciate all that you do for the county. Thank you
Thank you, Supervisor. And I'm certain if you all want to stay the whole day we'd love to have you and you might want to comment on everything that we do and you might have some original thoughts. With that, we're going to go to Dr. Johns and I don't know if we're going to take him the mic today or if he's going to come down here. He's going to be talking about A5. Do you have a mic for him? Great. A5, A10, and A17. Mr. Allen, if you'd like to put those into perspective then we'll give Dr. Johns five minutes.
Madam Chair, members of the board. Item A5 from Supervisor Carbajal is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of February 2011 as Black History Month in Santa Barbara County and I just note that that resolution will be presented today at a time certain at 1145 AM Item A-10 is from Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services. The request that the Board approve and authorize the Chair to execute an agreement with Charles Golagner Counseling Group for the provision of alcohol drug program services extending the term of the contract for six months and increasing the contract by $65,000 for a new contract maximum in the amount of $130,000. And that ends on June 30th, 2011. And finally item A-17 is from County Council.
And the request that the board approve the proposed amendments to the conflict of interest code for the center of a school district.
0:15 – 0:2013 turns
Thank you, Mr. Allen. Dr. Johns?
Yes. Now on A5, the Martin Luther King Black History Month I find that to be extremely false hearted for you to present that Supervisor Carbajal because as I see it and as I sit here You have attempted over the last year to hide your racism, and as you hide your racism I bring it out. I let the public know and in my public comment I will forward to the people once again aspects of your racism.
Now in this Black History Month, and we celebrate that Martin Luther King month, every year. I would think that as a supervisor you would attempt to at least improve your racist tactics. You
know Dr. Johns, it's my time. I know it's difficult sometimes to be kind and gentle and respect others. And I think that this board has respected you, and I think what you're doing is you're crawling down to name-calling, and I know you don't mean that. So if you would just lighten up just a little bit, and now you can say unkind things about me.
Well, you see, I have evidence of racism evidence. I'm not just talking out of my head here, I have written proven document evidence of racism. And so and I will present that in my public comment but I want to continue on about Martin Luther King and what he would do with an issue like this. And by the way, I don't think Martin Luther King would even Well, it may be sort of deleterious but Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, Teddy Kennedy and these are all people that the supervisor has at some point presented resolutions on.
And the reason why I say it's false hearted is because when these holidays roll around he presents their Like as if he himself were representative of those types of people and he does just the opposite. And in my public comment, I will share that with you because I'm not just talking about
loose
data.
You
want to get
on to A10 here? You've got
A10
and A17.
Geez now I am talking out of my head. Alcohol drug and mental health. Alcohol drug and mental health A $65,000 increase in their budget? No one has asked why. Why is this increase in the budget at this particular time? Now I know they need the money but I'd like to know why this is occurring at this particular time and I want to go on to the conflict of interest. There's over 12 Items here today on the agenda concerning conflict of interest. Now, I think there should be an item here that the County Council considers about the County Council itself and the relationship with the Board of Supervisors because I've observed supervisors here and everything I say is factual.
Firestone sold drugs and alcohol to the student population, and he was a third district supervisor. If that isn't a conflict of interest then what is a conflict of interest? And he did that for two years while he was supervisor. Obviously when that became known, he didn't run again. So why do supervisors themselves have to self-monitor their conflict of interests Why can't the County Council say, hey we've got a conflict of interest here?
And I will speak about another conflict of interest during my public comment.
Thank you Dr. Johns That concludes our comments Mr. Allen that I've seen on the A agenda, is that correct? So with that why don't we ask you to step out and we'll get a motion on A20.
0:20 – 0:2613 turns
Madam Chair, I've been asked to disclose the fact that I may have a conflict on item A20 because of my service as a Classified Personnel Commission for the County Education Office and as such I will be recusing myself from this vote
Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Doreen Farr · Seconded by Janet Wolf approve the administrative agenda as modified
Show transcript
moved.
All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, I think we've completed the administrative agenda it's time now to hand out some resolutions and we're going to start with A1 and I've asked Supervisor Farr to present this on behalf of the Board of Supervisors and so she will come down to the podium you guys aren't staying huh well darn thank you for coming down Doreen, if you'll... Yes.
Thank you Madam Chair. Yes, if we could have Larissa Burke, Christy Costa, Erica Galvin, Arlene Herrera, Yazemia Plasencia, Lucia Reyes and Rotro Ramirez, Jennifer Shaw
all come down. Mr. Allen, as quick as Supervisor Farr gets to the podium if you would be kind enough to read that and Lyle's going to have to he wants to get your guys' picture so let's kind of get this posed a bit we're gonna do some people managing here
Madam Chair, members of the Board. This is item A-1. It's a resolution of accommodation for the Child Support Services Department employees of the month whereas the Child Support Department striving to excel in customer service in July 2009 created a team of workers dedicated to establishing new cases And whereas, for Federal Fiscal Year 2010 which ended on September 30th, 2010 those workers consisted of Larissa Burke whose patient kindness and customer questions with customer questions is legendary. Christy Costa a natural leader who's enthusiasm and organization is always evident Erica Galvin, finally attuned to the personal needs of the families we serve. Arlene Herrera, full of sweet goodness and phenomenal work output. Esencia Plasencia, a joyful energetic presence every day.
Lucia Reyes, diligently working then equally diligent in pursuing a master's degree in her off hours. Rocio Ramirez, brimming with integrity and customer focus. And Jennifer Shaw, energetic and always ready to help her colleagues. And whereas the team believes that the most successful outcomes grow from early engagement with the patients, helping them form mutual agreements that place the children first. They have placed an emphasis on communication accessibility and constant customer education about the child support process.
And whereas the team has faced daunting workloads by pooling their resources across two regional offices to work together to accomplish tasks seemingly helping each other, that would be seamlessly helping each other in meeting the demands of some 4,000 new cases they've opened since July 2009 and increasing the amount of orders established by 10%. Now, therefore be it and to serve by order and resolve that this Board of Supervisors proudly recognizes the Child Support Establishment Team as the Santa Barbara County February 2011 Employees of the Month. Passed and adopted today.
Thank you. Is there someone that would like to make a comment about how much you love your job?
Well, I
guess you're going to have to do it.
I'll tell you that they absolutely love their jobs and they bring that spirit to the workplace every day. I've heard it said that there's no end to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit and that's this team. That's really
great. And in my other life, I worked as a family law attorney and it's so important to get that child support. And that's what you folks do. So thank you so very much and congratulations.
I'm going to teach Michael how to say your name right, so he won't say Rocho. I noticed you cringe when he said it but I'm working on him.
But you know what? He got five out of six right and sometimes other folks' names are just not as easy as Salud Carbajal. We're going to go now to item number two, and item number two is one that I'm sponsoring. So I'm going to ask Supervisor Farr to handle this and I'm going to go down And be with Denny Anderson and his lovely wife. Denny has basically run Lompoc for the last 15 years, I guess. I'm making a wild guess as the president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce so it's with a sad, sad heart that we're recognizing Denny's retirement And we're bestowing on him, what were you asking for Denny? Sainthood. So I'll be right down. Supervisor Farr.
0:26 – 0:293 turns
All right. Mr. Allen, would you go ahead and read the resolution please?
Madam Chair, members of the Board. This is item A3. It's a resolution recognizing Denny Anderson upon his retirement from the Long Poke Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau. Whereas C. Dennis Denny Anderson has had an illustrious four-year career in the Chamber of Commerce, the last 15 of which has been with the Long Poke Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Visitors Bureau as President and CEO. Whereas Denny has developed an active, positive and valuable working relationship with Vandenberg Air Force Base, the Bureau of Prisons, Allan Hancock College, the County of Santa Barbara, the City of Lompoc, the Lompoc Unified School District, the downtown property business owners Regional organizations to further the Chamber's mission of community and economic development through a collaborative effort.
Whereas, Denny has provided guidance to all of the Chamber's committees as an active participant and played an integral role in development administration in support of several Chamber-sponsored community wide events such as the annual Rushes and Blues, Cinco de Mayo Celebration, Mariachi Concert, the Salsa Dance event, the annual Vintners Festival, the Salute to the Arts Biennial Fashion Catastrophe Show, and the weekly Old Town Market, the Old Town Fair, and Miscellaneous Chamber Program Fundraisers.
Denny was instrumental in fine-tuning the Chamber's Vision 2020 Economic Vitality Program and worked tirelessly with the City staff to install lighting in the Art Alley as well as developing a plan of action for the historic downtown area. And played an integral role in the chamber's acquisition of the Spahn-Chalbrook building, where the chamber has been located for 25 years. Denny was always available to consult with chamber members, nonmembers and local agencies regarding issues and challenges working with them to find mutually beneficial resolutions. And whereas Denny participated in the annual Air Force Commanders Conference, served on the Prison Community Relations Committee and the Lompoc United School District Education Foundation Where he was influential in obtaining grants and donations for underfunded and unfunded programs.
And whereas, Denny works side by side with his chamber staff to demonstrate a fair unbiased and understanding demeanor with everyone from chamber members, city staff, business owners, the citizens of Lompoc and our military personnel. And now therefore be it ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Danny Anderson for all his hard work And for the betterment of the Lompoc Valley, the city of Lompoc, its citizens and local military families. And wishes him all the best in his future endeavors. Passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors today.
Madam Chair and members of the board, I just want you to know that only a special occasion like this could get me out of bed at 530 in the morning and put on a necktie on the first day of my retirement. But it's my pleasure to have served the community of Lompoc and Santa Barbara County for 15 years and hopefully making it a better place to live work and play. Thank you very much.
0:29 – 0:335 turns
All right, we're going to go to A2. I misnumbered that last one, didn't I? Salute. A2, Mr. Allen do we want to go straight to Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you Madam Chair. If I could have Mr. Bill Batty come up please, the Executive Director for Family Service Agency. Madam Chair, Bill Batty has been The strongest advocate for the 2-1-1 resource phone line and for those that may not know, a resource line, phone line that has come into existence throughout our country. And it's one that many people who are looking for resources oftentimes urgent while not an emergency urgent can go to or call to find resources of various sorts human services and others in their communities. It's also alleviated some of the pressure on the 911 system because oftentimes things are urgent but they're not an emergency and there's a difference in that. And 211 has just been an invaluable resource in our community, funding has always been a challenge we are working obviously in Washington DC to get more funding and we've come this close every time yet no cigar when it comes to the fruition of legislation but I know the state is looking at it, the federal government continues to look at it And again, we have a resolution today proclaiming February 11th as National 211 Awareness Day in Santa Barbara County.
Mr. Clerk if you could read the resolution?
Madam Chair, members of the Board. This item A2 is a resolution proclaiming February 11th 2011 as 2-1-1 Awareness Day in Santa Barbara County whereas February 11th has been recognized as National 2- 1-1 Awareness Day by cities states and counties across the country and whereas 211 Santa Barbara County is a free confidential multilingual and available 24 hours a day and seven days a week to assist thousands of Santa Barbara County residents with information and referral To over 2500 community resources countywide.
Whereas, 211 Santa Barbara County is a valuable community resource that provides online and telephone support for county residents with basic needs such as food and housing, child or elder care, legal referrals, medical support, substance abuse support Rental and utility assistance and more. And whereas, 211 Santa Barbara County is active in times of disaster with up to date information on shelters, road conditions and more by taking the pressure off non-emergency calls of 911.
In West, Family Services Agency will operate 2-1-1 Santa Barbara County as the umbrella agency. Family Services Agency's mission is to strengthen and advocate for families and individuals of all ages and diversities helping to create and preserve a healthy community. Now therefore be it ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims February 11th 2011 as 2-11-1 Awareness Day in Santa Barbara County and commends Family Service Agency who operates this vital community service passed and adopted today.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal, thank you for your introduction and kind remarks. Members of the Board, we appreciate the support of the County of Santa Barbara. Currently 2-1-1 is supported by the Human Service Commission funding, County Alcohol Drug and Mental Health Services, the Alcohol Drug Programs Division, and the First Five Commission. And as mentioned by Mr. Allen, we also work closely with the Office of Emergency Services, Mr. Harris, and of course Sheriff Bill Brown. Thank you very much for this proclamation today.
And the next resolution is A4. Supervisor Lovanino?
0:33 – 0:4427 turns
I believe that's me, yes. If I could get Mr. Thomas Teague, the President and CEO of Direct Relief International please come forward. Members of the Board, Mr. Teague and his organization stepped up in a huge way to provide relief to the people hit hardest last year at the earthquake in Haiti and I think it's important we recognize his team for their efforts.
Thank you.
Madam Chair, Members of the Board, this item A4 is a resolution proclaiming January 12th 2011 as a day of remembrance for the people of Haiti and honoring Direct Relief International in Santa Barbara County. Whereas one year ago today when the earthquake struck Haiti more people died in a matter of minutes than have been killed by all the natural disasters in the history of the United States Whereas, the scale of human tragedy caused by Haiti's earthquake defies comprehension. An estimated 230,000 people have died, a number equal to the population of our idyllic part of the coast.
And whereas, Santa Barbara County residents responded to one of the worst natural disasters in our hemisphere's history with unprecedented generosity. And whereas, corporations around the world continue to divert resources from their daily businesses to help deliver life-saving medicines and aid relief supplies to Haiti. And whereas, Santa Barbara County's Direct Relief International guided the generosity directly to the communities hit hardest who needed help the most.
Now therefore be it ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors declares January 12th 2011 as a day of remembrance for Haiti and a renewed commitment to help our neighbors in their time of need. Hereby we recognize the contributions of direct relief and its supporters for their ongoing support to the people of Haiti passed and adopted today by the board.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavendino, members of the Board. Thank you. You know as the resolution said, as bad as it may seem here and the challenges that you face as a board, having thought about what happened in Haiti a year ago we don't have the words to describe what happened just 90 minutes off the coast of Miami. More people died in a few minutes than have died in all natural disasters combined in the history of the United States.
I mean, now they're saying close to 300,000 people perished. That's all the South Coast in one day. Extraordinary. There's nothing in our nation's history a one-day event that caused that much loss of life and so for the people at Direct Relief which doesn't receive any government money you can relax a little bit to have grown up here in this community and have been supported by you personally, and the members of the public that you represent. It allowed us to do what we would've been crazy to think that Little Direct Relief International has been the largest provider of medical assistance over the past 375 days to Haiti in the world, including the U.S. government. And that's entirely because of what's been developed here with the support of an extraordinary community Incredible leadership from our board of directors and true generosity that's now legendary in the world for what people of Santa Barbara do privately, as well as what they do through the public avenues that you represent and lead.
So for us, I just wanted to share with you as we tried last year. We work all over the world. We work all over the state but our base is here and we are a support organization to the county and the local officials that all have hard jobs with less money and higher expectations. As a former public servant, I congratulate you for tackling these very tough issues on behalf of all of us. And please know that there are groups like Direct Relief International are doing public service privately that are trying to tap the best talents and generosity, tools from business and others to put behind some of these common social problems. So you're not in it alone as much as it may seem that way sometimes so for what it's worth from a warehouse guy up in Goleta thank you very much for what you're doing Good luck to all of your team and thank you to all members of the Santa Barbara community for doing such an extraordinary thing in response to the tragedy in Haiti last year.
Thank you very much.
Supervisor Carbajal, I
have
a question for
you. Thank you Madam Chair. You know, I appreciate Supervisor Lavinino bringing this to our attention and celebrating the good work that DRI does but for the public that's watching, I'll remind them We in Santa Barbara County have been the beneficiaries of that. Good work you do. Santa Barbara County government in particular has been a recipient of some medical supplies, some containers that we have put in place for emergencies here in Santa Barbara County should they occur or when they will occur so that we're better prepared. So I know you're still a public servant. You're just now doing it with private means and I just want to recognize you and the Organization of Direct Relief The extraordinary humanitarian work you do throughout the world.
And I want to thank you and would you this is one that we should have another one of your numbers your phone numbers with what we're trying to do this year is to get on government TV where people can volunteer. And so we're running it on the website, and I've asked that as we meet that maybe the numbers that you can volunteer would come up. So would you give us where we can volunteer for your group or how people can help? Maybe they have two, three hours a week. That's what they need to do.
Yeah, thank you. I think the easiest way is just to look at directrelief.org and that has all the information including volunteer opportunities that do arise and we have kind of like everyone nothing glamorous but all sorts of things that need to get done There aren't a lot of volunteer opportunities for just general service, but there are a lot for specific discrete actions. And we could not function without the terrific help that we receive from members of the community. So if anyone's interested, just look at directrelief.org and we'd love to put you to work in some way or at least have you participate or at very least know what we're doing, what exists in the community.
And what's the prognosis as far as you're looking at Haiti? I was reading several articles about that this weekend and it's pretty depressing.
As now an NGO guy, non-governmental organization, you have a deep appreciation for why we have governments. In the absence of clear leadership there is a lot of pledged money that remains on the sidelines from bilateral institutions and governments There's a huge vacuum, I think in the leadership and the uncertainty surrounding elections does cause a lot of things to be deferred. But you know the people have withstood an extraordinary tragedy so on a personal level I think there is some basis for hope.
The insult to injury of cholera now having killed thousands of people which hadn't been in Haiti for 50 years was a big setback But I think the attention is there. The leadership from the international folks, President Clinton has been very involved so you have to wake up and be hopeful that it's going to get better but it's not hard to find cause for frustration in Haiti. So we're hopeful. We think there are a lot of good things going on individually but at the macro level it's still dire circumstances for the people of Haiti.
Thank you and its directrelief.org?
Correct.
Thank you so much. Thank you very much Madam Chairman. Supervisor Carbajal, I know you have a resolution coming up. It's going to be at 1145. Do you want to just give us a heads-up on that one?
Yes. At 1145... Is it 55 or 45?
I'm not sure, Mr.
Allen. 45, I think.
Let's say 45.
At 1145 we're going to be doing the resolution proclaiming the month of February 2011 as Black History Month in Santa Barbara County, at which time there will be a reception to follow.
Okay, thank you. And now it's time
Madam Chair, I have one thing to say. Go right
ahead.
You know for those that are watching it's hard not to react even though I try not to react when Robert Johns comes up Robert Johns for many years has been coming to this board slandering, defaming and insulting various supervisors. Supervisor Wolf was on the end one, Supervisor Firestone, I happen to be the latest target District Attorney Dudley and you know as public servants we should be able In fabrications occur, I think we need to look at with council. We continue to struggle with council and our protocols to find a way to bring that to a conclusion where it passes the appropriate level.
And I continue to ask us to look at that because it's hard to sit here when Robert Johns continues outlandish, slanderous, insulting fabrications. I could deal with insults but not with defamatory, slanderous things that he says and I think there's a fine line where we can ask Dr. Johns to refrain or not participate. And I guess, I know we've struggled with this in the past. Madam Chair, I'm going to ask that we continue to work with council to find a way to address that because people that don't know that this is Dr. John's, Robert John's MO would not know otherwise that this is his approach in our chambers And I for one want the public to understand that Robert Johns, this is just his M.O., and I just think we need to address it.
Thank you Supervisor. It is definitely a problem and we're all in this together. Thank you. With that where do we need to go now Mr. Allen?
I believe we'll
go to Board Member
0:44 – 1:0121 turns
Reports and then Public Comment.
Supervisor Lavinino, you want to kick this one off with Board Member Reports?
Let's see, probably the most interesting thing I did this week as a supervisor was at the request of our District Attorney Joyce Dudley. I got to participate in a welfare fraud investigative unit that went out and We knocked on doors politely. It was probation, the district attorney's office and we used the Santa Maria Police Department. And these are folks that have outstanding warrants for stealing your benefits out there to the public. People that have misrepresented their incomes so as they could receive additional support.
So I think it was a great move by the district attorney to send the message If you're going to steal from our welfare, and you're taking from the neediest among our citizens that you're gonna end up in jail. So I had a great time all the officers went home safely they did their jobs professionally and I hope the message gets out there to not only the Fifth District but to all of Santa Barbara County that if you're gonna steal from us you're gonna end up in jail thank you.
Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I had the pleasure of going to Washington last week with some of our staff to advocate for our priorities. We did get caught in the snow blizzard and that was quite interesting. None of us had umbrellas and we looked like slow people After walking a few blocks, but it was despite one meeting. It's interesting because even though Washington you would imagine that they're used to cold weather and snow and sleet. Well I guess they get snow every once in awhile but not as often as other states.
So they're kind of like Santa Barbarans in that regard. The world comes to an end when it snows a little too much, they want to all stay home so they don't want to come to you know well they can't in some cases but nonetheless all the people we were supposed to meet with were able to come with one exception. They were snowed in and really didn't have a means to participate in our meeting but every meeting we were scheduled to have basically we were able to complete It was a most productive meeting. We were able to get direction from various Congress folks, their staffs and committee folks as to how to best submit our requests. There's a lot of things, a lot of fluidity right now in Congress and I can honestly say it was the most productive visit.
And I will be putting forth a memo to all you as my colleagues on that.
Thank you, Supervisor. And I believe that when you do put out that memo that maybe if you wouldn't mind take a little bit of time and talk to us about it. It will be the following meeting because we've got to
go back. Give me a week or two to put that together. We've got to work with our advocate and what have you. And sure, maybe I'll just docket it as an administrative item.
Well, or even as a departmental because I for one really want to hear what you have to say and not just read it.
Okay, we could do that as well. I
never thought I'd say that.
All right, we can do that absolutely. Sure.
Thank
you. The other thing is I attended Supervisor Centeno's retirement event this past weekend it was a very Well-attended event. Supervisor Centeno clearly is enjoying his retirement, but it was really nice to see many of his family and friends come together to celebrate his service and him as an individual. I also attended the services of an extraordinary individual in our community by the name of Donnie Yee.
He was immigrated from China at a very young age He was a coach for the Boys and Girls Clubs, was a veteran of the United States Marine Corps War in Korea. He was an extraordinary athlete, a Santa Barbara High School Don. And when you attend services for an individual An outpouring of comments and such a well-tended service, you're somewhat reminded as to the big footprint that they leave in terms of their contributions to our community.
And Donnie Yee is somebody I happen to meet through my Marine Corps League activities and even didn't realize the breadth of contributions that he has made in his life to Santa Barbara County.
You know, we should probably use that and adjourn in his honor also there are several folks that we have to honor Mr. Allen will put that down as one that we're going to adjourn in his honor Supervisor Farr
Yes Madam Chair The only thing that I really want to report on for this week is to sadly report the passing of a very prominent resident in my district, and that's Mr. Russ Hicks who was a long-time resident of Buelton and a Buelton City Council person. And some of you may have already read about this in the news. But it was quite sudden and unexpected, and it certainly has been quite a shock to all of us who worked with him as a colleague. He did sit on the Buelton City Council for I think about 14 years from its beginning. Long-time Buelton resident.
Was our colleague on the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Board On the Air Pollution Control District Board, throughout his career he took leadership roles in CalCOG, one of our statewide COG boards. Was really such a wonderful colleague, affable, prepared, knowledgeable. Wonderful long institutional memory, which certainly came in handy a lot.
And just had this very long and distinguished career in public service so I know that he's going to be missed very much by all of us and everybody who knew him. I did just get an email from his friend and co-worker at Waste Management Keith Ramsey We said that the services for us will be held at Pirate Stadium at San Andres High School on February 12th, which is a Saturday at 11am.
And San Andres High School is there at the intersection of Highway 246 and Refugio Road in the San Andreas Valley. The family has asked if you want to donate, that you donate to your favorite charity or to the San Andreas Pirates Youth Organization. And I would like to also close this hearing this afternoon in his memory as well. Thank
you, Madam Chair. We will miss Russ. He was a good guy. Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you, Chair. This was a very busy and fruitful and enjoyable couple of weeks for me. I just wanted the board to know that as your representative to SB CSRS, I attended their retreat And also as your representative of BEACON, we had our BEACON meeting. As always very interesting and informative. I met with Gus Frias who is our new gang task force coordinator and with Mayor Schneider we co-hosted a gang task force event at the Faulkner Gallery.
And as we talk about volunteerism in the community, I had a chance to visit and meet with folks who are part of St. Cecilia Society, their annual meeting, and had an opportunity to get a handle on the incredible work that they do for folks who need medical care and providing funding for that. I also toured the Indian Health Clinic that's in my district and was most impressed by that. They've just opened up a new dental clinic, and just amazing fulfilling the need in our community.
On January 23rd, I went to the Friends of Goleta Library, their annual meeting. And you want to talk about people who just put their feet to the ground and get things done. The Friends of Goleta Library, and I think all friends of our different libraries are just an amazing group. And of course, they're seeing budget cuts that are being recommended and they're working very hard to bring in more donations. And they do a terrific job.
On January 25th I attended the Goleta Chamber of Commerce, their annual meeting where they provided recognition to some incredible community members. On January 27th I attended the City-County Joint Affordable Housing Task Force meeting And on January 28th, there was an Autism Society meeting and they talked about inclusion programs throughout the county. And I found that to be...I wasn't able to stay for the entire time but these are a group of parents and educators who work so strenuously for children who suffer from autism or related disorders and they're doing an amazing job.
And then last but not least, I had an opportunity to take some time with CEO Waller. We went through my district. We toured the district, everything from Arroyo Borough to the Orchid Estates to Moore Mesa. We ended up at the EOC. And we had a wonderful tour of the EOC and boy, it's coming along incredibly well. And I want to thank Mike Harris and his team for giving us a tour. And I just think we will all be amazed sometime in March when that facility opens and we can see and feel good about the safety and security of our community. So I want to thank Ms. Waller for coming with me on that. And that's it. Oh, one reminder, upcoming reminder.
On Friday it's Wear Red for Women Day and I just wanted to make that announcement. This is a day that's being sponsored by the Heart Association and it's to draw attention to women and heart disease. And just since I have the microphone, I just want to say that for some of you who may not know Heart disease is the number one killer of women. And we need to get that message out to women, to not avoid or mistake a symptom and to make sure that they get in to see their doctor if they're experiencing any type of discomfort or symptom. So wear red on Friday so that we can all remember this important day and important message. Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor. Everybody's been busy. Just quickly as a representative to CSAC I attended the meeting two weeks ago of the Executive Committee. Basically we had the report from Governor Brown's financial director. You heard most of it in the speech last night when you listened to the State of the State Probably the two biggest things that we're concerned about is the state is going to be cutting staff by 25%. That's a huge change. They've never done that before, and then also we're most interested in realignment. Realignment simply means the jobs that the state is now doing will now come back to the county. And it sounded as if the governor got this.
They seem to understand that as they send those jobs back to the county, that means dollars with the job so we can do the job but then also flexibility. So example on custodies, we have a capacity issue as far as custodies are concerned but But possibly, they're going to find new ways to allow us to house custody folks that are less violent. So those are the things that we can expect to look forward to and there'll be many more reports so I'm not gonna go on now.
And further one more thing to remind people this is huge for North County. February 4th, we're going to be dedicating the Mayor Dick DeWeese Memorial Highway And we want to thank Sam Blakely for putting that together. It's at 530 in the afternoon on, at the Veterans Memorial Hall. And that's it for me. Supervisor Wolf?
Yes, thank you. Your discussion about Sacramento and budgetary issues reminded me to make this request. We had a memorandum for CEO Waller about the possibility of holding a budget, I dare say workshop because I don't think people like that word but a budget meeting, a budget day on March 22nd and I'm hoping that the board will agree with me that this is going to be a necessary event that we need to set aside. I would say a full day to discuss the budget so that we can hear from the public, our department heads. There's a lot of talk outside whether it be in the parking lot or in the halls of this building and I think it's going to be very important that we have an opportunity To hear that information and so that we can provide input.
And March 22nd was the day I think that was proposed, so I
suggest... We're all going to be talking about priorities and that's what we need to do. Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you. You know, I think the more discussion the merrier but I do recall last year how productive and unproductive such a workshop was. So if we do have a workshop, I would rather we focus on just the raw revenues shortfalls that we have to better understand that picture because I know that our CEO is working with all departments on exacting concessions and balancing our budget And what I know we did last time is, we didn't get into real specifics in March. But we convoluted the situation by not giving real clear direction on what our priorities were. We wanted to show everybody how we loved everyone but yet which sacred cows we had versus others and it didn't lend itself to, I think a much better one-time discussion So if we have a workshop, I'm hoping it's not like last time where we want to have sort of a mini cut or don't cut component to it.
And then we go again and do it again in June. I'd rather just focus on informational and not get into the discussion of what we want to cut or don't cut unless we're going to have a major, major hearing where we basically do it once in March and then do it again in June. I just want to do it once in June and let the public and our departments, everybody understand how dire the situation is in March if we do have it. So my preference is not for a workshop unless it's just that narrow and focused.
1:01 – 1:0817 turns
Supervisor from Labanino and then Supervisor Wolf.
Madam Chair, I wasn't here last year so I don't know how crazy it got but I'm for more receiving information in March. Let us digest it, work with your office and then come back in June on a one-time. I mean I could see how that would get fairly crazy and so I'm for a limited workshop.
Supervisor Wolf?
Maybe we need to agendize this for discussion, but I did not see it as a crazy workshop. I thought it was very productive and we were able to make those priority decisions and give direction to the CEO. And then the CEO came back to us with a budget that reflected those decisions and discussions. I would much rather have the transparency early on than have a budget book delivered to us in June with decisions already being made, and this year in particular when departments are being asked to take some very serious cuts and our employees are being asked to dig deep So I would like, I think it is our responsibility to have a robust discussion in March if that's the date that's selected. So that you know I just read today in fact that the City of Santa Barbara is starting their budget discussions.
San Luis Obispo is having budget discussions, Ventura. I would, I think it's irresponsible actually for us not to have a budget meeting. A very again robust discussion about this budget
Ms. Waller, do you need anything more from us? Do you want to put it on? Do you want me to...do you want Supervisor Farr and I to give you an opinion or do you just maybe bring...because we could go on and on about this now.
Madam Chair, I think it would be great for you and Supervisor Farr to speak so I'll use your direction.
Let's
ask
the CEO what she
wants. I think quite candidly at this very moment in time I am pretty Confused on where we want to go with that particular one. I hear two various points of view and it would be helpful for me in responding to your question To know what the majority of the board feels in that regard because we're talking to very different types of budget workshops
And council be certain that we don't get into something that we haven't calendared here
Madam chair, you're still good for a general discussion? What I'm hearing is that you're debating agendizing an item You're still good on that
Supervisor Farr do you want to take this you want me to go?
Madam Chair, thank you. You know I'm not really sure what we're talking about. You know, I mean, I think it would be helpful to agendize it for discussion and say here's what we did last time. Here are some options because I appreciate all of the viewpoints that my colleagues have expressed and so I'm unclear at this point as to how to vote. And one of the things that we've
learned is no one is bashful and if they don't get the answers or the questions or their statement that they want to make Allow that not to happen. It appears to me like we're saying pretty much the same thing, so I'll try and tell you what I'd like to see. Facts? What are we looking at? What are the numbers? I know now we've got a couple of new numbers that has to do with retirement is maybe from $33 million to $20 million. Am I in the ballpark? So that we have a difference there. We want the facts.
I want the facts, the issues. I don't mind talking about it in March but what I hate to see us do is to give someone false hopes so that a department comes in and they say my program is totally wonderful and I need to protect it and we all say you're right. We love your program. It's a great program and they leave the hearing thinking oh I'm safe. So what I think we should do is to structure that hearing so we know the facts and the issues. The department heads come in and say, if I have to cut 10%, this is what I am going to cut.
And then we say well you know what? We don't like that direction. We like this direction better or your folks tell us this is how many dollars we can expect So that's where I would like to go with this, and I don't know how that fits with what everyone else has said. And it makes it hard to interpret. Supervisor Farr?
Thank you Madam Chair. Ms. Waller on our long-range calendar we have an hour on March 1st for a budget forecast update. How does that fit into this discussion?
Yes, what we had intended to bring to your board on March 1st is similar to what I believe it was Supervisor Carbajal said but it may have been Supervisor Lavinino so I will apologize in advance if I have that wrong. What we were proposing to bring is basically an update to your October 2010 report and also your December 2010 report where we told you what we anticipated as revenues, what we anticipated as new costs such as retirement and got down to basically what Our intent was to update you on that information which sort of reflects what I heard as far as a budget discussion. We did not intend, as part of the March 1st one, to bring forward specific recommendations to your board on what the program impacts may be for a couple of reasons actually.
The first reason being that I'm not certain by March 1st we'll be able to share that information with you. As I had mentioned previously in my memo to your board, our process this year is to enable all of the departments to come together collectively to make recommendations on what the proposed CEO budget should look like based upon your Your workshop last year where I think we got very good information on what your priorities were. I understand it was sort of a tumultuous workshop last year, but that we did come away with what we felt were clear priorities, public safety kids and livable communities and so by the first of March we wouldn't have that type of information for you. We certainly by the 22nd could have some good information for you in relationship to proposals, but even then I wonder if your board wants to have those detailed discussions on, yes this is something we want to see cut.
No it's not and sort of preclude your discussions in June so I would hope that if we do a presentation on March 22nd we'll combine our March 1st one but will also look to you for more General type information versus really specific recommendations on specific program impacts because I think that would be difficult at that point. And, I think it may also be a little bit redundant to what your discussions will be in June so that would sort of be my proposal is that it's someplace between what Supervisor Wolf suggested and someplace between what some of your other colleagues suggested. So maybe not a huge amount of detail, but enough detail that you can see where we're headed on service impact priorities. You know I just want to say...
1:09 – 1:126 turns
Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess based on that information my recommendation would be that we hear the presentation on the 1st and we could decide then whether we wanted to hold a special meeting on the 22nd because you know I certainly agree with Supervisor Wolf that we want to have as much information as soon as possible and And a lot of transparency and clarity in the process. On the other hand, I appreciate the fact that we don't want to have an effect two budget sessions so that we are doing in March. We end up having to do in June also the financial picture keeps changing For the better or for the worst. And so it's always kind of a moving target until the end anyway, so I think we should just stay and then make the decision on the
first day. Decision on the first surprise wolf that you know that
that's fine. I was going to say you know CEO Waller has taken on a new approach to the budget and I really respect her approach and the memo that she had sent did include the opportunity or the possibility to have this I didn't view it that way, that our workshop was messy or tumultuous. But if people do interpret it that way, that's okay because making our budget decisions can be tumultuous, I suspect.
But at least the public hears our discussion And again, because this is such a difficult year we need to I believe we absolutely need to have that discussion in public. We can wait and make the decision in March but and however I don't want to sit here if we decide to have that March 22nd meeting tell you how to do it but I do think it's important that we have that meeting thank you
Thank you Supervisor and with that I believe.
Madam Chair, one last thing it's not on this but before we and I know I'd like to we're going to close in his honor as well today but for those that aren't going to be around until the end of the meeting I also wanted to relay the passing of former Mayor Santa Maria Don Lair. Don was a huge part of Santa Maria. For those of you who know him, one of the things as opposed to many politicians.
One of the things that he's known for in Santa Maria is that he got the term extended for the mayor when he was the mayor to four years but he only served two so maybe a lesson for all of us. A celebration of life is going to be held at the Santa Maria Country Club this Friday at three o'clock for his friends and I'm sure our thoughts and prayers are with his lovely wife Doris and his children
Thank you, Supervisor. Now we are going to go to public comment. It appears like we have five folks that would like to address the public and we'll start with Dr. Robert Johns.
1:12 – 1:2716 turns
I have what I refer to as some historical documents that are very, very evident and factual I hope not to slander anyone. By the way, when you refer to me out of my name, I am Dr. Robert L. Johns, Ph.D., clinical psychologist, graduate of University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan, B.A., Michigan State University, Masters, Michigan. Ph.D., Michigan, and how many people in this room have that many degrees?
And when you refer to me out of my name, that is slander! And I'm a black man. Now let me continue. Would someone please pick up these historical documents that I have here? As I hear this board slip deeper and deeper into the – thank into the cave of the budget. That is your greatest fear right now, the budget. But let me give you another fear that's hidden deep underneath the budget and as I've said before, the Alcohol Drug and Mental Health Department when I applied for that department I found racism And I declared at that particular time, when there is racism in an alcohol drug and mental health department as I found it, there is dysfunction. A systemic illness.
And as I find racism on this board, and the refusal to look at it, to examine it, and to hide it, Not even to examine. I'm calling for a general forum to be led by Supervisor Carbajal on racism before the budget, because I'm going to tell you something. Yeah sure you turn your head Carbajall cause you know you're not gonna do anything about this. A general forum in this county on racism because it's hidden and you try to cover it up And every item that I just handed to you, especially the Carbajal Acevedes.
That's a racist incident where you and Acevedes and call this slander if you want to. This is factual! You at SABD participated in a racial slur against an Arab-American, a 20 year Arab-American county employee. I got three, four seconds here and you can call that slander but that's factual. Thank you
Dr. Johns.
Okay.
And now we're going to go to Edmund Funniken and
then we're
gonna go to Lynn Hendren. Thank you for being here.
Thank you, Board of Supervisors. It's an honor to address you and I for one am very grateful for your patience and a forum like this. I always feel it's just so democratic and the few times that I have made use of it in my life. I'd like to report about something real that's going on in town that's bad. It is the abusive conditions in nursing homes especially at a nursing home that is now called Central Coast Nursing Center. It used to be called Senior Living Concepts, and I was here you may remember about three months ago and I'm grateful to Salud Carbajal's office for phoning my home and giving me some numbers to report these abuses but since...and I may remind you that I've been visiting...I started visiting this nursing home 28 years ago And it's just gotten so bad that I have to take a stand against it.
I'd rather go for a walk on the beach or hike. But and the owner, the new owner who took over because of problems with the last owner. What was going on? He has now forbidden me to visit. He has retaliated since I've been making reports to the Department of Public Health for one and he's forbidden me to visit the residents there that people some of them I know for 10 years.
And when I tried to do this and listen to this When I tried to do this last Wednesday, the 26th, they not only called they assaulted me and battered me. It was it wasn't really you know beating me up to pulp but there was physical contact and shouting within an inch of my face and I just didn't give him any grounds for calling the police or anything but they called the police. The police backed them up and for the first time in They arrested me for trespassing. And what I did was, I wanted to visit the elderly people and that was called trespassing and I was put in jail. They arrested me about noon and I was in the county jail until after 10 o'clock.
And so this is going on and I just think I'd like some help with it. I would recommend if anybody has loved ones there, parents or loved ones, they might consider taking them to another nursing home. I've looked it up on the Medicare evaluations. I can't find a nursing home that has worse ratings than this particular nursing home. And they, I would recommend that they visit this nursing home as often as they can. Report abuses to the management but also to state and federal representatives.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you sir. Thank you for being here. Lynn Hindred. And Lynn is followed by Brian Rawson. Good morning.
Madam Chair, Board, what a coincidence it is that the issue of free speech has had such a focus this morning after listening to Dr. John's words to the board I've been feeling extraordinary appreciation and respect for the restraint of the board and their deep honoring of the First Amendment our free speech guarantee. The person that just spoke, Mr. Finucane, I wanted to talk about the fact that he was arrested for his attempting to visit the people in the residential care facility.
If my information is correct, he's been barred as you said for speaking his concern about the residents' care And if that's the case, I'm deeply disturbed because of this issue of free speech. I know that he has a heart for elders in facilities because I've heard him speak over the years about that and I also heard that the facility is trying to require TB inoculations for visitors. I can't believe that could possibly be true because if it is, it's outrageous and it would almost guarantee an environment of secrecy around these elders and secrecy is what would exacerbate the original concern.
It's unjust to require such inoculation. Because human connection is one of the strongest adjuncts in health for most people and most people would not visit people under those conditions. So I say a chain is as strong as its weakest link, and if this network of care for elders is accepted our chain of democracy is threatened and it's only a matter of time before democratic protections for others would be eroded as well.
The love of democracy has brought two million of our Egyptian friends into the streets yesterday, and I just want to say it's clearly a value to be protected with all of our resources and strength. Thank you.
Thank you. Brian Rosen? And Mr. Rosen is followed by Patricia Rosen.
Yes, Brian Rosen here. It's always nice to speak with all of you. I wanted to say that I think this society is judged how it treats its weakest members. I think Gandhi said something like that and in this society we seem to be pretty mean, there's a mean spiritedness toward the poor, the elderly The animals, and it's shocking to me about this rest home also because God willing we never end up in a place like that any of us but when we get old we don't have that kind of control.
And to be limited to not allow visitors and I know a friend in another facility and his sister is only allowed to visit three hours a day and other visitors as well and this is wrong. The court, I think these facilities sometimes have some clout because the court investigator called the visitors unsavory characters and said that asking questions was problematic.
One of those unsavory characters This is And they were trying to get her to take all kinds of, you know, dementia medications and they got a restraining order on me claiming I was doing undue influence. But now because of the publicity they finally accepted that she has no dementia at all and she got a glowing report from her doctor so it's wonderful that this thing is free restored to her human rights a large degree.
It's wonderful. In our society The suffering of the animals also comes to my mind. I hate to mention names, I really do it just doesn't seem spiritually changes the energy but there's some pretty big egg farms and animal farms where the chickens get treated pretty miserably. I remember years ago I wrote a letter to the editor of the Carmel Pine Cone about the Premarin and about how the chickens were treating encouraging people to eat the cage free eggs And then lo and behold, Doris Day in her wonderful little column wrote the same thing.
Well I noticed about half the eggs in Albertsons were cage-free soon thereafter. Now animals are greatly suffering and it's karmically harming all of us And we need to do something to alert the public that these restaurants, you know, to encourage people not to support cruelty. Or can you imagine a sign in a restaurant that this restaurant is serving cruelty? A warning to the consumer like we have the warnings about carcinogenic compounds. So this needs to be the year of the animal. We need to really expose these big animal abuse factory farms in our county and there's higher values in this society than money I hope you'll all agree with me there's something more important. The poor often suffer and the rich get away with committing crimes.
Mr. LaFarganino, I want to mention the rich get away with committing terrible crimes. Thank you, Mr. Rosen.
Your time is up. Thank you so much. Patricia Rosen followed by Andy Caldwell and that will complete the public comment for today. Good morning.
Good morning.
You might want to pull that mic down The mic should come down so that we can hear you further. Thank you.
Okay, all I really wanted to say today is that people in nursing homes need visitors They lie down there. They don't have anyone come to see them. Their relatives are often somewhere else. They forget about them, and it's important to have people come and see how they're doing, make sure they're okay. I heard a story about a man who felt he was dying. He didn't get any attention from the people in the nursing home. They kind of forgot about him, the people who worked there.
And then this wonderful man who cared about them came, Edmund came and talked to them and made him absolutely happy that they had a visitor with them. And this is what's happening to a lot of our nursing homes now. I was in a nursing home once after an accident. My husband was killed in this accident and I was in bad shape, bandaged Really in bad shape. And I was there and thank heavens, I had my wonderful family come to visit me but there are a lot of people that I saw all around me that had nobody and that's the main reason I'm talking today to try to not keep people out from visiting some people Like the sister of this man who was in the nursing home is only allowed to see him for three minutes at a time. Then she has to go out and I think that's a terrible tragedy.
But we do need people watching the nursing homes, people to go in like Edmund and make sure everything is fine and going well. And that's all I have to say. And thank you for your attention to me.
Thank you. And thank you for your concern. As you well know, the nursing homes are regulated by the state, not the county. But that doesn't mean the county can't furnish you with the phone numbers and addresses that you should contact if you have a problem with a specific nursing home. Thank you so much, Mr. Caldwell.
1:27 – 1:326 turns
Madam Chair, members of the Board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. I hadn't intended to speak during public comment but your discussions about the budget spurred me to fill out a slip. Personally as you know I read the budget book from cover-to-cover every year and participate as extensively as the chair will let me during the hearings And to tell you the truth, I'm expecting a train wreck this year. And I'll outline why and what I wish she would do differently. First of all, we believe you have an able administrator here that has not been empowered. And she's not been empowered because last year your board took away the responsibility of the department heads to report to her.
And so we're kind of wondering just how is she supposed to create a budget when you know darn well Those department heads are going to be jockeying for as much funding as they can. They're probably already walking the board as we speak and what we would like to see is clear-cut lines of authority and direction Your board should set out in a workshop or however that, okay we've got X number of millions to cut. Are you going to cut law enforcement the same as you do social services? The same as you do probation? Is it the same as you public defender, district attorney etc., etc.? ? Because we know the bulk of the cuts are going to have to come out of the general fund. And so you should be giving direction to your CEO, and your CEO should have the authority to tell those department heads How much they're going to cut.
And the other thing that we're hoping is that we're not gonna have the dog and pony show where these department heads, and even in some cases elected officials take the most popular programs they have and slate them for a cut And then make you, you know play dodgeball with one another as you say well we can't cut that. We can't cut that because they're playing games. They're literally playing games and you know I'm totally pro-public safety as I can get but for instance last year the sheriff says I'm going to close North County Jail but he didn't talk about shutting down the Aviation Bureau And what they do is they manufacture a crisis during the board hearing to get sympathy from you, sympathy from the taxpayers.
Instead of really saying okay well really what is the least necessary thing we have? What's mandated and what's not mandated? Smoking cessation program how much are we paying to pick up cigarette butts on the beach right now or doing stings for undercover age buys How much are we paying on lifeguard services? There's a whole list of things out there that are not mandated. You should be looking at my last point, we still want you to be looking at revenue increases such as the thing we discussed this morning about decreasing or eliminating fees for traffic impacts and things like that for projects need to do the whole thing.
Thank you Mr Caldwell and that concludes the public comment Board of Supervisors is going to take 10 minute break well Ms. Waller?
I was just going to add one thing to our quick discussion this morning, Chairwoman. We have looked at our March calendar for your board and as you're aware we have two meetings in March, one on the 1st and one on the 15th. Typically we do the first meeting in Santa Barbara and the second meeting of the month in March in Santa Maria because we do have some land use items that are very time critical And we need to bring an item on the 15th of March that would typically be considered a Santa Barbara item. We'd like to bring to your board a letter next time asking you to amend your calendar, to do the first meeting in March in Santa Maria and the second meeting in Santa Barbara if that would be something that your board would like to entertain.
Thank you and thank you Supervisor Carbajal I think that was one of your concerns.
Thank you Madam Chair, I really appreciate your entertaining this and CEO Waller you bringing that to our board for confirmation there is a time Constraint with an item in my district that needs to be addressed. It's a land-use item and In order to meet that deadline we need to find a way of doing this, and this was the easiest way The other way it was to set up a whole new hearing or what have you This is the painless
work, and so let's just resume our meeting at 10 minutes till 1110 minutes till 11
1:32 – 1:371 turns
Hi, everyone. Yeah. Yeah. ¶. Yeah. ¶. ¶. ¶. Music playing. Yeah. ♪ Good morning.
1:38 – 1:451 turns
Music Music Yeah. Hi, everyone. ¶. . . ♪ StSq3 3.30 (-0.00), ¶. ¶. ¶. I'm on. I am on. Council, we just received a 998 offer and so we need to calendar that some way or another.
1:45 – 1:528 turns
Madam Chair, that's correct. The county has a subrogation position in an ongoing piece of litigation, Ricardez v. McCorkindale which is set for trial on February 10th and after the agenda was already posted. In fact just yesterday evening we received a statutory settlement offer and I would therefore ask that the board I would like to amend the closed session agenda to allow discussion of this item today in closed session per the government code since we need action before the next board meeting and the facts requiring this came in after the agenda was published, in fact just last night. And that would be a majority, excuse me, two-thirds vote of the board.
Is there a motion? So moved. Second? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you council. We are now ready to go to departmental agenda item number one. Mr. Allen.
Madam Chair, members of the board. Item number one is from the Planning and Development Department. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Coastal Commission action on the county and Montecito land use and development code.
We're going to go to Mr. Russell
Thank you, Madam Chair. The presentation will be made by Diane Black.
Ms. Black? Madam Chair, members of the board, good morning. This is a continued hearing on the Coastal Commission's action to adopt suggested modifications to the land use and development codes for the county in Montecito. At your hearing on January 18th, your board directed staff to discuss the likelihood of successfully addressing our differences with the suggested modifications through a resubmitted amendment.
Staff recommends that you receive this report together with the report on January 18th and that you direct staff to either, to prepare the necessary documents to either accept the suggested modifications, reject the suggested modifications or develop alternatives to the suggested modifications to be resubmitted as a coastal, to the Coastal Commission as an amendment.
Following your board's direction, staff had a conference call with Peter Douglas, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. That occurred on January 20th. We conveyed the comments and concerns of your board And Mr. Douglas indicated that he was very interested in trying to work out the remaining issues and asked for us to work with his Ventura staff. We had three separate discussions with Ventura staff most recently yesterday afternoon, and what I'll do in the remaining part of the presentation is summarize the results of that discussion that we also provided to the board via memo at the end of the day yesterday.
Coastal Commission staff did remind us that what we discussed is... Ms.
Black, hang on for just a moment. I have 16 folks here that want to speak on this and of the 16 of you, you must have known what you were going to say before you gave me this little piece of paper so listen carefully to what Ms. Black has to say And if you have to rewrite your speech, rewrite your speech so it applies to what she's saying. Because we've heard you over and over and we love you all but we'd really rather hear you talk about what Ms. Black has to say today. Is that okay with everybody? Nod your head yes. Everybody okay with that? Thank you very much. Ms. Black, go ahead.
Madam Chair, the copies of the memo are in the back of the room as well for anybody who'd like to take a look at those and they were available online early this morning. Anyway, as I was saying, Coastal Commission staff did remind us that what we discussed is from their staff's perspective and that they cannot predict how the Coastal Commission itself would view the potential changes.
With respect to cultivated agriculture, the adopted suggested modification provides for the exemption of historic agricultural use. Meaning no one would need a CDP for continuing an agricultural operation and expanded agricultural operations would be exempt from a permit if slopes don't exceed 30%. Cut and fill is less than three feet, and grading is less than 100 cubic yards. That a setback is maintained from the creek and from ashes that their non-Native or Native trees are not protected trees are not removed and that the county issues an exemption confirming development standards are met.
So that's the original adopted suggested modification. Based upon our discussions with Coastal Commission staff, they would agree to an increase in the cubic yard standard of 100 cubic yards to somewhere between 1,000 and 5,000 cubic yards perhaps based upon parcel size. They would also agree to delete the tree removal development standard and instead reference existing tree removal requirements in the ordinance.
The ESHA development standard is proposed to remain with specific habitat types to constituting ESHA identified in the development standard. Commission staff was not willing to eliminate the requirement that the county verify the qualification for an exemption. With respect to grazing, essentially the same language was adopted by suggested modification as for the cultivated agriculture. Commission staff is now willing to eliminate the development standard for exemptions requiring grazing not occur on slopes of 30% or more, is willing to consider grazing in grasslands as exempt. And again reference the existing tree removal requirements and the ordinance county verification of the exemption confirming that all exemption development standards are met would still be required.
The adopted suggested modification for primary residences on agriculturally zoned land provided that a residence would be considered a principal permitted use if the residence is occupied by the operator of the agricultural use of the property or by the property owner, that the residence does not exceed a floor area of 5,000 square feet and that the area devoted to the residential development area not exceed 10,000 square feet.
And then just to be very clear, if residents were proposed that exceeded any one of these permit triggers an appealable coastal development permit would be required. So this isn't a development standard that's a yes or no it's a permit trigger requirement. We focused on the third criteria, the size of the residential development area in our discussions with coastal staff and the coastal staff agreed to a different approach to the residential development area standards, similar to the uniform rules for agricultural preserves. The residential development area would be a minimum of 10,000 square feet with graduated increases for parcels greater than 40 acres up to a maximum one acre residential development area.
The adopted, moving on to animal keeping. The adopted suggested modification for animal keeping includes a permit requirement for...
1:52 – 2:0025 turns
I'd really like for us to get through all these before we start asking questions. That's fine. If you don't mind. I don't mind. Yeah everybody write down your questions so let's go ahead and get through this Ms.
Black. Okay. The adopted suggested modification for animal keeping includes a permit requirement for all confined animal facilities and the CDP for new animal keeping Once animal keeping is legally established on a parcel, a permit is not required to increase the number of animals up to the allowed number. Animals provided for in the existing ordinance requirements. Commission staff is willing to specify development standards similar to those for agricultural operations, to identify exemptions for confined animal facilities. They would also correct some inadvertent language on small animal keeping and generally work with county staff to clarify the language since this seems to have been the most difficult development standard for everybody to suggest a modification for everyone to understand.
Finally, with respect to private bluff stairways. The adopted suggested modification prohibits new bluff, private bluff stairways and limits the repair of existing stairways. This is indicated on this slide. Commission staff is willing to consider existing legal private bluff stairways as conforming uses which would allow consideration of permits to repair or replace them without limitations on the percentages of repair.
New private bluff stairways would still remain prohibited uses. That concludes the summary of discussions we had with Coastal Commission staff. I'm certainly available to answer any questions of the board.
We'll do questions now, Supervisor Wolfe you were the first
one. No, I answered my own question.
Okay, any other questions? I'd like to go back. Doreen, do you have any because you're really kind of the head person on this.
No Madam Chair not at this time. I do want to hear from the public.
Okay and I'd like to quickly ask on slide number seven And I need an explanation on private horse keeping in residential zones considered principal permitted use. That just means you can have the number of horses that you would have if you were just any aware.
Madam Chair, Essentially, if a horse is allowed as a principally permitted use on our residential parcel to commence horse keeping you would need a coastal development permit not an appealable coastal development permit. Once you've established legal animal keeping on your property then adding additional horses would not require any additional permits.
So if you don't have a horse do you have to get a permit to get the horse?
That's correct.
Mr. Wengel, welcome back. We missed you last time. Welcome back. Supervisor Carbajal?
So if you don't have the historic precedent of having animals, do you need a permit?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Carbajal that's correct.
And before you didn't need a permit?
That's correct.
Okay, so if my child wants a horse and there wasn't a horse there the time before I moved in, I have to get a permit to get the horse there.
That's correct. Madam Chair, one last question. So hypothetically you could have two properties that are of the same characteristics and one because they've been allowed to have horses under the previous policies would be allowed but if this new parcel same characteristics Somebody wants to have a horse, but because they didn't get grandfathered in with an existing historic use. They do need a permit
Madam Chair and Supervisor Carbajal that's my understanding yes
Okay, are we now ready to go to public comment supervisor fire anything else from you? Okay? Let's start with dr.. Robert Johns, and then after that we'll go to Kathleen Weinreimer Dr.. John's Guess he left Kathleen Okay. All right. Followed by Andy Caldwell.
Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Kathleen Weinheimer, an attorney for Hope Ranch and have been participating in these conversations for a number of months now We found it interesting to see the movement that Ms. Black described in her report, and particularly found it interesting after all this time that we've been raising these same points for a number of months. We have some concern that this conversation took place with the Ventura staff, and we don't know if it's received even the support of Peter Douglas let alone any members of the Coastal Commission themselves. We'd remind you that there was a 10-2 vote Against this, many of these points having been brought up at the hearing in November.
And we are concerned that there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that the commissioners themselves have changed their position on any of this. If in fact however, the Coastal Commission agreed to these changes it would be a step in the right direction on many points. We believe that there remain however a number of issues that are still unacceptable One of which, Supervisor Carbajal just identified the inequity that would exist between an existing property owner who had horses and immediately adjacent similarly situated property owner who didn't have the foresight to purchase a horse before these changes came along.
Similarly we remain convinced that the prohibition against private new private stairs is simply taking a private property without justification. There's been no showing throughout this long procedure and the many requests for some evidence that private stairs are any more damaging than public stairs. We remain unconvinced that there is a demonstrable difference between that, that is supportable by the Coastal Act prohibitions and protection language. There's nothing in the act which prohibits or distinguishes between the two, and we don't believe that distinction is appropriate here.
With that, while we support the progress made at the staff level today, we do think that without further amendments your board must reject the postal commission changes. Thank you. Thank you. Andy Caldwell followed by Dr.
Lee Howler
Madam Chair, before Mike pushes that button I'm wondering if I could raise a procedural question. In your directions to the audience you said when you filled out a slip you had comments but you might want to change them based on the staff report and by the way there's a memo on the back table We have this thing called the Brown Act in the state of California that says we get 48 hours or 72 hours to be able to.
So Mr. Paul, I'll go quick make your point tell me what I did wrong so I can get right.
Well I'm not saying you did something wrong per se I'm saying that the Brown Act says that we get two to three days to understand what's going to be discussed and presented at a hearing because somebody like me I represent 1,000 people in the county What am I supposed to do with the information that just got presented here at the very last minute?
All right, let's start the time and we'll tell you that you're quick on your feet. You're a very bright guy and I know you can nail this one so get on it.
2:00 – 2:1111 turns
Madam Chair, the process stinks. We went through this long arduous painful process your board dutifully represented the public and your board before the Planning Commission and they got slammed on a ten to two vote. The procedures before the Coastal Commission in the county says you've got one of two options after that ten to two vote. You either accept or reject So Coastal Commission staff hears you're leaning towards rejection and all of a sudden the staff says, well we're going to present you with third option. Let's negotiate our staff and your staff in a back room.
How is this working? Is it the rules say you've got accept or reject? How does the Coastal Commission staff have the authority to negotiate with your staff in a back room after a 10-2 vote? We don't understand that. We don't understand how the AAC and other members of the ACT community and Hope Branch and Padera Lane, how are they supposed to discuss with their members what's being discussed here when they didn't find out until they got here?
The point here is we don't like what the Coastal Commission staff did to begin with. They now seem to be backtracking and the public, we're reeling because we don't know which direction you guys are going on until we get here. We need to go back to the old-fashioned way of planning Where the public is apprised of choices, rules, regulations and consequences. They get to talk with their elected officials. They get to talk with members of their association and they get to come here and present a detailed poignant response to what's being presented.
This process is broken and it's not broken because your staff. It's not broken because you're bored. It' s broken because of the Coastal Commission staff And what we would like to see happen is you push forward the original plan you had. With regard to the LUDC, and you tell the Coastal Commission staff if they want to talk about all this stuff we're starting over from scratch because those are two different projects. Your LUDD didn't talk about stairwells or cows or horses or chickens or goats it talked about Isla Vista, Strip Pit, streamlining and things like that And they're two separate traps, they're two separate projects. And what somebody's trying to do is force a size 13 foot into a size 6 shoe and it doesn't fit.
And so we would rather end the torturous process one way or another. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Caldwell and the purpose for this hearing was to see if the staff saw adequate movement on behalf of the Coastal Commission to advise this board that was very concerned about whether or not there was movement. I know it's difficult, and I'm not picking on you Dr. Heller because I know you're going to nail this one but I hope that you will try we all know that nobody is happy with what has happened. We got that. But we want to know give us your opinion on did they move far enough as far as your issue is concerned and what would you urge us to do? Dr. Haller supervisor for
actually Madame chair just to speak to Mr. Caldwell's point I just wanted to remind everybody that at the end of the hearing last time staff actually asked for more time but in order to prepare a staff report and all of that we said no we thought it was more important to bring it back sooner even if it was just a verbal report so the fact that they had anything in writing Before the hearing was something that I didn't even personally expect. So yeah, that was out on the record.
That's really accurate. What we're trying to do is say is there enough movement for this board to decide to try and go somewhere or not? Dr. Howell are you okay with this?
You
betcha.
Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the Board. There's an interesting sort of apocalyptic narrative going on here where supposedly two sets of staff are hiding out in a back room and coming up with something without direction from their supervisory agencies It's very clear that you've given direction based on public comment and your own understanding of the situation. It's also clear that the Coastal Commission staff isn't acting unilaterally without guidance from its counsel, so what's happening here is that the two staffs are trying to work to resolve an impasse that we had reached because no one wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater and start over and go through years more of a torturous process. What I see looking at the modifications and the compromises that are being made is forward motion, which is what we wanted and what you asked for.
It might be a little soon for a final report. That's not what we're hearing today. What we're asking for is that you give staff to direction to continue moving forward with the Coastal Commission staff to work on these compromises because we are moving in the right direction so we ask you to pick item three if you're looking on your agendas today To continue discussions with the Coastal Commission in this direction. Was that clear? Thank
you, Mr. Maricona. I'm sorry I didn't give you it but you're quick on your feet and then Mr. Chamberlain are you still here? Okay, you're going to follow him Good morning
Morning Madam Chair members of the board Steve Americana. I am representing a number of coastal property owners I sent a letter into the board, which I hope you received. It's posted on the website. I won't go through it thankfully but I will touch on one point that Ms. Black spoke of and that has to do with stairways. The Coastal Commission staff and the proposed modifications would prohibit stairways, new ones.
Even under the proposed compromise that was described to you this morning, new ones would be prohibited. I want to read to you from The adopted policy of this county, adopted in 1982. It's the general plan that applies to the coastal zone. It's in the land use plan. It says, Policy 3.7. No development shall be permitted on the bluff face except for engineered staircases or access ways to provide beach access So in 1982, you adopted a policy allowing stairways for beach access.
The Coastal Commission staff now wants you to adopt an ordinance that says you may not have engineered staircases on the beach for beach access. The only way you could embrace that modification, the only way that you could adopt an ordinance prohibiting stairways would be to conclude that yes Means no, and no means yes. And they're the same word because in 1982 you set a policy that said yes and they're asking you to adopt a policy that now says no without doing anything to revise the general plan, without doing anything to adopt an amendment to that land use plan.
And the only way yes means no is if we've all fallen down the rabbit hole. The Coastal Act requires that any ordinance you adopt to implement your coastal plan must be consistent with the Coastal Plan. It is a very simple requirement, and it's the same requirement that exists under the General Plan law. You know that zoning and the General Plan have to be consistent. There is no way on this one issue that the general plan you adopted in 82 and the ordinance you're being asked to adopt today can be viewed as consistent unless you believe that yes and no mean the same thing.
Our suggestion is that you say to the Coastal Commission, what you've asked us to do is unacceptable both on policy and legal grounds. That we're willing to look at our land use policies but we're going to do it the way that we've always done it from the bottom up. We're going to set up a community-based committee. I suggested a coastal zone planning committee and we're going to do it from the bottom up with input and involvement from all the stakeholders. That's the way the county has always done planning. That's what we think you should do today. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Conner and then Mr. Chamberlain followed by Dr. Johns. Welcome, Mr Chamberlain
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Board it's always nice to be back and I want to thank you as the board for being extremely attentive and concerned about this issue and the stance that you have taken and Supervisor Farr for going to the extreme that you have in going to the commission to really lay out what we believe the issues are. I come before you today as a very strong advocate of agriculture and a very strong advocate of local planning, local land use controls And I warn you we are going down an extremely slippery slope, not on a set of skis but feet on banana peels.
What the coastal staff is asking you to do is you, the County Board of Supervisors throw local agriculture out of the bus and I ask that you not do that. I listened to today's staff report it is only a little bit of bait to suck us in and blow us over by that Greyhound bus coming down the road. I had some fears when we went through this exercise of combining Articles 2 and 3, but thought it could really lead to something good.
Well it has led to something bad. I ask that you do number two, you reject this effort from the Coastal Commission. We go back and we unwind the process that we have done Separate two and three, and those things that need to be redone in Isla Vista or where else take those on as a separate project. Let's have local land use controls that you the five of you have the ultimate decision on this is the only way to go articles 2 & 3 worked well for years they will work well again let's not go down this road please I ask you to simply just cut the head off the snake Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain. Dr. Johns followed by Andy Mills.
2:11 – 2:2214 turns
I've objected from the first reading of this modifications by the Coastal Commission, of the fact that the Coastal Commission wants to request that there be no churches or schools on agricultural land. Just what could be their notion from the restriction of churches and schools on agricultural land? No one's given any rationalization. I think it's pure racism and discrimination.
I think that they know that there is a population of people who work on agricultural lands, who would someday going to make I request that they have churches, schools, a community and this community may be placed on agricultural land. Someone is looking way down the line and that's why I think it's so racist and very discriminating against people, Mexican-American people who work or have children who go to school.
So I've requested that the Coastal Commission Restrict that, that ordinance. Must stop this. This is planned racism and discrimination. Thank you.
Thank you Dr. Johns. Andy Mills followed by Susan Petrovich. And I wanted to say, and I'm not picking on you Mr. Mills, that everyone your handwriting is so much better today Isn't it amazing, Mr. Allen? It's amazing and yours is fine, Mr. Mills, but it was like amazing! Thank you all. If I blow your name, it's because I'm not pronouncing it correctly. It's not because you didn't write it right.
You're on. Thank you. Madam Chair and members of the board, I'm Andy Mills representing the Santa Barbara County Cattlemen's Association. Do appreciate the work that the staff has done and we want to thank you as an association for your sticking up for the local print planning process through all this. But the necessity of a local planning process is shown in this memo, because one of our most serious concerns which is putting our routine range improvement operations under the permitting process is not addressed here.
We would just ask that You allow the local planning processes to take place. We will be addressing this here. We still object to people in Ventura and San Francisco telling us what ag practices are proper and which aren't, and we have a local planning process in Gaviota that is working, and it's working well. Keep local control, keep the bottom up planning processes in place. We will address all these issues. Thank you.
Thank you so much Mr Mills. Miss Petrovich followed by Adrian Schulte.
Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board Susan Petrovich representing residents on Fernald Point Lane and the Padora Lane Association. This is just more of the death by a thousand cuts you've heard everybody protest about at previous hearings. We've been experiencing it for months, and it's just more of the same. And I guess I have a question. The PPU was a big issue at our last hearing, and we've heard no offer to concede That the county already has a certified list of PPUs. You have Mr. Americana's very detailed letter on this subject, but that was a huge deficiency in this offer that is not there.
The Coastal Commission staff is leaving so much ambiguity here that none of us really can be certain what they are proposing. I mean for instance why not new private staircases on private property? All I've heard so far is well that's not the way we allowed the city of Malibu to do it. So? Maybe that wasn't in the City of Malibu's land use plan, but it is in ours.
As to the ambiguity, what does a farmer or rancher have to do to get this exemption? Is it appealable? Agriculture still is being hung out to dry here. There's still a lot of ignorance, like the Coastal Commission's complete lack of information about cattle grazing on 30% slopes. Well here's the newsflash. Ranches are full of ESH areas. They are full of environmentally sensitive habitat areas and that's where their cattle graze.
You can't fence them out. Native grasses are included, coastal sage scrub. That's all over the ranches. This is just total ignorance. These folks don't understand that. So telling farmers and ranchers that oh yeah you can go ahead and expand your grazing but incidentally you have to fence all the SH just isn't practical or realistic. So we would urge you to reject and to start all over on a county-generated amendment, if that's what you'd like to have. But to reject this and let's stop this running firefight that we've been dealing with where we get staff reports a day, two days, and now less than 24 hours before the hearing begins. This is just not a fair and public process. Thank you.
Schulte? Scholli, I said that wrong again.
It's
Shuley. But you wrote it beautifully. I
improved. I get my gold
star? You get your star today. Did you give her that star? Followed by Beth Collins-Burgard.
I'm Adrienne Shulee, I'm a realtor here in Santa Barbara and I am here today representing the 1,100 members of the Santa Barbara Association of Realtors. And just real quick we talk in real estate about location, location, location But as realtors, we're talked about disclosure, disclosure, disclosure. And this issue has become quite a disclosure issue for us.
Currently my understanding of the process is we have three options, accept, reject or let it expire and submit a new amendment that these policies would be part of a new amendment. This has become such a disclosure issue for the sellers of the coastal zone area And also the realtors, it becomes a high liability for us not knowing how to disclose where we are in this process.
And also it becomes a very big aspect of value to the properties. So we ask that you please move forward. I think according to the procedure, a reject or let expire and we would hope you would not just let it expire and have this drag out for another four months. And then we need to resubmit a new LUDC, so please, we encourage you to move forward today. Thank you.
Thank you. Beth Collins-Burgard followed by Kalem DeForest. Welcome.
Hi, thank you. Good morning Madam Chair and Supervisors. My name is Beth Collins-Burgard I'm representing the Santa Barbara Cattlemen's Association And first, sorry but this is too little too late. And we have the same concerns remaining regarding these revised proposals and especially this verification requirement which I'll discuss further a little bit later. We're concerned about these proposals partly because they highlight this whole process. We had a problem with the process and this late breaking news is just another example I'd like Instead, they're usurping your police power asking you to adopt things that they don't have the power to do. And they're going beyond the Coastal Act. The stair issue is one example. Okay? Next, the discussions, the backroom discussions with the Coastal Commission staff.
No public participation or even viewing of these discussions. We need more information on what's going on and what they're thinking. And there's no information regarding the exact language we have kind of an outline But we don't have the exact language, and we're not clear about what this county verifying the exemptions is unclear. How is that going to be implemented? What's the procedure? What's the cost? How is it going to be determined? Is that appealable?
Next, the principal permitted use issue is another example about the misinformation that's kind of been abounding Recently in the last couple meetings. In my opinion, it's just because we haven't had the time to vet these issues and the cattlemen support Stephen Mayer Connors. The interpretation detailed in that January 29th letter that makes it clear permitted use equals principle permitted use here in your LCP there is no principle permitted use issue in your zoning code so take a look at your at the letter and But the problem is, is there was huge misinformation about that. And this highlights another concern with this re-rushed process, unintended consequences, small nuances in text. In this case it was the insertion of principle set everyone thinking, oh that means that everything is going to be appealable and we thought this for two meetings till we sat.
We had time. We looked at it again. This needs we need a vetting process here. It needs to be the bottom up process you need to make sure you're maintaining your local control and don't inadvertently lose it as through this rush process so we vote for option 2 just say no step back Do the bottom-up process laid out in Steve Americana's last two letters. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. DeForest, followed by Christine McGinnis.
2:22 – 2:296 turns
Good morning. County staff's attempts at dealing with the COTA Commission is commendable. But what I fear is by accepting Any of the coast. Continuing to negotiate with the Coastal Commission will be the loss of county control. We now have an opportunity. To for local planning and for the ability to appeal to you, not some nebulous commission in some distant location. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. DeForest and now we'll go to Christina McGinnis followed by Linda Croft Welcome. Good morning.
Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Christina McGinnis and I'm here today representing the open program of the Environmental Defense Center. And at first I'd like to sincerely thank county staff for their hard work and continued efforts in talking with Coastal Commission staff regarding the community's concerns and needs on this issue.
I am very hopeful that we are at a juncture right now in this effort that will yield excellent results. And as you've heard from staff's presentation today, the primary issues of concern are being actively negotiated. And these issues include an increase in the development standards for grading, recognizing that existing permit process for tree removal will address concerns on that issue and simplifying the exemption process for expanded or new agriculture or grazing.
For new or expanded grazing slope standards, restricting grazing will likely be removed. I know that was a huge issue for many, many folks throughout the process and again the tree removal standards they're just going to use the existing. The exemption process would also be simplified for grazing expansion. I think that the new discussions regarding the residential development envelope size are extremely hopeful In the sense that there's real potential to work out this particular issue using a graduated scale that takes into account the parcel size and zoning of, to potentially allow for higher level of development envelope size depending on the parcel size.
And I think all of these things indicate a very real concession on many issues on the part of the Coastal Commission staff. And I think it's really clear that there is a good faith effort to work out many of the community concerns that have been expressed over the last year or so. And I just hope that we don't waste this chance to move forward and get the LUDC adopted. And I just worry that if this doesn't get adopted, that each time the county has to resubmit something to the Coastal Commission it's going to come back in a piecemeal fashion whether it be for the Goleta Valley PAC or for the Gaviota Coast Plan which I'm a PAC member of. I don't want to have to readdress these issues each time in a piecemeal fashion.
And I'd like to just thank you so much for your continued diligence and patience in trying to address all of these issues. And just, I'd like to just finally say that we have a commitment from Coastal Commission that this can be on an expedited process and I sincerely hope that we move forward with this. Thank you.
Thank You Ms. McGinnis. Ms. Kropp followed by Jim Newman
Thank you and good morning. I'm Linda Kropp, Chief Counsel of the Environmental Defense Center. And I appreciate the comments and direction given by the board this morning and two weeks ago. I think that we've seen a tremendous shift in amount of progress on the remaining issues. And what I ask is that for the board and the members of the audience that we focus on the goal. The county wants and needs a certified LUDC There are a lot of important policies and provisions in the updated LUD, LUDC that I think everybody wants. And I think we're losing sight of the fact that we have gained so much already. And even in the last two weeks, we've made tremendous progress on the issues that remain for example with the animal keeping. I think we've received clarification that in some cases permits wouldn't be required or even if they are like for new horses That the permits may not be appealable depending on the zone district.
So I think we've really narrowed the concerns with respect to the large animal keeping, I think with the private existing staircases it's remarkable that the commission staff is now offering a permit path to make those legal and I don't think you want to turn your back on that. With respect to the process what we're hearing today is basically a status report And the staff did exactly what your board directed them to do, see if there's any room for movement. My God in every category they came back with clear evidence that there is room for movement so I think what the next step should be is to say okay you've identified those areas now we need the specifics. You know what does it actually mean in terms of the amendments for the LUDC and bring that In obviously a noticed public hearing and we'll have a full public hearing on those proposed changes.
But today is basically an answer to your board saying, we met with the commission staff on the very issues you asked us to discuss with them. And on every single one they've agreed to talk and they've agreed to consider some changes. So I can't believe that you would turn your back on that now when we're seeing good faith effort from the commission staff as well as your staff And we look forward to the continued progress.
Thank you, Ms. Cropp. Jim Newman and he will be followed by Brian Troutwine.
2:29 – 2:3615 turns
Madam Chair? Supervisors I'm Jim Newman. I'm a property and I'm Padera Lane and active in their association, and we embrace both Willie Chamberlain's comments and our representative Steve Americana and Susan Petrovich but there are issues here that I haven't even been brought up in this latest item we just looked at or received today and reviewed, but we still have concerns over as a coastal property owner. We're still concerned with sea level issues as proposed. We're still concerned with the setbacks on bluffs We need to have further discussion about that, and of course we're very concerned about the whole staircase issue. So at some point I'm hoping that we don't move forward without more detailed input from property owners who are really directly concerned about some of these issues and tax property values And we definitely need to have a say, and we haven't really had a chance to really get into the detail implications of some of this wording that's been proposed by the Coastal Commission.
So I'm hoping that we'll have that choice if you move forward to extend this and continue to work with the Coastal Commission as opposed to just rejecting it outright which For the moment, we prefer so we can go back to square one a bit and really digest our concerns. Thank you.
Good morning Madam Chair and Supervisors, I'm Brian Trautwein from the Environmental Defense Center. I want to take a second to acknowledge that I think your staff has done a very fine job in working with the Coastal Commission staff to get some real movement on some really difficult issues so I want to applaud your staff for doing that work and also point out that EDC's been trying very hard to work with interested parties to resolve remaining issues we've had Numerous meetings with agricultural property owners and representatives, and we've even asked them to come up with lists of ag practices that they might consider for exemption that we could submit to the Coastal Commission.
So then we've also offered some changes, some compromises, specific language to try to help address the public concerns that have been expressed regarding the bluff staircases and the agricultural grading expansion Also, the residential development envelope size triggers. So we've been trying to come up with some common ground and we'd really like to see the LUDC ultimately found consistent with the Coastal Act and we'd like to see the remaining concerns that have been expressed worked out as much as possible through a continued dialogue amongst all parties.
We wanted the county to accept the modifications. We've stood here and asked you to just accept the modifications, and ultimately we want that but we also understand the importance of having more public buy-in before this happens so EDC is ready and we're willing to work on new language that achieves coastal protection while addressing the concerns as much as possible The goal for today was not necessarily to come up with specific language we could all agree to. It was really to see if there was room to continue talking, and we think there has been considerable movement since our last hearing here. So we urge the county to go with option three, seek more time to continue to work through these few remaining issues. Thank you very much.
Thank you Mr. Troutline. I have a turn chalk and followed by Diane Vanderhave or have.
Good morning Chair Gray, members of the board. Morning I wanted to take a second as echo the kudos to our staff. I really am impressed with the amount of movement that has happened in less than two weeks it's pretty impressive. I am very glad to hear that there has been some movement however like many others I find the amount of movement that's happening at the 11th hour interesting and I'm not really sure what to make of it That coupled with the statements in Dr. Russell's memo, that Coastal Commission believes and Coastal Commission staff could support and could recommend and could consider all to me point to something I've been saying for months these are suggested modifications these are not requirements for us to be consistent with the coastal act if they were there couldn't be such swing and movement it's either required or it's not so I'd like you to take a look at these as what they truly are.
They're a policy wish list from another agency. They may be good policy ideas, they may not so what I would like to see is that we Look at how we create policy in this community. It should not be done in this manner I urge you to reject these mods and then treat them as the suggestions they are and allow our Community planning process to continue with dialogue and a public process just like we've always created policy in this county Thank you.
Thank you. We have two speakers left Diane Vanderhoof and Kim Kimball, we have An event certain at 1145 with food And so we're going to find out what we need to do. So everybody think about how we're going to work this out. Welcome. Food?
Go in there right
now! That's
all I heard. Madam Chair and fellow board members, my name is Diane Vanderhaef and I'm a coastal resident. I have a large agricultural piece of property and I really think our goal here... Somebody said about what the goal was well Our goal should be to keep the control in the hands of our local government, not from afar. You have the last say here and I would really like you to say no. Just say no.
I have a property that...I have a main house. I already have my main house. I have another house that I'd like to build. It's called The Guest House and 10,000 square feet doesn't do much for me and then adding One acre. Right now we have a two-acre envelope for building that you have okayed. Depleted to one acre possibly that's not enough my particular property. I couldn't do that close, but I couldn't do it. I can't afford the permits. I can't afford the time delays every delay that it takes a builder to go through the process includes the The amount of money that materials go up there. They're going up, I can hear them going up right now and to ask us to wait any longer.
These are huge pieces of property. Why should I have? Why should I have to put everything in one acre? I just don't understand it. That's one problem the AG people have spoken. The stairway people have spoken. I thought there was something on here about guest houses wasn't there originally something about guest houses which I keep getting the MPAs and the LUDC kind of. Yeah,
there's a lot
of things
here.
Yeah but was there a guest house? Not that I recall. Okay so that must be the other one. I'll deal with that there. Anyway my goal is to keep the power here where it belongs. We voted you in and we expect you to take care of us and that doesn't mean letting the Coastal Commission who I don't think has the power to do what they want to
Thank you
very
much for being here today. Kim Campbell and this is our last speaker.
2:36 – 2:4612 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Kim Kimball and I'm appearing here as chair of GAVPAC. I will at your request madam chair keep my comments confined to the new information that was given here today.
Thank you. You're going to get the hugest gold star in the place if you can do that.
I could use it thank you. The comments today illustrate the fact that the Coastal Commission staff is continuing to invade your powers as a local government Because they continue to negotiate the details of your land use plan without justifying any of their requested modifications. as being required under the standards set forth in the Coastal Act, which are in Chapter 3.
None of these changes have been justified. The fact that they keep diddling with the building envelope is at 10,000 square feet or is it 40,000 square feet? Can you let your cows wander above 30 degrees or can you not without a permit? All of these things are details of policy and your local plan. Those are your prerogative to determine they are not the Coastal Commission's prerogative. And by engaging in this conversation, you continue to yield your authority and it threatens my committee. That's why I'm here. We're supposed to be bringing this up to you from the bottom-up and we can't do it when we've got this cloud hanging over us telling us well maybe Another agency is going to mess in your nest and you better abide by what they say. Please stand for us and reject this and support our process, thank you.
Thank you Mr. Kemble. What I'm going to do now is ask us to stop. I think this is very important. We'll close the public hearing and we're going to now recognize Black History Month. There's some really historical people here Mr. Carbajal, do you want to make opening remarks and then Mr. Allen can read this?
Thank you Madam Chair. It is an honor for me to present and proclaim February 2011 as Black History Month in Santa Barbara County. As we know what makes our country and our states and our communities and counties and cities strong is the diversity of all our people in the United States and the rich history and the contributions that everybody makes day in and day out, it's what keeps making our country stronger each day.
And we try to recognize as many of the contributions of the many groups in our country that do that. And this month we are recognizing those contributions in Black History Month from the African American community that have been made to enrich and strengthen our country. And this year, the theme is African Americans and the Civil War and the contributions that have been made by African Americans throughout the various military conflicts to protect and endear our democracy Throughout the world.
And today I would appreciate it if we could have the following individuals come up. Pastor Willie Armistead, Armistead? Pastor Armistead, 75, served in the United States Air Force. He enlisted in 1954 and was honorably discharged in 1974. If you could come up. Next we have Mr. Art Hicks. Mr. Art Hicks, 89, served as a Tuskegee Airman in the Air Force. We should clap for everyone including those extra-historic achievements. Art Hicks belonged to the elite group of African American pilots and maintenance crews in And for those of you that know this rich history, it was a major contribution in our military's history.
Next we have Fred Sims, 73, who served in the United States Marine Corps. Fred? Is that where we are Wendy? He enlisted in 1957 and was honorably discharged in 1959. Next we have Mr. Charles P. Sims, 89, served in the United States Army. We have somebody coming in his stead from 1941 until he was honorably discharged on December 24th, 1945. Next we have Sam Vickers, 87, who served in the United States Air Force as an aviator engineer and enlisted in 1943.
until he was honorably discharged in 1946. Next, we have Pastor Lewis Watkins. He's on his way but I'll say his story now and then he is 80 years old, served in the United States Army. He enlisted in 1958 until he was honorably discharged in 1960. The next person is Cleve Whitfield who is 79, served in the United States Army from 1952 until he was honorably discharged in 1954. He's serving in Korea as well.
You know I'm going to back up a little bit and while all of these achievements are great and now that we've clapped for everyone that I mentioned, I do want to focus a little bit more on Mr. Art Hicks. Mr. Art Hicks, I told you was part of the Tuskegee Airmen crew. Those men later became pioneers in equality and integration of the armed forces. Art Hicks spent nearly 30 years in the air force and later became a supervising mechanic and worked on the Titan II missile program at Vandenberg.
He retired from the military in 1971 and became a social studies teacher at Cabrillo High School. He also served 12 years on the Lompoc Unified School District Board. Congratulations, and thank you for your service. Mr. Allen if you could read the resolution please?
While he's coming up or going down are there any other folks that flew with you that are still Are you alive or are you the only remaining one?
There are about 200 of us who are better. And there's one, I should say other than me in the county area that I'm aware of and she is a former medic not a pilot but A person who served as a Tuskegee Airman.
Thank you, thank you Mr. Hicks.
Is there a resolution?
Yes that's true. Mr.
Allen. Madam Chair and members of the board this is a resolution proclaiming February 2011 as Black History Month in Santa Barbara County whereas February is recognized as black history month throughout the United States and the 2011 national theme is African Americans and the Civil War And whereas, in 1861 as the United States stood on the brink of civil war people of African descent both enslaved and free persons waited with a watchful eye. They understood that a war between the North and South might bring about jubilee, the destruction of slavery, and the enactment of universal freedom."
And whereas, with tensions running high, Frederick Douglass spoke the following words. Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letters US. Let him get an eagle on his button and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pockets and there is no power on earth which can deny he has earned the right to citizenship in the United States. And whereas Frederick Douglass' words moved over 180,000 African Americans to enlist in the Union Army and Navy to fight for their freedom and serve as recruiters, soldiers, nurses, and spies.
And whereas, inspired by their legacy of courage, leadership, victory and service to all Americans we celebrate, recognize and honor the efforts of people of African descent who fought to destroy slavery and inaugurate universal freedom in the United States. Now therefore be it ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims February 2011 as Black History Month in Santa Barbara County and calls on all residents of Santa Barbara County to reflect on the contributions African-American citizens have made throughout our history and to celebrate and participate in planned activities throughout the month. Passed and adopted today by the board.
Mr. Hicks,
2:46 – 2:5110 turns
I'd like to thank you for recognizing the accomplishments of black Americans and that is with regard to the Civil War. I'm sorry, I can't speak from that period.
I was hoping, you know Art, I was hoping you were flying planes in the Civil War right? You know remember get it wrong historically?
It's...I have some reservation about the understanding that some people have with regard to, oh black history. And I have reference to a series of articles that appeared in Lompoc Record and this is not from the Civil War period although he did mention Civil War in his writings but it had to do with the desegregation of the armed services in World War II. And there was, his misunderstanding is that somehow Eisenhower was the person who signed the executive order 9981 which desegregated the armed services and as all of us remember don't we?
It was President Harry Truman and a person From the standpoint of the writer, and I'll even mention his name because he's in me in the paper quite frequently. His name is Don... Now my memory slips but anyway at 88 I guess you can forgive me for that. But anyway I have a very high regard For Harry Truman, I think it was one of the greatest precedents that we have had in this country considering the things that he accomplished with regard to rebuilding Japan, rebuilding Europe, rebuilding this country and what the many acts that were passed during his time.
And so I take issue very much with I still didn't recall, don't recall. But anyway, I think we have the idea that there are some people who accomplish some very historical things and Harry Truman was one. So thank you.
Thank you, Art. I think with this historical moment that we have a reception and we'd like to have everyone join us next door, and we'll be chatting with all the folks. And we'll be back. That's what we need to know. We need to go into closed session and then be back at 130. Is it going to take that long? Well, we've got to do the closed session that we continued.
And the new one will be like five minutes because that's just a 9-9-8 offer. So let's just compromise and say 1-15 and then we'll be back.
Can I just make a suggestion? Since all the people that are here for the, why don't we just go do the reception for about 15 minutes. Come back here and finish this item and then break for lunch.
What's the pleasure
of the board? Is
that fine too?
And stay hungry. We can get something to eat now.
Yeah okay let's do it. We'll be back in 15 minutes. 2A 3.30 x (-0.00?) Yeah. ¶ ¶¶
2:52 – 3:101 turns
♪ ♪ ¶. ¶¶ ? ? ? ¶. 2A 3.30 (-0.00), ¶. Oh. Yeah. ¶. ¶. . . ¶¶ ¶¶ ♪ StSq3 3.30 (-0.99") ¶. StSq3 3.30 (-0.70)" ¶. StSq3 3.30 (-0.99)" Music playing ¶ . . You. ¶. ¶¶ ¶. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Hi. Hello. Hi. Good morning, everyone. . . Thank you.
3:11 – 3:3033 turns
Item number one, we've completed public comment and Supervisor Barr do you want to take it yet or do you want me to have staff take it?
Madam Chair, I just wanted some clarification from staff. I do have some comments I would like to make but... Get your clarification
and then we'll do the comments.
Yeah. You know, we've talked about an option three that's kind of an expedited process, but I think the reality is that even with that we have to ask for an extension. There's no way this could or should be done by May and that extension would be at least a year or probably more. Is that correct?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Farr if the board were to go forward with option 3 you wouldn't have to ask for an extension because you'd essentially be submitting a new Amendment to the Coastal Commission for their consideration.
I don't know what that means.
Option three is to submit a resubmitted amendment to the Coastal Commission for their consideration. So it essentially, it's processed as a new LCP amendment and it doesn't require an extension of the Coastal Commission's action on the Land Use Development Code as its submitted today.
So in effect, it's number two and a number three. It's a rejection of what's out before us now, then the next follow-up would be a resubmittal with changes. In effect, yes. Okay, thank you.
Other questions? Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you. A resubmittal is a resubmittal is a resummittal correct?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Carbajal, I think the
difference is that the Coastal Commission's Executive Director said that if we choose to
address their suggested modifications through a resubmittal of an amendment, that they would treat that in an expedited fashion. So I would say that's the difference between a new amendment and a resubmittal in this context.
But
it is a new
amendment. The issue here is that the only difference that I see is that they have said you could proceed with the resubmittal simultaneously as this statutory process proceeds simultaneously, and to the extent that they're tied together is because of the substance involved. The other way is to just approve or reject and work on our terms on a resubmittal after maybe we've had some more community dialogue on what we are submitting and working out some some of the nuances, some of the compromises that we've reached. We could do that no matter what whether we do it as a new submittal now triggered now or we do a resubmittal slightly later there's still the same one just ties it through this statutory process that's in play that has six months for us to make a decision of up or down correct?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Carball, I think your characterization is correct. The county can choose to submit a new amendment essentially any time it would like. We can do it in the context of addressing these suggested modifications or we can do it outside of that.
And the only reason I say that Ms. Black is that we are told procedurally by the California Coastal Commission you really have two options up or down But staff has given us sort of a new opportunity by saying resubmit and we will try to process that, expedite it and try to process that to continue working out these issues. But it's really not tied to the existing process. It's just a resubmittal.
Madam Chair and Supervisor Carbajal, just to clarify, the options are in the code to accept, reject Or to resubmit a new amendment to address the suggested modifications in a different way. So that is in the Coastal Commission statute, but it can be done tied to this suggested modification process we're in right now or it can be done separately.
Okay and that's what I was getting at. That on some extent Madam Chair I see the momentum of people wanting us to seize this latest dialogue of opportunity, of compromise and us wanting to kind of tie it together in some indirect way but yet it's a noob. And then I guess the reason I'm focusing on this is that it seems that if we're going And we were to weigh this resubmittal with another resubmittal, what are the advantages of maybe waiting versus trying to go now?
Would the Coastal Commission not then want to work with us to expedite things? I mean if there's still this good faith in the air and Decided to resubmit in the future wouldn't we still ask and encourage that? We continue to work under that good faith construct that we continue to get it expedited, but we do it on our terms Anyway maybe it's a
rhetorical Thank You
madam chair I guess my question is what happens if We get to the point because I see it looks to me like Coastal Commission is on this dividing conquer type plan, I can see us moving down the road where they're going to make concessions on stairway issues. And I just get the feeling that ag is going to get kind of stuck over on the side and eventually they're going to be lonesome over there and it looks like our groups are getting split up.
My question is what happens if we get to the point where we finally agree with everything except one item or two items?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Lavinino, your board would have to vote to resubmit.
So it's either all or nothing basically? So the way I look at it, my inclination obviously is to reject. I don't think, it didn't look like there's zero movement as far as stairway issues. As far as any new stairways would always be prohibited although that's not anywhere prohibited in the Coastal Act. Animal keeping, you're still going to require a CDP for someone to buy a horse that the CDPs probably kind of cost more than the horse does.
I think these are the problems we get when we let somebody else make the decisions. I would rather see us reject it. I like the idea of Mr. Merrick Connors' position on a coastal zone planning committee where we start working this from the ground up because, I think if we move forward with this, we might as well at the same track go ahead and put the Gaviota plan on hold, dismember the AGPAC, dismember the GAVPAC because we're not going to have any local control anymore.
You know, I think this thing seems like it's an all or nothing. And for me it would be nothing.
Supervisor Farr?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think to kind of piggyback on what Supervisor Carbajal was saying that a resubmittal is just a matter of scope and so we could tie a resubmittal to just these issues that we've been talking about or we could if we're going to go through that process resubmit and deal with a whole bunch of different kinds of issues besides these actually all the other modifications that are part of this packet that we haven't really discussed in the depth that we have these Is that correct?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Farr, if we followed option three I think what staff had envisioned is that we would essentially incorporate all the other suggested modification language into the LUDC. arrive at a solution to these remaining suggested modifications we've been discussing over the last few hearings and bring that to the Board of Supervisors for consideration of resubmittal to the Coastal Commission.
Okay, thank you. Well Madam Chair let me just make some comments then. First of all I would like to thank everybody who's worked so hard to kind of bridge this gap and the impasse. Certainly our staff have been stellar, appreciated the time with the Coastal Commission staff, Mr. Douglas' personal attention to it, members of the Farm Bureau, Environmental Defense Center, the PACS community members that have worked really intensively I think over the last couple weeks to see whether this could be saved in effect.
I thought it was interesting in all these discussions that, and I think it was Ms. Turnshalk that mentioned it's interesting If this was set in the Coastal Act, you wouldn't be able to have this kind of movement on some of these issues. And I know that I was looking for other references from coastal commission staff on examples from other counties particularly like we're talking about grading amounts.
You know, I never heard anything that said well Monterey County does this or Sonoma County does that and so actually the last couple nights I went online and I looked at three counties LCP's particularly with agriculture That I thought were more analogous to Santa Barbara County than the city of Malibu, which is the only reference that I've heard. And those were Sonoma, Marin and Monterey.
And particularly to do with agricultural policies. And I saw nothing there that approached the level of specificity detail of regulation that is before us today in any of these Coastal Commission modifications. Nothing about grading amounts, tree removal, historic use. In fact just the opposite. In all those cases that I checked all kinds of animal keeping exempt.
All kinds of cultivation tillage exempt. Fencing corrals pens exempt and so on. They even incorporate the right to farm ordinance into the LCP. So I don't know what all else is out there, but I have to say that if it is there, I think we might have heard about it as an example. So I'm left to conclude that you know if we adopted any of this that Santa Barbara County would be the leading edge on this.
And while I really like Santa Barbara County to be out in the forefront on issues, but only when the people in our county want it. When it originates from our residents through our community planning process which truly is a bottom up as many people have said. And that we're not going to put Ag in the position of having to try to get an exemption, which in effect is really a permit for practices that they have done for decades through many generations and that they have done in this county without any serious incident as far as I can tell.
So, you know I don't want to say no. I'm not saying no to the Coastal Commission and to their staff but I am saying yes to our people in our process so with that I would make a motion that we do reject the Coastal Commission's certification and that we direct staff to start a public process that looks at all of this and incorporates the work of the PACS that we're doing
I'll second
that. Can I have
a chance to
speak? Sure, of course. Supervisor Wolf.
Well, I think I'm in relative shock. First of all, I too went and looked in different counties to see what they have. And I'm going to just talk about exemptions right now San Luis Obispo County, Marin County, Sonoma County, Eldorado County all request exemptions. It is not unusual for us in Santa Barbara County to request an exemption. If you look at San Luis Obispo County the reason that they have exemptions is because there are quite stringent rules about agricultural development So we're not necessarily the trailblazers.
You know, I've said this before and I'll say it again that many of my, I have a group of constituents that live in coastal areas. And the issues that have been of concern have been the staircases and the animal keeping. I had a correspondence with the Coastal Commission staff, which I talked about last time. And the Coastal Commission staff and that was Steve Hudson had said that the new restrictions or the new amendments or the new language is no different. The number of animal keeping, the number of horses is no different than what the county currently requires.
The big issue has to do with facilities. Now if someone does get a new horse, You know, if you get a new horse then you have to go through the permitting process. If you don't live in the coastal zone, for those of you who may not live in the coastal zone we do also have requirements that we can only have three dogs. I mean there are requirements wherever you live in this county. The coastal zone happens to be Pretty precious. That's why we have the Coastal Act. As much as, you know, people may say well we don't like the Coastal Commission I can ask County Council right here because he has given us numerous legal opinions about the authority of the Coastal Commission and if we want to fight that, that is fine. We can take that up. We can fight the Coastal Commission but it will be a losing battle All of our local plans go through the Coastal Commission.
What I was going to say is that my constituents have talked to me about the issue of horses and the staircases. I think staff has worked with Coastal Commission staff to get to that 100% place where I always thought we should be, because I never thought the 50% rule made any sense. So you've done that. The fact that we can't have any more private staircases, my God, should not come as a surprise to anybody. And if people ask what's the problem?
All I would say is take a walk down the beach Talk to our planning department and find out how many coastal access stairways are not permitted, are not legal. That's the problem. That's one of the problems. But we don't necessarily make rules and laws to address problems. We address them to prevent problems. My constituents, the vast majority of my constituents do not live on the coast. They go to the beach because they want to have an enjoyable experience at the beach. They want to have a beautiful experience at the beach. They want to have a clean experience at the beach. How many times do we talk about Issues in our community dealing with pollution in our ocean waters. Now I'm not going to make a cause effect statement about that, but the Coastal Commission does look at that issue as part of their charge and that is an issue that is very important to me.
And honestly it is shocking to me that this board would come out and say that we are going to reject the Coastal Commission amendments after all of this time, after all of this work to getting us to this place. You know I've asked staff about doing other ordinances. I'll pull up one about looking at mobile home ordinances. No you know what? They can't do it because they're too busy doing this.
The fact that, I think it was Mr. Chamberlain had said if he had any idea that this is where we would be right now maybe you wouldn't have even started this process. Well folks we are here. This is the reality so I think we have to act in a responsible manner. I also want to address the person who talked about realist...who was a realtor and talked about disclosure. I would suggest that if we reject these amendments That the big disclosure to your clients will be that almost all. Almost all.
Activity in the coastal area will now be appealable. Now again, we have dueling attorneys that have given us their legal opinion. We have Coastal Commission staff that has given us their opinion and our own fine staff, legal staff has given us their opinion. They did it last time They did it again back, I think it was in January. When did we adopt that ordinance about the Mr. Gazzone if you could help me? In 2008 about the principal permitted uses
3:30 – 3:398 turns
Are you referring, Chair and Supervisor Wolf, are you referring to the amendment of the Coastal Zoning Code recommended changes by the Coastal Commission that was done in 2008? Yes.
So we did that in 2008 where we acknowledged the need for principal permitted uses so anyone who's going to go ahead and sell your property right now Make sure that you advise your clients that anything that they do in the coastal zone could be or likely be appealable. This is an outrage, I think it's an insult to our staff, it's an insult to our Coastal Commission staff and before I would like to just ask our CEO if you could give us your recommendation as to one two or three my sense is that we go with three after We asked them to get us to this point and now we're going to say no, we're going to reject. So I'd like Ms. Waller to give us her opinion on what is in the best interest of the county?
You know isn't this a policy decision?
Certainly this is a policy decision for the board. If you were to request a particular recommendation, I really would like an opportunity to talk a little bit more with staff before we bring something as form of a recommendation
It seems like no one wants to give us a recommendation, but back in 2008 when we had this item before our board about deciding if we wanted to do principal permitted uses. We had an affirmative recommendation from our staff to move forward with it. So it's interesting now because there is so much political pressure and heat to not accept this that now all of the sudden no one wants to make a recommendation and I think It's really too bad. I feel for the citizens of this community that we cannot stand up for what we know is the right thing to do and after so much time and money has been spent in this process.
Madam
Chair? Supervisor Carbajal?
You know, I was a staff person when Supervisor Schwartz kicked off The reformatting process. I encourage anybody who wasn't on this board at that time to go back and revisit those hearings. It was supposed to be a ministerial process, and it wasn't...I don't want to get into the hashing out of the Coastal Commission did or did not do. I am aware of 30 memos correspondence that went from our county staff The Coastal Commission staff up until 2008, until they started engaging us. But before that we were not engaged but yet there's previous correspondence from coastal staff in other instances.
I think it's neither here nor there for anyone to suggest that to vote otherwise other than to accept the suggested modifications for not caring for the coast, for not being good stewards of this or good stewards of that is preposterous. And I take issue with that. I think that we have all learned, Coastal Commission staff have learned and that's why they stepped up to the plate after many years deficient communication on maybe perhaps both of our ends.
Our staff have definitely learned the fact that they stepped up to the plate and have offered a lot of concessions that weren't even on the plate before shows that we can work better together, and so I am encouraged by the good faith effort that was recently displayed It's certainly a change from before, as Ms. Weinheimer and Ms. Kropp said. It's a significant sea change.
But I think that the issue before us is we have a process that no matter who you talk to some folks feel that it's been a great process all the way till now and a lot of people also feel that it's been a faulty process So if perception is reality, it's been a faulty process by the account of emails and constituents that have contacted my office. And while there is a lot to learn here and a lot of learned lessons I think we really need to focus, and that's why I seconded Supervisor Farr's motion on really just starting a process that makes us all proud no matter what our perspective is on this that is a transparent process.
You know, some days we talk about transparency and the other days when it's not conducive to our interests. That's not an issue! A memo overnight this morning being filed is not an issue. But yet in many other hearings that's the number one issue. I like to be consistent. I like to be principled in my decision making. And if you don't have that, you have nothing.
So I strongly agree that the best interest of our constituents at this point in time is to move forward with the motion on the floor and to find a better way to balance our constituents' needs in a way that protects our coast for all citizens, those that live there and the rest of the public. I venture to think that when we don't get it together both the State of California, the Coastal Commission and us locally Boy, there's enough hall to go around.
Our staff, their staff, everybody's staff. The public loses at the end because then you get these little silly initiatives that go before the state of California with very little fine print and nobody even understands and people either vote up or down either to strengthen the Coastal Commission or just to get rid of it all at once. I don't want to go there.
I want to create integrity in a process that makes all our constituents proud, where everybody feels that they've gotten a clear shake. And at the end we will have those policy decisions. We will have those policy discussions and differences and then I will feel good at night when I sleep that I made good decisions on behalf of my citizens and the constituents that I represent.
But to suggest that some of us may not care about protecting the beach, let me tell you I worked for somebody by the name of Naomi Schwartz. The first woman coastal commissioner and when we completed the Toro Canyon plan we had a similar dance You know, we really appreciate the Coastal Commission's advocacy and efficacy. But we were trying to find that balance and we went back and forth, back and forth.
In that case, we found a balance. And I was hopeful that we could do that here too. But the process both good or bad did not lend itself to that. So now we're in a position where we just have to start over. Let's take up the Coastal Commission on this good faith expediting things for us, creating a process that makes us all proud. So I've seconded the motion and you know I thank everybody with all perspectives.
The EDC we just need to find a better way of addressing this and a resubmittal under our terms might be the best way
3:39 – 4:5210 turns
Can I just respond please? Supervisor
Wolf, would you mind making it real
quick. I will. You know, I feel like I'm sometimes talking to and I'm sure there's going to be some offense taken but maybe I mean it because I feel like I'm talking to or that this whole process has been dealing with juveniles that we aren't getting exactly what we want And so we're not going to take anything. And you know, that's not what I believe we teach our children. If we want to teach our children to try and work things out come to a compromise. Supervisor Lavanino.
Madam Chair, can we just mark down that it was February 1st of my term that we finally lost the collegial atmosphere. I didn't appreciate any of those comments telling us that we didn't stand up or not standing up to do the right thing and what we believe in. I believe strongly in not taking away people's personal property rights and not telling them they can't build a stairway on their own property.
There's a lot of things in here. We didn't even get to sea level rise, because I think it was so far out there that nobody even wanted to talk about it yet. So I think let's just all vote our conscience and believe me, I'm going to be on the wrong end of things for a lot of times but I think once when it's going the other way, I don't think is the time to question other people's
motives.
Thank
you Supervisor and I'm gonna support the motion. I'm going to support the motion. Let's vote. Mr. Allen, roll call.
Mr. Lavallino? Aye. Mr Carbajal? Aye Ms. Wolff? No Ms. Barr? Aye Ms. Gray?
Aye The Board of Supervisors will now take a break. What we're going to do is, we're gonna take at least 10 minutes before we come to closed session because I think we need a chance to at least chew our food a little bit before we have to swallow. So we will go into closed session at 1 o'clock and I'm going to assume we'll finish closed session by 145 council or could we do it at 130?
145, I think that makes it easier for the folks in the audience. Again thank you all. You are the best group to work with. You guys are good at this. Thank you very much. Pardon me? 145. ¶. ¶. ¶. ♪
Hello. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Thank you. Hi. Music playing StSq3 3.30 (-0.70)" ¶. StSq3 3.30 (-0.99)" StSq3 3.30 (-0.99)" ¶. StSq4 3.90 ¶. Yeah. ¶. Yeah. Hello. . . Hi, everyone. Yeah. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶¶ StSq3 3.30 (-0.99)" ¶. StSq2 2.60 ¶. ¶¶ Yeah. ¶. ¶. Yeah. ¶¶ ¶. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶. ¶¶ . . Hello. ♪♪ Hi. Hello. Hi. StSq2 2.60 ¶. Yeah. Yeah. ¶. 3F 5.30 x (-1.00)(2A 3.30x )(0.00?)
Yeah. ¶. ¶. Hi. StSq2 2.60 (-0.00), Thank you. ¶. 3F 5.30 x (-0.50), Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Welcome. Music StSq3 3.30 (-0.70)" ¶ ¶ Hi. ¶¶ StSq3 3.30 (-0.70)" StSq3 3.30 (-0.99") 2A 3.30 (-0.66') ¶. Hello. ¶¶ Hey. Ž Ž ¶. ¶¶ ♪ . . . ¶ Yeah. 2A 3.30 x (-0.00?) ¶. . . ♪ Hi. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶¶ ¶. ¶. ¶. Hi, everyone. ¶¶ ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. ♪ ¶. ¶. 2A 3.30 x (-0.40?) Yeah.
2A 3.30 x (-0.50), ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶¶ ¶. ♪♪ ¶ Yeah. ¶¶ ¶. ¶. ¶. Yeah. ¶. ¶. ¶. . . ♪
4:53 – 4:5912 turns
¶¶ Welcome back. February 1st, 2011 Board of Supervisors meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. And Mr. Allen we are now on moving right along. We're going to be on item two, right?
Madam Chair and members of the board, item 2 is from Planning and Development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 25 of the Petroleum Code of the Santa Barbara County Code to address regulation of high-risk petroleum operators and operations.
Ms. Black, you're going to do this one too? I won't even call on Mr. Russell. He must be bashful or something. He's always having you
talk. Madam Chair, members of the board, the purpose of today's hearing is to consider an introduction of a revised ordinance amending the high-risk provisions of the Petroleum Code. I'll summarize our recommendations from the last hearing on January 11th, 2011 and review the potential changes contained in the ordinance before you. At the February 11th hearing, staff recommended an ordinance that revised the definition and threshold for designating a high-risk operation to include a violation that existed for more than 30 days and resulted in issuance of an NOD. Excuse
me Madam Chair I'm sorry.
Yes sir.
Can we have that PowerPoint?
I'm sorry.
If somebody can make copies of that and bring it to us, that'd be great. It kind of helps us to simply look at what you're putting up there.
And just to assure you Ms. Black we won't be asking your questions in between your speech but something like that is okay.
Okay thanks Madam Chair. You bet. We'll get copies for you. Okay, so we proposed a threshold for designating a high-risk operation to include a violation that existed for more than 30 days and resulted in a notice of determination of fine or facility that had two unauthorized releases of more than 15 barrels of fluid outside of secondary containment. The number of spills was reduced from three to two from the existing ordinance, and the volume was reduced from 25 to 15 barrels but outside of secondary containment was added to the definition.
We also proposed changes to clarify responsibilities and expand remediation requirements. Three main issues were raised by the board at the January 11th hearing that your board directed staff to address. These include The fact that hazardous materials aren't, isn't defined in the ordinance. A concern that surface land owner and mineral rights owners are properly distinguished in the code and concerned that habitual violations might be resulting and spilling under the 15 barrel threshold but should be considered in the definition of high risk.
So I'll review proposed changes to the ordinance to address those three issues. We added a definition first of hazardous materials to the proposed ordinance and it's shown on the screen before you and included in the staff report. Secondly, we clarified the definition of owner and checked its usage in the ordinance. That's shown on the screen and in the staff report.
Finally, we developed a potential third threshold for high risk. While the concept was directed by the board, the specifics were not. This threshold if adopted calls for designation if an operation has five releases of at least a barrel outside of secondary containment. Now many of the comments that you've received on this hearing item today consider this threshold to be too low and not justified. Your board may wish to delete this third threshold Or to continue the hearing to allow staff to work with industry representatives on options to this third approach.
Your board also discussed the possibility of designating a certain number of notices of violation as a threshold for designating high-risk operations, but your board did not direct staff to amend the definition to include this. We'll certainly continue to monitor the effectiveness of our existing tools And request or propose an amendment in the future if we feel that's warranted.
Staff also made a few minor revisions to the ordinance which we discussed at the last hearing and those are shown on the screen. We struck the reference to Article 79 of the Fire Code, we made a clarification to the Petroleum Administrator under the Permit Procedures section, we referenced the Administrative Fine Ordinance in a specific area suggested by the Board, we added deleterious substances to the definition of high risk operator We made some clarifications on audit cost responsibilities.
In response to the comments received for this item, your board may want to consider eliminating the third trigger for high risk presented today and introduce the ordinance or continue introduction of the ordinance to a future date to provide staff with additional time to work with oil industry representatives and others. And that concludes my presentation.
Okay, thank you. Any questions from the board? Ms. Blake I have one quick question. I'm concerned about secondary containment and I want to be certain that that secondary containment truly is a secondary containment it just doesn't become an oh well you know we'll it's there so how have we addressed that
4:59 – 5:1413 turns
Madam Chair, secondary containment is defined in the ordinance language as we proposed it. And it's defined as containment which is external to and separate from the primary containment device like a vessel typically constructed of concrete brick or earth walls. If there was a containment device but it wasn't effective in containing a spill It wouldn't be considered a spill within containment.
And I'm not making myself clear what I read the definition, but it seems to me like secondary containment is only for emergencies only, like if you should have an oil spill. However, if you find yourself using it all the time then it is no longer a second. So some way should emergency be in there? I don't know. And maybe people will want to comment on that when they comment, because that was what I wanted it to be really clear that it was in fact something that if something did overflow that that secondary containment would catch it hold it and not be being used for an everyday event.
Okay? All right thanks any other comments okay we've got folks that would like to speak on this issue shall we go there now is that okay with everybody Andy Caldwell would like to go first. Mr. Caldwell, hop right up here. I
didn't know you'd be done this quick. I didn't need to go first. Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. I would strongly encourage you to do what you've done in past practices with AG and with a lot of other organizations and that's work with the regulated community to get their direct input on the evolution of this ordinance. There is a working group For onshore oil that they're some of them used to work for the county. They're good people. They're competent people We would ask you to run this by them so that you could kind of ground truth it I Still take a step back and say okay, we've got this high-risk Petroleum operation and I have asked myself Risk of what and risk to who?
If somebody's dumping oil or solvents into a running stream, we've got problems. Supervisor Gray you know the North County better than anybody I know. If somebody has a leak in an oil pipe out in the middle of absolutely nowhere Most federal and state agencies don't even consider it a hazardous substance. You just pick it up and dispose of it, but it's not considered a health hazard.
And of course what we're doing now is we're going to start mixing apples and oranges. Let's say somebody has a barrel of produced oil and water and there's a couple of drops of oil in it but the rest of it is just this Icky water, well that's now a deleterious substance even though it's primarily water. And I just feel like what's happening here is we supported originally the ordinance but somehow it didn't satisfy somebody so they ratcheted down. They're still not satisfied so they're ratcheting it down again and we keep asking where's the hazard?
A spill in and of itself isn't a hazard. I want to leave you this one thing, I used to be the industrial relations manager at Union Sugar. We had these things called material safety data sheets, MSDS sheets. You had to have a sheet on hand for every hazardous chemical we had. I had a seven page MSDS sheet for sand. Now if I put sand in for my kids to play with or sand at the beach or sand that I'm mixing into a batch of concrete it's not hazardous but if I put the sand in a sand blaster now it's hazardous The point here is anything in a wrong application or the wrong scenario or the wrong situation is hazardous, including table salt which is toxic to kids or toothpaste.
And so don't try to broad brush this without a scientific engineered backdrop to the figure that you're pulling out of the air. Talk to the industry.
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Caldwell. Joe Amadeiros followed by Dr. Johns. Good afternoon, Mr. Armendariz.
Supervisor Gray and Chairwoman Gray, members of the Board, I'm Joe Armendarz representing the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association and the Santa Barbara Technology and Industry Association. I just want to ditto what Andy said as typically the case. Andy and I agree on this issue. I think that what you need to do is establish the climate for the regulators and the producers and the operators to work together to come up with a product that makes sense. I would urge you to also step back for a moment along the lines of what Andy's talking about and take a close look at these federal regulations. It's been something that I've dealt with on the council down in Carpinteria, and I'm sure you've dealt with it at the county where oftentimes the federal government comes in with these federal regulations that then have to be implemented at the local level after they go through the filter of the state.
A good example of that would be the Clean Water Act One of the issues that we're dealing with now at Carpinteria is this issue of having to clean up water to the point where it's drinkable, even in a commercial and construction zone. And it's going to cost city taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to do this not because the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act as defined by the federal government forces us to but the state government is imposing additional regulations on top of federal regulations That is going to make it more difficult. It sounds like that's kind of what the county is doing with respect to the federal government regulations as you're taking what seems reasonable and you're making it more tedious and more difficult to deal with as an industry.
And I think that that is problematic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that you are in a fiscal crisis in terms of your revenues. And as you know typically I get up and talk about the need to form strategic partnerships with the industry in order to maximize the value of the product that they have in the ground. As we go forward, as we try to figure out ways of raising revenue to deliver the programs and the services that local taxpayers are entitled to, I think you need to start looking at your revenue sources. You guys are on the eve of a budget hearing where you need to close what is it? A $45 million general fund budget? How are you going to do that without revenue?
And this industry is a cash cow potentially, not suggesting in any way shape or form that it shouldn't be regulated. Of course it should be. We should be concerned about making sure the environment is protected. But it seems to me and it seems to I think a lot of reasonable people that the regulatory climate, the infrastructure you have in place is sufficient. Tweak it where it might need to be but don't go too far to the point where you end up killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Almaduras. Supervisor Farr?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask the public speakers if they could when they come forward if they could be as specific as possible in what is it in the ordinance language that they are concerned about because apparently it was okay at one point of time and now it's not okay for some individuals so as clear as they can be on what that is I think it would be helpful.
That's very very helpful we were trying to get there last time also Dr. Johns you're up All that want to hear Mr. Caldwell for three more minutes, Dr. Johns?
Well we have some very inherent evils in this high risk. It's just too high and there are specific groups all with the same agenda and at Carver Hall you You're in conflict of interest because you support these groups wholeheartedly and you give money to those groups. These environmentalists are the ones that's calling the problem on a coastal issue, they call it problems on this oil. And until we get rid of this monkey on our backs, we've got to get rid of these groups because as we come down now, we need more jobs, People employed, and that's all they want to do as environmentalists.
They're stopping this county from its growth, from its natural growth. And it's these regulations, these restrictions, the policing, and all of this is based upon your need, Carvel Hall, to tap into the environmentalist, and that's what you're doing. You're in conflict of interest here. Conflict of interest. Thank you, Board members. I'm through.
Thank you Dr. Johns. David Smyser and Mr. Smyser is followed by Nathan Alley. Good afternoon, Mr. Smyser.
Thank you Madam Chair, Members of the Board. David Smyser with Western States Petroleum. I want to talk for just a second about how we got here. Originally, there was some spills that we had unauthorized releases that we recognized that needed to be dealt with and so staff, your staff met with the industry and we came up with a petroleum ordinance that had a high-risk operator section in it The ordinance was approved, it was implemented and your staff returned to you and said this ordinance was a success.
We identified high-risk operators we corrected the problems along with the operators and the number of unauthorized releases was dramatically reduced for that The board said, go back. Rewrite this ordinance. And so that was when we had initially we had the three spills at 25 barrels each then staff said okay we'll go back based upon what the board said met with industry again and we went through workshop after workshop and you know the interest of the industry is we don't want any spills We want the best applicable practices exercised in every field. We want safety first as the industry standard, and 99.9% of our members and operators do just that. And that's what that survey that staff took in recognizing there is just a very small number of people, very small, that have this problem.
Staff came back, we set a new benchmark Two spills at 15. That was a 30% reduction, greater than 30% reduction. At your last meeting two weeks ago you didn't have any industry members that got up to oppose you but now what we have is and you want specifics let me give you some specifics first we haven't had an opportunity to talk with staff about this new provision in C So there's been no workshops. There's been no interaction, meaningful interaction. I don't fault staff that.
Staff was told to come back quickly with an ordinance change. But the ordinance revision is flawed and let me tell you why it's flawed. Section 7 of the ordinance says high-risk operations five separate occasions The spill, unauthorized releases and spills have gone from three to two, three authorized, unauthorized releases of 25 barrels each down now to five of one barrel each. So in essence what's happened is the total volume of unauthorized release has been reduced 90 percent from where you started.
And it isn't just petroleum that's an unauthorized release. According to the trigger now, you can have a barrel of dirt that spills. That's under dilatorious substances basic sediment. Drilling mud used to seal the wellbore, that can constitute an unauthorized release. So a barrel of drilling mud. You can have produced water as Mr. Caldwell said could be as little A gallon of petroleum in the water, and now that's considered an unauthorized release fully of petroleum.
Five barrels of this now over the course of a year, and you've got a high risk operation. The ordinance has no supportable scientific relation to damage to the environment or health and safety of our community. And please, I'm giving you some specifics now. So if you'll pay attention to what I'm...
Mr. Schmeiser we're going to have to ask you to call it a day. You've had your three minutes. Any questions for Mr. Schmeiser? I'm going to give him that opportunity. Mr. Carbajal.
Yes, Mr. Schmeiser. You know, I am not sure that I understand... Mr Schmeisser up here. I'm not sure that I understand where C came from with the one barrel, 42-gallon issue. I'm not sure that was part of our discussion last time. I am trying to understand it and I think staff needs to explain that a little better as to how they came up with that but my understanding last time is we were working on the 15-barrel issue and trying to come out with a little bit more stringent of a threshold Because quite frankly, I think you hit the nail on the head.
The industry for the most part is doing pretty well. There are a few bad apples and we were starting to see those bad apples continue to have spills and that's what prompted lowering the threshold. C, I'm still trying to understand because I'm not sure that was part of our discussion last time. And again, I am looking at our CEO and staff to identify how they perhaps reached that conclusion but I just wanted you to know why we ratcheted it down to 15 barrels.
It seems like you don't have a concern with that.
5:14 – 5:2317 turns
The problem, the reason as you recall last time this was brought to you an opportunity was given for industry to come forward. There were there was not one industry person that came.
I understand and I'm trying to understand it so that I can see what is the problem. Okay thank
you. Thanks Mr. Smyser. And who would I say was after? Mr. Allen Nathan Alley
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Happy 2011. I haven't seen you guys in a while for those of you who don't know me. My name is Nathan Alley. I'm an attorney with the Environmental Defense Center. Thank you all for addressing this item today. In fact, I think that's my primary message is that I really do appreciate and we as an organization Appreciate the continued attention that the county, both on a staff level and at the board is paying to these issues.
Certainly several years ago when we had the endemic problems up north, the county's response was effective and relatively swift. And it's good to know that you've stuck with it and continue to track the operations that could potentially be deemed high risk. It's interesting because I'm probably going to end up agreeing with a lot of what's already been said today.
And that is, we all were happy with the ordinance that was passed several years ago. It was a combined effort from county staff, industry, environmental groups, etc., and so far in the last three years or so, the High Risk Operations Ordinance has never been implemented. Now, I think that does impart I hope that they're not. But that kind of speaks to a question, and that is why are we amending any of these provisions today?
And I understand that there are some housecleaning items, defining deleterious substances, et cetera, that are useful. But some of the more substantive changes such as altering thresholds, I'm not sure where the proposed amendments really get us. I for instance love subsection C that was proposed after the last board meeting which speaks to a five-spill threshold. However, I don't like the deletion of the 45 consecutive day trigger that we had on the books for the last three years. Similarly, I sent you guys a letter last week and you'll note that I have a continued objection to changes that were proposed for subsection 2543F.
It's going to be H if amendments go through but basically the bottom line is that some of these changes don't seem I'm not aware of any case law that has interpreted the ordinance to be either valid or invalid other than the small ruling in the Greca lawsuit. On the ground challenges or implementation hurdles that we've had to this ordinance and so basically I think we might want to just go back to the status quo. What is on the books in terms of thresholds, triggers for canceling shutdown orders etc., and just stick to some of the more housecleaning items?
I think bottom line is this probably does deserve to be continued until another meeting so that we can all continue to engage in this productive discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Ali. Thank you. Mr. Chamberlain and then followed by Hillary Blackberry. Black or B? Sorry.
Thank you Madam Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors. But
I can say Chamberlaine.
Huh?
Go on Willie just get your two cents out.
And I am Willie Chamberlain from Las Levas. I submitted a letter which you probably have And I am here today as one of those individuals that is blessed by having oil under our land. And I will tell you that, yes, the oil industry does need oversight. But I ask that that oversight be done in such a way that it's easy to understand and follows upon that setup in federal law.
And where you come down to high risk and you're defining environmental problems, please keep in mind that crude oil is not hazardous. Virgin crude is not hazardous. It's the refined products that are. So when you start talking about you or members of staff one barrel, five barrels, 15 barrels whatever it is, the federal government as I understand it takes a look at not the quantity of what it But what it is that is spilling and where it is that is spilling. And I would like to see our regulations follow that outline a lot easier so that when you're out in the oil patch, you're not having to look at 100 different ways to interpret the same problem. I've seen large spills and they're not at all environmentally hazardous. I have seen some small spills that are.
We had a truck crash on the property one time Probably about a barrel of diesel fuel, and that goes down in the ground 15, 20, 30 feet. We had a truck full of crude oil spill, and it was the easiest thing to clean up. They're not related. So what I'm saying is it's not a matter of five barrels or fifteen barrels. It's what is the product? Where is their product located? And I understand that's the kind of approach that the federal government is taking.
I really urge you to go back and work again with the petroleum industry so that we have a set of standards that are easier to understand. And I will tell you, we are a lessor to one of the companies that is considered a bad boy company. We work with them to make sure that things are done As environmentally sensitive as we can with the way that is structured, we're pretty proud of the progress that we've made. And I invite any of you to come out and look at the oil patch.
Where there used to be spills occasionally they would clean them up with a tractor put them in a pile mix more oil and sand with them and that was our asphalt. And they have asphalted roads. I mean, the asphalt that we have that we drive today, that's processed oil. It's not all hazardous. So I think that we're going down a track that doesn't make sense and I ask you to back up and work with the oil industry. Thank you.
Thanks Mr. Chamberlain. Hillary Blackerby. And I apologize Hillary, I did not mean to mispronounce that name.
It wouldn't be the first time my name has been butchered in a public meeting, so I wouldn't worry about it. And
Mr. Allen even straightened it out for me.
Thank you. Chair and Board, my name is Hillary Blackerby. I'm here on behalf of Assemblymember Doss Williams who wanted to pass along that he really appreciates your continued attention onto this issue We know we've had a lot of issues under this for the past few years, and when the ordinance was adopted a few years ago I think it was a great step. And it seems that it has acted as a bit of a deterrent even though it hasn't been put into use necessarily.
One thing that the Assemblymember is concerned about, kind of echoing what Mr. Alley said, that it's possible we may end up weakening some of these staff recommendations and deleting the 45-day consecutive window is a little confusing so Assemblymember Williams just wanted to pass on that we make sure that we take a really careful look at exactly what we're doing and how the, how he might end up weakening the ordinance and want We're very lucky to have something in our county like that, that can keep the operators on their toes. So thank you.
Thank you very much. That concludes the public comment. Mr. Carbajal?
Thank you Madam Chair.
Dr. Heller did put in a slip but she left.
5:23 – 5:296 turns
Again, I'm going to rattle off a few questions if staff can maybe write them down and then address them. Again, I do want to understand the C recommendation which sort of is surprising being that I don't think we had much discussion on that. I do like the thresholds that we've developed in terms of 15 barrel threshold And the two times that would trigger that. I think for the most part it's a reasonably enhancement, good enhancement except for the two items that I think Mr. Alley raised on section 25-43 previously it was F now its subsection H.
The concern with this The new language that replaces the old language is that, the new language is, the last sentence in that category says any shutdown order issued under this section shall be cancelled when the cause of shutdown order has been remediated. And as I understand from Mr. Alley, I think his concern is the same concern I share and that is before you cancel and allow for Let me get my bearings here. In other words, before you cancel the shutdown the entire remediation needs to be put in place not just okay you've dealt with here's a remediation plan that we found When we came out here, but just address this one thing then you could get back online. I think the goal was to try to have all items remediated and that's the old language before we got into modifying it so I'm in favor of doing that and I'm also in favor of the 45 day language in section 25-4 I believe it's that section that basically dealt with the 45 day consecutive day trigger.
It was deleted for the purposes of this new ordinance. With the reduction in thresholds, I would be very comfortable with that. C again it's one barrel certainly I don't want to have any barrels but is it being realistic or not and again staff needs to explain that so we understand that. You know, I do appreciate when it's rare that we can find common ground as well with folks in the industry. And I think that we have continued to make this strong and make it so that it's relevant for those that continue to be high-risk offenders.
And I think we almost had consensus notwithstanding these two issues that Mr. Alley raised that I would like to see restored. And with that, I'm pretty comfortable
with it. Mr. Lavinino? Do you want to wait for the answer?
Let's get the answer.
Madam Chair and Supervisors, first I'll address where C came from. And perhaps we just misinterpreted the intention of the board but what we heard at your hearing on January 11th is that you wanted to have a standard that would designate an operator as high risk if they had a number of spills that were under the 15 barrel threshold. And so if we misinterpreted it we're fine not having C But that's where it came from.
Madam Chair, I was the advocate for that specific issue if I recall. I think Ms. Wolf raised the issue of volume and we got to the 15 barrels. I was an advocate of adding a number of spills but didn't get into triggering a further reduction in volume. The propensity of spills would get us a second trigger in addition to the volume that supervisor will put forth. So as the advocate of that, I want you know that's why I was surprised when I saw one barrel because I wasn't getting into the volume but rather the propensity and rate of spills.
And so I appreciate you clarifying that because it's something that goes above and beyond what I had suggested.
Sure. Then the second issue you addressed is the change Section 25-43 with respect to shutdown orders being canceled. And the reason we propose the language as it's included in the ordinance today is because we've raised the bar on what needs to be done if somebody's designated a high risk offender and have a high risk operator, they have to go through an audit process which can be very time consuming and extensive and we didn't think that it was appropriate And then with respect to the 45-day trigger and the reason that we recommended deleting that is the way that first high risk trigger or definition was written before, it does not work well with our current notice of violation and notice of determination fine process. We could have a situation where somebody's received a notice of violation they're in the process of correcting that violation they request additional time to do so and they're granted additional time to do so by the Petroleum Administrator after considering You know, various factors on the importance of remediating that quickly.
And yet if they've had that violation for 45 days even though it hasn't gone to the next step in that process to notice of determination of fine, they could be I'm just not understanding that well. So if maybe I'm
5:29 – 5:4016 turns
Just not getting it, but I will go with the rest of the questions and maybe we come back to that. To understand that because I think the 45 days is good, but maybe maybe we're all saying the same thing. We just need better language. You're basically saying if I understand this that you would like the ability to provide more time flexibility. The administrator so I think he still have the 45 days an allow you The discretion, you would have to justify the discretion or the rationale for doing that. But we still need to have the 45 days in my opinion unless I'm not understanding it.
Supervisor Lavinino and then Supervisor Wolf.
I want to go back to the, and I can understand that it was a mistake on going to C. But I guess the problem I have is that, you know, and I'm sure Supervisor Gray has had to deal with this for a number of years and I'm just starting to deal with it. Is that there is a perception in North County that, and it's hard to dispel now for me, is that sometimes staff and especially, and we've got a new director but The P and D in the past has sometimes tried to throw a fastball by some of us.
And it's interesting to me that, you know, I got an email on Friday and we were talking about 15 barrels and all of a sudden we're talking about one barrel. I went back and read your motion, and we were talking about what the direction was. What happens if we spill 14 barrels every day? So we were talking about accumulative. I've never seen us take when you're talking about accumulative, you're talking more than the total amount.
The perception is out there at least in the North County that You know, we've got to keep our eyes open at all times. This didn't help me dispel that notion up there. We look at it from a totally different perspective maybe than I look at it as in the 4th and 5th districts are 675 jobs related to onshore oil alone. The salary We're talking about the average salary for an onshore oil producer right now is just under $70,000 a year. It's the highest average salary of any industry in North County. Our number one taxpayer in Santa Barbara County is an oil company. They're paying our bills so I want to make sure that we keep them clued-in and at the table.
When we talk about one barrel, and even if we go to 15 barrels, we've got to take into something in perspective. No one's talked about how many barrels are we pumping? Santa Barbara County according to Dogger 3.1 million barrels of oil were pumped out of northern Santa Barbara County in 2010 so I think it's important that we keep That in perspective, as well as if we look at it through our budget eyes, we've got to look at revenue. We need to protect revenue in order to keep all of these services and programs that we would love to keep and all of our employees.
So I understand the need for regulation. I think we're doing a good job. Obviously, we had some problems in the past but going from 25 to 15, I didn't see industry creating any heartburn. Obviously this is something that We've got to go back, sit down with industry and come back with something different. What I'd like to see is I see that the next meeting of the Coastal Oil and Gas Operators Group is going to be on February 15th.
I'd like to see us have our staff sit down with them then come back maybe at the Santa Maria meeting on March 1st and talk about this in the future.
Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you Chair. When I saw item C, I was wondering where the one gallon came from and I happened upon it because I was actually going into the fire code to see what the definition was for hazardous material. And then I happened upon this OES notification guidance and then I look again at your PowerPoint that you were looking at the state health and safety code requirements reporting of spills over one barrel.
And so I think this is the same thing, and it's pretty onerous actually when you read it, that if folks don't comply there's a $25,000 fee Or fine, I should say. And they have to notify the Governor's Office of Emergency Services when there is a discharge or threatened discharge of oil in the marine waters, any spill or other release of one barrel or more of petroleum products at a tank facility and then it goes on about sewage and other things.
In my mind when I saw that, I thought well there was some rationale in your recommendation of putting that in here. And I'm assuming that's the case because there was the question of you know the cumulative piece so this is where you got it I'm assuming.
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf we were relying on the reportable requirements for this standard yes.
Supervisor Farr?
Well, thank you Madam Chair. I guess I'll just comment and say that I think as I recall the discussion we were trying to get at the issue of somebody who's not keeping their operation up in many ways that they're not keeping their equipment up which may be reflected in spills that are not that great but happen frequently and that is kind of an indicator of an overall problem with the operation that they're just not investing in the rehabilitation of it in the way that they should. So I don't know that was maybe, when all is said and done, the best way at getting at it but I think that that was kind of the thinking is how do we look at this more comprehensively where somebody is having little spills that don't trip this threshold and yet it seems to be happening so often that it's an indicator of a bigger problem?
So maybe there's some other way to kind of get at that issue, other than this Section C. And I certainly appreciate those from the industry that are here because they have been very supportive up to this point. But again and maybe they can help us because you can see now what we're trying to get at is that we want to make sure that we don't want any spills, you don't want any spills We want all operators to invest the time and money that's needed to keep their whole operation at a level that it just isn't going to
happen.
Ms. Waller?
Yes, I think the conversation that I've heard personally today has been a very productive one meaning that I think on all sides folks are saying we want to address the bad actors both the oil industry, your board and the environmental community I heard also the suggestion that we come back after a meeting that's February 14th and my request to your board would be let's give this just a little bit more time. I don't want to ping pong your board back and forth with going from one extreme to the other. I think it is very important that all stakeholders have an opportunity to craft this language so My suggestion would be, let's hear the meeting on February 14th with the oil industry. Let's also then bring all the stakeholders back together with our planning and development department and come back to you in April with what I believe can be a consensus document.
What you know and I think that's very helpful because it is mysteriously what went, what passed for a very good ordinance that was working. That needed a few little changes that everybody agreed on all of a sudden we've got industry in it basically industry wrote the ordinance because they were concerned about the bad apple. They write the ordinance to get a good ordinance and then We're starting to kind of, it's feeling squishy where we're walking. So Supervisor Carbajal?
Well the industry might have tried to write the ordinance and that's why we revisited it because we felt there was still bad actors spilling and us looking like silly fools because we were giving disclosures that we were having all these spills and after a while people were saying well wait a minute didn't you guys take action? Well, the high risk ordinance quite wasn't that good was it? And that's the reason we came back. But then again I'm very encouraged to hear that the industry was supportive of the even more stringent measures that we were embarking on the 15 barrel lower threshold, trying to find some kind of rate and cumulative threshold that might be more workable.
Again I like the two items that Mr. Alley put forth that I think we need to massage in there that weren't an issue in the past and somehow we ourselves county staff not the industry not the stakeholders had a problem with this subsection H which was previously F And the 45 day deal, they just massage it to everyone's interest and I think we can find common ground.
Wolf and then Lavadino?
Yeah my final comment is I don't think that there was any nefarious kind of thinking here. I do believe staff did their best to interpret what was said and like I pointed out there was some basis for it so You know, I think it's OK. But if we want to go back and revisit it with the stakeholder group and come back with something that's fine.
Supervisor Lovnino? All right so we'll have a motion to continue this. Thank you all very much and be sure that you get signed up here to help out if you please would. Let us know because everything was going along fairly smoothly. Oh well, do you folks need a break or do you want it just alright five minutes? Five minutes! Five minutes, so five till three we'll be back here.
5:41 – 5:492 turns
You. ¶. ¶ ♪ ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶.
¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. Yeah. ¶. Music Number three. Mr. Allen.
5:49 – 6:0032 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board, item three is from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara Ranch Inland Development Agreement.
Ms. Black, it is the Miss Black hour today and you're doing a fine job keeping it short just...
I think this is the shortest one.
Oh okay.
Madam Chair, members of the board, this is a hearing regarding the inland development agreement for the Santa Barbara Ranch project Staff is recommending that your board acknowledge that the developer's performance under the Inland Development Agreement is extended throughout the period of the Naples Coalition litigation, and that you receive this report on staff's annual review of the developer's compliance with the terms of the Inland Development Agreement.
Both Santa Barbara Ranch Holding Company and Vintage Ranch Communities through their attorneys Have submitted letters requesting that the county confirm that the time extension for the developers performance under the Inland Development Agreement for the Santa Barbara Ranch Project is automatically extended. Section 10.06 of the Inland Development Agreement states, litigation attacking the validity of the agreement or any of the inland project approvals shall be deemed to create an excusable delay.
Unexcusable or inexcusable?
An inexcusable delay. Thank
you.
Litigation on the project was initiated on November 20th, 2008 by the Naples Coalition Environmental Defense Center and Surfriders Foundation. That litigation has been in place since that time continuously. Given these facts staff recommends that the board find the developer's performance under the Inland Development Agreement is extended until the conclusion of the Naples coalition litigation.
With respect to the periodic review, staff intends to find the developer in compliance with the terms of the Inland Development Agreement if the board concurs with staff's recommendation regarding extension of the agreement. I did include in the board letter on this item some information about what the developer has and hasn't done in terms of section 2.02 of the development agreement The developer has made the payment of $100,000 for creek restoration work.
I have not seen evidence of it that has apparently provided assistance in completing the restoration plan. The payment of the $300,000 to implement the plan and actual implementation of the plan has not yet occurred. With that, my recommendation is as stated at the beginning of the presentation to acknowledge the extension and receive this report on the compliance.
Doreen or Supervisor Carr I'm sorry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have several questions that I'd like to ask the staff and I think it would be good to get them out there because if they can't answer perhaps some of the public speakers can speak to it. First of all is the extension on the development agreement from the date that the litigation started in 08? December of 08 or from October of 09 when the development agreement was actually I think effectuated the effective date?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Farr, County Council may want to address this question as well but I would imagine it would be from the date that the development agreement was effective.
Okay so that would be October of 2009 and this development agreement is for 20 years so it would be 20 plus whenever the litigation finishes from after 2009. So if it's two years then it's 22 years?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Farr, that's my understanding. But again you may want to ask County Council those questions. Council do you have a response?
Supervisor Farr I'd ask you just go back to the first question because I'm not sure I understood clearly whether you're asking the start date of the development agreement or the start date of any asserted tolling or delay of the development agreement.
I think it's the latter. So if we are extending this by whatever amount of time the litigation takes, what is the start date for that? Is that the date that the litigation was filed or is it the effective date of the Inland Development Agreement which was almost a year later?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr, section 10.06 of the development agreement states that litigation attacking shall be deemed to create an excusable delay as to developer, and we would therefore use the trigger for that as the date of filing of the complaint in this case. And I remind you that the board actually took two actions on this. The latter in December, but there was a first complaint filed before the board's second action. Before the board's second action in December and then a first amended complete filed after that. But essentially litigation has been in place even prior to your boards final approvals of this project.
Okay so if we go with the 08 date and let's just say if it goes to court during the summer and it finishes in the fall of 11, that would be in effect a three year extension on the 20 year development agreement?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr. Without using the actual dates I would say that from the time the first complaint was filed through the time litigation is resolved would be what section 10.06 envisions. Now that could be through trial result or final action by the court of appeal so it could actually a fairly long time.
I see. I forgot about appeals. Okay my second question is who are we extending it to? And that's kind of to the question of who is the responsible party that the county is dealing with. I know in the records that we had, that we had letters from two attorneys, both the attorney for First Bank and Mr. Lamport, the attorney for Mr. Osgood. So I'm just wondering who we are dealing with if we are still dealing with both entities? And if so, if they each, we deal with them on specific things or Or is it just one or the other? Ms. Black.
Madam Chair and Supervisor Farr. We've been dealing with both First Bank and with Matt Osgood and his representatives in this matter. It's my understanding based upon assessor's records that First Bank owns the majority of the property within the Santa Barbara Ranch development area that was previously held by Mr. Osgood. Mr. Osgood still has an interest in at least his own parcel, so we've been dealing with both.
Okay, but for all the parcels that are owned by First Bank then any issues to do with them we deal with them. And for the remaining parcel or parcels that Mr. Osgood owns we just would deal with him. In the development agreement, Mr. Osgood is listed a number of different entities and signed for all of them as the developer. So the development agreement is written to the developer.
So is First Bank is the owner of the property? Have they been assigned that developer role? And if so, do we have that paperwork?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr. I'm going to have a slow answer to your question. First assignment or transfer of the development agreement is addressed in the Article 8 section of the Development Agreement and carves out an exception for transfer or assignment to a mortgage holder or an affiliated party. The law in this area is clear that a development agreement may be assigned The language of our assignment clause in the development agreement does not necessarily require that as to a mortgage lender or an affiliated party who was part of the original undertaking.
Okay, so I understand that it can be done. I'm just wondering if it has been done and if it does need to be done?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr, the parties, the developer, the original developer and First Bank are both here today to address that. Our understanding from talking with them informally is that we have not seen an assignment of this, a separate assignment of the development agreement. I would offer that for purposes of the asserted extension, the board could act recognizing a litigation delay no matter who is holding the development agreement if you so wanted today.
Okay, well maybe when they come forward we can, they'll speak to that. I had a question but I think that Mr. Fainer's letter representing Dos Pueblos Ranch answered some of it. I'm assuming then in who we are dealing with, with Dos Pueblos Ranch as a partner in this also that Mr. Fainer is the contact person for Dos Puelbos Ranch?
Madam Chair and Supervisor, that's correct.
OK. And then Dos Pueblos Ranch has been for sale in various configurations. So how do we know or how would we confirm that any sales information? Or there's also been some talk that there is already an option on the property. I don't know whether it's all of it or some of it. Whether the rights and responsibilities and duties as being a part of this development agreement Would also be included in any subsequent sales agreement that those Pueblos Ranch would enter into. I mean, I know about the assignment. I know that it can be done and somebody buys it and then they inherit that but do we have a way that we can make sure that that's clear to any potential new buyers?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Farr We would get some comfort from that in section 12.08 of the development agreement itself, which states that all provisions in the agreement are binding and covenants run with the land and that would be consistent with state law in this area.
Okay so there's no responsibility on the county's part to make sure that somebody who buys the property has this information? It's all the responsibility on The current owners of Dos Pueblos Ranch.
Madam Chair and Supervisor Farr, that's correct. The recording of this development agreement runs with the land and its contents are covenants that also run with the land.
Okay. And I guess my last question for now, Madam Chair, thank you is if at some point in time then this assignment is done between the current developer on the signature page and First Bank as the owner of much of the property Do we need to do an amended signature page?
6:00 – 6:0611 turns
Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr. I would expect that the transfer agreement or assignment agreement if between the lender and the original developer would fall under the parenthetical clause of section 8.02 that says a actual written agreement is not even required. I think that would address the absence of a new signature page it would just run with The obligations of the developer would run with the property to the new owner if that's First Bank or if it's a successor to First Bank.
Okay, but through all of this there is some responsibility to notify the county because over time especially if we have a development agreement that runs for 20 years There could be a number of different owners, separate or the same as developers. So I'm just wanting to make sure that our paperwork keeps up with whatever the changes are including the current ones.
Madam Chair and Supervisor Farr, I think part of the concern there will be addressed through the annual good faith report back and forth between whoever is the developer at the time or landowner at the time in the county throughout the life of the development agreement.
Okay so that would be something we would ask for. Thank you madam chair.
Thank you, Supervisor Farr. Any other questions at this? Oh, Supervisor Wolk.
Thank you Madam Chair. Mr. Ghazani I have a question about the agreement section 9.01B and this is about the processing during litigation Do you have it? Oh, okay. Sorry. Ready for your question. All right. So the first sentence says the commencement of any third-party litigation shall not delay or stop the development processing or construction of the inland project and it goes on but then at the end of that paragraph on page 52 there's a notwithstanding clause that seems to say just the opposite And is this legalese?
Because I don't understand why, you know the beginning part says that it should not delay. But then the end of that paragraph says well actually it says that there's no obligation to proceed with a development.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolff, I think probably the easiest way to understand section 9.01B is in conjunction with state law in this area which says that filing a CEQA lawsuit does not actually prevent the developer from moving forward with the project unless the court so stays the project, which normally requires some kind of security to be posted. The second half of subsection B says that the developer is not required to actually build out and go at risk during during the ongoing litigation because the developer would be at risk if they built and a court later set aside the approvals.
Okay, all
right thank you. Other questions? Let's go to public comment we'll start with Dr. Robert Johns and then we'll go to Kaylon Kelly, Dr. Johns.
As the environmentalist attorney walks out as I begin to talk are you still here? Well, I'm shocked. I'm really shocked. I've lived in this community for 40 years and I'm really shocked that an environmentalist community would file a lawsuit to stop housing. It's going to be a beautiful project, Santa Barbara Ranch. And I'm just totally, I was wondering what is the aim of the environment? Do they know what they're doing?
What in the H are they doing? It's just amazing the damage and destruction this environmental community does to Santa Barbara. We need all types of housing, housings for mental health people, housing for low-income senior housing, upper income housing housing for middle class. You know what I think it is? I think it's just a destructive, racist attempt. You'll never see an environmentalist in this auditorium unless the core fund has been given out by you, Carbohol.
As a home physician, they're not here. In-home supportive services, they're not here! But when that craft fund, the first one is here as an attorney, there he is but now he's gone. Mark, he's here to lap up that craft fund. I'm just shocked and now they've filed a lawsuit to try and stop housing as badly as we need housing here. I think it's racist on their part, and I think it's discriminatory.
We've got to get rid of these environmentalists all day long, all afternoon. And I've sat here, and I've heard issue after issue where the environmentalist, Mark Ciccone, Block the roadways and the entrances to jobs, to housing. And they have a destructive influence on the Democratic majority in this board. I don't need to besmirch your reputation. Thank you.
Thank you Dr. Johns. Callan Kelly followed by Karen Copper.
6:06 – 6:2024 turns
Madam Chair, Board of Supervisors. I'm Kalen Kelly. The request of the Santa Barbara Ranch people and First Bank to extend the time of this development agreement under November 2009 hinges on section... I've got to put my glasses on. Hinges on section 10.06 of that agreement. This agreement provides that litigation attacking the validity of this agreement or any of the inland project approvals shall be deemed to create an excusable delay as to the developer.
Now, what does an excusable delay mean? I think we'd all agree it means it's a delay that can be excused not necessarily has to be excused That code section lists the conditions that are needed to make a delay inexcusable. First, there's two of them. The first one is that the developer has to request an extension of time and that has now been done with their October letters.
The second one is that the request for extension of time must reflect they have been unable to perform their obligations because of litigation And this frankly they have not even attempted to do. Had the litigation requested some kind of injunctive relief that prevented the developer from performing, then it would make entire good sense to have an extension of time but no such relief was requested and in fact nothing in the Naples coalition lawsuit would have impeded in any way the developers ability to complete their obligations under the development agreement Clearly for their own reasons, they have chosen to delay performance and are now looking to avoid the consequences of that.
This isn't very complicated. Common sense would say that the mere filing of a suit should not delay agreed upon contractual obligations. After all, a lawsuit might be frivolous, might be a lawsuit that ends up being stayed for years and years. So I'd encourage you to continue this matter And in the interim, ask county council whether the Naples Coalition litigation prevented the developer from completing his contractual responsibilities under the Inland Development Agreement.
Thank you Mr. Kelly. Karen Cupper followed by Deborah Rosenthal
Yeah, hello. I just want to mention that Mr. Osgood with his Naples housing project is not the only one in that area. There's Haskell Landing right across from the Sandpiper Golf Course Then there is the Bacara Timeshare, 60 houses right next to the Bacara Hotel. Go across north, there's Mr. Dwarfman again with 21 mansions right on the rooftop of the Embarcadero and then you have The store is good. Now just imagine the people who live in that area, they have for years, for years they have traffic, they have noise, they have dust and remember that everybody's house is their biggest investment in their lifetime so the people who live there Their quality of life goes down the toilet, and I live there. And I don't want to be in the toilet. So I just say somebody's greed gets rid of other people's quality of life.
So just think about that before. And another thing, I'm for oil. Thank
you Ms. Kupfer. Deborah Rosenthal followed by Mark Tutello.
Good afternoon. I'm Debra Rosenthal. I am here representing SBRHC. I am here with Norm Breuer, one of the Senior Vice Presidents from First Bank. We really just want to support the staff's recommendation. We agree with them that under the terms of the development agreement this is really recognition of an automatic Extension during the term of litigation until issues about the litigation are resolved. And we appreciate that recommendation and are available to answer any questions if Supervisor Farr had any questions after staff's excellent discussion.
Thank you,
Supervisor Farr
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity Ms. Rosenthal. You heard my questions earlier so let me just ask you specifically has the assignment officially happened from Mr. Osgood's ownership to you and then is First Bank stepping into the role as not only the property owner but as a developer to effectuate this development agreement?
The First Bank's acquisition of the property included transfer of agreements, entitlements, approvals. So First Bank or SBRHC is prepared in recognition of what it acquired in 2010 to Step into the role of developer under the development agreement and prepare to proceed.
Okay, and then thank you for that. And also there are certain ongoing costs in our staff time and the processing. So is there an agreement that you have or will be signing with the county that you're also going to step into the role of assuming those financial responsibilities for the ongoing process?
We have signed such an agreement and have either made a deposit for staff time or that check should either be here, or I hate to say on the way. I believe it's already here. And I should clarify when I said that SVRHC was prepared Step into the role of the developer. As Ms. Black explained, Mr. Osgood and some of the Osgood entities continue to have ownership interests. There are other entities with ownership interests and we expect to be cooperating with them But to the extent that any of those obligations relate to the property, yes. Of course we would be acting as the developer there.
Okay thank you well I'm trying to clarify who the point main point person is here for the county so is it that's you then? As
the owner of the majority of the property, we believe that we are the point people for those kind of discussions. There may be some issues that either solely involve some of the other owners or where we would all properly be involved. But yes, we look forward to working with Protecting these entitlements and moving forward.
But just to clarify then, if the county then uses you as the point person our assumption is that the county would be dealing with you but in your opinion if something should come up you would let our staff know that they you would refer it to Mr. Osgood or to Dos Pueblos Ranch or whoever the other owner was?
Certainly and in some cases we have forwarded Forwarded information where we think it should be shared with everyone with an interest in the property.
Thank you. Ms. Rosenthal, Supervisor Carbajal has a question for you
all. Actually it's more of a question but I'm also looking at Mr. Geis and our county council and staff. You know now that we have a lot of interests in the air, I think we need to develop a protocol that is acceptable to all of who we interface with and how and who and under what circumstances. Because if we can't just hear, well on some occasions you will deal with Mr. Yawsky, on other occasions you'll deal with us.
I just want to make sure that we're not in a position where we were dealing with somebody, it was our understanding and then somebody else pulls the rug under us. So I'm hoping that we're all on the same page on a protocol of communication with all entities as to how that's going to function versus everybody going like this and us dealing with somebody and then somebody else.
I just want to make sure we're addressing that after this meeting in such a way that it meets everybody's interests.
Thank you. We appreciate that and we will be completely cooperative, we want everyone to know what is going on.
Thank you. And I don't know what's going on here today, but my pile of speakers seems to continue to grow. So is there anybody else out there that thinks they need to get their speak? They want to be last or whatever the deal is. OK. No more speakers. Mark, I've got you in here. Well, you know what? Someone outmaneuvered you and that was Mr. Alley so he gets to be last. And then I saw another one hop up. Mr. Allen wasn't there another one that just popped up and handed you a speaker chair?
Mr. Leopard will be last.
Okay. Mr Chitillo. Thank you. Mr Chitillo you are
up.
Boy! You know everybody wants to be last.
Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Mark Shutillo and I'm here on behalf of the Naples Coalition. Thanks for convening this hearing and the questions that many of us have with respect to who's on first with respect to Naples. Concerning a matter that's immediately before you we have some concerns over the breadth of what staff has asked you to endorse. We think that the development agreements provisions need to be read as narrowly as possible and to the extent that there is a request for excuse Based on an inability to perform the obligations under the development agreement, those need to be expressed and explicit with respect to the materials that you are considering in the action that you take.
We would not like to see a blanket waiver of all obligations under the development agreement unless there's been a showing that there is actually an inability to perform. And in that case it's our belief that the development agreement speaks for itself Whether or not there is an extension and while you may choose to write a letter or not, I don't think that's operative. What's operative is whether in fact the terms of the agreement provide for the extension or not.
I did with the one obligation that has been identified and articulated, and that is the preparation of the Creek Restoration Plan. I wanted to articulate a concern we had with respect to the performance of the California Rangeland Trust. They have been identified as the entity, the agency that's going to prepare the Creek Restoration Plan. Our review of their experience and our understanding of their role in this process is that their function would be principally focused on rangeland issues.
As their name indicates, that's their expertise. The preparation of the habitat restoration plan for the riparian areas and creek restoration is one that is a specialized function and while the terms of approval don't Indicate a particular ability of the county to veto a choice there or to direct it. I would appreciate, I think it would be appropriate for your board to give direction to staff that this is indeed an important issue with respect to the restoration of Dos Pueblos Creek and we would want assurances that indeed the recipient of those funds are going to be qualified to be able to actually complete the functions they have been tasked to complete And it's our observation that they don't really have any experience with this kind of restoration based on the information that has been made available for us.
So with that, we'd ask that your board act and move forward cautiously, narrowly taking only those actions that are absolutely justified based on the facts that are before you and based on what we've seen. We don't see any demonstrated inability to perform any of the specific elements required under the development agreement. Thank you, Madam.
Thanks for the show. Nathan Alley followed by Stanley Lampert
6:20 – 6:2717 turns
And good
afternoon again.
Thank you again, Madam Chair. It's a great day for EDC at the board. A lot of items of interest. Actually it's great that Mr. Lamport is going to go after me because he might actually be able to answer some of the questions that I have and really just kind of seeking more clarification. That seems to be the theme of the day. One point that I'd like to try to clarify and people can correct me if I'm wrong but that is that currently I don't believe that Dos Pueblos Ranch has an interest in the development agreement. The development agreement I think Contemplates for a potential future second development agreement that would run as between Dos Pueblos Ranch and the county.
But my understanding, and again I could be wrong, is that Dos Pueblos Ranch does not currently enjoy benefits of the development agreement as written. Along those lines, however, we were here about a year ago I think most recently talking about the Inland Development Agreement. EEC, Certified or Naples Coalition, we were all asking for you to rescind that development agreement based on a number of factors but one of those factors was that as far as again I understand the proponents of Dos Pueblos Ranch have not executed the agricultural conservation easement which the Inland Development Agreement that is existing, um, is dependent upon. And so this is all very confusing and the purpose of me getting up here is to ask what's going on with Dos Pueblos Ranch, the agricultural conservation easement?
How does that relate to the vesting of the Inland Development Agreement with Santa Barbara Ranch And how do we move forward, much along the lines of Supervisors Farr's questions on if Dos Pueblos Ranch were to change ownership. How did their obligations under the ACE change? So those questions and then if anyone wants to confirm or not that Dos Pueblos Ranch is not involved in the current development agreement, that would be great. Thank you very much.
Supervisor Farr, another
question? Thank you Madam Chair. Actually I'm wondering whether either staff or council could respond to that. The first part, I mean I'm just looking at the first page of the development agreement that says in addition developers acquired an interest in portions of adjacent land commonly known as Dos Pueblos Ranch and has obtained the participation of the owners A certain portions of Dos Pueblos Ranch collectively described in Exhibit A3 and called the DPR inland site. So I was assuming that tied them into all of this, but maybe you could answer that question first.
Thank you so much for giving us
Madam Chair and Supervisor Farr, I believe that the Inland Development Agreement incorporates some lands owned currently by Dos Pueblos Ranch but that they are not a specific party to the agreement. The Dos Pueblos Ranch property owners have a separate agreement with the developer of the inland project to perform certain obligations. It's my understanding that it's a separate agreement.
Okay, well isn't one of the things that they've already done is this creek restoration plan and isn't that Dos Pueblos Creek?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Farr, it is Dos Pueblos Creek. My understanding is that Mr. Osgood put up the $100,000 pursuant to the development agreement to the California Land Trust to begin working on that plan.
But wouldn't we have to have some assurance through the agreements that the owners of Dos Puelblos Ranch would allow for the work to be done? In order to implement
the plan,
we would need that assurance. Okay, and so when do we get that?
I believe that the development agreement requires payment of the $300,000 to implement the plan prior to commencement of grading and construction of the inland project. And that has to be implemented within three years so at the time that they were commencing pulling their permits for grading and development they would need to provide that assurance that they can actually develop on that property.
This is very tangled. Okay, and then the other part of that Mr. Alley asked about which was whether Dos Pueblos Ranch had done what they needed to do for the conservation easement to finalize the requirements in the development agreement? Did we have notification of that?
I'm not sure how to answer that question. I'm going to ask Mr. Gazzone to answer.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr, I don't have the date in front of me but we're already, County Council and Planning are on record previously stating that the effective date of the Inland Development Agreement was, and I want to say October 26th several years ago, excuse me, October 26, 2009. We recite that. In the open session board agenda letter, and the final trigger for that was actually approval of one of the conservation plans by the State Department of Conservation. And that's an issue that was a subject of a prior hearing that we just summarized in this at page, the bottom of page two of this board agenda letter. And I'm not ready right now to drill down into Dos Pueblos Ranch. I don't have that piece in front of me, but we have concluded previously that the Inland Development Agreement became effective October 26th 2009 upon the final of three actions and the final of the third action was a state action on the conservation easement.
And I do remember that very well, but it was still unclear. I mean how the question has been raised about where Dos Pueblos Ranch is in that?
Thank you. Mr. Lampert, and this is the final speaker.
6:27 – 6:3521 turns
Good afternoon Stanley Lamport on behalf of Santa Barbara Ranch LLC and the other entities and individuals who are the developer in the development agreement. I didn't intend to speak at all today so I wasn't vying to be the last speaker but Ms. Rosenthal made a statement that made me have to stand up and salute. Our position is that they are not successor developers to the development agreement. They do have rights under the development agreement as a subsequent owner.
But that Santa Barbara Ranch LLC and the other developers are the parties in the development agreement, and there's been no transfer of the obligations in the development agreement to anyone else. We have been performing under that agreement. Everything that has been performance-to-date has been that. Santa Barbara Ranch and the other individuals that we represent still own a number of lots out there that were not foreclosed on, including lots south of Highway 101 on the Coastal Terrace as part of an entity that's called Santa Barbara Land and Ranching.
And as well as parcels north of the highway. So I wanted to clarify that. Just, I can answer this Dos Pueblos question for you because I think there's a little bit of confusion about this. Dos Pueblos Ranch was never made a party to the development agreement and if you read further in the recitals they were specifically carved out as the obligations of the development agreement were not going to apply to Dos Pueblos Ranch. The board at the time wanted to incentivize Dos Puelblos Ranch to enter into a development agreement and not just piggyback on the Santa Barbara Ranch Development Agreement. So with respect to the coastal aspects of Dos Pueblos Ranch in particular, the recital specifically said the agreement would not apply to Dos Pueblos Ranch.
There is a portion of Dos Pueblos Ranch that is part of the Alt 1B project that was approved. That was encompassed in the development agreement because Santa Barbara Ranch was doing the development of that portion of Dos Peblos Ranch. There's Pueblos Ranch, that the creek restoration obligation is that the funds will be expended within three years. But one of the items that is a condition of the expenditure of those funds is Dos Pueblos Ranch's consent. So in the end, they have to consent to the use of the funds and we anticipated there might be a possibility where they wouldn't consent. And so there's a provision that if it can't be used for the restoration of Dos Pueblos Creek within five years, that those funds will be used for other creek restoration purposes on the Gaviota Coast and that was covered in the development agreement and that was part of the original arrangement when the development agreement was first entered into.
So hopefully that gives you the idea of the relationship between Dos Pueblos Ranch and the development agreement. Dos Pueblos Ranch has to date been cooperative in allowing access for work to be done in connection with a creek restoration plan But since it was kind of a pig in a poke from their perspective, they didn't want to be in a place where the final plan was not acceptable to them. So they have the final say on whether it will be implemented.
Mr. Lampert, we have a question from Supervisor Copperhall. Not so much
a question as what I said earlier in light of this subtle disagreement with Mr. Lamport. Subtle? Well, I'm trying to be nice. In other words, you could drive a hole through it and it's not subtle. I would encourage First Bank – well we have an agreement and we recognize Mr. Osgood and Mr. Lamport. First Bank and Mr Osgood need to get it together and need to get us formal communication of the interest and who is responsible and all this stuff. Because the fact, it doesn't bode well for First Fate and Mr. Osgood that you guys are disagreeing in front of us. It reaffirms why we're having this hearing which is it's a mess.
And in order for us to cover ourselves as we proceed again I want to reiterate council should really make sure that we're clear from them as to who we act with and who we don't because they seem to be in a little bit of confusion
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lamport I guess I'm looking at the recitals on the first page of the development agreement E that says developer intends to develop a residential community of 10 new rural estate residences and related improvements on the Santa Barbara Ranch Inland Site and cause the Des Pueblos Ranch Inland Site to be developed with 40 new rural estate residential lots in one new agricultural lot and related improvements The foregoing development on the Santa Barbara Ranch inland site and the Dos Pueblos ranch inland side is collectively referred to as the Inland Project. So I guess I'm having a hard time With a description that this is kind of decoupled in some way. It seems to me it's integral to everything.
Last sentence, the agreement shall not apply to the DPR Coastal Project except with respect to divisions herein specifically reference the DPR Coastal Project and that had to do with With something that's not even, it's kind of a side issue.
But I'm not talking about the coastal project. Talking
about the
inland project.
The inland project is defined as Santa Barbara Ranch and that portion of Dos Pueblos Ranch defined herein. I sound like a lawyer. Defined in here, how's that? As part of the inland project. So it encompassed everything that was part of the inland project which includes the inland portion non-coastal portion of Santa Barbara Ranch And that portion of Dos Pueblos Ranch outside the coastal zone, that was also part of the approved development for Alternative 1B. And that is the definition of the inland project that you're looking at.
So how can they not be a responsible party in this development agreement?
Because the development agreement was between Santa Barbara Ranch, those people defined as the developer in the county of Santa Barbara. Those were the contracting parties and we have contractual rights over Dos Pueblos Ranch to allow for the development of a portion of the Alternative 1B project on Dos Pueblos Ranch. So we were able to commit to what those entities called the developers would do within the boundaries of that project, but Dos Puelblos Ranch at the time declined to be a party to the development agreement.
And they were offered the opportunity to be a party to the development agreement, and they declined. So we have obligations as a developer over those areas which are defined within the scope of the development agreement as the inland project, and we've been fulfilling those obligations. Now
I saw Ms. Black wanting to say something, and Council, I don't know if you want to say something? But we could go all day here.
We are
really
feeling deeper and
worse
and worse. And actually, Madam Chair, you know my recommendation would be that I think that it's way premature to take action today. I mean, I do even have questions about even if this is an excusable delay
Well,
you know what were their problems. But anyway I think that the core issue that I asked about at the very beginning which is who's in charge here? Who are we talking to? Who's responsible for what has not been clarified in this hearing and so I don't know how we go forward with anything until we really know who we're supposed to be talking to and who's responsible for what
council. This is your issue. What are we going to do here?
Madam Chair, Supervisors
6:35 – 6:4010 turns
I guess what do we legally have to, is there a have-to? And if there is you best tell us what that is and then we're going to have to make a decision along those lines.
Madam Chair, my recommendation would be that when you read section 10.06 about enforced delay, you read the operative language as litigation shall be deemed to create an excusable delay and upon a request performance prevented or delayed will be memorialized I think that the shall be deemed to create an excusable delay is the operative language here. Whether First Bank has or has not had an assignment of the development agreement, you have operative language of shall be deemed to create an excusable delay My recommendation would be that the county memorialize that excusable delay throughout the extent of the ongoing litigation.
But then separately ask all of the involved entities, First Bank, the former developer to clarify their roles so we know how to move forward.
And before I go to you Supervisor Farr, I don't think asking is going to work here. You know, I mean we're just all doing this today. I can feel it, sense it, been down these paths before. So everybody's going to try and hedge their answer, be as careful as they can to make sure that they don't accept responsibility and yet they do and so on and so forth. And we could go on here for another hour and a half, two hours.
We need to know what we absolutely legally have to do. I'm going to ask you that again, and then if everybody wants to continue to keep trying to figure out how to work this out, that's what we'll do. Mr. Lampert, you
can... Madam Chair, my recommendation would be that as is indicated in the staff report, that the board memorialize the delay and do that today
Now, what happens if we don't? Because we've got people that are nervous about that.
Well I would say that at some point we are in litigation with one side of this argument right now over the CEQA approvals. We have been in litigation with a developer previously on a Brown Act allegation, and I am informed that the bank and the initial developer have teed up litigation as to another piece of this. My goal here would be not to create a litigation risk where one need not be for the county So, at some point a party could seek declaratory relief that the county was required to memorialize this delay to remove any cloud on these rights. And that's one of the things you would avoid by just issuing a memorialization of the delay.
We've got Supervisor Farr and Supervisor Wolk with lights on. Who wants to go first?
Actually, just to follow up Mr. Gazzone you quote the first line about deemed to create an excusable delay but then the next sentence says That, you know, they can request an extension of time for the performance of any obligation whose performance has been so prevented or delayed. So it sounds to me like they've done things that they were supposed to do. I'm just trying to figure out the second piece of that.
What the litigation prevented them from doing that they need the delay for, because it seems to me there wasn't really anything that they didn't do or that they should have done that they couldn't have done.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr. Again I would read that the purpose of this is so that the applicant or their successor knows at any time whether they're at risk of being in breach of their obligations and that's one of the things that the memorialization of excusable delay takes care of. So they have a series of obligations that we spelled out in the board agenda letter that are going on At the same time as litigation clock is delaying this for possibly further years of litigation.
So I think you have a crisp sentence that says, shall be deemed to create excusable delay. You've got another sentence below it that talks about Preventing or delaying will be memorialized. When I read shall and will, I read that the county should memorialize the delay that has been requested. And since the covenants run with the land, I just do not see a risk to the county of memorializing this delay.
I just have just a question. I think it's a follow-up to Supervisor Farr, so we were to be looking at their performance but what I'm hearing from you though is that
6:40 – 6:4718 turns
The articles may have a certain stated performance date, but we can kind of put that aside and say they don't need to do it because of that section 10.04. I'm sorry, 10.02. But I just have to point out two things where I think their performance was lacking. And first was in 10.0 for the periodic review. It said that the developer shall contact the director to initiate the required periodic review no later than 60 days before the exemption, before the expiration of the 12-month period after the execution of this agreement.
So that's the execution of the agreement which occurred in 08 but we just got the request from the developer so there just that one piece shows I guess I would say a lack of performance. The other one is That they had to pay the $100,000 to the nonprofit organization. And yes it's good that they did that. Staff said that they had to do it within 60 days of the effective date of the agreement but actually in the recitals it says 60 days of the execution of the agreement which they didn't do so that is another performance issue.
The other thing has to do, and this is now a question because I'm not sure about this, that there is a section somewhere in here about holding the county harmless and paying our fees if there was a lawsuit. And I'm going to ask Mr. Gazzone because I can't recall did we receive all of the fees that we had incurred? From Mr. Osgood,
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, we may be a few thousand dollars behind right now but they have been timely making the payments that are required to the county. That was an issue during the question of who is the developer? Was it Mr. Osgood's organization or First Bank, we met with the people on that and as Ms. Rosenthal stated, we either have a further deposit check or expect a further deposit check.
So okay, so we are okay as far as that goes? Yes. Okay, so those two issues then that I brought up about performance, are they negated because of the section that you just, that you are pointing to about the litigation and the shell? Do we just forget about those?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolff. Yes I understand the question. I think that the two sections, the section about annually reporting their progress and requesting an evaluation by the county is separate from Section 10.06 which discusses excusable delay. The county, I think the county could say even if performance under the agreement is otherwise told we want an annual report of what you're doing, the county could still insist on that and still grant the excusable delay.
About the $100,000?
You'll have to bear with me for a second while I flip to this section there. And I just don't...I have the section in front of me but I do not know the date that the hundred thousand dollar deposit was made. Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolff again, probably the surprise here is not what date it was in but that since even by the time the approvals were in we're already in litigation. The developer could have asserted that $100,000 was a delayable obligation since they were in litigation so I would recommend not standing on that point.
Okay. Do we have someone that wants to make a motion as to what we're going to do here?
Supervisor Carbajal, you're usually good at making motions.
Well she... I think that Supervisor Farr would just soon pass on this
one. Madam Chair, I think it's a morass what we had before us since nobody else is speaking and I'm gonna speak. I think it needs to be continued at least two weeks or three weeks and come back with some of these questions answered. Everybody needs to get it together, and a lot of questions have been asked, and it just feels awkward and weird, to say the least.
You know, I hear what you're saying, Councilor. It seems that this is something that's pretty straightforward on one hand based on the agreement language. I just don't want to vote for something and then a few weeks down the road we come up with some, oh well we didn't think of that or that was or wasn't implied. And I would rather that we just tighten up the issues that have been raised around this subject matter and it come back in a much more streamlined fashion. Maybe it can get more streamlined than it's just the nature of the beast but it just feels really convoluted It just doesn't feel right.
Supervisor Wolf?
Your light's on.
Oh, I'm
turning it off. Okay, she's turning it off. Supervisor Farr you've got your light on.
Now I do. You know, I understand the assumption that That we're going to catch this up when we do our annual review of, you know, kind of who's on first as somebody said. But I'm just not comfortable extending a development agreement when we've had conflicting testimony today as to who is actually in the shoes of the developer. So I would like to continue it for a few weeks and let staff, First Bank, Mr. Osgood, Mr. Lamport kind of sort that out and give us a chart when we come back so that I really know who we're talking to here and who is going to have the benefit of any extension that the board might grant.
Do we have a second to that motion?
Madam Chair, could I just ask that as you think of a date to bring it back we move it out far enough so that we could actually have a cogent staff report?
Give us the date. Give us the date counsel. And we'd probably just soon not be in Santa Maria.
6:47 – 6:519 turns
Madam chair, I won't be here on On March fifteenth so I would not recommend that date and that's really the first day to think that. We'll be back in five Santa Barbara. April fifth.
I will vote on a motion I'm not going to support the motion because I understand exactly what counsel saying I'm concerned that we're just gonna get herself another piece of litigation out of this but I understand where everybody is coming from it it's it's a bit gushy here. So if you'll call the roll please Mr Allen.
Sir let me know When I've seen Mr. Carbajal, Ms. Wolfe?
Aye.
Ms. Farr? Aye Ms. Gray?
No
Passes 3-1-1
All right with that we will continue this until April 4th 5th and I think that we probably better take another five minutes We'll be back here at four o'clock ¶.
¶. ¶. ¶. You. ¶. StSq3 3.30 ¶.
6:52 – 6:551 turns
¶. ¶¶ ¶. ¶ Madam Chair, members of the board. Item 4 is from the County Executive Office and the Auditor-Controller. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2010-11 second quarter budget and financial update. Mr. Stilwell, is this yours?
6:55 – 7:043 turns
Yes, Madam Chair and members of the board. Thank you for this opportunity we're going to present with you the second quarter financial report It's as of December 31st, 2010. The broad summary is that the adopted budget is holding. The revenues are generally meeting their estimates. The departments are managing expenditures which is leading to positive variances we'll discuss and there's a balance with the department's managing this year's budget and recognizing the upcoming expectations the board has for service levels.
We have The Board of Supervisors meeting Yeah, to add a little bit of analysis to the financial numbers and you'll see the good news is there aren't any red squares on the signal chart. As you recall, the top left area surrounded in blue, the top left quadrant is the general fund departments. The rest are special revenue fund departments. And so for the general fund, the only department that is showing some variance from their budget is General Services and as we reported in the first quarter that's a result of the department having a number of filled but unfunded positions as a result of the concessions primarily from Local 620.
And it was a red square during the first quarter and the department has reduced expenditures and managed their operation in a way that has led us to believe that they will have a variance but will probably be able to end, well will be able to end the year in balance. And so that means for the general fund as a whole that we expect a positive year-end balance and as we report in attachment A. For the other funds, the health care fund it doesn't show up as a variance in attachment A but they have some concerns with the vehicle license fee and realignment revenue And their expenditures are running a bit high. They do think they'll end the year positive, though with mental health three of their four funds we've marked yellow and that's primarily as a result of the state revenue payments and some accruals Social Services, their big fund is yellow for below some of their revenue and service levels.
And so they will have to require to do a budget adjustment before the year end. And then the Reprographics Fund under General Services has a structural imbalance. The costs of providing those services are less than the revenue they're generating and I believe Mr. Nisbet will be bringing forward an item for the Board to consider with Reprographics, but as a pitch we'd recommend all departments use Reprographics.
And then for Human Resources County, unemployment insurance again is showing a positive. The financial data in attachment A shows that it's okay but we're closely monitoring that as a result of the extension of the federal unemployment benefits. So the highlights for all funds, again is just the actual activities generally matching the budget projections. We do see some revenue payment delays from the state We did through December 31st see some slight revenue growth, but we've had less than positive numbers in January and Mr. Geis might be able to address those if the board has questions. But departments are generally holding their vacancies and glide sloping down to the 11-12 budget.
The specific variances for the general fund The county council has a positive variance as a result of services they provided primarily to special revenue funds, primarily to risk management. So they do have a positive revenue variance. District Attorney is a positive variance on both the revenue and expenditure side. They received some unanticipated civil fraud revenue and also a controlling cost in managing their vacancies.
The sheriff has a variance as of December 31st, but it was resolved with a budget revision the board approved in January. That's resulted in gaming revenue delays. And the auditor controller has a positive variance both on revenue and of controlling their expenditures and their vacancies. General services, I mentioned will need a budget adjustment in the year positive. In general revenues which we haven't touched on yet, the revenues that drives the general fund, the discretionary revenues are showing a positive variance of 1.5 million projected for year end so at this point that's about one percent higher than budget.
For the special revenue funds. The capital funds, as we mentioned almost seems every quarter that there's often variances in the capital funds just because of the unpredictability of the capital projects and with the grant revenue and other special revenue that pays for those. So both Funds 30 and 34 are timing variances meaning there is timing delays with the projects but we're still expecting the projects to go forward just not on the original schedule I should say.
mental health as revenue accruals. As we mentioned in the first quarter, the department accrued $26 million of revenues. And had received 19 million, nearly 7 million still due from the state. And so that's a concern for us to watch closely with the department. The concern for the department, the county executive office and the auditor controller to monitor that closely. That's a lot of revenue that's accrued that we're anticipating the state to pay back or to pay.
And social services, I mentioned their variance is primarily a workload variance with CalWORKs programs that are a little under budget. Case numbers are a little below projections. Foster care's a little lower than budget and that offsets the expenditure variance which they've had below budget spending on foster care and CalWORKS assistance. And then with the workers' comp fund, workers' compensation. That has lower costs than we anticipated from going to CSAC for workers' comp services that we anticipated in the budget that would cost a certain amount and it's actually lower than that.
And so that's positive news, that's true variance. And then there is also a timing variance. A larger portion of the variance is a timing variance with the unpredictability nature of the claims. There is budget appropriation in that fund that wasn't expended in the first half of the year. And then the Redevelopment Agency has similar variances to those with the capital funds. It's a capital-intensive agency that has three funds, and so there's capital construction delays, adjustments to transferring revenue between the funds, some budget timing adjustments. So those are primarily timing adjustments that we anticipate will smooth out by the end of the year.
So just the summary then is that we mentioned the actual activities matching budget. Revenue shows a slight uptick, we're slightly optimistic though January numbers put a little bit of yield to that optimism but we are still optimistic that revenue's showing a slight uptick Departments are constraining their expenditures to which the result of that will be positive variances in most of the funds and including the general fund. The state budget looms, and we'll talk just briefly about that on the next slide, and departments are beginning to position their expenditure levels for fiscal year 11-12.
And then
Mr. Stilwell, we're not going to ask questions. We're going to hold our questions until you finish but I do think that this might be a point that they should be able to ask questions instead of going right into the governor's. So if there are any questions on what's been covered so far let's ask them. Supervisor Wolf?
So Mr. Stilwell in the general fund what is the positive variance, the actual positive variance?
7:04 – 7:1936 turns
So attachment B of the board letter shows the positive projected variance of 2.1 million and so 1.5 million is revenue, that's about one percent higher than we budgeted and the rest would be a result of departments managing their expenditures.
And in the first quarterly report I think there was a $700,000 variance something around there? If you were to look forward to the end of the fiscal year, can you make any judgment about that?
We're starting to do that. But I would say we did preliminarily talk about what the end of the year would look like and I think a conservative estimate at this point. We anticipate somewhere around the two million, maybe a little higher positive variance at the end of the year. So this projected report attachment B does anticipate all the budget variances and all the loaded estimates between now and the end of the year so it's a good report to project to the end of Just straight from the report, our best estimate is 2.1 million and we're seeing I think that'll be in the ballpark.
Well why wouldn't you project any more of a positive variance or perhaps a negative? Why are you sticking to this point in time?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, we do load the budget by month so the positive variances are loaded months are built into this projected report. So on the revenue side we think that 1.5 million is a good revenue estimate. There might be some other anomalies that come in that we're not anticipating at this point On the expenditure side though, you're right it might grow a little and that's why I hedged my bet on the $2.2 million as probably conservative because as departments continue to run under budget just slightly that will have a positive impact on the rest of the year
Okay, and then my final question on this is the early retirement savings. The departments were encouraged to hold positions vacant. Is that one reason why we're seeing some of these positive variances or are there other reasons other than tightening their belts?
No Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, there are multiple reasons. It depends on the department but you see some departments, the retirement incentive, I'd say the District Attorney is a good example where they were able to hold vacancies of people who retired and took the retirement incentive and they were able to hire people at a lower cost when they did fill the vacancy so I would say a big attribution of the District Attorney's positive use or expenditure variance would be the Retirement Incentive Program Broadly for the whole fund or for the whole county, it varies quite a bit though. Thank you.
Other questions on the update on the budget? Ms. Waller?
I just wanted to make a general comment that obviously, I've had about three months now to observe our management team and based upon the information that we're sharing with you today in my observations your management team is really doing a very good job of dealing with the fact of limited resources And trying as best they can to prepare themselves for what they know is going to be a very challenging next fiscal year. So I certainly would like to share with you that I think that they're doing a very good job so far.
Thank you, Ms. Waller. Supervisor Farr?
Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to follow up on that example of the district attorney's office because I thought that was a good one as well but kind of looking back to the budget process where there were some departments particularly public safety that we back filled with some pull some extra money over and I think the DA's office was about $1 million.
So it looks like if this holds that they're about halfway to eliminate the need for something similar during the budget.
I would agree with that assessment on district attorney and to your broader issue of the one-time funding, I would say there are some departments like the DA is a good example where they are able to save some of that one time funding. There are other departments and it is predominantly public safety where they're anticipating use of their entire one time through this fiscal year to maintain their services. And I would say the Public Defender in Probation and Sheriff are three of those Yeah, but so that's a mixed there. There's overall I'd say it's positive if the departments are able to reduce their expenditures and that's resulting in them not using the one time and that would be available for the board for appropriation next year.
But some departments just because of the nature of business or the circumstances they have with their service levels are spending the budget appropriation
And actually this is a question for Ms. Waller just to continue on with that, the hiring freeze that we gave you the authority to do would you see that having any appreciable effect over the next few months on some of these figures?
Certainly what I think that we've already seen and it's reflected in some of these savings Thank you. ¬¬ª Great, thank
you. Thank you Supervisor Farr. Mr. Zillwild now you want to go on to the Governor's budget?
Sure thank you but one quick note the board did in the first I see my note now is but so I appreciate the opportunity to just quick note on the special revenue funds in the first quarter of the board asked about the warming center money and so we made a note to come back and report on that for this second quarter report And according to the program staff and public health, they've spent approximately $20,000 so far for warming centers. They have not received an invoice during this last period of the cold spell but they do expect to spend the entire $51,000 this winter. I think that was a question the board asked in the first quarter report that we wanted to report back on.
Thank you Mr. Stilwell. Thanks.
So for the state budget Governor Brown released the proposed fiscal year or the governor's budget, 11-12 budget on January 10th 2011. It included a combination of strategies to address the projected $25.4 billion deficit which is about 8.2 billion this year and 17.2 billion in fiscal year 11- 12 And those strategies include expenditure reductions, a continuation of various tax increases and other solutions such as the use of one-time special funds.
One aspect of the state budget is a realignment proposal that proposes to return authority and responsibility for government services to the local governments. And the realignment proposal first focuses on public safety which would be fire law enforcement probation Mental health, adult protective services, child welfare services and foster care. While the second part of the plan is implementation of a national healthcare reform that focuses on Medi-Cal administration, healthcare food stamps and child support and childcare.
Another portion of the budget that's received some coverage and we've been monitoring closely is the impact on redevelopment agencies. There's a feature of the budget that includes a phase elimination of redevelopment agencies with the corresponding distribution available funding to schools, cities or counties generally and other non-enterprise special districts for fiscal year 11-12.
The greatest impact to the county based on our preliminary review of the proposed budget relates to shifting the program responsibilities and the finances to the county for public safety programs. That includes mental health, or mental health would be part of those programs as would be adult protective services, foster care and child welfare services. So in addition, but that's the realignment proposal. Another big part of it or in addition to that are proposed cuts to Medi-Cal and CalWORKs that could impact the department, the county departments and their clients.
And that's the summary we have with the state budget. Of course, we're closely monitoring that and we presented a seven or eight page detailed report in the board letter of the different program impacts. And that we can answer any questions on that as well.
Supervisor Farr? Thank you, Madam Chair. Well the budget as I understand it, the state budget is kind of a two-step process so there's one budget which is I think the first part that you talked about but that's assuming that the special election is going to confirm the extension of these revenue sources if that doesn't happen then all of these numbers go way up. So when we are figuring the impact to Santa Barbara County The impacts that you're talking about are with the first assumption, which is that the revenues are going to be continued through this special election.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr, that's right. It is the analysis we present here is of the proposed budget which does assume a special election and you're right if that does not pass the numbers do grow quite appreciably.
Okay so will you do some analysis that says this is the current scenario but now here's the worst case scenario if that doesn't happen here's how these numbers will change for our budget?
Right. Yeah, and we are, Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr, we are doing that. We'll continue to do that, yes.
Okay so almost really have two sets of numbers.
So Supervisor Farr has really, and this is unusual for me to say this because I hate to get into a state debate when that we cannot influence. However, I think we might need to have the conversation as to what the impacts are on the County of Santa Barbara if the $12 billion voter initiative is not passed and what will happen because I really don't believe in making recommendations to voters, but I at least feel that we at the county need to let them know what differences in services they can expect.
And I'm not just counting the governor's $12 billion in cuts at the state level. I'm talking about what impacts will the county citizens feel if in fact they do not pass the voter initiative on 12 billion. Now, the next step on that is and I don't quite know where to go here either is what the governor has told us is that I need the legislators to put this on the ballot by March because if they haven't voted to get this on the ballot in March Then it can't go on June, and we're going to have to go ahead and make the $12 billion. Now does the County Board of Supervisors want to say that the County Board of Supervisors would like to urge our legislators to get this on the ballot? Or do we want to ignore it or do we want to not talk about it?
I think we might want to visit those issues.
I would say Supervisor Gray, and there are some things that are outlined in your summary about the direct impacts. I had my staff put this all together, and they're staggering. And I think that if there's ever a time for us to take a position, this is the time.
I normally don't go here, I say. I don't ever tell people how to vote. But in this situation? But it's also important we go now because we've got to let our legislators know that We do think it's a good idea to put that, if we do I don't know what we're going to say, to put that on the June ballot.
Supervisor Gray, I think you are so wise and insightful in this case.
Thank you.
I'm making notes of that. I just think you are and I think the reality is that you don't have to be for or against taxes. Asking the governor and our legislators to put this before the taxpayers so they can they can decide whether they want to Consider it or not. I agree with you. Okay, I think I would even I don't know if it's appropriate Council but I would love to make a motion that we do ask That we do write a letter to our legislators that they consider Positively supporting the governor's request To put this item on on the ballot Madam
Chair, I recommend maybe two pieces of that. Part one would be to actually agendize the item for even a short discussion and second we do have some limits on the use of public funds in terms of dealing with the voters but the approach that you've taken of these are the county services that would be cut is certainly within the law
So then we could, in fact, entertain a motion today to ask our legislators to get this. How about
if we refer it to our ledge committee because I think it would fit within our ledge committee standards and just direct staff to write a letter based on our ledge platform and get it out?
Madam Chair, I would recommend actually agendizing the item for the next board meeting. And staff could come back even with a draft letter to address that. But that
doesn't stop any of us from calling our legislators and our new best friends and say, come on
guys. Certainly, I think the Left Committee can do this but I think it's most powerful when it comes from our Board.
And we're going to talk about it at the next meeting. We have to miss next week because we've got that trip we have to make to Washington, D.C., but it'll be on the next which would be in in February, but remember we're asking them for March.
7:19 – 7:2423 turns
I guarantee you the legislature will not move until the last day they have to do something so it's not like they're going to jump out in front of this thing and make it happen. So I think we've got until the last day that if they need to do it we can get our letter in or I think we'll have time.
Thank you. I forgot you lived up there for a long while. I think it was Supervisor Wolf and then to Supervisor Carbajal again.
I was just, I was hoping for a letter now and then continue to discuss it. I still would like to make that motion that we do so now. It's just quick. Get it off, give them the letter and then we'll continue to discuss whether we do education down the road. I
think you've got an agenda problem as well. We do.
I'm sure if she were to raise her curveball I would recommend agenda. Okay
great. That's the reason not because... I understand. Thank you.
Just a possible interim solution that I think that county council may feel comfortable with. If you as individual board members would choose to write something on your own behalf, I think that that would probably be acceptable. But if you're looking for a letter that the entire board does, you're very likely going to want to have some input from our citizens and I think that's in addition to legal reasons maybe other reasons you may wish to hear it on the 15th.
I think we've got that and so we now know this impact will be discussed at length so that folks know what's going on. Okay, I still got Supervisor Wolff, is your lights? Boy, she lights up my life. And I want to thank you for
that.
So Mr. Stilwell, do you have anything else to say? Really? That's it? Any public speakers?
No requests.
Okay,
I do have a question.
Supervisor
Wolf? Mr. Stilwell in your report in social services and your last sentence well first of all I Didn't think that Social Services had a fund balance. I mean, I thought it was being depleted So I was surprised to see the six point four million And then your last sentence about recommending the general fund contributions Can you explain that and why? Why just why social services?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf. Yes, it won't just be the 6.4 million is their balance sheet as a result or at 1231 but the policy
say that again.
It's the The 6.4 million is their reserve of their balance sheet as of 12-31, so it's the middle of the fiscal period and you're right they may still deplete it between now and the end of the year. I mean they are budgeted to deplete that. And as far as the policy change, it wouldn't be just for social services itself. We'll be bringing forward a policy change through the auditor's office jointly probably on to address the GASB 54 requirements for fund balance and for changes in certain fund balance management and so I think that would be one of the recommendations we would have and that would be to better manage The appropriation of the general fund to the special revenue funds.
To special revenue funds?
Right.
Okay, any other questions?
Madam Chair move this staff report one and two.
Is there a second? All in favor? Aye. At this time, I'd like to repeat that this Board of Supervisors will be adjourning in honor of some very, very amazing people and so I'm going to say their names and then I'm gonna ask us to have a moment of silence. And that moment of silence will be for Russ Hex, former mayor of Builton and many, many more things. Don Lair, former mayor of Santa Maria and many other things And Donna Yee, who was an amazing leader in the Santa Barbara community. So with that let's have a moment of silence.
Thank you very much and we will be meeting again in two weeks. ¶. Yeah.
7:25 – 7:262 turns
The exact times or the process times by which all of this occurred earlier Tuesday. We've
seen other shows on Channel 20 throughout the past year featuring a variety of fruits, vegetables even cattle grown right here in Santa Barbara County. Many of these products are sold at farmers markets just like this one but this is just