BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 October 16, 2012

UnGovr Transcript

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

0:00 – 0:012 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role0:00 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Music playing. Hi, everyone. Good morning, everybody. And welcome to this regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We're glad that you're here. I'd like to go ahead and convene the meeting. Mr. Allen, would you call the roll please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:06 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Mr. Carbajal? Here. Ms. Wolfe? Here! Ms. Gray? Present. Mr Lavinino? Here. Ms Farrar?

Roll-call vote Passed 1–0 Moved by Janet Wolf · Seconded by Salud Carbajal approve? · 1 under review
Show transcript
Here Would y'all please rise with me for the Pledge of Allegiance Thank you. Now we'll go ahead and take up our minutes of our October 9, 2012 meeting. Have any changes or else a motion to approve? Motion by Supervisor Wolfe, seconded by Supervisor Carbajal. All those in favor say aye.
not transcribed≈23s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:53 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We'll go right into public comment. Mr. Allen. Well actually before we go to the public, I want to turn to Supervisor Lavagnino. We had a very exciting event this past weekend in his district that I know he wants to report on.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.752:11 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Yes, thank you very much Madam Chair. We've been talking about it for quite a while so I just kind of wanted to give a follow-up on our veteran stand down first one ever in Santa Barbara County this weekend we held it Saturday this last Saturday at the Santa Maria Fair Park. A lot of run up and a lot of work was done on this and I couldn't have asked for anything better. We had over 800 people sign up to volunteer, went through our training.

I had an intern that all he did was handle volunteer coordination so it was very well organized. People were in their right spot at the right time. I wanted to give some special thanks Heather Gardner from Department of Social Services. Not only did she apply for a department of labor grant but we also put her in charge of making sure that all the items that we needed were there for our homeless veterans and she handled the entire homeless section was basically Heather's baby.

We actually had an auditor, we found out we got our Department of Labor grant the night before, that's the way the federal government works so we received a $7000 grant what we didn't know was an auditor showed up and wanted to make sure

0:03 – 0:076 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.753:22 · ≈ 9:03 AM

money was being spent the correct way, he was walking around with his little checklist and he told me on the way out that don't worry about next year. You guys are going to be approved it's no problem you're doing everything, you're handling everything correctly. Also from my office Sandy Agalos she has spent a lot of hours, a lot of sweat, a lot tears working on this and I was very proud of her effort Just to kind of wrap up, what we really were striving to do is meet as many veterans' needs as we could. First indication is we had over 250 veterans show up plus their families and their dependents. We saw a lot of pets. We had a lot of kids in the bounce house and playing in the game works area.

They came in, they got haircuts, showers. We provided them with new clothes, new shoes. They got their choice of clothes but more importantly they went through a bunch of the veteran services everything from getting an ID to making sure how to handle their child support payments. There were legal help just seeing some of the stories too of guys that were walking in there and they also met this is what really made it special was as I came off the bus They were met by an airman from Vandenberg Air Force Base. And so there was this camaraderie built with an active duty airman and just to see guys that were coming out, the airmen would have this big rucksack full of toiletries and clothes and all kinds of things loaded down This one veteran told me, you know it's just like Christmas here.

This is this is really nice. So there's been questions about whether we're going to do this again and there is no doubt I'm committed to doing it again next year. I was really pleased to see all of you show up and We had the Secretary of the VA for State of California was there as well. We had a couple of generals show up from Vandenberg, but most importantly we had veterans show up and what I'm really excited about for next year is that I'm sure these guys are going to go back into their community and where we've had trouble kind of connecting into that homeless community is I know these guys are gonna now spread the word that it wasn't a high pressure situation or anything. It was very relaxed. We weren't pressuring anybody, we were letting them do their thing.

And hopefully they'll get the word out in the community that we can do twice as many next year. So thanks to the Elks, the Chumash, if I start naming people, Santa Barbara Foundation. I know I'm gonna leave people out but I was very pleased and very excited and we are planning for it next year as well.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:03 · ≈ 9:06 AM

Well, it was really quite terrific and an enormous effort by you and your staff in a coming together of so many volunteers as you said. And so many county departments represented there. Supervisor Wolf do you have your line?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:19 · ≈ 9:06 AM

I just wanted to quickly piggyback on what you said, Supervisor Farr and to thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino for watching 60 Minutes. For being your inspiration but your leadership on this has been tremendous and it really was an amazing sight to see so you and everyone you mentioned are to be congratulated It was a wonderful sight to see our county recognizing the veterans, and your statement of welcoming them home was very poignant. So thank you for everything you did. And we'll look forward to next

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:59 · ≈ 9:06 AM

year. Supervisor Carbajal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:02 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Supervisor Romano, I was unable to join you but as a veteran myself- I didn't bring that up. I want to thank you for looking out for all of those that have served, especially those that find themselves being homeless. And while you only got 250 this year, I think next year you're going to double that because I think the word will get out so congratulations.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role7:31 · ≈ 9:07 AM

All right. And I think we have one member of the public that wants to speak in public comment, Mr. Howell?

0:07 – 0:1415 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:36 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Madam Chair, we did get one additional late request. We'll start with Scott Wentz to be followed by Jose Navarrete who is our final speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed7:53 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Madam Chair and members of the board, Scott Wentz representing Cars are Basic. 12 1⁄2 years ago when CAB was first formed We didn't come out and make any statements, took no positions until we did a lot of studying. One of the studies we did do was by going back to states that had a great deal of experience in transportation issues over the last 200 years of the history of the United States. One of them was Massachusetts.

I talked with the head of what would be Caltrans for the state of California. And I asked him, what about roundabouts? He said they're terrible. We've had 150 years of modern experience with them And we're in the process of taking them out because they're not conducive to pedestrian traffic, they're not conducive to bicycles and they congest on high-traffic periods. Each one of you sits on the board of SBK.

As a group, you have an unbelievably powerful vote. If you would've come out against as a board, the 246 law for regional roundabout, Caltrans would not have put it in. It's turned out to be a nightmare The people laugh at it, and they get angry at it. Caltrans is getting ready to do this again at 154 and 246. Unless they are willing to build the circle that is acres around with a deflection angle of willing to handle speeds of 45-50 miles an hour then there's no reason to build it.

And I have a whole bunch of people up in the valley who contacted this organization and said please contact whoever you can so I'm contacting you As a board, and I urge each and every one of you, when you sit on the SBCAG Board tell Caltrans it's not going to happen. Thank

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role9:38 · ≈ 9:09 AM

You. Thank you. Supervisor Lavagnino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.759:39 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Madam Chair, sir I just want to let you know that there were many voices on SBCAG that We're trying to put Caltrans' feet to the fire and we have found that they are not always as responsive as we would like when they are spending their own money. Now on Measure A items, yeah we do have a lot of input but I know if Mayor Lynn was here and I know Supervisor Gray, we're very strongly opposed to that roundabout. And as much as we tried to influence Caltrans even as a board, a lot of times Caltrans has a mind of their own and when they're spending their own money they direct their funds where they want them to go and in the manner they want them to go.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed10:22 · ≈ 9:10 AM

Madam Chair may I respond?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role10:25 · ≈ 9:10 AM

One minute.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed10:25 · ≈ 9:10 AM

Thank you. This organization gave a letter to Caltrans under the public documents request stating, we want to know your construction standards. What is your angle of deflection and how do you do this formulation? They refused to answer the letter which in itself is a violation. They then did not provide the information that they have and they built an item without providing to the public any solid evidence And that's part of the problem.

And again, I understand what you're saying about the issue of their money but as a block vote if adding the mayors of Lompoc and Buelton, I don't see them doing it. Thanks again for this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed11:11 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed11:11 · ≈ 9:11 AM

I appreciate

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed11:13 · ≈ 9:11 AM

it. Supervisor Gray? Madam Chair, I don't want to get into debate with Ms., but we have SB CAG against that roundabout, we got as high as the Lieutenant Governor trying to prevent Caltrans from putting that roundabout in and we fell on deaf ears. So what Supervisor Rob Nino said is very, very accurate. I just don't get it.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role11:40 · ≈ 9:11 AM

And I've had the same experience with the other one proposed. And I think that Caltrans has various pots of money that they draw from and for what they consider a safety improvement, and if that's what this is then they have the money and they have the discretion. So I totally agree with you Supervisor Gray. Thank you. Yeah thank you. Next public speaker Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed12:03 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Our final request to speak on public comments from Jose Navarrete.

PresenterJose NavarreteSpanish speaking deProposedself-stated12:10 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Good morning, Madam Chair and honorable members of the Board of Supervisors. I stopped by last week because I missed the public comment part. I did drop off some of these flyers. I hope some of you saw them. I'm just here to put a face to the flyer. My name is Jose Navarrete. I am a resident of Santa Barbara. I am also a court-certified interpreter here in town. I work with the Spanish speaking defendants and witnesses that require Court interpretation every day.

I'm here, so which is to say I'm here as a concerned resident and also as a public servant of the county. I'd like to encourage you all to encourage your department heads and in turn encourage their bilingual staff. To come to my workshop, this is geared towards bilingual professionals across the county. And it's basically to help them with their Spanish translation and interpretation skills.

I don't need to tell you that your probation department, the DA's office, the public defender's office and a myriad of your departments work with the Spanish speaking and To professionalize the Spanish that we speak when we speak to them. Not to say that any of the services are bad or lacking, but we can always improve. As court interpreters it's our duty to constantly improve our skills and this is just my way of giving back to the community. The Bilingual Clinic is a non-profit that I'm starting And again, it's just geared towards helping bilingual professionals in the community improve their translation and interpretation skills. So again my only request really is just to have you all encourage your department heads to encourage our staff to come to this totally free workshop.

It's Casa de la Raza Saturday November 10th from 11 to 1. Thank you so much.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role14:07 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Great thank you so much. Thank you for being here. Madam Chair,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed14:11 · ≈ 9:14 AM

we have one final request to speak for Richard Robinson.

0:14 – 0:171 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed14:26 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Madam Chairwoman, members, Richard Robinson. The most important and divisive election in American history is about to take place. The outcome is a foregone conclusion, moot. The question was answered in 2008. Will the people of the best country elect an African-American black president? After the election November 6th, he will repair the bridges like that that fell in Minneapolis. Repair the freeways and roads, build new freeways and roads, bring back our steel producing capacity, put Boeing back to work, build toy factories, shoe factories, clothing factories, furniture factories like that in Grand Rapids Michigan my home state We opened the shoe factories in New England, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts.

Build factories for clothing so that America produces made-in-America union products Ten issues that don't cost $200 and wear out in two. I appreciate it. He's going to give the people a new deal. Now, I'm a Republican. He's my cousin, President Obama. His wife, her great-grandfather is my father's father. Yada, yada, yada. I don't want to sound as if I'm pulling the wool over your eyes.

I am a Republican but the divisiveness encouraging our enemies abroad has to stop so I bluntly say give the people a new deal

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Salud Carbajal · Seconded by Janet Wolf
Show transcript
Thank you. All right, with that we've concluded public comment. We'll go to our administrative agenda because we have a special resolution to present I'm going to ask that the board go ahead and make a motion first to approve that only and then we'll take up the rest of it after the resolution. Second. Motion by Supervisor Carbajal seconded by Supervisor Wolff all those in favor this is for item A1 say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right Supervisor Wolff will turn to you. Thank you very much

0:17 – 0:2310 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed17:54 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Madam Chair I would like to call Lee Heller, our animal services volunteer and Stacy Silva, Animal Services staff and all the other folks who are back there with our furry friends wearing blue shirts to come forward as I present this resolution. This is a resolution to recognize the month of October as Adopt-a-Shelter Dog. Look at these cute furry dogs, and I know they're getting a little restless back there but we didn't hear a peep out of them.

And I just really want to express my sincere appreciation to the shelter staff and all of the volunteers who have done so much. To help with the adoptions, with education, making sure that our animals are vaccinated and really doing so much outreach into the community. I'm lucky enough to have one of the shelters in my district and I continue to be awestruck by the amount of work that goes on there to get these wonderful animals adopted. So, I want to just thank all of you and the people who aren't here for all your hard work.

Thank You Mr. Allen

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed19:09 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Madam Chair, Members of the Board. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2012 as Adopt-a-Shelter Dog Month in Santa Barbara County. Whereas dogs are recognized as man's best friend and all animals support the health and well being of their owners. And whereas the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals recognizes National Adopt-a Shelter Dog Month through education and promotion nationwide.

And whereas, Santa Barbara County Animal Services provides responsible pet ownership education to pet owners in Santa Barbara County about the importance of licensing, vaccinating, spaying and neutering their animals. And whereas, responsible pet owners follow California state law and vaccinate against rabies and license all dogs over four months of age. And whereas nearly 4,700 dogs pass through our Santa Barbara County Animal Services shelters every year after being found as stray or surrendered by their owners for various reasons.

And whereas Santa Barbara County Animal Services works collaboratively with the local humane societies and animal rescue groups to promote responsible pet ownership, alleviate shelter overcrowding and increase adoptions. Whereas Animal Services realizes that shelter dogs are not broken useless or hopeless And whereas shelter dogs are already spayed and neutered, fully vaccinated and ready to provide unconditional love once adopted.

And whereas Santa Barbara County Animal Services is offering adoption discounts on the adoption of all shelter dogs for the entire month of October in honor of National Adopt-a-Shelter Dog Month. Now therefore be it ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim and recognize the significance of shelter dogs on the importance of National Adopt a Shelter Dog Month, and proclaim October 2012 as Adopt a Shelter Dog Month in Santa Barbara County. Passing adopted today.

PresenterStacey SilvaAnimal Services and I think Supervisor Noel Avanino at least can speak for thisProposedself-stated21:07 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Thank you, board. I'm Stacey Silva with the Animal Services and I think Supervisor Noel Avanino at least can speak for this. We know how much the human animal bond means to people and October being National Adopt a Shelter Dog Month we have some amazing dogs that are shelters that are waiting for homes so we really appreciate you guys taking the time To acknowledge the importance of that as well. I'm going to turn it over to Lee Heller who's actually going to introduce you guys to our furry friends here, as well as our volunteers and just thank you once again we appreciate that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role21:40 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Thank You Dr. Heller. We

PresenterLee HellerProposed · by introduction21:42 · ≈ 9:21 AM

have a new microphone system. Madam Chair members of the board let me introduce you to our human and canine companions. You know Stacy Silva our outreach coordinator for animal services. The regular animal volunteer who shows up here Rosalie Skefich, Christy Ritter and Lisa Reed who are wonderful volunteers. And we have here some adoptable dogs, Jem who is a foster puppy in care with me.

Susie Q who lives at the county animal shelter. Lucky who is in foster care and Batata or sweet potato who's in foster care with Lisa. We also have a few alums because we want to show you how well-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed22:18 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Shh!

PresenterLee HellerProposed · by introduction22:21 · ≈ 9:22 AM

They're a little frustrated. We have a couple of alums because we want to show you how wonderful an adopted shelter dog can do out in the world. So we have Saul who is from the Santa Barbara Shelter and who is our foster parent dog extraordinaire, and Bindi because she wanted to represent for Lompoc cause Lompoc has really awesome dogs too as does Santa Maria so thank you so much for your recognition this is a very important month for us

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role22:44 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Well, thank you for all that you do. And I have to tell you that I adopted a dog from a shelter in the Santa Annette Valley a year ago. Triple B, Bodie Bodacious Beagle and I can tell you, I can attest that they are just wonderful, wonderful companions so everybody get out there if you've been thinking about getting a dog now's the time go to the shelters and get one as you can see there's just wonderful pets and thank you for what you do every day of the year. I know that you're there all the time.

We're going to take up the balance of our administrative agenda. That was a wonderful interlude, we should have the dogs here every week. It's just a good way to start you know it's very positive. Cats and dogs, yes. We don't want to be discriminating. So do we have any speakers for the rest of the administrative agenda? And anybody from the board first want to comment on anything on the A agenda? Supervisor Labanino? I just

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.7523:48 · ≈ 9:23 AM

want to pull A23 real quick just for clarification purposes.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role23:53 · ≈ 9:23 AM

A23? All right. Mr. Allen if you would read that.

0:23 – 0:2812 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed23:59 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Madam Chair, members of the Board. Item A-23 is from the Sheriff. The request is that the Board authorize the purchasing agent to procure up to $125,000 in aviation fuel per fiscal year for the Sheriff's Office from the Santa Ynez Airport Authority without being required to conduct a formal bid process and this is for the period ending June 30th 2014. Thank you madam

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.7524:21 · ≈ 9:24 AM

chair. My question is I've been approached by some folks that were worried We no longer would be purchasing fuel at the actual airport itself, but getting it from Vandenberg Air Force Base. And I just didn't know if we had somebody that could speak to that. I guess so?

GuestDoug MartinSheriffProposedself-stated24:38 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino, I'm Doug Martin. I'm the CFO for the Sheriff's Office. The item before you is to give us the purchasing authority to allow us to purchase fuel at the St. Ann's Airport Authority. When the unit was combined this year, the sheriff and the fire department had separate purchase orders. And when we combined them, we failed to realize we had to get actually the sole source to actually allow us to buy the amount of fuel required to run the combined unit. We still have the opportunity to purchase fuel at Vandenberg When the aircraft are off-site and they need to fuel up before coming back descending as this gives us the authority to purchase fuel needed to run the unit.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role25:13 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Okay, that was your explanation? Yes actually Mr. Martin come back to the podium please. Supervisor Gray.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed25:24 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Volunteer pilots have contacted me about this and have said that This now makes it a whole lot more difficult For them to volunteer, because it removes the ability to just fill up on somewhere. I don't know how to express this. I'm very, very concerned that we're going to lose some of our volunteer pilots and I really wish that we could look into this further before we just pass it because I'd hate to lose what they do for us.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed26:06 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Thank you Chairwoman. Perhaps they could contact the admin office, Dennis Bozonich and we can follow up to determine what their issues are and report back to the board on that. But I don't know that it has anything to do with purchasing the amount of fuel that we need at the Senate and as airport for the combined units. I believe that they actually are separate issues. Of course your board has the final discretion on that.

GuestDoug MartinSheriffProposedself-stated26:45 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Madam Chair, if I could follow up on that. If we're speaking of the AeroSquadron, it is a solely separate unit and they are not beholden to have to purchase fuel at San Diego Airport Authority. It's wherever they actually house their aircraft and where they fly to and where they land. That they're not part of the county per se being volunteer units. They actually, they purchased their

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed27:07 · ≈ 9:27 AM

fuel. So I'm going to make this wild assumption that you talk to them about it and you know what their issue is and you know why they are now saying well gee we just may not be able to fly as much because it doubles and triples the paperwork.

GuestDoug MartinSheriffProposedself-stated27:19 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Gray. Actually this is a new issue to me but we can follow up on it today and we'll take care of it. Again, this is strictly for the ASU and not for the Aerosquadron.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed27:28 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Because they do so many things for the county, it would be awful to lose these folks.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role27:36 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Thank you. All right, anything else from the board on the agenda to be pulled? I'm not seeing anything else. Mr. Allen from the public?

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed27:47 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Madam Chair we have two requests to speak. From Mark Scittillo on item A18 and A21 And item A-18 is from the Public Health Department. The request is that the board consider recommendations regarding an agreement for emergency air medical transport services with California Shock Trauma Air Rescue. Item A-21 is from Public Works. The request is that the board consider recommendations regarding the Tahigas Landfill Phase 2 partial final closure construction, and this is in the 3rd District. Mr. Schatilla will have five minutes to talk on these two items.

0:28 – 0:334 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed28:24 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. First on A18 which I believe is in the first district concerning the Caltrans contract for providing emergency medical services. I am working with the neighbors and the folks that live around Cottage Hospital and we have been for most of this year ever since in February when they started to operate the new helicopter pad. On the top of the Cottage Hospital facility and we had a flurry of flights, many of them late at night. And a number of people, a number of the residents there were extremely surprised and very upset by the intrusion of having overflights of helicopters.

There were a number of problems with the beginning flights where pilots were not following the flight path, and the number has dropped off. And Cottage is working with the community to try and find a solution. But one of the solutions that we've identified—and I have to say as an aside that Cottage has been very receptive to our concerns, and we very much appreciate the ability to work with them. Their staff is awesome, and Caltrans and the services that they provide for our community are incredible.

As you look at this contract before you, our request to you is that you direct your staff to introduce metrics in the contracts. to require quieter aircraft whenever possible. Caltrans is the largest service provider of air transport services to Cottage Hospital, and as you get ready to approve this contract on A18 there's no mention whatsoever of the noise issues. There's quieter helicopter equipment and there is louder helicopter equipment. Caltrans recently brought in a number of new pieces of equipment that were approved by the City of Santa Maria a couple weeks ago, the bond funding and station deployed to McClellan. However, in other communities where noise has been an issue, Caltrans has been responsive and has assigned quieter equipment to those communities.

We'd ask that your board provide that direction to Caltrans and work with them. Obviously we need these services, we want these services but we would like for the county to prioritize quieter equipment in working cooperatively with Caltrans and we stand with Caltrans to work with them to help raise the funds And make this happen because that's the easiest solution. The difference between say one of the sheriffs, the old vintage helicopters which are enormously loud versus the new quieter equipment is it's night and day. And if we can move our fleets that are servicing Cottage Hospital to quieter equipment I think that that's a solution that's going to be So we would ask that as you're reviewing these contracts, that you consider whether to stop.

Introduce that as a metric into this contract and make this available as a priority, at least an expression of intention from the county.

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role31:26 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Okay. And then you have two minutes left for

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed31:27 · ≈ 9:31 AM

your... On 821, Tehigua's thanks to the staff for providing the opportunity to review We don't have any concerns with respect to the closure plan, other than some technical issues that I'll talk to staff about. But I wanted to remind the board that in 1999 your predecessors looking at Tejiguas Landfill made a declaration or resolution that Tejiguas Landfill should be closed in 15 years.

As part of the approval of a bench fill project which extended capacity to 2005. In 2002 you adopted an EIR, your predecessor certified an EIR for a 15 year expansion period and at that time you indicated that it was appropriate and it was time to site a new landfill. And I'm here today on behalf of the Gaviota Coast Conservancy which is concerned that inaction And failure to look at this as a priority in terms of our forward vision of where we're going to be in 15 years and where we're going to deposit our residuals. If we go up to a resource recovery project, through that process, we're still gonna have residuals that will need landfilling.

While the partial closure of Tejiguas at this point moves us towards closure, we want to see final closure as soon as possible. And we recognize that there are some alternative facilities that are opening up. The Los Flores Ranch Facility in Santa Maria is one that's looking very promising as a potential regional landfill facility and so we wanted to take this opportunity to underscore our concern with the continued use of Tejiguas Landfill And request that your board similarly ensure that the actions that they're undertaking, that you're undertaking as we move forward. Directions to staff are such that we're not going to find ourselves wed to Tejiguas forever. Tejiguas should have a limited life. I think all the documents and processes that we've seen up to this date take us to that conclusion.

And we think that's very important that your board stand by that position. So thank you Madam

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role33:26 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Chair. Thank you. Supervisor Carbajal?

0:33 – 0:3712 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed33:31 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Certainly, I don't want to do anything that's going to in any way put our community in peril in terms of our public safety regarding the CalSTART contract. But I personally live in that area as well and I know that there's been a big concern by many of my constituents and constituents that are in the adjacent district as well concerned about that noise. And I know that cottage is being very responsive It wouldn't hurt, I think as Mr. Chatillo raises this issue to explore and examine what CalSTART has done in other neighborhoods and communities to see if there's a way that this issue could be addressed. Certainly if it adds costs and if it raises all kinds of other issues, I think it should come back to us because that's something we need to fully understand if it has that kind of implication.

But I can assure you that that's a real issue of concern in the quality of life for many people. In trying to balance out the importance of having a wonderful hospital in our area, ensuring that we have the public safety capability to address the needs of our citizens. But it's easy to live far away and not recognize the impact that these helicopters have on the neighborhood. So it's a balance, so I think the issue is reasonable. And I personally think that unless there's some major time requirement, that it should be looked into as Mr. Shatillo has asserted.

Now on the second issue of Tahequas, Mr. Shatillo, I'm not gonna be as kind to you I too was around during those discussions when there was a task force that looked at the issue of Tahequas and it was 15 year capacity. capacity a whole as you feel it was projected that it would be a 15 year capacity goal. While capacity could be expanded if you throw less garbage into it, so it skews the year but the 15 year capacity was what was examined and I know that some folks focus on the I tend to focus on the capacity 15 year definition, but I really appreciate you raising that. And I think that it's just a matter of opinion of all of us that were present and involved in that process. But I appreciate you raising it, but I kind of see it slightly

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role35:56 · ≈ 9:35 AM

different. Supervisor Wolfe? Thank you. Supervisor Carbajal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed36:00 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Thank You Madam Chair. Just want to comment on the helicopter Issue and the agreement for Caltrans, and I see that Dr. Watt is here and he's on his phone right now probably getting information about this item so what I would suggest is that we hold Either he's ready to come to the microphone and speak to this or we hold, no you're not. So that we hold this item over for further discussion about what would be the implications if we postpone this and wanted to make some adjustments if that's okay with the board.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role36:33 · ≈ 9:36 AM

CEO Waller are there issues with us

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed36:36 · ≈ 9:36 AM

continuing this particular item? I really do need Dr. Wada to help me from a timing perspective. I also was typing as you were speaking and certainly we can follow up on that issue, but I need to ask Dr. Wada timing if that's a concern for us to come back to you in November.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed36:54 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm trying to contact staff now to see if there is a timing issue and so as soon as I hear back I will come back. Maybe

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed37:05 · ≈ 9:37 AM

we can approve the agenda except this item hold this item over and then we'll just discuss it at at today's meeting whether or not we can hold it over. But let's, so we can move on with the agenda.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role37:18 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Let's just

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed37:19 · ≈ 9:37 AM

leave

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role37:19 · ≈ 9:37 AM

that up there. Thank you, thank you Dr. Wada. Alright and we had one more speaker to admin? I'm

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed37:27 · ≈ 9:37 AM

sure that was it.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role37:27 · ≈ 9:37 AM

That was it? Okay, so other than the item A18 do I have a motion to approve the balance of the administrative account? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries all right and we will trail A18 and bring it back when we have more information. We're going to go right into our departmental agenda And our first item is from the Sheriff's Department, and they are requesting a continuance.

0:38 – 0:5312 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed38:00 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Madam Chair, Item 1 is from the sheriff. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the decision to accept an $80 million AB 900 Phase 2 conditional award in direction to keep processing the North Branch Jail Project. This is in the 4th District. The request is that this item be continued to your meeting on November 13th.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role38:19 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Okay, so not the 6th as it says but the 13th?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed38:23 · ≈ 9:38 AM

That's correct.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role38:24 · ≈ 9:38 AM

So do I have a motion to continue this item to that date?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.7538:27 · ≈ 9:38 AM

So moved.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Steve Lavagnino · Seconded by Janet Wolf
Show transcript
Motion by Supervisor Labagnino, seconded by Supervisor Wolfe. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much and we'll go right into now our departmental agenda item number two. Mr. Allen would you read that into the record please?
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed38:44 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, Item 2 is from Planning and Development and Public Works. It's a hearing to receive and follow-up presentation on a joint Santa Barbara County City of Santa Barbara Mission Canyon multimodal improvement process. This will be the first and the second districts.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role38:58 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Good morning, Ms. Dieste. I understand you're going to be starting us off.

CommentRosie DiesteProposedself-stated39:02 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the Board. I'm here today...I'm Rosie Dieste, our Senior Planner from Long Range Planning Division. Also with me today is Matt Daubertine from Public Works. And I'm here today to provide an overview on a collaborative process to improve circulation at the boundary between the city and county in the Mission Canyon area.

This area, including the Mission and surrounding attractions hosts over a million visitors annually in the middle of a thriving neighborhood that includes beautiful homes, parks and schools. Many people live and visit in this area but it can be really difficult at times to figure out where to park or how to get from the Mission to the Museum of Natural History or Rockingham Park.

Neighborhood groups have been working for years to bring attention to this area and we now have an opportunity to work together with the City of Santa Barbara and an organized group of volunteers in a collaborative, solution-driven process. This is funded by a nearly $90,000 grant from Caltrans. This will be a joint effort between Planning & Development and Public Works and City of Santa Barbara staff.

Following my presentation, the volunteer group Concerned Citizens for Safe Passage will describe their long term efforts and goals for the area. For orientation purposes, the beige part doesn't show up really well on the screen but the beige part is the county and the light purple is the city of Santa Barbara. The project starts at the corner of Laguna and Los Olivos Street, travels up past the mission, across Mission Creek onto Mission Canyon Road and up to Foothill.

And it includes both the first and second supervisorial districts. Some of the features that are in this area starting at the city end is, of course, the Mission Santa Barbara, Mission Historic Park and the Rose Garden across the street. There's also a World War I memorial olive grove and traces of the aqueduct that brings water down from the Botanic Garden to the mission.

And when you transition to the county end of the project, there's a historic stone bridge which is said to be the oldest masonry stone bridge in Southern California. We also have Rocky Mook Park and Rockwood or the Santa Barbara Woman's Club. And Mission Canyon Road is lined with beautiful stone walls and mature oak and sycamore trees. This transitional area between the city and the county is considered the gateway entrance into Mission Canyon.

This area is particularly scenic and historic, and it's prompted specific policies in the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan including a proposed scenic corridor overlay. And also an action that was directing county staff to work with the city to create a network of safe pedestrian pathways from the mission to Rocky Nook Park in the Museum of Natural History and beyond while also considering circulation improvements for bicyclists and vehicles.

So the Caltrans Community-Based Transportation Planning Grant Program offered a great opportunity to start fulfilling the policy direction in the draft community plan. Working together with Public Works and the City of Santa Barbara, we applied for the grant this spring and the award was announced this summer. The project will be programmed in Long Range Planning's work program for next fiscal year and it funds a two year planning process that'll end in February 2015.

Grant program stipulations say that this grant can be used for conceptual planning activities only, so it does not fund environmental review, engineering designs or construction. And additional funds will be needed to move the project forward. So as I said, it's a collaborative planning process. It will be in partnership with Public Works as well as City of Santa Barbara staff.

The Concerned Citizens for Safe Passage strongly supported the grant application and they'll continue to participate on the project team. And the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History has donated a meeting space and refreshments for community meetings. So this photograph shows some of the issues that need to be dealt with in this corridor. During special events, in particular there's cars parked all over the pedestrian pathways and there's certain locations where people actually have to walk on the road to get around obstacles and as you can see here, this is a whole group of people walking along side of the road on a blind curve right at the bridge across Mission Creek We also know there's significant historic, scenic, visual, biological and other resources that will need to be considered in any conceptual designs.

So at the end of this grant-funded process, we expect to have a menu of conceptual design solutions. They could range from straightforward fixes such as better signage to more complex multiyear projects and we also anticipate developing a formal agreement between the city and county which would outline mutually agreed upon responsibilities and resources to continue working on any improvements to the corridor.

So in conclusion, I'm really excited to be working on this project in partnership with the city and Public Works staff. And at this time I can transition to the presentation from the Concerned Citizens for Safe Passage.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role44:27 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Okay, I think it was Mr. Jacobs? Good morning.

CommentTom JacobsProposedself-stated44:35 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Supervisors. My name is Tom Jacobs and I am a long time county resident. I'm also on the member of the Mission Canyon Board of the Mission Canyon Association but I'm here as a member of Concerned Citizens for Safe Passage. Our group is a group of volunteers working to improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicle drivers and to promote preservation and enhancement Our goals as Rosie has stated and forgive me for being a little redundant here, she's done a great job of presenting the general direction that we are supporting.

Our main goal is to improve public safety for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. As you can see by Rosie's presentation the roadways are very constrained in this area. We go through a double S curve that is very dangerous. The pedestrian walkways are subgrade and in some places cease to exist altogether. The same can be said about bike lanes. They start and stop.

There's certainly not a standard level of service for either roadways, pedestrians or bikes. This is also one of our most important Emergency evacuation corridors in the area from Mission Canyon and from Riviera neighborhoods, both coming up and going down. Coming up for our first responders and coming down for our inhabitants. This is a very significant area. In addition, our goal is to enrich and preserve and interpret the cultural and historical resources that exist there.

So again, our mission is a National Historic Landmark Area and this is studded with cultural and natural resources that are very significant. Major evacuation route for the canyon and Riviera neighborhoods Over 10,000 trips daily go through the Mission Canyon corridor and 1,000 trips during peak hours. So this is a significantly laden area with transportation issues.

A million visitors visit the mission and continue on to the Natural History Museum. As you well know, the California education system asks that elementary school children learn about the missions in their early years and great numbers of students are visiting the mission and trying to find their way over to the Natural History Museum. This is not an easy thing for them to do.

In addition, this is one of the most beautiful areas in our neighborhood, in our community. As I come down to town every day and look out to see the harbor and town from the mission and then going home every day looking up into the hills, this is certainly one of the most scenic areas in our community. In addition, it is our goal to enhance this corridor as an educational resource. There are so many things about it that can be signed and termed a resource for all of the visitors to actually have a real learning experience when they're passing through here safely.

As you can see here There are just so many historic and cultural resources in addition to the mission, the aqueduct system, numerous beautiful old stone walls. Of course the Mission Creek Bridge is historically important and significant in this state and many other smaller historic features. So what have we done? We've been meeting for two years. And in those two years, we've drafted a mission statement which I just shared with you and we've engaged every single stakeholder along the route.

They're all participants in our group and one of the main ideals of our group has been to work cooperatively, to respect each other's point of view. We have all of the different institutions, all the landowners represented. And we've compiled an information packet, which we're sharing with you. There are copies available and part of that packet was actually included in the grant application that Rosie has described. We're very honored to have had that happen.

In addition, we have been educating our public officials about the situation on the ground. If you don't come here every day it's an easy place to get lost and we've taken walking tours, walkabouts, and you can see there that Supervisor Carbajal is on the ground and getting a little tour from our group. So what are our next steps? We'd like to engage you, we'd like to engage you to support this grant process and the eventual memorandum of understanding that will establish this as a joint county city project in the Safe Passage Corridor.

We would like to encourage you to appoint a board liaison to the project and also encourage you to support the county lead staff in the realization of this project. And lastly, we would like to encourage you to study the corridor for a priority utility undergrounding. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role51:01 · ≈ 9:51 AM

Thank you, Mr. Jacobs. Any questions from the board? Supervisor Carbajal.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed51:07 · ≈ 9:51 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. This is a project that historically has been advocated for greatly by the Mission Canyon community as well as the surrounding mission neighborhoods and all of the other citizen groups as well There is a school in the vicinity, it's Roosevelt and many of those children traverse this very dangerous area to visit the Museum of Natural History.

And if you haven't taken a tour I encourage you to go by and just check it out until you get out there you don't really realize how treacherous it is. And I think that what makes us An extraordinary effort is that the city's involved as well. And I think it's trying to work through all the challenging issues, not only for pedestrians but for evacuation from Mission Canyon, for vehicles, for bicycles and really trying to thread the needle to make sure that we also respect the natural and historic resources That quite frankly we all appreciate and want there, but also makes it very challenging in terms of the types of solutions we achieve to solve this very challenging area.

I'm elated that the city and the county are partnering, and I wanna recognize our Rosie and Jeff at the county for doing a great job. Rob Dayton was here with the City of Santa Barbara. Mr. Doberteen was instrumental in this, the Public Works Department. Everybody has really worked together with the citizens, the Museum of Natural History and Mr. Tom Jacobs has been a leader in this effort and I just think that we were successful in getting this grant because I think we displayed this collaboration that we have been able to put together to try to address some of these very important issues. I see Mr. Sweeney in the audience as well, Fred Sweeney he's part The citizens group as well.

And I just think this is going to lend itself to hopefully taking a major step forward in trying Many of the challenges that have been identified here historically by many stakeholders in our community. So, I just want to recognize everybody for getting us to this point and I look forward to us continuing this collaboration to make sure that we bring about some improved safety for everyone in that area.

0:53 – 1:0110 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role53:44 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Carbajal. Supervisor Wolf? Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed53:47 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Madam Chair. I too want to thank our staff and city staff and Mr. Jacobs to you and your team. I think it's important to note in the board letter that in the draft Mission Canyon Community Plan this area for pedestrian safety was highlighted so I appreciate the fact that sometimes when we write these community plans, sometimes things get lost and they don't percolate to the surface. But I think your team Mr. Jacobs and county and city staff working together has really drawn attention to this area That was highlighted, so I think with the grant we can now move forward and see some results. And Mr. Jacobs you had asked about a commitment from the Board of Supervisors to have a staff person and Hillary Campbell is my staff person who has gone on the walk alongs.

So you have the commitment from my office to work with you and we wish you all the success in coming back to us with a plan that That really does incorporate the safe passage and the historical landmarks that you identified, that all too often I think folks just miss as we drive by that area. So I think it's going to be a great enhancement to that area. So thanks to all of you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role55:10 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Thank you Supervisor Wolff. Mr. Allen do we have public speakers?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed55:15 · ≈ 9:55 AM

We have one request to speak from Scott Wentz

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed55:31 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Madam Chair, members of the Board, Scott Winsor representing Cars for Basic. I'll open my comments with a tongue-in-cheek comment that I made to the Santa Barbara City Council meeting. If you don't have at least one member of your family that came here before 1900 back up and leave. That will solve the transportation issue problem. Part of the problem in Mission Canyon has to do with the County of Santa Barbara increasing the density That they've allowed up there. There are places that I have delivered flowers to as a grad student that were absolutely terrible, but more and more and more houses gone in up there. That's part of the reason you have 10,000 cars coming down there on a daily basis and 1,000 cars an hour.

The major issue you have in this location is a one block area From APS up through to the bridge, because you have the constricted bridge which is the stone bridge. You have Mountain Drive which goes down there. You have APS that comes down there. You also have many historic monuments in that area having to do with the mission and the Chumash village that was there.

So it's all constrained down into a very local area. You cannot make any changes to this location and still maintain the historic nature of the area. If you widen Mission Canyon coming down from Foothill, it changes the historic nature of it. The majority of the problem with pedestrians and bicycles has to do with the east side, meaning the mountainside. If you're going to make changes to the bridge then you have to make changes to Mountain Drive which means you're going to have to cut back Mountain Drive at least 200 feet. That's a huge project So the issues here are dramatic.

They're not small, and I don't see how you're going to make any major changes here without a significant heavy lifting issue. Again, the east side of Mission Canyon is the problem. I have manned a barricade at the county, at the Mission Canyon during the Coyote Canyon fire 2 o'clock in the morning With smoke and darkness and everything else. Seeing people trying to get in and out of that canyon at the same time you have mutual aid coming up, trying to get up there. And these guys are working off maps. So any changes you make to this location have to include that.

So I urge you and the groups that are going to be working with you, we've looked at this multiple times. We've talked to Riviera Association at least six years ago. The issues with transportation, the city knows our position. The pedestrians is going to always be a nightmare at that location. There's no way around it because you have tourists coming in. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed58:30 · ≈ 9:58 AM

I really appreciate your comments and I know you approach these issues with a keen eye for various variables. I do want to encourage you to be part of our effort, I think you have something to contribute and I think that with everybody coming together all these different minds and perspectives, I'm hopeful and optimistic that we will be able to come up with some some solutions that everybody can agree on. So I want to encourage you to be part of it.

You know, your way is a good question and I think that I and the county would agree that over 50-60 years of development in Mission Canyon has not been done in the best way. But I think that was acknowledged in 1984 when the Mission Canyon Specific Plan came about. Is it 84 or 86? 84. And it was a specific plan and it attempted to put the genie back in the bottom, Mr. Wentz. You're absolutely right.

Subsequent to that is now that's why we are now working on a community plan update. We went from a specific plan to a plan so you're absolutely correct But I think we really have an opportunity working together to see if we could finally identify some solutions here. And you bring some good perspective, so I hope you'll consider being part of our effort.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed59:50 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Thank you sir.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role59:51 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Thank you. Supervisor Wolk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed59:53 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Wentz, Amaze me, you bring up ideas and you come to the podium and speak to issues that have run through my mind. And one of the things that was concerning to me was how do they get around that bridge? But what I think about is the opportunity for our planners with this grant and some folks from Public Works to delve into Into this issue because to me there might be an opportunity to build on an alternative Pedestrian bridge that goes over Mission Creek, because I understand that you it's You can't I don't believe that you can move that historic bridge so I appreciate you bringing up those issues And I have confidence and trust that we're going to see a way to get To get through those and I I think Supervisor Carbajal idea of you being involved is a good one.

Thank you I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:00:51 · ≈ 10:00 AM

May I respond? Just shortly. Go ahead. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The issue here has to do with the museum and the historic aspect of the mission so the majority of your tourist issues is on the west side of the road and that's where I think the answer has to be because the east side as I mentioned is a nightmare. Thank you.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Salud Carbajal · Seconded by Janet Wolf receive and file
Show transcript
All right. That was our only public speaker, Mr. Allen. So we'll bring this back to the board. This is a receiving file. I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the effort that the community has been going through to bring everybody together and now with the grant that the county can work collaboratively on this. I drive through there all the time And I think the challenge obviously is trying to separate the bike and pedestrian traffic from the road. And with the minimal opportunities or none, to change the road, I think it's going to be the other. Also since this area is so rich with cultural and historic artifacts, I think one of the other challenges to have a plan that minimizes ground disturbance because I think that when you're talking about utility undergrounding or you're talking about new trail building, that is going to have to be handled very carefully. Because I think that you don't have to go too far there and if you put a shovel in the ground you're gonna find something. So those are just some comments that I have and I look forward to having this come back to us and hear about the progress. With that, we'll entertain a motion to receive and file. Motion by Supervisor Carball, seconded by Supervisor Wolk. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

1:02 – 1:1714 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:02:45 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Chairman, I have heard from the Department of Public Health about the CalSTRS agreement and they indicate that it would be acceptable to continue that to our November board meeting. So you may wish to take action on that at this point.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:02:58 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Okay a motion to continue item A18 to November 6th meeting? Yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:03:05 · ≈ 10:03 AM

And I'll second that, but I think one of the reasons that we wanted it to be moved was to see if they can look at the contract. There was a portion of that contract that talked about levels of service. There may be some wording in there that they might be able to address the concerns that were raised. If not let them be prepared to answer that question.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:03:33 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Motion in a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Actually the board is going to take a break until 10-15 and then we'll take up our agenda item number 3 Did you want to go ahead and say something? Well, I was

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:03:49 · ≈ 10:03 AM

just going to recuse myself before we take the break.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:03:51 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Okay. But

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:03:52 · ≈ 10:03 AM

I can come back.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:03:53 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Why don't we go ahead and have Mr. Allen meet him with a record and then we'll do the recusal, then we'll have a break. We'll continue and come back.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:04:00 · ≈ 10:04 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, item three is from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the appeal filed by Mark Sciatillo on behalf San Antonio Creek Homeowners Association and the Channel Islands Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, of the Planning Commission's approval of the Park Hill Estates Project. This is located at 4700 Villa Los Santos in the Goleta area in the 2nd District.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:04:22 · ≈ 10:04 AM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:04:23 · ≈ 10:04 AM

Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:04:23 · ≈ 10:04 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. As I've stated before, I will have to recuse myself as this project is within close proximity to my residence.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:04:34 · ≈ 10:04 AM

Okay thank you so the board is going to take a break we'll be back about 10-15. Music Hello. Hello. ♪

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:07:29 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Hi. . . Hello. You. You. Hi, everyone. Hi. Good morning, everyone. Hi. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. Yeah.

1:17 – 1:3317 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:17:48 · ≈ 10:17 AM

♪ Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, come to order. We're taking up our departmental agenda item number three. Mr. Allen would you read that into the record please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:18:23 · ≈ 10:18 AM

Madam Chair, members of the Board. Item 3 is from Planning and Development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the appeal followed by Mark Sciatello on behalf of the San Antonio Creek Homeowners Association in the Channel Islands chapter of the California Native Plant Society. This is of the planning commission's approval of the Park Hill Estates project. This is located at 4700 Villa Los Santos in the Goleta area in the second district.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:18:46 · ≈ 10:18 AM

Okay thank you and I understand we have several late submissions that the board needs to vote to accept?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:18:53 · ≈ 10:18 AM

Yes, Madam Chair. We did receive three documents after the 12 noon on Friday deadline and those have been distributed. The first one is from Christopher O'Connor and it is about a four page document. The second one is from It's dated, well it came in actually today on Monday. It's from Kendra Duncan and it's a document with several photographs and the third one was submitted on Saturday actually. It was emailed to us on Saturday and that was from Frank Arredondo and it is a six page document so those three were not submitted timely per the board resolution and so the board would need to vote on accepting or not accepting these into the record and that's

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:19:42 · ≈ 10:19 AM

Okay, and that's because they were over one page. But anything that came in late that was a single page is why we don't have to vote on those?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:19:49 · ≈ 10:19 AM

That's correct.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:19:50 · ≈ 10:19 AM

Okay so do I have a motion to accept these three into the record?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.751:19:55 · ≈ 10:19 AM

Madam Chair make the motion we accept them

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:19:57 · ≈ 10:19 AM

All right, thank you Supervisor LaVenue. Do I have a second? Second from Supervisor Gray. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries all right. So because this is an appeal hearing as you know we have a particular protocol that we go through so we'll start with the staff presentation for about eight minutes then we will go to the appellant represented by Mr. Sciatillo for ten minutes Then we'll go to the project applicant, Mr. Nelson for 10 minutes then we will go to public comment then there will be an opportunity for both the appellant and the project applicant to have a rebuttal time of up to five minutes each and then staff comments for up to five minutes if they need to respond and then the board will deliberate so with that we'll go ahead and we'll turn to staff and Mr.

Tuttle are you going to start us off?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:20:55 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Yes, good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. Thank you for having me here today. I am here today to present to you the appeal of the Park Hill Estates Version 2 project. It was filed by Mark Shutillo on behalf of the San Antonio Creek Homeowners Association and the Channel Islands Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. You may recall reviewing this project in the context of the appropriate level of environmental review back in May, at which time your board considered the Planning Commission's determination that additional environmental review was required.

Your board voted 2-2 on that matter resulting in no action. Subsequent to your hearing, the applicant returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration after having made two changes to the project including incorporating improvements to the lower portion of St. Antonio Creek Road to enhance its functionality as an evacuation route and some minor changes to Lot 10 to address neighbor concerns.

The Planning Commission approved the project with these changes and it was subsequently appealed by Mark Schatillo. For reference and to refresh your memory, here's a vicinity map showing the project site in the San Antonio Creek neighborhood in between Cathedral Lakes to the south and Highway 154 to the northeast. This next slide just shows a blow-up of the project site in aerial view surrounded by residential development. As you can see it is currently undeveloped and vacant.

We can return to these slides throughout the hearing if need be as questions come up. Here's a conceptual site plan prepared for the project. As a reminder, the project proposes to subdivide the 14.87 acre property into 16 residential lots including 15 that would be set aside for market rate units and one affordable lot of 0.39 acres in size. The market rate lots would range from approximately .6 acres to about 1.1 acres in size.

2 private roads would serve the development, Cozy Lane providing access from Via Los Santos on the south and Cozy Drive providing access from San Antonio Creek Road on the east. If you recall at your board hearing back in May one of the key issues that was discussed was emergency access. Staff identified further improvements that could be made to the lower portion of San Antonio Creek Road in order to enhance its ability to accommodate emergency vehicles or residents evacuating in an emergency situation.

They estimated that completing these improvements would cost approximately $120,000. These improvements were to include constructing a small retaining wall on the uphill slope for approximately 150 feet through the narrow portion of the roadway. The photo here shows that section. This would allow the roadway to widen from approximately 14 feet up to 16 or 18 feet throughout that section. The rest of the road is already widened to between approximately 18 and 24 feet.

These improvements would also include resurfacing the roadway, drainage improvements and a concrete berm along the edge to control drainage. Vegetation and tree trimming as you can see in the photo there is a lot of overgrowth. As well as refreshing the road way delineation and reflective markers to help identify the edges of the road way. The applicant has proposed to incorporate these improvements into the project and construct them concurrently with the initial subdivision improvements. And the Planning Commission approved this as part of their approved project.

These improvements would not result in the roadway meeting county fire department standards for width, which would be 24 feet. They would enhance its ability to accommodate vehicles exiting the neighborhood in an emergency scenario providing a secondary evacuation route. This offsite improvement exceeds the fire department standards for this project and the project meets all fire department standards applied.

The appellant identified three issues forming the basis for their appeal, including one, an assertion that an EIR is required based on substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Two, an assertion that the mitigated negative declaration is flawed because it does not evaluate the whole of the project and relies on an improper baseline with respect to biological setting.

And lastly, that an assertion that the Planning Commission's findings for approval of the project are not supported by substantial evidence. I will address each of these issues separately. In regards to the first appeal issue, the appellant identifies six separate items which he asserts constitute substantial evidence to require preparation of EIR. As discussed in detail in the board letter, the items raised by the appellant do not constitute substantial evidence and the planning commission in reviewing the project concluded that the mitigated negative declaration provided adequate environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

Relevant comments by David Magni as the first claim were addressed in the revised final and mitigated negative declaration, and responded to at the public hearings. Other criticisms of the MND submitted by Magni were found to have no merit or evidentiary basis. In regards to the second item, the appellant offered no detail as to which comments or statements made by the Planning Commission or planning and development staff provided substantial evidence.

And in terms of that 3rd claim, the Planning Commission's findings for approval of the 2007 project were based on the specifics of that project and the facts before them at that time. Your board is not bound by any prior findings made for a different project. In terms of the 4th claim and fire department standards for roadway improvements as I mentioned, the Fire Department has confirmed The project meets all applicable fire department standards applied to this project. The proposed offsite improvement to the lower portion of San Antonio Creek Road is not a requirement being imposed by the Fire Department on this project.

In terms of the 5th claim, the opinions of area residents on the visual impacts of the project without supporting facts or evidence do not constitute substantial evidence. Mitigation measures have been applied and incorporated as conditions of approval on to reduce any potential visual impacts and ensure neighborhood compatibility. And lastly, the project has been found consistent with applicable policies of the community plan, Gluta Community Plan and the Comprehensive Plan as detailed both in your board letter and in the original Planning Commission staff report.

In sum, Planning Commission and Planning and Development staff concluded no substantial evidence to require an EIR. In regards to the second appeal issue and the assertion that the mitigated negative declaration is inadequate because it fails to consider the whole of the project, being both the initial subdivision of the lots as well as future residential development.

The document, the MND clearly evaluates the impacts associated with future residential development on this site The MND does not limit its review to simply the subdivision. Mitigation measures were identified and included as conditions of approval specifically geared towards reducing impacts associated with the future residential development. In regards to the baseline issue, the MND relied on the existing physical conditions at the time of the preparation of the document against which to evaluate practice. The MND includes a detailed discussion of the biological resources present on site and the survey work and accompanying impact analysis included in the document are adequate under CEQA.

The letters submitted by David Magni criticize the biological analysis for failing to identify and evaluate impacts to non-vascular plants or lichens as well as invertebrate species such as snails, but provides no substantial evidence to indicate that such species are present on site and were inappropriately omitted from the discussion. As discussed in your board letter, in regards to the last appeal issue, the Planning Commission was presented with substantial evidence to support their findings for approval.

This was over the course of three separate hearings. This information includes the revised final mitigated negative declaration and all of the public comment letters submitted The original staff report, which includes a thorough analysis of the project's consistency with applicable policies at the comprehensive plan and deleted community plan. Testimony from the county fire department and public works departments regarding the projects compliance with their standards as well as the value of the proposed improvements to the lower portion of San Antonio Creek Road as an evacuation route.

And lastly, the Planning Commission staff memorandum dated August 16th 2012 which includes a discussion of the changes to the project as well as the revised findings for approval and they reflect those project changes. There is one cleanup item that I did want to address. Condition number 59 of the conditions of approval mistakenly references an old condition letter from the County Fire Department An updated condition letter dated December 9, 2011 was submitted.

So Condition 59 which simply references the condition letters from the various departments should be revised with the correct date and reflect the correct reference. To close, staff's recommendations are to deny the appeal thereby affirming the Planning Commission's approval, make the required findings for approval including CEQA findings Adopt the proposed revised final mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program contained in the conditions of approval.

And lastly, to grant an overall approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval as revised. That concludes staff's presentation and we are happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:31:45 · ≈ 10:31 AM

you. Thank you, Mr. Tuttle. Before we go to that I neglected to ask the board for any ex parte communications so Supervisor Lavinino did you have anything there?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.751:31:56 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Madam Chair didn't meet with anybody but did take a tour of the facility just on my own.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:32:01 · ≈ 10:32 AM

The

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.751:32:01 · ≈ 10:32 AM

site? Just walk the site yeah.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:32:03 · ≈ 10:32 AM

All right Supervisor Carbajal

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:32:05 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. My staff met with Jeff and Jason Nelson, and I had a meeting with Chris and Kendra O'Connor, neighbors to the Park Hill Estates, and I met with a constituent of mine, Julia Shkanian who wanted to provide me some of her perspective on this issue.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:32:28 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Thank you. Supervisor Gray? Okay, well I received the same emails as everybody else and I also did meet in my office with both Mr. Nelsons. Okay so we'll bring it back any questions from the board at this time of staff and their presentation? Mr. Tuttle, I just wanted to ask the appeal issues seem to be very general they're not issue specific and it seems like the last time this was before us the two issues that were mainly being discussed were impacts to biology and the fire evacuation issue Are those still the main ones that they feel that there's not enough environmental work done on or is it sounds like it's bigger than that now?

1:33 – 1:409 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:33:26 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. The initial appeal submitted within the 10 day appeal period focused primarily on the fire issues, the bio-issues but general inadequacy or their assertions of inadequacy of the documents. I know Mark still submitted a subsequent letter just on Friday I believe That raised additional issues as well that he may or may not bring up today.

But I do believe the emphasis and certainly the appellants being the Homeowners Association and Native Plant Society, from my understanding continue to focus on those two issues. Okay

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:34:11 · ≈ 10:34 AM

thank you. All right we'll go ahead then and we'll turn to the appellant who will have 10 minutes Mr. Chattel.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:34:19 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mark Shatillo for the appellants. We were originally told we'd have 15 minutes and five minutes for rebuttal so... You do.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:34:27 · ≈ 10:34 AM

We'll go

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:34:27 · ≈ 10:34 AM

with 10. You are the boss here. You have ten

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:34:30 · ≈ 10:34 AM

minutes now and you will have five minutes at the end after public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:34:33 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Thank you very much. So I'm here today on behalf of the Channel Islands Chapter of this California Native Plant Society and the San Antonio Creek Homeowners Association. We have a number of broad concerns Specifically with respect to the findings, the findings of policy consistency, the adequacy of the conditions of approval. But I'm going to focus my comments today on the CEQA issues and we did submit a letter to your board on Friday which hopefully you've had a chance to review which identified not only the fire and the biological issues but the other issues associated with the adequacy of the environmental review associated with the other constraints on this site. Cultural resources, visual resources and soils. So it's part of our concern is that this has been a evolving project description with this last negative declaration came the inclusion of a widening of the roadway through the Oak Woodland but there's no assessment whatsoever with respect to what those impacts of widening this roadway in the Oakland will be.

I'm going to be joined in a moment by first David Magdy who is an accepted expert biologist and then Scott Franklin, who will serve as our expert dealing with fire issues. But I want to lay quickly the framework you're subject to the fair argument test. Is there substantial evidence to support our contention that there's a potential significant impact? And when Information that's evaluated by the agency deficiencies in the record are present such as the inadequate survey work, the failure to model evacuation and the scope of the inquiry actually is enlarged. And so your board is under a greater burden to look at those issues and if there is any substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of an impact on any of these issue areas, then you're required under CEQA to prepare to reject this negative declaration and prepare an EIR.

Substantial evidence as you know facts reasonable assumptions predicated on facts and expert opinions supported by facts and staff's sort of gloss over of these issues I think doesn't really serve It's our position that we have clearly met the legal standards for necessitating an EIR, so without further ado I'm going to ask David Magney to come up and talk about the biological resources on the site and both the inadequacies of the survey work as well as the potential impacts from this project.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:37:15 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Thank you. Go

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:37:17 · ≈ 10:37 AM

ahead, Mr. Magney. Supervisors? David Magney. I've outlined in detail all the issues that I've raised in my letter so I'm just going to summarize those right now since we only have a few minutes. The project site is dominated by native grassland habitat and some scrub habitat and up now up to about three acres of that is dominated by purple native grass Native grassland is a habitat of concern in Santa Barbara County, and the thresholds manual says that mitigation should occur on-site.

All mitigation for this impacts of this project is proposed off-site on a site at UCSB which is actually an entirely different environment, different landscape on different soil type. Also in a somewhat similar condition surrounded by various types of development and the ocean on the south side. We do not think it's an appropriate location, and we have concerns about there probably could be any conservation easement applied to it protected in perpetuity which is part of the standards that are required.

Other concerns that we have is that the biological resource assessments were never done to full assessment standard protocols, and they're also very old. They were done back in 1998-99 and the only subsequent work that's been done has been to look at and map the grassland component, which parts are dominated by neograss. There has not been a full biological assessment of baseline conditions of the project since then. And even then those were not full adequate surveys. And as I pointed out there's two particular areas resource areas that have not been addressed whatsoever nobody's even looked at them at all and that is for terrestrial gastropods which there are a number of native Rare ones that occur in the county, and I submitted evidence to that previously.

And of the lichen flora which is on boulders. Nobody's ever done a survey of the flora, the lichen flora on the boulders. Some of those may be rare. A similar type of survey was done over on the Bridal Ridge and then San Marcos Foothills Survey. Actually, I did the biology initially for the Bridal Ridge project. So those resource areas were not addressed whatsoever. So they need to be assessed and determined if there's a significant impact related to those.

The off-site mitigation site has never been assessed in terms of what kind of impacts, what's there? We don't know what the restoration or mitigation would do to existing conditions there. That was never been addressed. And then finally the emergency access road that would go through Tucker's Grove, the widening of that has not been assessed for impact to biological resources. I've walked at, I'm a certified arborist there are several mature coastline oak trees that would be impacted by that. There is also a patch of coastal sage scrub that also has not been assessed. Those should be assessed in EIR.

1:40 – 1:5910 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:40:27 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Thank you, Mr. Magni. I'm going to now call up Scott Franklin who has been a firefighter for more than 50 years and has specific experience in the project area and he's gonna speak to the Significance of the impact associated with the high fire hazard area designation in the project.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:40:41 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:40:43 · ≈ 10:40 AM

you. Madam Chair, members of the board, Scott Franklin I'm considered an expert in wildfire behavior and planning issues. I served 36 years with LA County in the last 12 years as a vegetation management officer. I'm 30 familiar with the Santa Barbara County front fires Having fought the 1964 Coyote fire for five days, as a matter of fact. I am familiar with wildfire behavior in the proposed project area and have conducted a technical post-fire evaluation of the 1990 Painted Cave Fire.

As part of legal proceedings. In addition, I have worked on three fire protection plans for development projects in the lower San Marcos area over the past 15 years. I am familiar with the project site, the project and the applicable authority. I am offering my testimony to you today as an expert opinion. It is my firm conviction that this project due to the high fire severity zone where the project is located and the related fire safety risk will cause a potentially significant impact, as defined by CEQA.

The basis for this opinion is as follows. First, the proposed project mitigated need declaration fails to acknowledge and mitigate for the severe wildfire threat to the project and adjacent residences. Second, the lack of safe and adequate access and egress threatens the safety of the project occupants as well as the neighbors. Third, Occupants will compromise the evacuation attempts of other local residents. Finally, this particular project site is exposed to an extremely high level of risk for particularly catastrophic wildfire due its unique conditions as demonstrated by historic wildfire behavior.

This specific site is vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire behavior as it's located in the past of five fast-moving flame fronts during the Painted Cave fire based on behavior of the Hesisuda and Gap fires, which approached but did not reach the site. And the only reason they didn't, the winds weren't as high as they were in the Paint Fire. The project description fails to include compliance with state fire zone construction materials and techniques, that's chapter 7A by the way. Mandate appropriate landscaping or provide for a practical secondary emergency egress route that will function safely during an immediate short notice evacuation such as required during the TN Painted Cave fires.

14 foot or 16 foot wide emergency access on a curvy steep roadway is not a safe facility for this purpose, in my opinion. Based on my experience and review of the project I believe this project will expose project occupants to a high safety risk from wildfire. I believe the project will compromise the safety of other residents in the area And I believe the project's mitigated negative declaration relies on an unsafe substandard emergency access route. This project will cause a potentially significant impact and an EIR is required, and thank you for your consideration and listening to my views. I'd be very concerned if I approved this project if I were you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:44:12 · ≈ 10:44 AM

And Madam Chair, three other issues, cultural resources. Mr. Arredondo submitted a letter and I hope he'll be here today. Visual resources there's a significant impact as supported by the evidence of neighbors and others in the vicinity of their project. And then finally in soils this project includes the Fanglomerate boulder field which was identified as a unique geologic resource in the adjacent San Marcos foothills EIR. So for all these reasons we believe there is evidence of a significant impact

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:44:41 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chateau and you will have five minutes later for rebuttal. Before we go to the applicant I want to ask staff a question if you could put up the map of the site again? Yeah in 2007 there was a project that the neighbors did not oppose for 12 lots is that correct? And there was going to be some on-site mitigation in that case for the biological impacts. Is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:45:20 · ≈ 10:45 AM

That is correct as well. The onsite restoration as part of the 2007 plan was laid out fairly similar to this site plan in terms of it was going to encompass this detention basin on the lower southern edge of the site, which for the 2007 plan was roughly two acres. And then it was also going to run along the backyards of the lots along here, to get up another three quarters of an acre. So the total onsite restoration for the 2007 plan was about 2.7 acres.

That was based on the identification at that time of a little less than one and a half acres of native grasslands triggering meeting the county's thresholds. The current proposal, the applicants are proposing to also have the detention basin here planted with some native plants but they also intend To use the detention basin for passive recreation of the residents, there would be a little path that would go around it and the bottom of the basin would be maintained to allow for use which would obviously diminish its ability for use as a restoration site.

But they still do propose to plant the basin with native plant species that would provide some value, biological value. However, the amount of acreage of native grassland since 2007 has expanded. The counts in 2010 with this project were just over 3 acres meeting the county's thresholds so applying our standard 2 to 1 replacement ratio requires 6 acres of restoration.

So more than double what was required with the 2007 proposal. And it was for that primary reason that it was determined that on-site restoration, to meet 6 acres of on-site restoration while accommodating the project was not feasible and they looked for off site.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:47:47 · ≈ 10:47 AM

Okay. And I just want to be clear, in the 2007 plan some of the mitigation was going to happen in the lots? In the individual lots? That's correct. So like in people's backyards?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:47:58 · ≈ 10:47 AM

That's correct. There's a... actually there's the South Coast Conduit, the Cone Water Conduit runs through this property And the restoration would, and so there's a no-build area that runs across the site roughly where I'm pointing the cursor. And so that's the area that would have been identified for restoration with the 2007 plan.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:48:30 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Thank you very much. I appreciate that clarification. We'll go ahead and return to the project applicant. Mr. Nelson, you will have up to 10 minutes for you and your

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:48:42 · ≈ 10:48 AM

team. Let us get our PowerPoint queued up first. Good morning Chair Farr and Supervisors. Jeff Nelson on behalf of the Park Hill project team. Here is the Project in Neighborhood. Please deny the appeal. There's no basis for an EIR or further delays. The project is exactly what the Community Plan and Housing Element Environmental Review anticipate here. Fire Department said that they are fine with our project, it meets all their standards. It offers new road safety improvements that the county cannot require of the project. County in-house expert Melissa Mooney says there is no substantial evidence of any missing bio information as did the Planning Commission find.

Appeal misses the mark. The appeal uses lofty rhetoric, but their cases don't apply here. This is a tentative map consistent with the community plan and zoning and the master EIR for the community plan. This property has a certified and mitigated ND for all issues including the emergency egress in biology, all of which were studied and approved in 2007 approval. Only the extra four homes are subject to review here under two CEQA cases. This plan has additional legal support State bonus density law.

No EIR is justified. The fair argument standard does not apply when you have a master EIR, that's what we have here. Residential development in the foothills to date has been substantially below the build-out projected by the Galena Community Plan EIR staff report. This is what the staff report digested and indeed issues on fire safety and biology were considered in the EIR and the community plan adopted overriding considerations as to those two issues.

The existing adopted MND is unquestioned for the very issues appellants are raising now. There's no new evidence, much less substantial evidence of bio or safety issues. What threshold of significance is exceeded to make it, quote, significant? On fire safety issues uniform standards applied including high fire area building code standards mitigate potential impacts. And indeed these homes will be built to higher building safety standards than existing homes were 20 and 40 years ago.

Once again this is the artistic rendition of what the maximum housing sizes will be on the property. Since we had two hearings with you in May, we talked to FIRE about ROAD's work program of $95,000-$120,000 road improvements. That was their plan not ours. We wrote a letter offering to do it if the project received reasonably timely final approval. We updated the state HCD on local infill housing processing issues with affordable and specifically this case. They said we would not discourage litigation on the problems we've had in getting infill projects approved. We talked to the Sheldons who, and Gleda Sanitary District and Environmental Health Services about the specifics on lot 10 to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors who had issues on that and all agreed upon something that worked.

The Planning Commission approved it on September 5th. Right after that, two of the neighbors, Mr. Brown and Vickers asked to meet with us and we discussed a 2-stage improvement to the road process with the neighbors where we'd fund 120 and perhaps they would fund others. They subsequently filed an appeal Then we met on the road with all hands on deck to consider these further improvements on October 1st, but that concept seems to have fallen by the wayside at least per their official communications. We also did research during that time about county has damages for not processing a tentative map that has specific timelines in time limits. In fact, that was a case where it was stymied with the 2-2 vote. Incidentally at the Tree Farm Supervisors hearing, Supervisor Wohl said that she while she recused herself on Park Hill, she always expected that property developed after she moved in nearby speaking generally about neighbors expectations.

Once again here is the subdivision map this is what the actual project is before you Here there are, in the spring you've got grasses and you've got views towards the ocean and UCSB. The density of the 16 homes on 14.8 acres is lower than the average density in the vicinity as you have a variety of different lot sizes in that area. State has chosen to help infill projects particularly those with affordable housing.

Infill is optimum planning state line. Reminding you on the options that drove the design here is that the county has a housing element requirement of affordable housing of 30% of all of the units on a project which would have yielded six affordable and 18 units under the inclusionary. Or pay 1.3 million in new move fees or do a state bonus density project, that was our choice one very low income rental unit, a rental casita Neighbors have viewed this as a threat to their values, but it's like a second unit with architectural and rental controls.

This very same property has been mired in processing since 1997 when the staff said the inlet fee would be $95,000. It's escalated because of the county's formulas through the years to over a million dollars You can have a small casita that has great architectural integrity and is positive for the neighborhood. There's a small home in a church that neighbors opposed, in a church property neighbors opposed but it's integrated into the neighborhood also. It should not be threatening. Here if you see around the red lines here's where the smaller affordable is next to the larger unit. It's as if it was a second unit from neighborhood standpoint.

As to the lower San Antonio Creek Road, this was a full-use road until 1974. It's an existing condition under 24 feet like many roads in high fire areas and elsewhere in the community. Fire says it will be safer with the proposed improvements. It is very close to the property. You can see here's the property in proximity to it a third of mile away. I went out and measured other roads in the area that are a first, second or third way out. And this would not be the only one less than 24 feet. Here are three other roads just south of this that would either be the first, second or third way out that are less than 24 feet.

So all those are existing conditions. Fire Marshal Pearson said the project meets all county fire department standards. The project would not require any additional improvements to meet our standards. There's no nexus to this project to additional road improvements. Enhancement to the road we see is a good thing. A commissioner asked him, is it safer for the residents to have this road widened to 16-18 feet? He said I'd have to say yes.

An approved and developed project can provide the extra $120,000 in further improvements. This is the last available funding for this improvement. It has not been on the county's GTIP list. If a CEQA suit thwarts this improvement, that is specifically the neighbors doing it. Mr. Vickers and Brown have been the leads up to this point. This is just four more homes than approved in 2007 with some 450 lots in the area. The neighbors concede 12 lots is perfectly fine. In 2007 they testified they expected the 12 second units to be built also for a total of 24. This proposal is 16 homes.

Ms. Mooney can speak for herself, but she said that I conclude that our analysis is adequate under CEQA at the Planning Commission. Cecilia Brown said that she had concerns about the biology originally, but after Ms. Mooney had additional time, she said I feel confident now that the review was totally adequate. She also said the road improvements make this a better project. Fire Department said it's better things.

I think this is a superior project to the 2007 plan, not only for grasslands but fire safety. It's not perfect but I find the MND is adequate. More documents are real improvements. This is exactly what's contemplated in the community plan and the housing element. Commentators say CEQA has been hijacked by NIMBYs used only for delay of new homes near them. Neighbors want an EIR rather than safer roads after they've said repeatedly that's what they want, really?

Over 400 hours of staff time has gone into this, as well as hundreds of hours in earlier applications. 890 days of processing. Staff recommends approval or denial of the appeal. Planning Commission approved this project. In sum, the owners have waited since 72 to have this happen. There's no factual basis for an EIR. The helplines want to block this project not read more about it. It's a time blocking move.

We question their concerns about the roads if indeed they are asking for an EIR rather than roads. This is a better plan that 2007 per one planning commissioner adds to area safety, most logical way to address affordable housing improvements and the road improvements make a benefit for the county. We respectfully request you deny the appeal and adopt the findings prepared by staff. Thank you.

1:59 – 2:0416 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:59:18 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Thank You Mr. Nelson All right. Are there any questions from the board for Mr. Nelson at this time? OK, we will go ahead and turn to the public then, Mr. Allen. How many speakers do we have? Public speakers? We

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:59:35 · ≈ 10:59 AM

have four requests to speak.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:59:39 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Everybody will have three minutes. So who's our first speaker?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:59:44 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Our first speaker is Mark de la Garza followed by Regina Magid.

PresenterMark De La GarzaWatershed EnvironmentalProposedself-stated1:59:57 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Mark De La Garza. I'm the president of Watershed Environmental. I prepared the biological reports for this project for the late, began working from the late Mr. Lou Zellick in 1999. So I did surveys of this property in the spring of 1998. I did a survey again in the fall of 2005, and I did a survey most recently in the summer of 2010 mostly to map the native grasslands out there. There was a separate consultant that did the biological survey work for wildlife.

I submitted a response letter to Mr. Magney's claims for the first appeal that he had on January 23, 2012. I don't know if you have reviewed that letter but it should be part of your package. There's a couple points that I'd like to make today There have been a few issues raised on biology and probably the foremost one that I can speak to is the lichen issue.

This same issue came up at the Preserve at San Marcos project which is roughly about a mile from this project site located to the east of this project site, and during that hearing with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors we required a lichen survey and a boulder relocation plan because these same issues were raised. I was the applicant's consultant at that time. We brought in a lichen expert from the University at Riverside The lichen curator there, Mr. Kerry Knudson, he did a full survey of the Preserve at San Marcos site and none of the over 40 species of lichen that Mr. Magney claimed might be out at the Preserve at site were found. In fact, he didn't find any of the lichens that Mr. Magney had found and he didn't find any rare or threatened lichens on that property.

So that survey cost the property owner about $10,000 to do that work. And because of that survey a Boulder relocation plan was not required because there were no rare lichens at all. I also prepared the The on-site mitigation plan in 2007 that you have heard about, and I would like to say that this is a far superior plan than the one that I prepared in 2007.

That 2007 plan had native grassland restoration occurring in a detention basin which was going to be used by The public and the residents of the development, and it went through the backyards of private homes. And as you all know, it's pretty difficult to enforce mitigation requirements and monitoring requirements in somebody's backyard. Typically these mitigation plans have about a five-year lifespan where there is monitoring performed, and after that the homeowners would be free to go in there and do what they will in there. The county monitoring really ceases. So I think this is far superior to do it offsite in an area that is much larger The university can manage the land as part of their ecosystem reserve and it really doesn't make sense to try to preserve a little pocket of native grassland surrounded by residential neighborhoods.

I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have them.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:02:52 · ≈ 11:02 AM

Okay, thank you. Supervisor Bernays? Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:02:54 · ≈ 11:02 AM

I'm curious about the boulders and... Would you explain that to me? I don't know what that is.

PresenterMark De La GarzaWatershed EnvironmentalProposedself-stated2:03:01 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Well, they're lichens?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:03:02 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Yes. Sell it for me!

PresenterMark De La GarzaWatershed EnvironmentalProposedself-stated2:03:04 · ≈ 11:03 AM

L-I-C-H-E-N Thank you, North County Guide to the Rescue. There are a number of sandstone boulders in this area. It's called a fanglomerant and these plants, they're actually part plant, part fungus live on these rocks. You've probably seen them as light green or yellow sometimes little speckles on the sandstone and there are a lot of different varieties of them and they're quite difficult to identify and that's why we had to bring in an expert from the University of Riverside to do it. You need to do it in a laboratory to identify them you can't just walk out there with a hand lens and figure out what they are

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:03:44 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Are with the site plan the way it is, are any of them on the site going to be able to be retained in place?

PresenterMark De La GarzaWatershed EnvironmentalProposedself-stated2:03:51 · ≈ 11:03 AM

The lichens or the

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:03:52 · ≈ 11:03 AM

boulders? The boulders. With the lichens on

PresenterMark De La GarzaWatershed EnvironmentalProposedself-stated2:03:54 · ≈ 11:03 AM

them. I'll let Mr. Nelson speak to that. I'm not that familiar with the grading plans for this property or if there are any proposals to preserve boulders. I think there may be a few where there's a grinding stone that is going to be preserved but I don't know the rest of it.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:04:09 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Okay thank you. Alright next public speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:04:14 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Our next speaker is Regina Majid followed by Mary Vickers.

2:04 – 2:126 turns

CommentRegina MagidProposedself-stated2:04:23 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Good morning Supervisor Farr, Supervisors. My name is Regina Magid and I live in the San Antonio Creek Road neighborhood and I'm a Neighborhood Safety Representative. As you know we live in the neighborhood that has been threatened by many fires And my biggest concern today is that current PHE project as it stands right now will endanger our lives. We have only two exits, one is 154 Highway and one is North San Marcos Road.

And if 154 Highway is closed and that happens every single time during evacuations then we are left with only one exit As exit via Tucker's Grove Park as it is right now, is totally inadequate. It is a trap versus an exit due to its narrow road. It has only approximately average 8 feet to 10 feet wide road and it's required 24 feet for them two-way traffic.

So for example if We are to evacuate and using Tucker's Grove Park. An upcoming car is coming, and it could be a mother who is coming to save her child from nursery school daycare facility which is located by the temple near on Centennial Creek Road or it could be a fire truck that those who are trying to escape will be trapped. Actually both sides will be trapped And that's, we are speaking about our lives.

Our community has grown since Painted Cave Fire. You have approved 24 lots and some of them already have been developed and that's La Ramada Estates. Since then in addition to that nine or ten actually individual lots were approved as well and they are ready to be built. That's total 36 lots If you to add additional 16 residences without providing adequate escape for our neighborhood, you will be endangering our lives.

And I do hope that you agree that lives are more important than money. I urge you do not approve this project the way it stands right now unless 24 feet emergency exit is provided to our neighborhood. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:07:06 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:07:07 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Our next speaker is Mary Vickers, to be followed by Danny Vickers.

CommentMary VickersProposedself-stated2:07:17 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Good morning. I'm Mary Vickers my husband and I own the property at 4680 Pinnell Road which is directly across the street from the 14 acre parcel that we're discussing When we purchased our home 10 years ago, one of the things we loved most about it was the view of the ocean and the Channel Islands that we could see from our home. The proposed development with the grading and building will for the most part destroy our view of the ocean and the islands.

There are many people in the area not just ourselves who walk down our street and enjoy these views of the oceans and the islands and the grasslands. Our home is situated so that our view windows and our outdoor living space all face this 14 acres. And because of this, our family has spent the last 10 years watching This area, it's just what we see when we look out our windows or when we're outside entertaining.

We've seen countless red-tailed hawks in the area. We've seen owls and a variety of birds of prey. We watched the bats come out at dusk. We have even seen a bobcat cross the road right in front of our house and one night a mountain lion was even in one of our trees. To not realize that this area is a significant wildlife corridor is wrong. It's sad that the county biologists can make a determination on this space after only visiting the site a few times and not visiting it during all seasons. There's an incredible amount of wildlife here, and we deserve to have it studied thoroughly before the project moves ahead. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:08:56 · ≈ 11:08 AM

you. Our final speaker is Daniel Vickers.

PresenterDanny VickersSan Antonio Creek Homeowners AssociationProposedself-stated2:09:08 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Good morning, I'm Danny Vickers. I'm the president of the San Antonio Creek Homeowners Association. This has been about a six or seven year journey for the neighbors. They're not as you can see they're not lined up to speak because they've lined up to speak for many years. They've said a lot of things there's a lot of testimony on the record. I just have a couple of things to say as the president on behalf of the association.

I really think that public confidence you should consider in this process. When I try to put myself in your shoes and I admire what you do, I wouldn't do it frankly but when I put myself in your shoes I have to say to myself what would I do? And I would uphold the law. I don't necessarily agree with all its parts, but we as a neighborhood have respected it and worked within that framework throughout this entire period. So I would ask you to consider CEQA when you make your vote.

We've testified about fire hazards. As far as we understand under CEQA, all we have to argue is a reasonably fair argument. We believe as a neighborhood that fire safety has not been adequately addressed. That's what we're asking you to do is adequately address fire safety. 1990 was a disaster for our neighborhood and our community. We had one exit in 1990. We have one exit today.

To stand here and say that $120,000 improvement to a road out of Tucker's Grove is going to be adequate. It's just not fair, it's just not. I mean you probably know your guts telling you that if you've seen the site you know that that's not a true statement. Biology has kind of taken a back seat. We've had countless neighbors testify about the biology of this site.

We as a neighborhood have focused more on fire safety frankly because that's what the public, that's what the appointed officials ask us to focus on. I would ask you to really uphold your policies and uphold CEQA. And as far as I know, on-site mitigation is your policy. There are examples in the neighborhood where on-site mitigation has been done. La Romana is a case in point. The 2007 plan, yes it was behind those lots but it was also set aside and it was not an extension of somebody's backyard if you implemented the rules of the 2007 plan.

I would also ask you to keep in mind that in 2007, county staff concluded that this site was not appropriate environmentally for more than 12 homes. So from a public perspective how can the Planning Commission take a different position? I would like to end by saying that I believe that Commissioner Cooney said it the best. Everybody respects Commissioner Cooney, he understands the law, he understands, he deliberated over all the evidence and he concluded that a mitigated negative declaration is not appropriate and as far as I'm concerned if Commissioner Cooney which did hearten me in the neighborhood that the process works, if he can conclude that an MMD is not appropriate Then I hope that you will as well. Thank you very much.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:12 – 2:238 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:12:37 · ≈ 11:12 AM

We have

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:12:38 · ≈ 11:12 AM

calls in right now. I think we're good.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:12:42 · ≈ 11:12 AM

OK, thank you because it's very distracting, I know for everybody. All right, we will now go to rebuttal. The appellant will have up to five minutes first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:12:54 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. I believe that it may be aliens on the roof that are trying to get inside to testify on this item But they appear to have abated. Mr. Nelson offers a novel argument that the county needs only evaluate the incremental underseek with the incremental impact of the four units, no authority for that. He further claims that we can rely on the 18-year-old Gleada Community Plan EIR, 19 year old and its statements of overriding considerations. And so there's no need to look at the current conditions on the ground. Of course that flies in the face of Supreme Court's recent decision in the CBE versus Air Quality Management District where they said It doesn't matter what you're permitted to do, you've got to look at what is on the ground at the time that the project is submitted for processing.

And clearly we've seen a lot of change conditions from what was on the ground back in 1993 as well as back in 2007's 7, you've heard evidence that there's a substantially increased amount of native grasslands on this site. You heard confirmation from Mr. De La Garza that indeed there are fanglomerate formations on this site and that validates our concern. There is a geologic And since then, we've also gotten a great deal of experience with respect to fire evacuation. And I submitted as exhibit six the Fire Evacuation Capacity Analysis for Mission Canyon which looked at number of homes with the roads traffic impediments and how you would actually evacuate people safely from a high fire hazard areas like this one.

As you heard, there's really only one evacuation path down San Antonio Creek to Villa Santos and out to Old San Marcos Road. That road is curvy, steep, has no shoulders and it's controlled by stop signs and stop lights. If you really think you're going to get the 500 plus residences in this area out in the event of a T-fire evacuation, I think you ought to have some evidence to back you up on that because I can tell you that based on what we saw in Mission Canyon not everybody is going to get out in time and I think that analysis needs to be done here.

I'd like to now ask Mr. Franklin to come back up and speak on the history of this site, some evidence that he uncovered in his research and preparation for his testimony here with respect to the history of wildfires in this particular area.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:15:33 · ≈ 11:15 AM

This area, there's two areas in Southern California that kind of mimic each other from a fire danger standpoint. One is the area I live in, by the way. Santa Clarita Valley, the North Ridge and Malibu. There's a whole corridor that goes across that area. The other recognized area is San Marcos Pass. You have to deal with the sundowner winds which are even worse than Santa Ana winds because you have extreme temperatures. You all know that one of the highest temperatures ever occurred in California was in the harbor in Santa Barbara Over 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

And accompanied by winds that were 50 miles an hour or better. That's exactly what happened in the Painted Cave Fire. This is something that is an ongoing, occurring event. And this program that you're looking at right now did not take that into consideration. You can have the best, the latest fire-resistive construction but you're still going to be impacted when that fire comes out of the drainage there From that canyon like it did in 1990, it's going to be spotting in front of that fire over a mile downwind.

Anybody caught in that lower area is going to get the fire and would be cut off. So that's what you're dealing with here. That's why you need a very thorough EIR to look at that. And if this was in any other county right now they would require a fire protection plan for this site. Ventura County, LA County, Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County are all requiring those kind of plans to identify exactly what you're dealing with. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:17:29 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Thank you, Mr. Franklin. In closing we believe that the county has failed to even offer you findings with respect to consistency with the open space action plan and open space element and open space implementation plan. We raised that in our comments. That's been a recurring failure on the county's part as your approved subdivisions and it will of course apply to any attempt to resurrect the 2007 plan which has substantially changed conditions We've provided to you substantial evidence of biological, fire, cultural, public safety, visual and soils impacts.

That evidence carries the day. Your board has an obligation under CEQA and the county for a project like this where it's highly constrained, there are substantial resources on site, and the project approval is going to have significant impacts on the surrounding areas. Under these circumstances, it's our firm belief that CEQA mandates that an environmental impact report be prepared. And so we request your board to approve the appeal and direct the applicant to commence the preparation of an EIR. Thank you Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:18:35 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chatelain. All right and now we will hear from the applicant up to five minutes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:18:43 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Thank you Madam Chair and Supervisors. Staff has done an excellent job in analyzing and discussing the various specific issues raised by the appellants, and I defer to them on that. Under CEQA for a tentative map that's consistent with the community plan it's not supposed to be a never-ending story. There are timelines in CEQA too of one year for an EIR six months for an ND here we're 90 days in and they would like to start yet a new environmental review after two-and-a-half years, which is not consistent with the CEQA process.

Quizzically we have never understood why the neighbors were completely fine with 12 homes approved in 2007 And indeed, they testified they expected that to be 24. And yet the incremental extra homes of 16 which is either four more or eight less is troubling to them. We've had two hour meetings with 30 people talking about the affordable housing and you gotta get rid of the affordable housing and I just think that they have not understood The current dynamics of what is required of current projects that were not required of their homes.

From a fire safety standpoint, this is a flammable site of 15 acres of dry grass in fire season now and there have been spot fires there that make the neighborhood more dangerous. community with managed landscaping and with current fire standards is going to make it more fire safe on the property than it is right now. There will be four hydrants added, there are two internal roads that neighbors can use if San Antonio Creek is used they can come through the project to make the egress safer just on a micro level right around the project. Neighbors actually vetoed a third emergency road that would connect with Pinell to the road early on because they wanted to have the project not connected to Pinell. So it's safer in many respects and then you add on the area safety of its The area is going to be distinctly safer if San Antonio Creek Road is improved as per the road specs.

That was not our idea, it was roads department that came up with those specifications of how we can make this a better road and This used to be a full-use road where people were driving 24 hours a day, so it's unrealistic to say that this cannot be a functioning road. Particularly, it's really going to be one way out road at 16 to 18 feet and in other areas its 20 to 22 feet is quite ample compared to other roads there.

There has to be some integrity to the planning process We have we have an application that's consistent with the community plan with zoning, with the housing element and neighbors have been treating it as if it was from outer space and something not That they had a free shot at to stop and we are doing something that's exactly what the county had planned for here. And it's not, there's no rezone, there's no nothing that is, no exceptions, no anything. Everything is less than what is permitted under the zoning.

Finally, a completed neighborhood is a good thing. It's good for the county. It takes property that has been lying fallow and puts it on the property tax rules. 16 families move in there. They'll be friends and neighbors of these people. You will have an improved neighborhood with the road improvement and you will have 16 families That they are saying shouldn't live here because while the area is safe enough for them and there are many hundreds of residents, that it's not safe for the last 16. And I just... There's no intellectual integrity to that. I can understand that they oppose this. They've looked out on a blank field for a long time and it's hard to adjust to different vision but The reality is that it was always going to get filled in, got held back 25 years because of the water moratorium and the time is now.

I would say we've had enough failed projects in the area let's get something done, let's get something done nicely, let's improve the road and I think all the neighbors will adjust to it quite nicely when it happens and we trust that will be the reality five years from now. Thank you very much.

2:23 – 2:307 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:23:44 · ≈ 11:23 AM

All right. With that, we'll bring it back to staff to respond.

CommentMelissa MooneyProposedself-stated2:23:53 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Madam Chair and members of the board, I am Melissa Mooney, the P&D biologist. And since there were some comments relating to biology and specifically my role, I'd like to tell you a little bit about what my role is as a staff biologist. It varies with every project that I'm involved in. I'm essentially a resource for the planners to draw upon when they have questions relating to biological resources.

In some instances that means peer review of a biological report, in other instances it may mean actual writing of an initial study biology section. I've been closely involved in this project since 2010 and I was involved earlier way back in 2000 when the prior project was processed. However, I was only tangentially involved in that process but what I want to Clarify is that what I have essentially said in terms of this document is that the biological reports have been prepared according to the county's guidelines. The county has very specific guidelines in the environmental thresholds manual And it's my job to determine if those reports, those guidelines have been prepared in alignment with those guidelines. And I've made the determination that this project has.

I've also identified that the biological impacts have been analyzed according to the thresholds that are contained within that guideline. I work as a team member with the whole planning department, and that's my primary role there is to look at those guidelines and make a determination regarding consistency with those. And in my opinion this document is consistent with those report guidelines and with the impact threshold criteria. Now that's not to say it can't be improved but in this case that's my professional opinion If you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:26:00 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Thank you, thank you Ms. Mooney. Any questions for Ms. Mooney? Mr. Tuttle.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:26:07 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board there's just a couple items that I wanted to respond to both things we heard in testimony as well as some things we saw in writing submittals written submittals. In regards A comment made by March until and to make a finding of consistency of the project with open space element. I just want to touch on that briefly in looking at the open space element. You know, there's no mention or designation or identification of this property as official If you look at the community plan, it identifies open space properties within the area. This site was not identified as one of those.

And staff's review of this issue, failure of this site to be identified in either the open space element or the community plan is an open space property. I believe that the project is therefore consistent with the open space element. I wanted to respond to a comment that Mr. Nelson had provided in his written letters, and that is in regards to he's characterized on more than one occasion that staff rejected an incentive request as you may or may not know when a project comes before The county under the State Density Bonus Program as this project is, they are entitled to certain incentives or concessions which can include waivers from development standards or policies that would otherwise typically apply to this project.

The applicant originally approached the county with a request To up for a waiver from particular policy in the community plan, which requires two to one replacement ratio for impacted biological resources. And has indicated that the county rejected his request for reduction from that standard. And I wanted to clarify that the county certainly did not reject that request. What we did was we advised the applicant that if we were to grant that concession or that waiver from that policy, that it would have CEQA implications because a project's typically mitigation You know, that policy was adopted with the Glady community plan for the purposes of mitigating environmental impacts. So if we grant a lower replacement ratio for the native grasslands in this case it could result in an impact that's not mitigated And so that's the response we provided.

We didn't reject that request, we just indicated that if that request is granted that would potentially result in an unmitigated impact and have CEQA implications as a result. So I just wanted to clarify that for the record. And I believe that's the extent of responses we wanted to offer at this point.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:29:16 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Okay, thank you Mr. Teller. All right so we'll bring it back to the board for deliberation and comments. Supervisor Lavagnino? Madam

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.752:29:25 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Chair I just have a question for staff if is it true to say though that with the 2007 plan that is there anything preventing him at this point following through with that plan I mean if this all falls apart could he go through and still build to that 07 approved plan

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:29:45 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Supervisor that's conclusion 2007 approval still stands. You know, it's 5 years old and the map was never recorded without approval. There have been multiple extensions automatic extensions at the state level for tentative maps as that approval is

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:30 – 2:4514 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:30:17 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Okay. So with that, today we're being asked to... Staff's recommendation is to deny the appeal, make the required findings, adopt the revised final mitigated negative declaration and grant de novo approval. Who wants to start off? Supervisor Gray?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:30:37 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Well I am prepared to support staff's recommendation And I'm prepared to make the motion that we support staff's recommendation and deny the appeal, and affirm the Planning Commission's decision.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:30:51 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Okay. Why don't we go ahead and then hear comments on that motion? Supervisor Carballo or Labanian? Supervisor Labanian.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.752:31:01 · ≈ 11:31 AM

I think we're all waiting because it's a difficult decision. As far as the biology part of it, I'm much more concerned about fire safety. The biology and we start talking about liking curators and that sort of thing in snails. You kind of lose me a little bit as far as biology goes. Job up in that area and beautiful homes, beautiful neighborhood. And I think some of the lure of it is also what makes it dangerous is you have smaller streets with large homes and it's obviously not an ideal situation.

But that's before this project went in. And I know a lot of people up in the Painted Cave area after the fire, you would have thought that many of those folks would not have gone back to that area but a high percentage of them went back and rebuilt there and there is a reason why it's such a beautiful area. I would love to live up in that area. But the question gets to be do these 12 or 16 extra homes does that put the burden over the top?

I think we had many hearings. One of the speakers told us that we need to follow the law, and I believe that we are. We have experts on whom we rely for these types of decisions. And we had three hearings at the planning commission with the commissioner of the second district whose district that is was supporting it. I mean it falls in line with the community, Galena Community Plan.

And one of the other things, and I guess I need to ask this of staff is, this looks like this is probably not going to be the end of the road for this item. I believe it may be litigated. So my question is if we approve this and the appellant takes us to court, the cost then of fighting that battle would fall on the applicant? Is that true?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:33:02 · ≈ 11:33 AM

Madam Chair, the county would be indemnified for our defense costs if there is appeal, if your board approves the proposal.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.752:33:15 · ≈ 11:33 AM

I'm going to side with the Planning Commission and our experts in P&D. They've concluded that M&D is adequate and so I would go ahead and second that motion when we get around to it.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:33:25 · ≈ 11:33 AM

All right. Supervisor Carball?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:33:28 · ≈ 11:33 AM

Thank you madam chair. You know, there's a reason why they say that these hearings have a life of their own. I came in here pretty much swayed that we needed to move forward with for example the motion that's on the floor because I think that to a great extent a lot of those issues have been addressed. I think FIRE who I respect greatly has provided an opinion I think staff has done a remarkable job. And something in my gut just takes me back to Mission Canyon, and the one thing I don't like to be is inconsistent and hypocritical. And I tend to err on the side of being conservative when it comes to fire, and despite our experts reassuring us that That this is adequate, is what I'm hearing.

I just have a bad feeling and I think oftentimes more often than not, I will always argue to be more conservative when it comes to fire because of obvious reasons in my district. The perils of that and There's a great part of me that wants to move forward with the motion at hand. And I think the applicants have bent over backwards, and I think are putting forward resources to improve it in a way that otherwise would not get improved. And I understand all that.

But I'm having trouble making that leap. I came in here ready to make that leap but And it's a de novo hearing, and it's this issue, this matter before us. But I cannot separate the nexus, land use nexus that I have in my district in high fire hazard areas. So I'm very perplexed and I'm having difficulty deciding ultimately what to do. But I tend to, despite coming in here leaning towards approving the motion that's on the floor.

At this point I'm leaning towards not.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:36:08 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Thank you Supervisor Carbajal.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.752:36:12 · ≈ 11:36 AM

And I totally agree with you on that and I had the same feeling and then when you look at that aerial map and you look at the density of what the proposed project is compared to what's around it I guess the only way then you would ever, you'd basically have to say that you're going to have a building moratorium up there if that's the way we're leaning. Because I don't think you're ever going to put anything in that infill project that is less dense than what's being proposed and what's been approved at the Planning Commission.

Via Los Santos, I drove that a number of times. It's, I can imagine that it'd be very difficult to get out of there. The problem is That's not what we're addressing today. I mean, I wish we could go through and turn all these streets into 24 foot streets. But unless you put a building moratorium on that piece of property, I don't understand how we're going to get anything less than what we're asking for.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:37:17 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Thank you Supervisor Laramie, Supervisor Carbajal.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:37:19 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Yes and I appreciate your perspective because I think it's a good one but you know earlier today when we were considering Mission Canyon we were reminded by a constituent and i'm drawing two other trying to answer your issue as well how we after many years of development we reflected back on how we could have done a much better job. So the question lies is this, you know there's the 12 unit development?

This is just four more homes but again do we continue to push the envelope and then later on somebody's going to look back in many years from now and say you know but we could have kept it to a lower density And again, this is splitting hairs. In all honesty I could go either way but my gut and my issues in my district tend to push me in this direction and I don't mean to impugn all the good testimony and good work of the Planning Commission.

Certainly the Second District Planning Commissioner voted in favor of this. I don' mean to impugn the good work of our staff But I'm struggling, I'm struggling on this one for the obvious reasons that are clearly found throughout my district. And again, I try to be consistent even though we're looking at the facts of just this particular case, I understand that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:38:56 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Thank you Supervisor Carpajal. I wanted to make a few comments here before we go forward. First of all, I want to say that I used to live in this area and am very familiar with this neighborhood. I was living in Goleta during the 1990 Painted Cave Fire. I know what happened to this neighborhood. How very serious these issues are for everybody who lives in this county, but particularly for the people in this neighborhood and some of the other neighborhoods on the front country here that have experienced the horror and the devastation of wildland fire.

So the seriousness of that issue of emergency egress cannot be emphasized enough in my opinion. And certainly the importance of having egress options. I think you know it's unfortunate that whoever worked on the Gluta community plan a few years after the Pena Cave fire didn't take those lessons more to heart because I really do think that would have been the time to say we don't want to put any more density up here. Unfortunately they didn't and so this is this is the map that we're dealing with and it's hard now to go back and try to unwind that. And so I do appreciate Supervisor Lavagnino's comments because unless we're going to put a building moratorium on here or we're going to go through and try to down zone these properties, we do have some of these pockets left up here that have existing zoning on them.

I also want to talk about CEQA, and I think I made these comments when this came to us before specifically on the fire evacuation issues and the biological issues. You know, CEQAs here to inform decision making. And at the end of the day what you're trying to do is study everything well enough to know what the potential impacts might be, how are you going to mitigate them and then put them into conditions of approval.

And so I kind of feel like from when this came to us before to now we've kind of come full circle and if this project goes forward in any fashion Whether through litigation or through more environmental review, I'm just afraid that what it does is it circles us right back to this point in time where we are now. And so to me despite other issues have been raised at the hearing today and in the recent filing, I go back to the issues that we talked about before, the two, the biology and and the egress issues. And I have to say that, you know, the biological impacts... You know, I'm a very strong environmentalist but I do not see that the protection of the biology in the 2007 plan was probably as good as what we have now because we have six acres and yes it is off-site but I think it's extremely difficult under the best of circumstances to keep flourishing needle grass in an isolated pocket like this is here.

And certainly, in the previous project where it would have been in people's backyards. I have to agree with one of the speakers that really over time that they just wasn't feasible as opposed to what we have now which even though it isn't a different location, it is part of a bigger area and will have an opportunity to flourish. On the egress, and again I said this the last time around.

This access or ingress there through Tucker's Grove is of critical importance and I have been looking And pushing to figure out a way to make that better. And I think that despite the fact and the density that's up there, fortunately our public safety people are so good in these emergencies that they were able to successfully evacuate this area both in Painted Cave fire in 1990 as well couple of recent fires that we've had, and this access was used in all of those cases.

But improving it gives the fire department, gives the sheriff's department the opportunity to have a much better option. And whether that is then to create two lanes down San Antonio Creek Road to let people get out two lanes, like they do in other parts of the country when there's disasters. They just reverse the traffic on the freeway and then allow public safety personnel to come up through the park or whether they want to use that as another egress point and have the fire trucks go up San Antonio Road.

Having the ability to have the money to improve that point is critically important. And so, that's why I'm very happy to see that this has come back to us with sufficient money to do a real improvement there. And if I thought that more environmental review was going to bring us back to a place that's better than where we are now, I would be all for it. But I just see this as kind of coming in circles and I think that this is an opportunity to address what I see as the critical issue there which is improving the egress out of the area so I would be supporting the motion.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.752:45:02 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Madam Chair, I'm not sure if this is the right time for this but based on what you're saying as well and I think this has been what this whole hearing has brought up is that the need to improve our plan in that area sooner rather than later. And I would be supportive of coming up with some sort of hearing where we understand what the plan is and find ways for us to improve access in that area whether it's just plans approved or not.

2:45 – 4:456 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:45:32 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Well, there's a revision going forward or an update of the Goleta Community Plan. So I think we'll be seeing what they have there. And one last thing is that you know the fact that the neighborhoods seem to be okay with the 2007 plan and this is just four more houses from that makes it difficult for me to see that this project is for density that much worse than the other one. So and you know I take Supervisor Carbajal's comments to heart about Mission Canyon. I think that that's another example of where, you know the county in the past should have done much better in planning but Mission Canyon I think really only has the one way out this neighborhood does have some other options and I think that if something came forward in Mission Canyon that improved a secondary access out of Mission Canyon I would certainly really want to jump on that as well All right.

Any more comments from the board? Okay, Mr. Allen will have a roll call vote.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:46:38 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Mr. Carbajal? Ms. Wolfe? Mr. Cused? Ms Gray? Aye. Mr. Lavagnino? Aye. Ms. Farr? Aye Passes 3-1

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:46:48 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Thank you. The Board will go on break. We'll go into closed session. Mr Marshall would you read what we're going to be discussing?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:46:57 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. On today's agenda, you have two items covering a conference with legal counsel, existing litigation, Price v. County of Santa Barbara and Drake vs. County of Santa Barbara. You have conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation, one potential case and you have conference with labor negotiators. Thank you madam chair. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:47:19 · ≈ 11:47 AM

The board will probably be back in about an hour, hour-and-a-half? ¶. ♪ Hi.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:50:16 · ≈ 11:50 AM

Music ♪ ♪♪ ♪ Music. Yeah. ♪ ♪ ♪ Music. Yeah. Thank you. ¶. ¶. ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ Hi, everyone. ♪♪ ♪ Music playing ♪ ♪ ♪ . . Yeah. Hi. Hi, everyone. ♪ Hello. Music. Hi, everyone. Hi. ♪ Music ♪ You. ♪ Music. ♪ Music playing ♪♪ Welcome. ♪ ♪ ♪ Music Music ♪ ♪ Hi, everyone. ♪ You. ♪ ♪ ♪ 2A 3.30 x (-0.40?) ♪ Hi. Hello. ♪ ♪ Music Music Music Hi. Hello. ♪ Hi. Music playing Hi.

The ♪ You. ♪♪ ♪ Hi. ♪ ♪ ¶. ♪ Hi, everyone. ♪ Music playing ♪ Music Hi. ¶. ¶. Yeah. Music . . ♪ ♪ . . Hi. ♪ ¶. Hi. Music ¶. ¶. Music ♪ ♪ Hi. . . Music playing The Hello. ¶. ¶. ♪ Hello. . . ♪ The. ♪ Music Music playing ¶. ¶. ¶¶ Music Hi, everyone. ♪♪ ♪ ¶. Yeah. Hi. ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Hi. ♪ ¶. ♪ ♪ Music Music Yeah. The. Music. . . ♪ Hi. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶¶ Music playing ♪ ♪ Hi.

you ♪ Hi. Yeah. Mhm. ♪ ♪♪ ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. You. Music . . ♪ ¶. ¶. Yeah. ¶. I'm ♪ ¶. ¶. Music playing Yeah. Hi, everyone.

4:46 – 4:491 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:46:44 · ≈ 1:46 PM

. . ♪ Yeah. ¶. All right, good afternoon everybody. Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors come back into session. Mr. Marshall would you do a report from closed session for us please?

4:49 – 4:5912 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed4:49:26 · ≈ 1:49 PM

Thank You Madam Chair your board had four noticed agenda items each of those items were concluded and there was no reportable action at this time thank you

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:49:36 · ≈ 1:49 PM

Thank you. All right, so now we're going to take up our departmental agenda item number four. Ms. Waller did you want to make a... and actually I think we'll have Mr. Allen read it into the record.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:49:48 · ≈ 1:49 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board, item number four is from the County Executive Office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2013-2015 budget policies.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:49:58 · ≈ 1:49 PM

Okay now Ms. Waller thank you. Thank You chairwoman As your board will recall, we have had several discussions on how we would like to see the budget process proceed for budget years 2013 through 2015. To facilitate the process and also to respond to several board members who expressed a desire to have additional input and give additional guidance to the CEO in preparation of the proposed operational plan We'll be providing the board this opportunity through budget updates at several key milestones. Specifically, staff will add a presentation on how we set targets for general fund allocations and how we anticipate proposed service level impacts.

This will be in addition to the other updates that we have done in the past, including discussion of your budget policies, the fiscal outlook report where we identify what's in your future as far as risks and opportunities, the capital improvement program and culminating in the distribution of the CEO proposed budget in May, and then obviously your budget discussions in June.

Today's the first step in that process for us, and what we'll be doing today is we'll be seeking the board's consideration and approval of the budget policies and strategies that we will move forward on developing our first stage of the budget plans. With me today is CEO, Budget Director Tom Alvarez and Tom will take us through what we're proposing as far as budget policies and strategies so Tom?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed4:51:41 · ≈ 1:51 PM

Thank you Shandra. Good afternoon Chair Farr and members of the board. Today is the start of our 13-14, 14-15 budget process As you recall, last year we implemented a two-year budget document to provide additional information to allow the board to be more strategic in their decision making. As part of this ongoing process improvement, we will add a series of budget development updates this year.

In today's presentation, we'll be discussing two items. Number one, a series of budget updates to the board and number two proposed budget policies and fiscal strategies. In item number one, our first slide will discuss the purpose of proposed budget development updates. The goal of these updates are to get the board and public involved early and communicate throughout the budget process as information becomes available.

The means by which this will be accomplished is through a series of budget development updates throughout the budget season. With certain process improvements, we believe that the financial schedules, service level impacts, variance analysis and CEO review can occur earlier than in prior years. This will allow for more timely communication to the board. This will result in the board receiving critical issues and financial challenges earlier in the process to allow for thoughtful deliberation.

Specifically, it will allow time to study service level impacts as they would be presented earlier than last year, time for the board to communicate their questions to staff, adequate time for thorough research and response of service level impacts from staff, and time for consideration and decision making. The next slide shows the dates and content of the proposed budget development updates. And I believe Chandra just walked through these, and I'll quickly go through them. The first one is today's presentation. The second one is the fiscal outlook report. And if you recall, this report will identify significant issues facing the county, both positive and negative, and their anticipated financial impact on available funds.

Using this information, an incremental gap analysis is developed for fiscal years 13-14 and 14-15. The gap provides a baseline to the board to inform if there are going to be a surplus or a draw on the general fund. The third presentation is new and will communicate the policies used to develop the departmental general fund allocations. By this time we will have estimated the county's general revenues, the next step is to determine how much funding will be allocated to the departments and how much will be committed to future use. And those allocations will be based on the policies that we're going to be bringing to you.

The fourth presentation is also new, and will identify the service level impacts and provide an update to the previously presented fiscal outlook report. The fifth budget development update will present the capital improvement program. This document is currently being reformatted and is anticipated to communicate the following three elements. Capital projects that are included in the 13-14 and 14-15 budgets, so those will be in the budget book A detail of the backlog of maintenance and infrastructure projects. This document will be the tool necessary to develop a plan similar to that we used for the operating costs of the new jail, to ensure county assets are properly maintained over time.

The third section will detail unfunded proposed capital projects that are in line with board priorities or federal and state mandates. Establishing good criteria for these projects will be a key element to this section's usefulness It should not be just a wish list. In early May, we plan to distribute and post the recommended operating plans for fiscal years 13-14, 14-15.

The sixth and final budget development update will be the budget hearings currently scheduled for the week of June 10th through June 14th. Item number two in today's presentation are the proposed budget policies and fiscal strategies. The following...

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:55:47 · ≈ 1:55 PM

Actually, excuse me Mr. Alvarez I'm sorry to interrupt you but before you get into the policies can we go back to these various presentations to the board because I'm looking at the budget development calendar which these are a part of And I'm just wondering whether it wouldn't be helpful to have something scheduled sometime in that four month period between the 4th of December and the 2nd of April.

Because according to the calendar, in March at least by the end of March you're going to have draft D pages and then The day before the service level impacts are supposed to come to the board, you're going to have finalized the D pages. And I'm just wondering whether it wouldn't be better for the board to have an earlier read on some of the potential service level impacts before you're already finalizing the D pages?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed4:56:43 · ≈ 1:56 PM

Chair Farr, the timeline is such that we're allowing three weeks after. So what we do is on the 31st of January all the numbers will be closed so the departments have that long to get all their numbers wrapped up tied out and then they have three weeks after that point to get the service level impacts together and other financial analysis done so we can look at all the variances. So we're starting the meetings with the departments on February 19th through March 8th And after that point, we were going to be working on the D pages and the write-ups there.

We could possibly look at attempting to move up that date of April 2nd into March sometime. It's a new process, it's actually a lot earlier. I think the service level impacts we distributed May 29th of last year and we're proposing to do it on April 2nd of this year

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:57:33 · ≈ 1:57 PM

And I appreciate that. But in looking at how it fell in with everything else you were doing, I just raised the question whether that might be something we would want to take a look at sooner. Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:57:46 · ≈ 1:57 PM

Thank you Madam Chair. Well you know Mr. Alvarez this is kind of music to my ears to see what you're proposing. Although I really do have to acknowledge and agree with Supervisor Farr's assessment that we should, especially given what you subsequently said about February through March is when you meet with your departments to get the fiscal level impacts it would seem that We should hear what those are right after there has been a tentative decision, and then still have that April 2nd meeting. But why not have another bite at the apple? Because as you started off your conversation by saying this is for us to better understand the budget process when you're talking about Service level impacts and so forth. I think just to have us here Right after March would be an opportune time And the way it's set up is that we are basically going four months without any information from December to April So I would second Supervisor Farr's Suggestion,

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:59:04 · ≈ 1:59 PM

thank you Supervisor Wolf CEO Waller

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:59:07 · ≈ 1:59 PM

Chair, Supervisor, I certainly think that we can look at that March timeline for bringing some draft information to you. You make very good points in that regard. We would like to give the departments appropriate time to start putting together their analysis and share it with us in March but I feel comfortable bringing it to you just as soon as they've completed theirs while it's still in that draft stage so we'll adjust the budget update calendar based upon that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:59:33 · ≈ 1:59 PM

Okay thank you

4:59 – 5:0622 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed4:59:38 · ≈ 1:59 PM

Okay, as we go on to the next section. Item number two, the proposed budget policies and fiscal strategies. So many of these are similar to those that we had proposed last year in just kind of reorganizing a little bit. So the following slide number four summarizes these proposed budget policies and strategies. There are two policy categories, building an accountable government and focusing on services to customers.

You'll notice on the actual budget policies and fiscal document that is attachment B, we've now broken out the document into the policies versus the strategies. This was a suggestion of the audit controller staff and has felt to be helpful to keep in mind the overriding policy goals as opposed to those strategies that were using to implement them. These have been summarized in our presentation.

So budget category number one is building an accountable government. And policy number one within that category is accountability and transparency. This policy is fundamental in that we strive to provide clear, transparent, and easy-to-understand information on the budget to the board and to the public. Several improvements are being made this year to enhance transparency, including an easier-to-read portrait format that will be easier to view on things like iPads and so forth.

We're going to be displaying expenditures by significant budget programs. Financial information will also be presented by budget category for revenues and expenditures within departmental presentations so that the reader can easily see where county funds are coming from and how they're being used, that is what services are being provided. Additionally ongoing oversight and monitoring are essential to presenting accurate and reliable financial information so we'll be continuing those practices.

The second policy is that the budgeting should be policy-based to help guide decisions. Use of general funds should be in line with board policies and based on historic spending patterns, as well as mandated federal and state requirements. A strategy employed in recent years is that across-the-board reductions should not be implemented but rather a targeted evaluation of programs and needs should drive our decisions.

The third policy is that a structurally balanced budget for all county operating funds will be presented to the board. These strategies include ongoing operations should be funded with ongoing revenues and one-time revenues should be used for one time needs. Cost saving strategies and efficiencies should be sought out on a continuous basis. Appropriate reimbursement on federal and state programs will be made, and user fees will be based on full cost recovery.

During this time of economic downturn and slow recovery, program expansions are strongly discouraged. The fourth policy states that the CEO, auditor-controller and departments will constantly identify events and circumstances which pose significant financial risk to the county and every attempt will be made to reduce the impact of such risks. These risks currently include the new North County Jail and really the funding thereof, retirement and other post employment benefits Workers' compensation and health care cost increases, and for workers' compensation we have previously used a seven-year spreading of the increase which will again be recommended.

And we'll also say that aggressive measures have begun to identify and reduce the frequency and severity of work-related injuries. Funding of fire operations will continue to be monitored, and in ADMHS we will consider establishment of cost settlement reserves

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:03:22 · ≈ 2:03 PM

I'm sorry Mr. Alvarez, we don't have those now so that the audit reserves that we have are not necessarily for that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:03:31 · ≈ 2:03 PM

Chair Farr, at the end of the fiscal 7-8 year set aside or reserving of several things, including the self-disclosed items and looking at all the cost settlements that were out there. We made a one time reserve and there are some challenges in doing that but we have not beyond that set aside additional funds for ongoing cost settlements until they become known. So the idea here is that we are considering setting aside a certain amount of money so that funds will be available as those come due so it won't be a hit on the general fund.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:04:08 · ≈ 2:04 PM

And that's specifically for ADMHS?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:04:10 · ≈ 2:04 PM

That is

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:04:11 · ≈ 2:04 PM

correct. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:04:14 · ≈ 2:04 PM

The fifth goal under policy category number one is that the county will establish and maintain a reserve equal to 8% of the general fund operating revenues, and that equates to 30 days of working capital. We have been working towards this goal for many years and are currently at approximately 88% of what we would need for the 13-14 year, and we're at 91% for the 12-13 year. So we're closing in on that target.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:04:39 · ≈ 2:04 PM

Okay, and actually I have one more question. And this kind of ties back to the future new jail operations. When we had the presentation on that, part of the cash match was taking five or six million dollars out of the strategic reserve.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:04:58 · ≈ 2:04 PM

Chair Farr, that was one of the proposed cash flow solutions. There were three that were presented but that was one of them.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:05:04 · ≈ 2:05 PM

Okay so if battle goes forward in that fashion then the percentage that you're talking about is going to drop significantly in the strategic reserve correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:05:16 · ≈ 2:05 PM

That is correct.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:05:17 · ≈ 2:05 PM

So that doesn't change the fact that the policy will be that you know if we're able to that we want to put a million dollars into it but it certainly puts us farther behind and our goal to reach that $33.3 million point that we want to be at? That is absolutely

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:05:33 · ≈ 2:05 PM

correct.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:05:34 · ≈ 2:05 PM

Okay, so if we do that and then the board decides they want to follow up and bond for that money and it gets repaid then that would come back to the strategic reserve to bump it back up again? Are you following what I'm saying?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:05:53 · ≈ 2:05 PM

Chair, if I can restate what you're saying. If we allow them to borrow that money until they take out a COP or some other debt then those funds would be repaid yes

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:06:06 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Okay so it would bump the strategic reserve back up again?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:06:08 · ≈ 2:06 PM

That is correct.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:06:09 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Okay. Chair, just

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:06:11 · ≈ 2:06 PM

to add to that obviously your board would always have the discretion what you would choose to do with those funds repayment our recommendation at this point would be that they return to the strategic reserve but your board would make that decision

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:06:24 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Well, I mean, I just think it's important because if this is being built in as a budget policy principle that we're going to put $1 million into the strategic reserve and we keep taking money out for other things. You know it's gonna be harder to ever reach that level and so that's why I'm figuring out how this all might get tied together.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:06:43 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Chair Farr, that is correct. And as we looked back for many years, we could not see that we had ever achieved this target before. Okay,

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:06:49 · ≈ 2:06 PM

thank you.

5:06 – 5:1320 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:06:52 · ≈ 2:06 PM

The next item is that a minimum of $1 million would be added annually to the strategic reserve. Category 2 is focusing on service to customers. The first policy in this category is that service levels and outcomes will be identified and communicated to the board and the public during the budget process. Departments will identify the major programs, services provided, and outcome measures.

Significant service level impacts will be detailed in the Service Level Impact Report. The second policy is that the county will fund necessary capital improvements and ongoing maintenance of existing facilities and assets. Strategies include identifying the necessary capital improvements and maintenance needs, development of strategies to fund the maintenance backlog over time based on prioritized needs, allocation of $3 million for capital improvements and infrastructure maintenance. This contribution will be adjusted in future years based on the maintenance plans discussed above.

This concludes our presentation and we're happy to answer any questions the board may have at this time.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:07:58 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Thank you. CEO Waller?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:08:00 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Chair, I just wanted to recognize the Auditor-Controller's Office for all their assistance in working through what the future budget will look like and the policies and strategies today they have been Very, very much a partner in this effort and very, very helpful to us. I just wanted, since they weren't here, I wanted to recognize them on that behalf.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:08:21 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Actually they are here, they just haven't spoken. Thank you Mr. Geis and your team. All right, Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:08:30 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Thank you Madam Chair. CEO Waller, I had talked to you about the The issue of some mention of our employee compensation equity issues as part of our budget principles because we talk about service levels and I think you were going to address that concern.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:08:56 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Chair, Supervisor. Yes you bring up an excellent point and I know that this is one of the things that I continue to have concerns about the continued sustainability and viability of our workforce and so certainly if the board would direct that we add that to a principle, we can draft some language for your consideration and bring that back to you. I certainly would support that and I think we could have some language that could support

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:09:25 · ≈ 2:09 PM

Okay, thank you. I think that's good. And then just a question that two things seem to conflict with each other. On the service levels it says all significant service level increases or decreases will be detailed in the Service Level Impact Report. But then on the other page, on the balanced budget fiscal stability part it says, let's see where is that part? That talks about any requests for an enhancement has to go through certain channels.

For someone to request an increase in their service level impact, do they have to go through that process to get approval? Do they have to meet certain guidelines? In other words, what if a program had been eliminated and the department feels that they want to enhance that program. Can they just include that as a service level impact in the positive direction?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:10:36 · ≈ 2:10 PM

Chair Farr, Supervisor Wolf. That's really dealing with program expansions meaning that they're trying to increase from their existing base of service level without an identified funding source for that. That's what that policy was really addressing. It was not addressing a service-level impact where Your cost has gone up for some reason, maybe beyond your control or a revenue source went down and you're now going to have to cut service. And that would go on to the service level impact. In that case we would closely evaluate what the impact of that would be. For instance if it's going to have a negative impact countywide we may want to backfill that funding

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:11:16 · ≈ 2:11 PM

need. You did that last year and I'm wondering how that process works?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:11:26 · ≈ 2:11 PM

Well I can tell you that it is very, very difficult to get through the CEO's office with a program expansion in accordance with frankly your principles that say that program expansion are strongly discouraged. However there is an opportunity that if they can provide good return on investment information that we would propose adding something. So I'll give you an example for last year, Mr. Holland's division he had proposed adding an additional assessor and after he provided a great deal of information as to what the overall benefit to the county was, the CEO's office supported that proposal to you and we actually brought that up during budget hearings so that's how the process could work and how we would envision it under the current principles we're proposing.

Okay

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:12:16 · ≈ 2:12 PM

very good thank you Okay, any other questions of staff at this time? Any other comments? Do we have any public speakers for this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:12:28 · ≈ 2:12 PM

No request to speak.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:12:30 · ≈ 2:12 PM

Alright so I have a recommendation to receive it and adopt the budget policies and fiscal strategies We have a motion and second, CEO Waller.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:12:44 · ≈ 2:12 PM

Chairwoman, I was just wondering if it was the Board's pleasure to add the additional policy that Supervisor Wolf discussed?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:12:53 · ≈ 2:12 PM

It is for me. Is that, do we have consensus on the board? And also to look at modifying the schedules so that something came to the board with the service level impacts in March, as opposed to February. We talked about moving that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:13:10 · ≈ 2:13 PM

up? As opposed to April I believe was the original. Yeah,

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:13:13 · ≈ 2:13 PM

that's what I meant.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:13:14 · ≈ 2:13 PM

As opposed to or in addition to?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:13:19 · ≈ 2:13 PM

I would suggest at this point, we will bring them in March. And if you would like to have further discussion on those, we can schedule it at that time. OK, that's very good.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:13:29 · ≈ 2:13 PM

So any other comments? We have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. That's with those changes. Thank you very much. And we will go now right onto departmental agenda item number five.

5:13 – 5:1910 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:13:46 · ≈ 2:13 PM

Madame Chair, members of the Board. Item 5 is from Community Services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the annual action plan substantial amendments for 2009, 2011 and 2012. This is in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th districts.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:14:03 · ≈ 2:14 PM

All right. Who's going to start us off?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed5:14:08 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to introduce Dinah Lockhart our Deputy Director of Community Services who will bring this item forward to the board. Okay

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:14:17 · ≈ 2:14 PM

thank you good afternoon Ms. Lockhart

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed5:14:23 · ≈ 2:14 PM

We are here this afternoon to request the Board's action to approve changes to the Community Development Block Grant Annual Action Plans for Program Years 2009, 2011 and 2012. The CDBG program requires that a proposed change to a project scope or to project funding which exceeds 50% or more of the original budgeted amount have a public review process These changes have been requested by the urban county partnering jurisdictions involved or our staff recommendations for county projects.

The following changes to the 2009, 2011 and 2012 action plans are being proposed. Reprogram a total of $369,342 in prior year Lompoc CDBG funding into the following projects in the City of Lompoc. library electrical improvements, Marks House painting, 88 park improvements, mobile home emergency repair grant, Lompoc Youth Corps request, Civic Auditorium improvements, JM Park Little League ball field renovations.

Lompoc had previously programmed a portion of this funding to the library flooring renovation project. However, the city recently identified these other priority projects for funding instead. We program $19,000 in 2009 county CDBG funding from the balance of the completed North County Home Restoration and Rehabilitation Program to the Lompoc Animal Shelter ADA Improvements Project The Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building elevator stairway lift installation project was awarded $260,000 in 2011 County CDBG funds.

If this project comes under budget staff's recommendation is to reprogram unused funds to ADA sidewalk improvement projects in the unincorporated county. The original elevator project was found unfeasible and amended to become a stairway lift project to address ADA accessibility issues. The revised project scope may result in a lower project cost. Reprogram $50,000 in 2009 City of Carpinteria CDBG funds from the People's Self-Help Housing Chapel Court Project to the People's Self-Help Housing Casas de la Flores project.

In summary, the board is being asked to reprogram the changes to the county annual action plans for program years 2009, 2011 and 2012 and to authorize the Board of the Community Services Department to submit the CDBG substantial amendments to HUD. I'm available to answer any questions the board may have at this time.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:17:24 · ≈ 2:17 PM

Thank you, Ms. Lockhart. Supervisor Wolk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:17:26 · ≈ 2:17 PM

Thank you Madam Chair. You know we had talked about the Santa Barbara Vets Center and I had expressed concern that if there was any remaining funds available that it remain at the Vets Center for other ADA improvements and I understood that that was a possibility so do we have to incorporate that as part of this motion or this plan? And it may not be necessary because all the funds may be used, but if there was leftover funds, there is certainly the need there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed5:17:59 · ≈ 2:17 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolff, at this point we're not sure exactly what the full cost will be for the lift project so it's staff's recommendation but the board has their discretion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:18:15 · ≈ 2:18 PM

Right, that if there was funds left over that we could leave it at the Veterans Center. That's certainly the Board's decision. Okay. Thank you. Because I would like to, you know, at the appropriate time Madam Chair make that recommendation.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:18:36 · ≈ 2:18 PM

All right, I guess I'm just a little confused. The idea is that this money was specifically for this project. It's being modified and may result in cost savings but if it does wouldn't those savings automatically still be available for this particular project without necessarily specifying that? And only if everything ADA wise was taken care of there. Would any then be left over, if there were any left over for anything outside that for ADA?

5:19 – 5:2616 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed5:19:18 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Chair Farr, members of the board. As long as those particular items were CDGB eligible I think the board can use their discretion in terms of where they want to expend those funds. Once again at this particular time we're not even sure if there will be funds left once this project comes in. The project may use all of the funds, we're just not sure what will be left.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:19:41 · ≈ 2:19 PM

I guess I didn't, I'm not sure if I explained myself right. Supervisor Carbajal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:19:45 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Thank you. I guess the only thing I would remind all of us is that some of these funds come with specific timelines by when they need to be expanded so as long as no matter what decisions we make up here as long as we don't put ourselves in a predicament where we're somehow running up against that date and then they go unused. So remember the old adage with the ARA fund shovel ready Whatever projects we do, they gotta be able to be implementable by the time the deadline is to expand these funds. So as long as we do that and we're aware of that, that would be great. And you can let us know what the timeline is for funds to be one allocated and two expanded. That would be very helpful for all of us.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:20:31 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Okay,

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:20:31 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:20:31 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Gray? I'm positive that Supervisor Wolk can speak for herself so I am being very brave now. But what I think she's saying is that $260,000 has been advanced to the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building. It may not cost that much and she would like to see whatever is left over put in ADA sidewalk or other improvements at the Vets building in the second district in Santa Barbara. And I don't know why we wouldn't say okay?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:21:03 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Gray. You said it very well. I think Supervisor Farr was going in that direction too when I said it so I hope it's clear. It's not an unusual concept. We want that money to stay at the Vets building. So there you go.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:21:20 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Well you could put it at the Long Polk Vets if you can't figure out anything to do with

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:21:26 · ≈ 2:21 PM

All right. So you're clear on that direction? Yes. CEO Waller?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:21:32 · ≈ 2:21 PM

I was just going to respectfully add that as you make your motion, you include that so we'll have it on the record for anyone who may have concerns or memory lapses on that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:21:44 · ≈ 2:21 PM

OK. All right. Any other questions or comments on this? Mr. Allen, we have no public speakers.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:21:53 · ≈ 2:21 PM

No request to speak.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:21:54 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:21:55 · ≈ 2:21 PM

so Supervisor Wolk? Thank you Madam Chair I'll make a motion that we move forward with staff's recommendation except for the item number four that all funds allocated for the Veterans Memorial Building be programmed for ADA purposes at the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building within the legal time constraints.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:22:18 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Motion from Supervisor Wolf, seconded by Supervisor Carpajal. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much staff appreciate your good work on this. Alright moving right along here we're going to go to agenda item number six and I don't see staff here so I guess the board will take a short break until staff is here

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:22:55 · ≈ 2:22 PM

¶. ¶. Thank you. ¶. Why did I do it? I thought it didn't look like fun. It looked like ice cream. Thank you.

5:27 – 5:3815 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:27:19 · ≈ 2:27 PM

All right, we'll go ahead and reconvene. And Mr. Allen would you read item number six into the record please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:27:27 · ≈ 2:27 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board, item 6 is from the district attorney. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the misdemeanor diversion program.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:27:35 · ≈ 2:27 PM

All right good afternoon who's going to start off? Mr. Auchincloss?

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:27:40 · ≈ 2:27 PM

Good afternoon madam chair members of the board In this climate of diminishing resources, county agencies have been challenged as never before to come up with fresh ideas and creative solutions to create new efficiencies in government. In the district attorney's office since Joyce Dudley was elected we have implemented early disposition program to achieve speedier dispositions in felony cases and relieve court congestion You probably, I know you've heard about our extern program where we have volunteer attorneys who provide free services in exchange for valuable experience.

And of course our truancy program which we're very proud of and probably the most effective crime prevention tool we have and Supervisors Carbajal and Lavagnino helped create this program and each one of you was instrumental in supporting it. Our latest project is misdemeanor diversion

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:28:45 · ≈ 2:28 PM

What if

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:28:48 · ≈ 2:28 PM

we could reduce our caseloads in the district attorney's office by 10 to 15%? Talking about 1,000 to 2,000 cases possibly more. Reduce congested court dockets by the same number of cases. Reduce case loads for the public defender and conflict defense attorneys. Preserve probation resources. Reduce the number of offenders sent to jail. And obtain victim restitution before we even file a case.

What if we could do all these things and reduce recidivism at the same time? That would be pretty remarkable. Well, these are the very attainable goals of misdemeanor diversion. Now there's nothing new about the concept of diversion. The basic idea is that criminal cases are diverted from the criminal system And offenders avoid prosecution by successfully completing rehabilitative programs.

We've been achieving positive outcomes in diversion cases for decades. Penal code 1000 has been in place for over 20 years and that's a diversion program for first time drug offenders. Here in Santa Barbara, we have a young offenders program or youthful offenders program where young adults 18 to 21 who have alcohol related offenses are diverted. We have a similar program for young adults for theft programs.

And our bad check program has been providing victim restitution for local merchants who have received bounced checks for years and years. Diversion for non-recidivists, low level misdemeanor defendants or offenders is a newer concept but it's something that's achieving great acceptance nationwide. And in California it's sweeping the state. Here in California, programs are currently up and running in Orange County, Sacramento County, Merced County, Yolo County.

And the list continues. Here's how it would work in Santa Barbara County. First of all our misdemeanor diversion program would be diversion at a pre-filing stage so before a case even enters the court system we would evaluate it. The case would be reviewed like all cases. Our filing deputy in North and South County would review the charges that come in from an outside agency, and determine whether charges are justified under the law.

We then would look at the offender and the offense to see if they're eligible for this program. Ineligible offenders would include convicted felons of course, Recidivists, and our definition of recidivist is someone who's had more than two offenses of the same or similar variety. Offenders on probation. Crimes involving physical injury to a victim. So if they have a past experience where they've caused some significant injury to a victim, they would be excluded and crimes involving criminal sophistication.

So after we look at the offender themselves, we then look at the offense and there's certain offenses that would be ineligible for this new program. For instance Offenses involving physical injury to a victim, if the new offense involves a physical injury to a victim they would be excluded. Driving under the influence cases, weapons violations, animal cruelty and of course the more serious types of misdemeanors that we get including sex offenses, hate crimes, stalking and domestic violence.

So that being said, what types of offenses would be allowed into our new program? Well they'd be the lesser misdemeanor offenses only. Offenses like petty theft, driving without a license, possessing drug paraphernalia A fender bender type of hit and run, drunken public, trespassing, disturbing the peace. Now this is not an exhaustive list but this gives you an idea of the kind of low level offenses that we would be allowing in. So really the least serious of the least serious offenses.

And it's important to understand that these cases currently get very little attention in the criminal justice system. Typically, the disposition might result in a credit for time served terminal disposition. Often informal probation would be provided and there are very few programs that are provided for these types of offenses and really when you think about it these are the type of offenders who probably would benefit the most from getting a program.

Jail is typically in the form of electronic monitoring or a sheriff's alternative program. So I want to emphasize this, it's important for you to understand. This program is gonna help our jail overcrowding problem. It's not gonna remotely solve it. It'll have a small impact because as I said most of these individuals while they may be sentenced to jail, they don't actually serve time in jail.

But it's going to save tremendous resources for our Sheriff's Department because each person who gets sentenced to jail has to go out to the jail services. The sheriff has to deal with them, they have to implement the program and a lot of extra work for the

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:34:27 · ≈ 2:34 PM

sheriff.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:34:31 · ≈ 2:34 PM

I'm sorry too because this is a great presentation but I just have a question for pre-sentencing. And I just don't know, I don't know how this works. So if someone is arrested on a misdemeanor and they can't post bail, they're incarcerated in county jail until they have a hearing?

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:34:56 · ≈ 2:34 PM

Well most of these offenses, the vast majority of these offenses are site releases. Very few of these are site releases and by that I mean a citation is issued, the arresting officer gives them a reporting date when they should report to court for a particular offense so the type of offense where individuals end up incarcerated and on bail those are not the lesser of the lesser misdemeanor offenses those ones the sheriff is very quick to clear out of their system

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:35:26 · ≈ 2:35 PM

Okay, thank you for

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:35:27 · ≈ 2:35 PM

that. So as I was saying this is really while we hope it will impact jail overcrowding in a positive way certainly will not solve the jail overcrowding problem because of what I just mentioned and I should also mention that I was recently alerted that there may be a fiscal impact to the courts because courts won't get fines in these cases So that's something that should be considered, but we believe that the savings and resources to the courts alone will well outstrip any fines. And when you consider the savings to all of the other agencies, the benefit multiplies so we think that's not as much of a consideration.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:36:14 · ≈ 2:36 PM

Excuse me, Mr. Auchincloss, just tell me again what is the definition of petty theft?

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:36:21 · ≈ 2:36 PM

Petty theft is a theft of less than $800.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:36:25 · ≈ 2:36 PM

Less than $800. Okay thank you.

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:36:27 · ≈ 2:36 PM

So in any event The new offenses, as I was saying, I think the impact on the courts will be de minimis compared to the benefits overall. So let's move on. If an offender is eligible, they are sent a letter offering the offender will not have to go to court. No criminal charges will be filed. They will not have criminal sanctions. They will not have criminal conviction on their record.

Within 90 days, they complete a rehabilitative program or programs and pay any victim restitution. So the payment is here's the basic payment structure. First of all for a single class it costs $250. The maximum number of classes is two and the price goes up to $450. If restitution is involved and restitution has to be collected, there's an additional $25 a month for the costs in recovering that restitution.

Of the 250 or $450, $50 of that comes back to us from the program to the DA's office for our costs in starting and running the program. Now important point here is that if the offender has an inability to pay, is indigent, we'll waive those fees. So we also have that as a built-in provision. So recap, if successfully complete the rehabilitative program, if they pay restitution, DA agrees not to prosecute No conviction. But if they turn down the offer or if they accept the offer but fail to complete it, in other words fail to keep their end of the bargain then charges will be filed and we'll proceed criminally on those cases.

5:38 – 5:5041 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:38:33 · ≈ 2:38 PM

Of all the counties that you had listed up there, do they have the same or similar structure for payment? In other words, did the counties also get $50 or do some of them get more? It

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:38:44 · ≈ 2:38 PM

varies. Many counties charge administrative fees, some don't. The range is as high I believe is $200 for the DA and as low I think is 20.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:38:57 · ≈ 2:38 PM

So in the contract, is our contract with this agency for a year so that could be renegotiated if you find that you're spending more time and need to increase that amount?

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:39:08 · ≈ 2:39 PM

I think so. Yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:39:10 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Okay.

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:39:10 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Yeah. That's my understanding. Thank you. And maybe I can check with Walter Stockman. He's from Pacific Education Services. Is that his correction? Yes. Right. That is the agreement.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:39:19 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Supervisor Gray?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:39:21 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Mr. Auchincloss, if they re-offend do we keep a record so that we know that they were in the misdemeanor diversion? And then if they re-offend it counts as a re-offense?

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:39:31 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Good question. If they complete the program, no conviction. So they enjoy the benefit of not having that on their record.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:39:41 · ≈ 2:39 PM

But if

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:39:41 · ≈ 2:39 PM

they do leave- So we don't even keep a list?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:39:42 · ≈ 2:39 PM

What's that? We don't even keep a list of who's been in that?

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:39:45 · ≈ 2:39 PM

We definitely keep a list. The District Attorney's Office knows if they've had the benefit of this program and we will not offer it more than once unless it's an exceptional circumstance where we think that individual would benefit from being recycled through again but most of the time it's a one bite at the apple rule So the program that we've created is dynamic. And it's a collaboration between Pacific Education Services, which is a statewide agency and probably the leading agency in the state of California for these programs and our local Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. They're gonna work together to craft programs for these individuals that would be eligible.

I've also extracted a promise from Pacific Education Services that they will hire local program facilitators. So we'll be creating a few jobs out of this, hopefully. The dynamic that these classes use is the cognitive group therapy process using evidence-based practices. The program is either 6 to 12 hours depending on whether there's one class or more. It will be available in north and south counties.

And classes are available in English and Spanish. The types of classes that will be available That's

not transcribed≈21s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:41:32 · ≈ 2:41 PM

Mr. Rockencloss, I wanted to ask you about the life skills. You said that people could take one or two classes at the most is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:41:41 · ≈ 2:41 PM

That's correct.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:41:42 · ≈ 2:41 PM

And maybe this is a question for the people in the audience that represent the program at some point in time for them to respond to but It seems to me that the life skills class would be one that would be kind of good as a bedrock for everybody to take, because clearly whatever they've done in the other categories might benefit from a what are you doing here?

Why did you happen to have this make this serious mistake or this real lapse in judgment. So unlike the other categories, the life skill seems like it would be applicable to everybody

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:42:19 · ≈ 2:42 PM

That's a great point. And when I was investigating this process, I spent a couple of days down in Orange County watching how their system worked and I actually attended one of the theft classes presented by Pacific Education Services. And I can tell you there is a life skills component in every one of these classes because as you point out quite correctly everybody in this group is making bad choices and that I think is a fundamental element that has to be looked at for each of them Mr. Stockman can probably help me out here if I'm correct on that. You're correct, absolutely correct. But in any event the point you make is a good one and what's great about the fact that we have a selection here is we can say okay you're going to attend the life skills program but we also see that you need to attend a theft program so we can mix and match these and believe me life skills is gonna probably be the most popular one that we use So moving on, one reason we chose to work with Pacific Education Services as I said they're the leader in the state in terms of running these programs and I received high praise from every district attorney's office I spoke to about their services.

But probably the biggest reason is the fact that they have a proven track record of success In Orange County, where this program has been up and running for several years, they did a 2009 study. Pacific Education Services did a 2009 study. And that's a big county so they have a big sample and they were able to do a thorough study. This study in Orange County on recidivism showed that Before the program, the recidivist rate for this group after one year. So it went out one year from the date of the program was 22%.

After the program, the rate dropped to 6%. That's pretty impressive. Now, the Orange County District Attorney's Office thought that might be a little too impressive. And they did their own separate study. They have a research department down there, and they did a separate study to validate these findings and came up with virtually identical numbers. So great success in Orange County. We don't know what our success rate will be but we're going to be trying to track that and we're hopeful that we'll be able to achieve some drop in recidivism with this group.

So there you have it. Basically saving resources For the district attorney's office and our partners in the criminal justice system. And obtaining better outcomes, first of all for the offenders who are going to achieve the benefit of hopefully rehabilitation some form of rehabilitation. They're going to avoid a conviction. Hopefully they're gonna have a little brighter future. They're not gonna have this conviction when they apply for a job or apply for licensing.

Better for victims, who I hope will appreciate that there's a positive outcome here. And of course our victims will be obtaining restitution up front, something that we're thrilled to be able to do. And finally for our community with the hope of a drop in recidivism with this group. We see this as a classic win-win situation so I hope you agree with me. And today, we're here to ask you to approve the contract for a new misdemeanor diversion program between our office and Pacific Education Services.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:45:55 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Thank you.

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:45:56 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Thank you. I

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:45:56 · ≈ 2:45 PM

appreciate the presentation. Supervisor Lavagnino? Mr.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.755:45:59 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Harkin-Clause, I have a question. Thank you Madam Chair. I know this was in Orange County and I know they have a little bit different demographic than we do. I'm curious as to... We're going to collect the money per offender unless the offender is deemed indigent And on a lot of these cases up in North County, I would imagine that that might be the case. Have we looked at what the percentages are of those that we find that we might not even be able to collect from? Or we built that into the program or-

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:46:27 · ≈ 2:46 PM

We've built it into our program and We're confident that we're going to be able, I've relied a lot on Pacific Education Services to help me with this because they have broad experience in a variety of counties with very similar demographics to ours. And they feel very confident that looking and they also have access to our records in terms of convictions and what types of offenses we prosecute.

And they feel confident that the system will work very well in that population.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.755:47:01 · ≈ 2:47 PM

I just wanted to say, I think this is another. This is always our district attorney's office under the fine leadership of our district attorney Joyce Dudley and yourself that always coming up with innovative ideas, ways to reduce cost and also to provide the services that we need so I appreciate it. This great program. Thank you

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:47:21 · ≈ 2:47 PM

Supervisor Carbajal and then Supervisor Gray.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:47:23 · ≈ 2:47 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair. What can I say? DA Auchincloss and District Attorney Dudley, you continue to mesmerize us with always thinking about programs that can help us save money, help us improve our system so my hat's off to you and I want to congratulate you for just continuing to bring Those fresh ideas to us, I think you do a remarkable job. Having said that I'm assuming you did an RFP and you found these wonderful folks from Orange County and other areas.

And I'm sure they're very able at what they do, being that you have been able to identify their success in other areas. Do we have any relationship between them and one of our local drug and alcohol providers? Because we're always trying to find how we can keep some of these dollars local. And as you know, we have a network of drug and alcohol providers that this county supports and has relationships with.

I know the answer, but I'm asking it so that I could hear it from you. If you could maybe shed light on that, that

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:48:37 · ≈ 2:48 PM

would be great. Well I can and that was a concern we had as well because we like our local providers and we want to keep them up and running and they need our support. And so we did open this up to bids from local providers I mentioned it, but it kind of went by briefly during my presentation. We are including the Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse in this program. They are going to work hand-in-hand with Pacific Education Services. They're going to get a piece of the pie. They're going to be working in North County and South County.

And that concern that you've expressed is the very reason why Why we took that extra step. We conditioned our contract with Pacific Education Services so that they would accept a partnership with our local agency such as that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:49:25 · ≈ 2:49 PM

Thank you. Somebody once told me, don't ask a question you don't know the answer to and I kind of need his answer but I want to hear it for the public to hear it as well. I

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:49:32 · ≈ 2:49 PM

think

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:49:32 · ≈ 2:49 PM

that's

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:49:33 · ≈ 2:49 PM

from attorneys as well. Supervisor Graham?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:49:36 · ≈ 2:49 PM

So Gordon, it works like this then. A person is arrested and then they're either site released or possibly O.R., or they have to be totally site released?

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:49:47 · ≈ 2:49 PM

I would say the vast majority of these cases will be site-released but possibly O. R.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:49:52 · ≈ 2:49 PM

And then the site goes to the filing deputy

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:49:56 · ≈ 2:49 PM

and then the filing deputy writes them a letter and says report to such and such place?

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:50:01 · ≈ 2:50 PM

Filing deputy looks at the case, evaluates it if its eligible, then determines what Classes could benefit this individual. And then pens those particular classes and sends a letter to the offender, we notify Pacific Education Services they send a letter almost I mean immediately following our letter and we start the process rolling

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:50:24 · ≈ 2:50 PM

So theoretically, it could start within about a week and a half? That's kind of quick for the filing deputies.

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:50:29 · ≈ 2:50 PM

We're ready to get this up and running. I think we can-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:50:32 · ≈ 2:50 PM

No, I mean, I'm talking about the offender. They're arrested, they're site released. How soon would the school contact them?

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:50:42 · ≈ 2:50 PM

I believe it's two weeks. Am I correct?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:50:46 · ≈ 2:50 PM

Actually, we're going to have to have him on the mic

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:50:48 · ≈ 2:50 PM

if he's going to speak to the issue. Why don't you run me over with the mic, Mr. Stockman?

5:50 – 5:5615 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:50:57 · ≈ 2:50 PM

Madam Chairperson, members of the supervisors. Walter Stockman, Pacific Educational Services. We contact the people immediately upon getting the letter. We get a referral from the district attorney's office. We send out a letter to the offender and then we call them or email them if we have their email address and if we have both, we do both. And so it's our goal to enroll this person within 20 days of the date that we get the referral because if we don't, then we return the case back to the district attorney's office for prosecution. So these cases don't get cold.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:51:37 · ≈ 2:51 PM

Thanks. It seems like I mean,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:51:40 · ≈ 2:51 PM

the further they get away from the time they were arrested, attention they're

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:51:45 · ≈ 2:51 PM

paying to you. That's precisely the case and so we call them immediately, our contract says that we will contact them at least three times but our policy, our internal policy is that we'll do it five times until we've got them, until we have them enrolled and have them scheduled for a class pay their fees and they could be finished with the program in a matter of weeks.

But they do have 90 days, in which case we return a notice of completion to the district attorney either the North office or the South office.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:52:21 · ≈ 2:52 PM

Thank you. Thank you Supervisor Wolff. Thank You Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:52:27 · ≈ 2:52 PM

In the contract there's a statement in here about the restitution piece that That it's paid to PES and then, bless you. And I guess it's paid monthly? How does it work with restitution? Could an individual pay it? Are they required to pay it all at once? Do they pay over time? Is there going to be a limit? We

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:52:55 · ≈ 2:52 PM

plan on processing these cases within 90 days. If an extension is necessary, that's an option. So if there's a restitution hitch we can push it out a little further. But restitution is not something that is really negotiable. If we cannot obtain restitution within the parameters of the program Then the only means that we have of obtaining restitution, which we have to do under Marcy's law is to obtain a probation order.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:53:26 · ≈ 2:53 PM

So but the restitution piece is going to be monitored by PES? Yes. They're the ones that are making sure that it happens.

CommentScott FranklinProposed · by introduction5:53:34 · ≈ 2:53 PM

And but we will be determined yeah and we will be participating in that and will be part of the repayment process and the district attorney's office will definitely be overseeing the restitution.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:53:48 · ≈ 2:53 PM

Before I give up my mic, I just want to also thank you. Gordon, I think we talked about this a couple months ago maybe longer when we had a long conversation and had a lot of questions then and you answered everyone. And now reading this and seeing your presentation, I think you have just done an exceptional job. And I really do believe this is a good thing for our community for all the reasons that you stated. And also to D.A. Dudley, thank you for your leadership and support because these are very innovative programs They make so much sense. They may not have immediately when you first talked to me, but the more time I had to think about it, it's very clear to me the benefits and I'm glad sir that you're here with us today. I just want to welcome you to our county and wish you all the success.

Thank

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:54:50 · ≈ 2:54 PM

you. Thank you Supervisor Wolf. Supervisor Gray, did you still have anything? Oh I'm sorry. I just wanted to ask one question and then we do actually have one public speaker who's been waiting so patiently in the back. We do want to get to Chief Banks but in looking at the agreement it looks like it can be terminated without cause or for cause on the annual anniversary of the agreement otherwise it's good for five years Okay and then is there going to be, you'll report back to the board say after the end of the first year or so and tell us how it's going? How many people you have in the program.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisor, District 5Proposedvoiceprint 0.755:55:30 · ≈ 2:55 PM

We'd be delighted

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:55:31 · ≈ 2:55 PM

to do that. Do some kind of a report back there? Yes. That would be great. The DA behind you is also nodding her head. Alright actually if you want to come to the microphone.

CommentMark SciatelloProposed · by introduction5:55:44 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Madam Chair, fellow supervisors. I too am so impressed and so appreciative of the work Mr. Ockencloss has done on this. When I first brought the idea to him he looked at me with a blank stare and then immediately jumped on board when Dan Tarnage County participated, watched, listened, and as time went on he became more and more excited. And it's very thrilling for me to sit here today and listen to him articulate the program the way it was always meant to be, we're thrilled. What I was going to say, Madam Chair is if you'd like us to come back in three months or six months and give you a quick report we'd be honored to do so. So you can control our schedule.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:56:19 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Okay great thank you appreciate that. All right Mr. Auchincloss if you want to sit down just for a moment and we're gonna invite Chief Banks up.

5:56 – 6:1128 turns

GuestChief Deputy Jeff BanksSheriffProposedself-stated5:56:33 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Chief Deputy Jeff Banks representing the Sheriff's Department. We support this program totally and the program is a positive alternative to incarceration and has the potential to reduce recidivism as we all know is key to the mission that we have in the jail. And we said the DA's research has been thorough and shows that it's successful in other jurisdictions. I think it's going to be a valuable tool that will improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, and I want to echo what you've all said. Under the leadership of District Attorney Joyce Dudley, we're seeing not only new ideas but she's open to all kinds of things that I think are being more effective. We work with her on a regular basis, and this is just one of many programs that we have seen, and I'm certain we're going to see more.

They're going to solve these problems that are facing us in the justice system so we appreciate this program and all the other things she's doing and we are totally in support of this. Thank you.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Salud Carbajal · Seconded by Steve Lavagnino
Show transcript
Wonderful thank you and thank you for being here and for waiting. And so DA Dudley I hope that you have a tape recorder because when your budget comes around you can play back all these wonderful comments about the wonderful work of you and your department. Okay, that's the only public speaker that we have so we're to receive the report and approve the contract. Motion by Supervisor Carbonell seconded by Supervisor Lavagnino there are no additional comments all those that are in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries excellent job thank you very much we'll look forward to hearing how it's going All right. And we're going to take up our last item of the day, agenda item number seven. Mr. Allen would you read that into the record please?
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:58:23 · ≈ 2:58 PM

Madam Chair and members of the board, Item 7 is from the County Executive Office and Office of Emergency Services. It's a hearing to receive and follow-up presentation regarding the roles performed by the Board of Supervisors individually and collectively during a major emergency or disaster.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:58:39 · ≈ 2:58 PM

Good afternoon Mr. Harris

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:58:44 · ≈ 2:58 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board, good afternoon. Board of Supervisors today's workshop will address the role of the four supervisors and the chair of the board during major emergencies and disasters. We will discuss the critical role of the board, how the board can assist as a member of the response team with EOC. This diagram will represent the levels of an emergency that occur within Santa Barbara County. When an emergency occurs, such as a vegetation fire, the responding agencies handle that incident at the field level with an incident commander.

If that incident, in this case a city, grows in complexity and demands more resources, the city will activate its City EOC for coordination and management. Upon activation, the city notifies the Office of Emergency Management, OEM. And the OEM duty officer will be dispatched to that City EOC to act as a liaison. They make county notifications of the incident to myself and or the County Executive Officer and potentially start placing the County EOC staff on notice.

The city is responsible for operating its own EOC. By activating their EOC, an incident has increased the level of emergency from local government level... Excuse me, from the field level to the local government level. When city resources are anticipated to be overwhelmed, the operational area EOC is activated and the state of California is notified of an op area EOC activation.

So again we have the field incident routine calls happen like this every day when that starts to get to be big or concerning they'll activate a city EOC and then if the city's having problems with it generates up to the operational area level Within the county, OEM represents the local government level for the unincorporated area and the operational level for the entire geographic county.

OEM has two jurisdictional roles. As the Operational Area Agency, OEMs serves as an intermediary in contact with the state regional office, the State Operations Center, and with federal response agencies such as FEMA. If an isolated incident is still limited to the local government level, for example a city or special district, then state and federal agencies will continue to liaison with the operational area level.

The board's role covers three phases. Before any event, the Board of Supervisors must ensure that they and their family are prepared for our next emergency or disaster. Critical members of the EOC response must have supplies and a plan in place. In the following slides we'll discuss in detail the organizational preparedness and the systems in place that allow the board, the CEO, OEM, and county staff to respond.

During an event, the board and the chair work as a conduit of information between the EOC and their districts. Providing information to their district residents and providing feedback to the EOC are critical elements. Then after the incident, the board may provide policy direction to county staff directing appropriate recovery policies such as deferring permit fees, land use, and other recovery issues.

Before the emergency, the Board of Supervisors had adopted an Emergency Management Plan. The plan establishes the structure and management of the EOC and the duties and responsibilities of staff within the EOC. Because the plan is in the operational area level not just the local jurisdictional level it addresses interaction with state local and federal agencies The plan in conjunction with county ordinance addresses the delegation from the board to the director of emergency services, the CEO.

The authority to issue emergency proclamations in order to obtain resources and direct county staff to address the emergency. During the response phase, there are several critical roles in which board members become invaluable to the EOC and their districts. Board members can report and provide intelligence from your district directly into the EOC. You can report to the EOC on traffic issues witnessed, shelter conditions you find, crowds and other observations within your district.

This information assists the EOC greatly in providing overall management to the response efforts. Contact is made to the EOC PIO either by telephone or through a satellite phone. Satellite phones may be accessed through a city EOC in your district. The chair has issued a satellite phone and that information can be integrated into additional public information provided to the operations section for required actions.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:04:09 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:04:10 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Wolk? Thank you, Madam Chair. The EOC PIO, we had talked about this person before when we were all at the EOC.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed6:04:19 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Yes,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:04:20 · ≈ 3:04 PM

ma'am. And we have a phone, you provided us with phone numbers but who is that person and will that person change over time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:04:33 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Chancellor, Supervisor Wolf. The EOCPIO effort's been led by Terri Nishich and she is for right now the person who I would classify as the EOCPIO. My hesitation though is that we are... For example what do you do when Terri goes on vacation? So what Terri working with Joe Guzzari in public and emergency public information have done is have trained a cadre of senior management executive level county staff to function as the PIO. So if an incident starts and Ms. Nisic is out of town, it might be somebody else but it's somebody that's trained in that position.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:05:12 · ≈ 3:05 PM

So I just want to be specific because it says here call EOC PIO and the number that you gave us, is that Terry's number?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:05:20 · ≈ 3:05 PM

That would be...that is the phone number Supervisor Wolf has designated for the EOC PIO

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:05:26 · ≈ 3:05 PM

Is that Terry's phone number?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:05:29 · ≈ 3:05 PM

It goes

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:05:30 · ≈ 3:05 PM

to the EOC and who's ever responsible picks up that phone. Is that right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:05:35 · ≈ 3:05 PM

Chair Farr, Supervisor Wolff, the person who is functioning as the EOC PIO will pick up that number whether it's Terry Nissage. It might be but it also might be one of five other PIOs that she has trained in conjunction with Joe Gazzardi. Okay

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:05:53 · ≈ 3:05 PM

thank you And I just want to be clear, this presentation that you gave us we don't have a copy of that. Is it also online?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:06:00 · ≈ 3:06 PM

The presentation, this presentation, I believe was furnished to you and it should also be online. My apologies.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:06:08 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Well, well, well, we don' t, I don't have it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:06:10 · ≈ 3:06 PM

My apologies, I wasn't aware you did have it.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:06:12 · ≈ 3:06 PM

So I just wanted to be clear if anybody was trying to access it, I think that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:06:16 · ≈ 3:06 PM

You can't. I've just had Doug come in and help me and it's some kind of a formatting problem so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:06:22 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Chairwoman, I just saw Mr. Bozonich heading out. He'll ensure that the online version is accessible and he'll also bring copies for all of us. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:06:32 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Go ahead and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:06:33 · ≈ 3:06 PM

proceed. Again my apologies if you don't have a copy. During the response phase there are several critical roles in which board members become invaluable to the EOC and their districts. And we mentioned that you can report back to the EOC on several aspects of that. As a board member, you may be contacted by individuals, organizations and the media wanting more information about the incident.

Maintaining contact with the EOC PIO, you can maintain consistency with EOC messages and information. The EOC PIO may schedule routine briefing calls with you and your staff to ensure current information is provided, highlighted information specific to your district. Your ability to share the information with individuals, organizations and the media that may contact you assists the EOC with public information dissemination.

As a board member, you will hear information such as rumors, get questions from the public and request media interviews. Because you are in contact with district residents, you may also help to identify information requests from residents that need publishing from the EOC. Contacting the EOC PIO and providing feedback assists the EOC with recognizing information needed by residents or gaps in information.

The EOC PIO may issue additional information or clarifications. In providing emergency information, we all recognize that the local media are a strong partner. Providing media interviews that are consistent with the EOC is very important. An EOCPIO briefing prior to conducting the media interview is strongly encouraged. It is not advised that interviews be conducted that focus on tactical issues of the incident.

For example, decisions on what equipment is being used to fight the fire are an Incident Commander's decision. Such questions can be addressed by the subject matter expert in media briefings or follow-up from the EOC Fire Branch. Calling or emailing the EOCPIO before and following up after any media interviews is needed. The EOCPIO can provide or obtain additional information, and follow-up and monitor media coverage.

During the emergency, state and federal elected representatives may contact you asking what assistance is needed. Ensure that the EOC director is aware of contacts made by state or federal representatives so that multiple contacts and conflicting requests are not made. Requests for equipment and materials, while important, must be coordinated through the EOC.

Examples in other counties show where elected representatives requested equipment such as firefighting equipment that are not in line with what the incident commander needed. During the emergency, the chair of the board or the vice-chair in his or her absence or if it is delegated will work with the EOC director to represent the board. If an incident impacts a specific district, the chair may then work with that supervisor or delegate the responsibilities of working with the EOC to that supervisor.

The chair of the board liaison with elected officials in impacted cities or districts The chair of the board coordinates with the EOC PIO to represent the board at media briefings, along with elected representatives from impacted jurisdictions such as cities. The Board of Supervisors maintains broad policy guidance for any emergency. The Board of Supervisors must ratify or terminate any proclamation of a state of emergency within seven calendar days of the proclamation being issued.

An important policy guidance from the board.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:10:44 · ≈ 3:10 PM

Excuse me, Mr. Harris. Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:10:47 · ≈ 3:10 PM

Yes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:10:48 · ≈ 3:10 PM

ma'am. Mr. Harris you know one thing that I'm confused about because early on you mentioned that the board through resolution has given some of our powers to CEO Waller does that apply to what you just said though about the slide right before this about the board having to do their proclamation?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:11:08 · ≈ 3:11 PM

One more, I think. No, that one actually. Chair Farr, Supervisor Wolf. The CEO has the legal authority delegated to her to issue a state of emergency. When she does that when the board is not in session, the Board of Supervisors must ratify or terminate that proclamation within seven days. So the CEO's delegating the authority and then the board must take action within seven days.

6:11 – 6:2641 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:11:36 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Okay you know there has been times when I've kind of, I've mentioned this to CEO Waller when some three of us have maybe been out of the area. Do you have a backup plan or some process where you need to know where we are? Where we're going and can we have that proclamation be done if we're maybe this is a legal question if we're not all in the same room can we do it via teleconference

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed6:12:02 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Council. You would be able to do it via teleconference, but you'd have to have at least a quorum within the county that participates in that teleconference so you still would need three in the county to take action.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:12:22 · ≈ 3:12 PM

I know as chair when I've left the county, I have let CEO Waller know. But I think that this is an issue that we need to talk about because certainly when the board takes a break and particularly the long break in the summer there's certainly going to be times when you know there are three of us out of the county so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:12:43 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Chairwoman, board members. I was just going to make mention that I work with your chiefs of staff principally before every summer break season to determine when they anticipate that you may be out of the county and to seek information on how to reach you so perhaps that's happening without your knowledge but it is happening that when we know there are several of you that will not be present in the county We ensure we have contact information. And again, just to remind you that we do have seven calendar days to be able to collect a quorum of the board and to teleconference in others to enable you to take action.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:13:27 · ≈ 3:13 PM

So just as a follow-up, CEO Waller if I am one let's say there are three of us out of the out of the county which I think just recently happened it would be good to notify the supervisors of that so that we are at least attuned to it. So that we know that if we have to get back here one of us can?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:13:46 · ≈ 3:13 PM

Chair Supervisors yes working with our clerk of the board we can ensure that we do that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:13:53 · ≈ 3:13 PM

All right, and actually a follow-up question to this for council. Perhaps there's two out of county, there's three in county and there is a major event and one or more of the supervisors that are in county are injured seriously and are not capable of acting. What does that mean?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed6:14:18 · ≈ 3:14 PM

In place, your board has already adopted a continuity of government provision that if a member of the board were incapacitated there is a second individual that is in line to take over that position. I don't have that in front of me to know...

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:14:35 · ≈ 3:14 PM

That's right. I remember that now and that's for each of each of the board positions? Correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:14:41 · ≈ 3:14 PM

Okay. And that information is in the larger emergency manual that we've provided each of you Okay, thank you. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:14:49 · ≈ 3:14 PM

Carbajal? You said seven days right we have to have such a meeting so no way in the world does it take an extra more than a day to come back here So I would imagine that it's just a matter of where were at on vacation We could get on the plane in the next two three days when you contact us to make it back so That the 7-day window really allows for us to be able to get back

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:15:12 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Yeah, I think that there could be situations where there was a really major earthquake in the state where it might make it difficult to get Ashley back in a day. But you know that would be something we'd have deal with at that time. Okay Mr. Harris why don't you go

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:15:28 · ≈ 3:15 PM

ahead?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:15:28 · ≈ 3:15 PM

We may have

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:15:28 · ≈ 3:15 PM

you on a cargo plane coming back so we'll get you back here.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:15:32 · ≈ 3:15 PM

I'm expecting the sheriff's helicopter to come and get us.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:15:40 · ≈ 3:15 PM

We'll get moving on here. Let me just state that one of the major policy issues and important policy guidance from the board is most often, as you're aware, provided from the board during the recovery phase. Land use issues, waiver or deferment of fees and other policy issues are valuable guidance to county staff. During the emergency, through Emergency Management Plan and County Ordinance, the Board is empowered to CEO and designees to execute actions necessary to protect the public's safety, property and the environment.

So we have a couple of attachments hopefully with your packet here. And OEM is providing you with two documents in your attachment that should be highlighted. The Operational Area Media Briefing Checklist and the Board of Supervisors Emergency Guide. The media checklist serves as an outline to a detailed PIO plan that addresses the conducting of a briefing with the media when it's an operational area disaster. So when it achieves and goes to the operational area level, that's what it's addressing. The chair or vice-chair or the delegated board member will work with the EOC PIO to initiate the media briefing with pertinent incident highlights and in cooperation with other impacted cities.

The Board of Supervisors Emergency Guide Summary highlights the key points and discussions from today's workshop. Questions have been asked about OEM's role in the county and the operational area. OEM works before any event regarding EOC activation. OEM works with departments to identify their key EOC staff. County department staff are trained and oriented to their functions in the EOC based on the emergency management plan.

In addition to training county staff, OEM works with city emergency coordinators to train their city staff in EOC operations. Numerous times each year, OEM, in conjunction with the cities and special districts, state and federal agencies conducts exercise drills and reviews. For example, the PIO's are conducting an exercise on October 25th, and the operational area is conducting a full exercise in November.

During the incident, OEM functions as EOC Director's Chief of Staff. OEM keeps EOC staff on task, organized and forward looking. OEM staff ensures integration with jurisdictional EOCs and state and federal response authorities. OEM staff ensures that emergency objectives are being met and completed. The OEM staff ensures the systems within the EOC are integrated, including public information, advanced planning, and intelligence gathering.

OEM liaisons with state and federal authorities that come into the operational area to provide assistance. After the emergency, ensuring appropriate demobilization by gathering of documentation, invoices, returning of equipment and accounting for all resources involved is important to assist with cost reimbursements. If it becomes available During the recovery phase, OEM advocates for assistance to victims from state and federal authorities.

OEM works with state and federal authorities to establish one-stop assistance centers linking disaster survivors with state, federal, and volunteer assistance. OEM works with any impacted cities, special districts and county departments to quantify disaster damages. Disaster services provided at the state and federal level are complicated and accurate reporting and documentation are critical.

Finally, OEM looks back at the emergency to look at the lessons learned. Evaluations are conducted with local jurisdictions, agencies and EOC staff to determine what can be improved upon and what went well. This concludes our presentation Madam Chair and you will find on the last page of your Board of Supervisors checklist A list of needed disaster supplies.

Today, OEM is supplying you with a starter kit for your preparedness. These kits also contain a binder with additional information. When we started our workshop today, we reminded you, our fellow county staff and our citizens that preparedness is critical. These kits are designed to help you with your initial steps. That would conclude our presentation, Madam Chair. And they'll bring you up your kits and certainly able to take any questions.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:20:40 · ≈ 3:20 PM

Okay, thank you Mr. Harris. CEO Wallingford?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:20:44 · ≈ 3:20 PM

Chairwoman I just wanted to mention as we're bringing up your preparedness kits for you that we understand your desire to have ongoing information on the role that OEM plays and we have a couple of future workshops for you. We will be doing a workshop in a couple of months on the PIO and the communication at the EOC that was, uh, that will flesh out some of the questions that Supervisor Wolf asked. We'll also-

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:21:13 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Excuse

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:21:13 · ≈ 3:21 PM

me just a minute, CEO

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:21:14 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Waller. I think we need to just keep moving. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:21:20 · ≈ 3:21 PM

We'll also be doing a workshop probably in the spring on continuity of operation plans. And I think you'll find this extremely helpful and that this will enable us to share with you the functions that county government must continue to do during operations or during disasters and how we'll actually accomplish that. So each department has a COOP, and we'll be providing you information on how we'll actually accomplish those. So those are two upcoming presentations that we'll have for you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:21:54 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Okay, thank you. Mr. Harris in looking at this booklet that you just gave me something specifically I wanted to ask you about is the declaration of a health emergency and so that's actually declared by Dr. Wada. Is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:22:10 · ≈ 3:22 PM

That's my understanding. I'll defer probably a little bit to counsel but yes ma'am.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:22:14 · ≈ 3:22 PM

Okay and so how How does the continuity of operations change, or maybe we need to have Dr. Wada come in and do a presentation in conjunction with your office? Because if an emergency like that is declared and we're in some sort of state of quarantine Or they don't want kids going to school, they don't want people going out. Things are gonna kind of freeze all non-essential services. People are gonna, they're gonna want them to stay at home perhaps but county government is gonna have to continue to function and I'm assuming we have some sort of a plan for that where we close down what we consider non-essential and everything else goes forward. But I still think the board needs to know how that kind of situation works.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:23:06 · ≈ 3:23 PM

Chair Farr, that will probably be addressed at the COOP briefing. There is a specific section dealing with pandemics in our continuity of operations planning with the idea that we will lose a substantial number of employees due to illness and we want to maintain some distance between each other while providing services so we'll probably cover that in the COOP briefing ma'am We'll make sure Dr. Watt is ready for that question as well.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:23:30 · ≈ 3:23 PM

Okay, that'd be great. Thank you. Supervisor Gray?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:23:33 · ≈ 3:23 PM

Thank you. All time dumbest question probably but could you just tell me why you want a hand-cranked radio because I have batteries on my radio and that thing lasts for months.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:23:47 · ≈ 3:23 PM

Supervisor Gray, Madam Chair, that's actually a great question. We really push people for hand crank radios because so many people present company excluded, get the batteries and they'll never check the batteries. They'd never make sure that the batteries are ready to go so when they go to use them, the batteries are dead or they're in the kid's Nintendo. So hand cranked will always be available and operational.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:24:11 · ≈ 3:24 PM

But you assume that the flashlight...you're going to have fresh batteries in the flashlight? Or do you have a hand-cranked flashlight also?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:24:18 · ≈ 3:24 PM

This is great. Most of the radios that we get with a radio hand crank also have a flashlight built into it, and I believe there's one in your bag which I think you'll be very happy with. It's a fantastic radio flashlight cell phone charger, the whole thing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:24:33 · ≈ 3:24 PM

We should have a demonstration!

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:24:36 · ≈ 3:24 PM

Actually, for Christmas I gave one to each of my sons to have in the car. That's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:24:40 · ≈ 3:24 PM

a

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:24:40 · ≈ 3:24 PM

great idea. Supervisor Carbajal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:24:42 · ≈ 3:24 PM

Thank you Madam Chair. So Mr. Harris is this a bag we keep in the office, in our trunks at home? What is the intended use of this?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:24:52 · ≈ 3:24 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal I would advise you to keep that in your car. You also want to have a home kit so this is it's got a little bit of water with it It's got a hand cranked radio. I have one in the back of my car I also have a separate kit at home with water food the whole bed So this is this is a starter kit if you will

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:25:11 · ≈ 3:25 PM

Okay, wonderful. Other questions from the board?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:25:16 · ≈ 3:25 PM

Supervisor Wolff. Just a comment. Thank you for providing us with this Mr. Harris and you know from all of our conversations up here on the dais you know that this is an important topic for all of us and we want to be ready and I think you and your staff have done a good job, we just need to sometimes hear a little bit more information about what's going on in the background because it's apparent that there is a lot that you're doing. It's just bringing that information to us and maybe incorporating us so that we can be observers to some of these drills that are going on at the EOC. I think it would help me if some of the ones that you just mentioned in November, it would be good for us to know about that and if appropriate Is it appropriate for us to observe that?

It

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:26:07 · ≈ 3:26 PM

certainly is. I believe it really is, yes. And if Supervisor Wolf, again, we've given you some information here and numbers and all that. We want to remain engaged with you to make sure that you feel comfortable on the satellite phone. I know David Flam has been working with the staff up at Bettaravia and how that can keep connected with the EOC. So if all telephones and radio systems are lost, how do you stay connected? So we work with you and your staff in this. Thank

6:26 – 6:299 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:26:37 · ≈ 3:26 PM

you. All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments at this time? So this is just kind of one in a series, and the next one is going to be when?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:26:48 · ≈ 3:26 PM

Supervisor, I believe it's December 11th is what we have scheduled right now based on the current schedule.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:26:53 · ≈ 3:26 PM

OK. Very good. Thank you. Anything else? CEO Wall?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:26:59 · ≈ 3:26 PM

No, just I would encourage you to utilize your family planning guides. I think that's very very important. I know it's something that I utilize because it helps you free up yourself and be better prepared in the event of a disaster so would encourage you to take advantage of those and as Mr. Harris said please do feel comfortable giving him a call if you need any assistance or guidance

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:27:24 · ≈ 3:27 PM

Okay, thank you. Supervisor Wolk? Oh no I'm fine. Did you need

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:27:29 · ≈ 3:27 PM

a motion?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:27:31 · ≈ 3:27 PM

Are we receiving and filing it looks like? Yes. A motion? I'll make that motion. Motion to receive and file. Seconded by Supervisor Carbajal. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. That's the end of our agenda. Do we have anybody we want to close in memory of?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:27:50 · ≈ 3:27 PM

I do, I'd like to close in memory of Pauline Herman. Pauline was a very active community volunteer and her latest project has been with the Fox and Woods Homeowners Association and she was one of those folks that's worked in the Lewis Oasis Senior Center and an active member on that board so Pauline Herman thank you

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:28:11 · ≈ 3:28 PM

All right, thank you very much. And with that we've concluded our agenda and we will be adjourned until our next meeting on November 6th. Thank you everybody. Hi.