BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Agenda Changes

• The plastic bag ban item was moved to the July 2nd meeting due to the absence of a co-sponsor.
• The Chumash dialogue item was moved to August 20th to accommodate the July 2nd agenda and district considerations.
• The board voted to approve these schedule changes.

Terms and Conditions of Employment for Unrepresented Employees

• Public commenters raised concerns regarding the exclusion of civil attorneys from a 3% pay increase and potential inequities in salary adjustments.
• The board discussed the legal status of the attorneys and the cost breakdown of the proposed changes.
• The item was included in the administrative agenda approval, with an agreement to address specific legal concerns in closed session.

Workforce Investment Act Strategic Plan

• A public commenter criticized the report for lacking specific performance data and disconnecting from North County economic needs.
• The item was included in the motion to approve the administrative agenda.

Planning and Development Hearing

• Staff requested to set a hearing for September 3, 2013, instead of August 20, 2013, for a lot line adjustment appeal.
• This date change was included in the motion to approve the administrative agenda.

Agricultural Commissioner’s Office Report

• Staff presented updates on the scanner program, export certification, and the Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) quarantine status.
• Public commenters discussed the impact of ACP treatments on pollinators and advocated for alternative pest control methods.
• The board received and filed the report after discussing the safety profile of chemicals and collaborative efforts with CDFA.

Empower SBC Continuation Funding

• Staff reported securing $5.2 million in state funding to expand the energy efficiency program to a tri-county region.
• The board discussed grant monitoring obligations, loan terms, and the program's impact on the local construction industry.
• The board voted to accept the funding contracts and implement the next phase of the program.

Affordable Care Act Implementation Report

• Staff detailed the expansion of Medi-Cal eligibility and the establishment of the Covered California exchange.
• The board discussed potential fiscal impacts, including a net negative gap from realignment funding changes.
• The board received and filed the report, with staff agreeing to investigate provider capacity and retroactivity issues.

Coastal Zoning Ordinance Amendment and EIR Certification (La Galita Field Enhancement Project)

• Staff presented the project to expand gas storage capacity, requiring a zoning amendment to permit native sweet gas extraction.
• Public commenters expressed opposition based on safety, environmental, and property value concerns, while staff clarified that hydraulic fracturing is prohibited.
• The board approved the project with revised conditions regarding drilling timelines, rainy season dates, and emergency management involvement.

Closed Session

• The board conferred with legal counsel regarding existing litigation involving Ernest Del Rio and Tom Pappas.
• The board met with labor negotiators for the County and the Santa Barbara County Public Authority for In-Home Supportive Services.

Meeting Opening and Roll Call

• The June 25th meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order by Supervisor Lavagnino, serving as chair in the absence of Supervisor Carbajal. A roll call confirmed the presence of Supervisors Wolfe, Farrer, Adam, and Lavagnino. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Approval of Minutes

• June 18th Minutes: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the June 18th meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
• Budget Hearing Minutes: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes for the budget hearings held on June 10, 12, and 14, 2013. The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Changes

• Plastic Bag Ban and Chumash Items: Supervisor Wolfe proposed moving the plastic bag ban consideration to the July 2nd meeting due to the absence of co-sponsor Supervisor Carbajal. Supervisor Farrer suggested moving the Chumash dialogue item to August 20th to accommodate the July 2nd agenda and because the item relates to his district.
• Discussion: Supervisors Wolfe, Farrer, and Adam discussed district boundaries and the county-wide nature of the Chumash issue.
• Vote: A motion was made and seconded to move the plastic bag ban item to July 2nd and the Chumash dialogue item to August 20th. The motion passed with a vote of 4-0.

Public Comment (Non-Agenda Items)

• Two members of the public spoke: 1. David Daniel Diaz: Expressed concerns regarding the MTD disability access card renewal process, arguing it forces low-income disabled individuals to pay for medical documentation. He also criticized the Gaviota Planning Commission for spending significant public meeting time on internal scheduling matters rather than project discussion. 2. Rondi Guthrie: Introduced herself as the new local public affairs region manager for Southern California Edison, stating her intent to work with the board on energy efficiency and reliable electricity supply.

Administrative Agenda

Item A-6: Terms and Conditions of Employment for Unrepresented Employees

• Public Comment:
• Kevin Reddy: Argued that the proposed resolution excluding civil attorneys from a 3% pay increase was based on a misreading of labor law, as the group is not yet a certified bargaining unit. He requested the board approve the pay raise for all unrepresented employees, including civil attorneys.
• Michael Youngdahl: Supported Reddy’s position, citing high turnover among senior lawyers due to a five-year salary freeze.
• Maria Lasalla: Raised concerns about inequity in the resolution, noting that a specific supervising attorney in the Office of County Counsel received a significant salary increase while comparable positions in Child Support Services did not.
• Board Discussion:
• Supervisor Wolfe expressed support for the 3% wage increase approved during budget hearings but opposed the freeze on merit increases (Item 3 of the resolution). She initially moved to approve only the wage increase portion.
• Supervisor Farrer requested a breakdown of the $1.5 million cost between general and non-general funds.
• Supervisor Lavagnino suggested the item might be better handled with a full board or in closed session to address legal concerns regarding the civil attorneys' bargaining status.
• The County Executive Office stated they could provide additional information in closed session.
• Supervisor Wolfe withdrew her motion to split the item, agreeing to proceed with the item as part of the administrative agenda, with the understanding that the board would receive further information in closed session regarding the speakers' concerns.
• Decision: The item was not voted on separately at this time but was included in the motion to approve the administrative agenda.

Item A-16: Workforce Investment Act Strategic Plan

• Public Comment:
• Andy Caldwell: Criticized the report for lacking specific performance data, noting that 79% of services were in Santa Maria while partnerships were concentrated in Santa Barbara. He argued the plan disconnected from North County economic needs (e.g., agriculture, oil) and regulatory factors.
• Decision: The item was included in the motion to approve the administrative agenda.

Item A-24: Planning and Development Hearing

• Staff Request: Staff requested to set a hearing for September 3, 2013, instead of August 20, 2013, regarding an appeal of a denial of a lot line adjustment in the Summerland area.
• Decision: This change was included in the motion to approve the administrative agenda.

Administrative Agenda Vote

• Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve the administrative agenda, including the changes to Item A-24.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Agenda

Item 1: Agricultural Commissioner’s Office Report

• Presentation: Guy Tingos of the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office presented on the scanner program, export certification, Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) quarantine, soil fumigants, and invasive pests.
• Scanner Program: Reported a 20% non-compliance rate in initial inspections; fines were levied on two large businesses.
• Export Certification: Highlighted cost savings for exporters compared to USDA fees.
• Asian Citrus Psyllid (ACP): Explained the threat of Huanglongbing (HLB) disease. ACP was detected in Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, and Goleta. The entire county is under quarantine. Treatments were conducted in Santa Maria and Goleta.
• Soil Fumigants: Discussed the use of fumigants for strawberry production and regulatory oversight.
• Q&A:
• Supervisor Farrer asked about the specificity of treatments and impacts on bees. David Pagos from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) explained that treatments target immature ACP stages and that efforts are made to minimize impacts on pollinators, such as avoiding treatment during bloom.
• Supervisor Adam asked about the transfer of chemicals to nectar. CDFA stated that data from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment indicated minimal effects through pollen, but specific data on nectar was not provided on the spot.
• Public Comment:
• Andy Caldwell: Requested more specific data on scanner program inspections and fines. He advocated for increased funding and staffing for the Ag Commissioner’s Office to protect the agricultural economy.
• Todd Webb (Santa Barbara Beekeepers Association): Highlighted the plight of pollinators and the work being done to develop alternative treatments for ACP.
• Mark Chitillo (Santa Barbara Beekeepers Association/Fairview Gardens): Discussed the toxicity of neonicotinoids to bees, referencing the Oregon bee kill and the Goleta ACP treatment. He presented an alternative treatment program developed with CDFA.
• Trish Stone-Damon (Green Landscaping Consortium): Urged the board to promote safe alternatives to toxic pesticides in the ACP eradication program.
• Board Discussion:
• Supervisor Wolfe thanked the staff for their work and noted the collaborative approach with CDFA regarding alternative treatments. She confirmed that no violations were observed during the monitoring of ACP applications.
• Supervisor Adam discussed the trade-offs in pest control and the safety profile of the chemicals used.
• Motion: A motion was made and seconded to receive and file the report.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Item 2: Plastic Bag Ban

• Status: This item was previously moved to the July 2nd meeting. No further action was taken.

Item 3: Empower SBC Continuation Funding

• Presentation: Staff presented a report on the progress of the Empower program during its initial startup phase and proposed the next phase of the program. Staff reported that the county secured $5.2 million in funding from the California Energy Commission and the Public Utilities Commission to continue services past the August 2013 grant expiration. The proposed implementation plan involves expanding the program to a tri-county region including Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo counties, which would serve approximately 315,000 single-family homes. Staff outlined program achievements, including over 3,000 interested individuals engaged, 350 leads generated for contractors, work completed in over 200 homes, and a 700% increase in building performance certifications. Staff noted that the funding is contingent on operating a tri-county program and offering financing services.
• Board Questions: Board members asked questions regarding greenhouse gas savings data, grant monitoring obligations, and loan terms. Staff clarified that the PUC grant lasts through December 31, 2014, and the CEC grant through March 31, 2017. Staff explained that monitoring obligations for loan loss reserves continue for the life of the loans, which are either five or 15 years. Board members expressed support for the expansion, noting the regional benefits and the program’s impact on the local construction industry.
• Public Comment:
• A contractor representative discussed the program’s support for the building trades and the need for energy efficiency improvements in existing homes.
• A representative from the Community Environmental Council supported the program and suggested considering expansion into the commercial business sector.
• Motion: A motion was made to accept the funding contracts and implement the next phase of the program. The motion was seconded.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Item 4: Affordable Care Act Implementation Report

• Presentation: Staff from Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services, Public Health, and Social Services presented a report on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The presentation covered the expansion of Medi-Cal to individuals and families up to 138% of the federal poverty level and the establishment of the Covered California health insurance exchange for those between 138% and 400% of the federal poverty level. Staff estimated that 30,000 to 40,000 new residents would become eligible for Medi-Cal and 45,000 to 50,000 would be eligible for the exchange, reducing the uninsured population from approximately 67,000 to 27,000.
• Details: Staff detailed the Department of Social Services’ role in determining Medi-Cal eligibility, including handling calls transferred from state call centers and maintaining extended hours during open enrollment (October 1, 2013, to March 30, 2014). Staff discussed the fiscal impacts, noting that the state proposed taking back a portion of realignment funding, which could result in a net negative gap of $2.5 million to $4 million for the county. Staff outlined two options for handling realignment funding: a 70/30 split or a savings share formula, with a preliminary decision required by October and a final decision by December. Staff also addressed unknowns regarding system capacity, private sector participation, and the status of the Medically Indigent Adult Program.
• Public Comment: A representative of CoLab raised concerns about physician shortages, the cost burden on local taxpayers, and the adequacy of reimbursement rates for providers.
• Board Questions: Board members asked questions regarding the retroactivity of insurance coverage for those who pay the penalty but do not enroll, the potential for a net negative fiscal impact, and the capacity of local providers to see new Medi-Cal patients. Staff indicated that they would investigate the retroactivity issue and that they would work with SenCal and other partners to address provider capacity gaps. Staff confirmed that they would return to the board with a recommendation on the realignment methodology and information on the impact on the county as an employer.
• Motion: A motion was made to receive and file the report. The motion was seconded.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Item 5: Coastal Zoning Ordinance Amendment and EIR Certification (La Galita Field Enhancement Project)

• Staff Presentation: Jay Goolsby, representing the Energy & Minerals staff, presented the La Galita Field Enhancement Project.
• Project Scope: Expansion of gas storage capacity from 21.5 billion cubic feet to 26.5 billion cubic feet by drilling four new wells to extract native sweet gas from a reservoir below the existing storage field. The project involves a new dehydration unit, a 2,800-foot pipeline, and three phases of development (drilling, equipment installation, and additional drilling).
• Zoning Amendment: The project requires a Coastal Zoning Ordinance amendment to permit exploration and production of native sweet gas in the Public Utility (PU) zone. The amendment restricts this use to public utilities or regulated companies, explicitly prohibits hydraulic fracturing, limits hydrogen sulfide content to 4 parts per million, and excludes the project from Division 9 commercial oil and gas regulations.
• Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Findings:
• Visual: Temporary drilling rig impacts (89 days in Phase 1, 68 days in Phase 3).
• Public Safety: Risks identified as below county safety thresholds.
• Noise: Significant effects identified but mitigated to de minimis levels via real-time monitoring; project must shut down if mitigation fails.
• Vibration: No vibration impacts expected from the proposed project.
• Access: Fire Department protocols established for potential road blockages.
• Precedent: Staff analysis suggests this is likely the only such project in the county due to site-specific constraints.
• Correction: Staff requested approval of a correction to Condition 20 in Attachment C, fixing the rainy season dates to November 1 through April 15.
• Recommendation: Staff recommended the Board make CEQA findings, certify the EIR, approve the ordinance amendment, the revised development plan, and the coastal development permit.
• Board Questions and Staff Responses:
• Drilling Timelines: Supervisor Wolf expressed concern that the language regarding drilling timelines (89 days and 68 days) was open-ended. Staff recommended deleting "best efforts" language from Condition 2 to make the timelines definitive and enforceable, with extensions only for good cause.
• Septic System: Supervisor Farr asked why the applicant was not connecting to the sanitary district. Staff explained that the existing private septic system has adequate capacity for the current operations and temporary drilling activities (using porta-potties), and Environmental Health Services did not identify a need for further action.
• Water Usage: Supervisor Farr noted the absence of an acre-feet per year calculation and water district commitment in the EIR. Staff clarified that baseline usage is approximately 500,000 gallons/year, doubling to 1 million gallons/year during drilling. The Goleta Water District confirmed these levels are within permitted parameters.
• Stormwater/Runoff: Supervisor Farr questioned the applicability of Project Clean Water conditions given conflicting letters. Staff confirmed that due to the new fire road, the project exceeds the one-acre threshold, so the initial mitigation letter remains active and applicable.
• Spill Response: Supervisor Farr suggested including the Fire Department in the review of the spill response plan. Staff confirmed that the Fire Department and Office of Emergency Services have been added as companion reviewers for that condition.
• Traffic/Notification: Supervisor Farr asked about notification to neighbors regarding road closures. Staff stated that the traffic mitigation plan requires advance notification to local residents and commercial operations.
• Emissions: Supervisor Farr questioned who would monitor emissions to ensure thresholds are not exceeded. An air quality expert stated that the Air Pollution Control District would monitor the project, and emissions are estimated to be well below offset thresholds.
• Dehydration Unit Size: Supervisor Wolf asked for the size of the dehydration unit. Staff identified it as a 0.24-acre footprint in Attachment F.
• Inspections: Supervisor Wolf asked for clarification on "periodic" site inspections. Staff recommended changing the language to "quarterly" for the first year, then annually.
• Safety Record: Supervisor Wolf asked about the operator’s safety record. Staff reported an exemplary record with no major incidents, only one minor employee injury.
• Revenue Sharing: Supervisor Wolf asked for specifics on the economic benefit/ratepayer savings. Staff stated that the benefit is estimated at approximately $1 per customer, spread across 215 municipalities, and is secondary to the primary benefit of increased storage capacity.
• Applicant Presentation: Steve Isgro, Ex-Per Development Manager for Southern California Gas Company, presented on behalf of the applicant.
• Operations: The company has operated the La Galita field since 1941. The proposed project is similar to past maintenance and re-drilling activities but targets a new, deeper reservoir (10,000 feet) to increase storage capacity without using compression for injection.
• Regulatory Context: The project aligns with a 2006 California Public Utilities Commission decision allowing exploration for native gas adjacent to storage fields, with a 50-50 revenue share between customers and shareholders.
• Safety: The company emphasized its safety record and commitment to community safety.
• Public Comment: Approximately 15 speakers addressed the Board. Comments were generally opposed to the project, citing the following concerns:
• Safety and Environmental Risks: Speakers cited fears of explosions, gas leaks, and contamination, referencing incidents such as San Bruno and BP. Concerns were raised about the potential for sour gas (hydrogen sulfide) despite the "sweet gas" designation, and the lack of a specific contingency plan for sour gas encounters.
• Noise and Vibration: Residents reported existing noise and vibration issues and expressed concern that the project would exacerbate these impacts, particularly during 24-hour drilling operations.
• Property Values: Several speakers expressed concern about decreased property values due to the project's presence and construction activities.
• Zoning Precedent: Speakers argued that approving the amendment would open a "Pandora's box" for similar projects along the coast.
• Economic Benefits: Speakers challenged the claimed public benefits, arguing that ratepayer savings would be negligible (e.g., less than 40 cents) and that increased storage capacity was not a significant public benefit given national gas supplies.
• Renewable Energy: Several speakers advocated for renewable energy alternatives, such as solar farms, over fossil fuel extraction.
• Water and Infrastructure: Questions were raised about water usage, drilling through groundwater basins, and the impact on local infrastructure.
• Regulatory Clarification: One speaker, an attorney, raised questions about the applicability of the County’s Petroleum Code to the new drilling depths and the need for clarification on sour gas handling.
• David Pagos: Expressed opposition to the project, characterizing it as complicit in hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). Argued that the project poses risks to water supplies and climate change due to fugitive methane emissions. Cited connections between SoCalGas, Sempra Energy, and Halliburton, alleging that Halliburton has influenced regulatory loopholes regarding the Clean Water Act. Advocated for renewable energy alternatives over fossil fuel exploration.
• Staff Response to Public Comment:
• Vibration: Staff reiterated that the EIR found no additional vibration impacts from the proposed project, though acknowledged baseline vibrations from existing operations.
• Hydraulic Fracturing: Staff confirmed that no hydraulic fracturing is proposed for this project and that the ordinance amendment explicitly prohibits it.
• Water Contamination: Staff stated they were not prepared to answer questions about specific instances of water contamination from fracking elsewhere, noting ongoing studies by the EPA and state agencies.
• Sour Gas: Staff did not provide a detailed contingency plan for sour gas during the public comment period, but the ordinance limits hydrogen sulfide levels.
• Steve Isgro (SoCalGas Representative): Responded to concerns regarding sour gas, stating that the project design mandates a stop if sour gas is found. Addressed concerns about drilling through water sources by explaining that the Division of Oil and Gas regulates well design, and cementing procedures are used to protect aquifers.
• Board Questions and Staff Response (Continued):
• Supervisor Wolf: Inquired about an official comment letter from the City of Goleta.
• Jay Goolsby (Staff): Confirmed receipt of a letter from the City of Goleta. The letter primarily requested that the board hear constituent concerns and take them seriously. The city also submitted comments on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) across all issue areas. Staff indicated that the city’s planning staff believed the county’s responses adequately addressed their comments.
• Unidentified Speaker (Staff/Representative): Verified via verbal communication with Goleta Planning staff that they were satisfied with the responses to the draft EIR comments.
• Board Discussion:
• Supervisor Wolf: Noted the receipt of revised comments for Conditions 2, 3, and 33. Condition 33 relates to fire department and emergency management involvement in prevention and countermeasure plans. Acknowledged personal concerns regarding water impact, chemicals, and proximity to the gas facility, citing past experiences living near gas plants. Stated that while concerned about theoretical risks, the record, public input, EIR revisions (particularly regarding noise), and safety precautions provided sufficient comfort. Expressed support for the motion based on the revised conditions, emphasizing the importance of open communication lines with emergency services.
• Supervisor Farr (Chitillo): Seconded the motion. Noted the long history of oil and gas development in Santa Barbara County, with many facilities predating residential development. Stated that while wishing the project were located elsewhere, the proposed safety, fire, and traffic mitigation plans are among the best seen for such projects. Acknowledged the continued need for such facilities while renewable energy capacity is built. Expressed support for the motion including the revised conditions.
• Clarification on Motion Scope: A board member clarified that the motion includes revised Conditions 2, 3, 20, and 33. Condition 20 was updated to clarify rainy season requirements.
• Supervisor (Unidentified in text, likely Chair or another member): Stated that the board cannot issue guarantees of safety but can require documentation and mitigation. Cited the absence of fracking and vibration in the project scope as factors in their decision. Expressed support for the motion.
• Motion: To approve the project with revised Conditions 2, 3, 20, and 33.
• Vote: The motion passed unanimously.

Post-Vote Procedures

• The board recessed to closed session.
• Closed Session Agenda:
• Conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation: Ernest Del Rio v. County of Santa Barbara and Tom Pappas et al. v. State of California et al.
• Conference with labor negotiators (County negotiators Chandra Waller and Jerry Muth; employee organizations; County Sheriff’s Managers Association).
• Board sitting as the Santa Barbara County Public Authority for In-Home Supportive Services, with a conference with labor negotiators (Ms. Waller and Mr. Nielsen as accounting negotiators).