Board of Supervisors — 2014-06-13

All right, good morning. Do I have juice? Yes. Good morning everybody, like to call this meeting to order of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Special hearing today and because of the size of the crowd we do have the fire marshal please listen to those that are trying to keep us safe. We appreciate you being here. Because of the size of the crowd and the amount of people that may come in the future we are going to be closing Once we get the meeting started, if you have your speaker slip, get it turned in right now because we already have 85 speakers.

And we're going to try to get done today at some point. So we're going to get those in and then immediately after we get started we'll be closing whoever's in is in. So with that Mr. Allen can I get a roll call please?

Mr. Carbajal? Here. Ms. Wolfe?

Here.

Ms Farr? Here. Mr. Adam? Here, Mr. Lavagnino?

All right, we're going to open up for public comment. Now just so folks remember this is comments that are not on items that are not on today's agenda. So this is not having to do anything with fracking or oil or anything. This is just general public comment. Mr. Allen, do we have any speakers on general public comment?

No request to speak.

No requests to speak. Okay, very good. Public comment is now closed. We're just rolling through this. We are now going onto our administrative agenda. We have one item added to the administrative agenda. Mr. Allen can you please read that in?

Chairman Labnino, members of the board. This item is from general services. The recommendations that the board consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara Response Network temporary use permit and this is in the third district.

All right? Who's presenting? Matt. A item. Anybody wish to pull it? No presentation. All right. Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. None opposed passes unanimously. Okay, well I guess we're done. We have one more item. All right, one more item. Departmental Agenda Item number 1. Mr. Allen can you please read that one in also?

Chairman Labnino, members of the board. Item number one is from the county clerk recorder assessor. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an impact report on an initiative to ban high intensity petroleum operations.

Okay, very good. Mr. Brzenich? Good morning. Chairman Labinino and members of the board. On May 20th your board directed staff to return with a report pursuant to election code 9111 addressing impacts of the voter initiative to prohibit high intensity petroleum operations. I'd like to recognize Auditor-Controller Geis and Property Tax Division Chief Ed Price, Clerk Recorder Assessor Holland and Assessor Division Chief Keith Taylor.

Planning Director Russell and Oil and Gas Division Chief Kevin Drude who's with us here as well as Consultant Doug Anthony for their significant contributions to the report that your board is being asked to receive today. They contributed both their expertise, their careful consideration of the measure and the work that they are involved in informed greatly their contributions to the report.

After the delivery of this report-

Dennis just

a second I'm sorry.

Those are the last speaker slips that we will accept. Speaker slips for departmental agenda item one is now closed so we will not be accepting any more speaker slips okay? Thank you very much Dennis go ahead.

After the delivery of this report, your board will have up to 10 days to approve the ordinance outright or refer it to the ballot. This presentation will provide an overview of the impact report, which can be found at attachment A for those in the members of the public as well as for you as board members. That was prepared by staff at your direction. In keeping with the format used to present the impact report on measure M, this report begins with an overview of the measure and the operational context in which the initiative to ban high intensity petroleum fits.

The initiative describes two categories of petroleum operations. One, well stimulation treatments including hydraulic fracturing and acid treatments. The other is our secondary and enhanced recovery operations, which can include things such as cyclic steaming and the injection of water, air, CO2. Wastewater produced during the course of oil operations injecting those back into the well hole.

Currently there's 1,167 Onshore wells are operating and they produced in 2013, 4.3 million barrels of oil. Wells often produce over decades and may require certain techniques throughout the life of that well or at the end of their life. Today no wells in Santa Barbara County are using the described well stimulation treatments contained in the measure.

Can you repeat that last sentence, Dennis? I'm sorry. Dennis

can you repeat that last- The last statement was there are currently no wells using the well stimulation treatments such as hydraulic fracturing or acid stimulation. Okay. There are no wells. Supervisors, just to be clear we spoke a moment ago about two different types of operations that are identified in this measure. One is the well stimulation treatments which includes hydraulic fracturing. The other one are secondary enhanced recovery operations which includes things such as cyclic steaming and injection of water gas into the well.

Sure. Supervisor Carbajal?

I appreciate you repeating that last sentence. Have there been any fracking incidences in Santa Barbara County?

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Carbajal, yes in the past there have been wells that have been fracked when the county passed its ordinance a few years ago Requiring that applicants wishing to frack had to submit a discretionary application to the county. We have had no applications since that time.

Thank you.

Dennis, I have a question then because I'm looking at page two of attachment A and it says 100% of the active wells use at least one secondary or enhanced recovery technique identified in the measure if for no other reason than well maintenance. So how do we justify that with what just came out?

Mr Chair That paragraph describes, it's a column of activities that can be applied to both enhanced production techniques as well as maintenance activities. For instance, during the course of the life of a project of a well, certain chemicals need to be injected down into the borehole to keep that work free of paraffin waxes and other contaminants that impede the flow. So that's regular maintenance. Those activities done under pressure.

Are also considered enhanced production with the injection of things like water, air, carbon dioxide and other chemicals. Mixtures thereof to enhance the production by a pressured application to go out into the formation. But similar things are done, there's just the difference of adding pressure to that operation which makes it the difference between maintenance and an enhanced operation.

Okay, Supervisor Wolk?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you go back to the context of the impact report? So we're talking about well stimulation treatments and secondary and enhanced. Recovery operations in section 2530 of our of our code we have a definition of secondary and enhanced operations already. So on and you have described well stimulation treatments nowhere in either of those definitions as to talk about maintenance is that correct?

Mr. Chair, Supervisor, indeed on the next page of that ordinance there is a discussion of what well servicing is which does include maintenance activities. Maintenance activities in that definition of what well servicing are not defined.

Okay I appreciate that thank you.

You're welcome

Second portion of the report deals with the future development that is currently in process. And in the report, we detailed out that during the past 12 months 239 different production wells were permitted. 69% of those are planned to use cyclic steaming. There's also in process, in hand 131 applications for wells. 80% of that group is proposing cyclic steaming and through staffs discussion with industry there are expected to be coming soon in the near future 533 further applications for wells, for permits for wells and it's anticipated that 100% of those are going to propose cyclic steaming.

So looking at that in total, 903 of the anticipated wells, 89% would use some form of the petroleum operations of the type described in this measure. Looking just finally at the macro impacts on oil production, if adopted the measure would allow status quo operations for wells with vested rights. On a case-by-case basis your board may determine that wells qualify for exemptions from the measure and it will prohibit certain petroleum operations in the future without such exemptions Over time, the trend line would likely be toward reduced petroleum production.

Our report then moves into the particular criteria identified in Elections Code 9111 and those areas of particular concern were fiscal impacts, the effect on the consistency of general as well specific plans, the effect on land use housing regional housing needs Impacts on infrastructure funding, the impact on the ability to attract and or retain businesses.

And the impact on the use of vacant parcels and impact on ag, open space, traffic, and business development areas. We'll go through these one at a time for the board and for the public. In looking at the fiscal impacts, our staff working with assessor's division as well as the auto controllers department identified that oil production companies currently pay $16.4 million in local property taxes which is 2.65% of the total tax roll.

The distribution of that $16.4 million includes $3.6 million to the County of Santa Barbara for governmental operations, which is approximately 2% of the available property tax that your board just identified spending for in the budget this week. $2.1 would go to the County Fire Protection District, which is approximately 5.9% of their property tax revenue going to the Fire Protection District Half a million dollars to the other special districts and 10.2 million going to school districts.

The impact of property tax revenues cannot be precisely determined, however because of the way the measure is crafted it's unlikely that there would be an immediate loss in that property tax revenue. Because it would allow for the continued status quo operation of those wells with vested rights. Let

me, Dennis I have a question on that. So Kevin, a vested right but with this passage so if you don't have a vested right to acidize you would not be able to acidize even if you had a vested right to drill the way you've been drilling in the past. Is that correct?

Mr. Chair um I might look to council to address the issue of vested rights very complicated and legal issue. I can answer technical questions about how we process the permits think that might add mr. Gazzone's discussion

Good morning. At page 26 of the proposed ordinance within section 5 exemption for certain projects, there are actually three categories of exemptions. The first would provide exemptions as required by the state or federal Constitution. The second involves an exemption to prevent unconstitutional takings of property and the third addresses Exemption for vested rights quote pursuant to state law and quote The state law in this area generally would require a case-by-case determination Because the case law has indicated that these property rights With permitting are fundamental vested rights So that would be a case by case Determination of what was vested and what was therefore exempt and what was not vested and therefore not exempt so practical application would

be Every project would have to come in and go through a process of determining whether or not they had a vested right. Would that be appealable? I'm just trying to figure out what the path would be.

Mr. Chair and supervisors, the proposed ordinance also includes a section requiring consistency throughout the county codes and comprehensive plans. And that question of what process would the board use either for the takings hearing that is described in broad terms in the ordinance or the vested property rights determinations could be included in that as an implementation approach but the ordinance itself is silent on that.

Thank you. All right then, sorry.

The work team that produced the report also wanted to take a look at the UCSB Economic Impact Project Report that was published in September of 2013 conducted by Dr. Rupert and the team at UC Santa Barbara. And it was a report commissioned by the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce That report, which we did not include but is broadly available to the public as well as to yourself as board members.

Analyze the broad impact of the oil production business in Santa Barbara County and Dr. Rupert went to great lengths to identify the direct impacts to the economy. That you would have from the actual production of oil itself. Those indirect effects on that, which would include supplies directly related to the production of oil in Santa Barbara County. And then what Dr. Rupert labels as the induced impacts to the economy for the money that is generated usually through wages that is then spent in the broader economy. We also call these the trickle down or ripple effects of the spending that would occur as people buy groceries, pay rent and do other things within the local economy.

Dr. Rupert identified just over $290 million would be broadly attributable to oil and gas production here in Santa Barbara County Both direct, indirect and those induced effects that I just mentioned. That equates to roughly 1.64% of the GDP which in the current figures from the California State Department of Finance is $17.1 billion GDP for Santa Barbara County. The 291 million is about 1.6 4%.

It's also important to note that the negative effects of this on the economy would be felt over time, but would be influenced greatly by exemptions and by the continued supply and demand as well as market price of oil that greatly influences the amount of production at any given time. You'll recall from previous testimony on oil and gas that one of the major drivers of the amount of production is given by the price for a barrel of oil. And whether or not it's economically feasible to have that oil brought to the surface and sold for further refining.

There is a possible business scenario that we mentioned in the report. That the decision to, if this measure were to be voted and approved by the voters or approved by your board there is a business scenario where Industry may decide to sell their assets and reinvest elsewhere, or increase their pressure to broaden the amount of offshore leases. And we mentioned that very briefly in the report.

Turning now to the second one of the analysis required under 9111 of the Elections Code It asks the question about whether there's consistency in the general and specific plans.

Supervisor Wolfe has questions,

I'm sorry. Mr. Bozonich, I appreciate your work and staffs' work on the fiscal analysis, fiscal impacts. And when we had given staff direction to move forward, we understood that there wasn't a lot of time for you to prepare this analysis. But one of the things that I find striking, and maybe it was just too difficult or you didn't have enough time. But it would seem that there are other fiscal impacts in having what the potential of what we're seeing coming as you described in the previous slide.

What are the impacts and fiscal impacts, health impacts, environmental impacts? You didn't touch on those. And I'm just wondering why you didn't. Is it possible that you couldn't articulate those but it seems like at some point there is some cost to the county for that growth in the industry.

Chair Lavagnino, Supervisor Wolf. I appreciate the kind remarks. It was difficult to find data that is universally accepted to monetize those other effects that you're speaking of around public health for example, air quality. Some of those other effects that would also be a part of either allowing Growth for these enhanced techniques, or if what would happen in a sense on the positive side from a financial perspective.

If they were to be prohibited as would be proposed by the measure and so without the time to adequately vet The fiscal models that would determine what value that would be for public health or for air quality, or for other quality of life type issues. We did not include it in the report.

And I appreciate that response and Be something that we may need to, or consider incorporating into the final report. That there wasn't sufficient time to analyze those potential impacts. Thank you

Mr. Chair. Supervisor Carbajal?

Thank you. Mr. President, again I do respect and appreciate the limited time you had. But when you say there's not readily available information, do you by any chance visit the US EPA website or the recent reports that they've completed on fracking or other things like that? I think that's readily available and it just maybe you didn't have time but to say it's not readily available. I'm not sure that I agree with you.

Chair Lovino and Supervisor Carbajal, we did go to the US EPA website. We're aware of the fact figures there. There's a variety of research pieces that do detail this out but to select one of those as a way to cost out the impacts one side or the other and be able to have consistency of opinion amongst our staff around which one of those formulas we would use to monetize those costs That was the part we frankly did not have time to do, but I appreciate your comment very much. Thank you.

Looking further at the impact analysis report, the election codes asked us to look at the effect on the consistency of general and specific plans that this measure might have. It's important to note that the proposed measure directs amending the county's comprehensive plan and all other plans, codes, and policies in section 6C. No portion of the measure is inconsistent with the government code sections that prohibit discrimination.

And as well, there's no conflict or inconsistency with the housing and development or any of the density bonus for housing developments that are identified in chapters 4.2 and chapter 4.3 of the government code. Turning to its effect on land use, the work team could identify no direct effect on the availability or location of housing as is requested in the Elections Code. We can identify no direct effect of this measure on the county's ability to meet its regional housing needs And there may be an indirect effect that our staff report notes on the use of land by slowly decreasing the land likely to be used for oil development.

Moving further into the impacts required under the Election Code 9111, looking at the impact on infrastructure funding There would be a direct effect, the direct effect will be the eventual decline in the volume of oil produced. And that may affect a reduction of funding for infrastructure depending on the future price of oil and let me explain that for a moment. We've noted earlier in the report that over time this measure will lead to less oil being produced.

And that is certainly one variable that affects the amount of taxes that are collected for that oil. But frankly, the other part, the other variable in that equation for the amount of taxes collected which would then especially after this week have an impact on infrastructure funding would be the price that oil sells for which is the basis for the valuation of the ad valorem tax that is calculated on the oil.

And so for example, if production declines by 5% in any given year but the price of oil increases by 5%, you would end up with something relatively close to net neutral in terms of its impact on the taxes that you would receive to be able to provide for infrastructure funding. And so that's just something to keep in mind, that the other variable is the price as well as not only the volume but the price it's paid that will affect the tax revenue in the future.

Reducing the volume of oil production in the county may have a small infrastructure cost savings for our roads but there would be no way to quantify that. Moving on to the impact on the ability to attract or retain business Development and retention of the oil industry businesses and jobs will be negatively impacted over time. Again, given that the status quo for vested wells is held firm in the measure that this would be a slow decline over time.

Utilizing the data from Dr. Rupert's report, as well as data from the State Department of Economic Development, approximately 1.07% of all jobs in the county had some relationship to the oil and gas industry. Again using that broadest measure of direct, indirect and induced, 1.7% of the jobs had some relationship to the industry. It may create opportunities for new businesses, even within other portions of the energy sector if this measure were to become law.

And exemptions on a case-by-case basis would complicate any annual assumptions of business impacts. So we are unsure about how those exemptions would play out and how they would have an impact on the business retention ability after potential voter approval of this measure. Now looking at the impact on vacant use of parcels, the use of vacant land would be indirectly impacted by individual property owners exercising their own property rights. It's unclear whether the land use changes would be positive negative or neutral but it's really most important to note here as we will again in a moment that all uses of vacant parcels would remain subject to their current zoning permitting and development requirements and nothing would change that from this ordinance Looking at its impact on agriculture, open space, traffic and business areas.

The direct effect is on the eventual reduction in the volume of oil being produced but the use of agricultural land, open space, traffic and business districts or redevelopment will be indirectly impacted. It's unclear again whether that property use changes would be positive negative or neutral And again all uses of AG properties open space business properties would remain subject to their current zoning permitting and development requirements.

This concludes the overview of our report just summarizing the recommended actions is to receive and file the report And then either adopt the ordinance without alterations within 10 days or ordered the proposed ordinance to be submitted. Without alteration, the voters of the county at the November 4th 2014 statewide general election by adopting the attached resolution.

And that if it's submitted to the voters, you may choose to appoint members of the board to author sign and submit a direct argument in favor or against the proposed ordinance. And any possible rebuttal. And lastly, we'd ask that you would include in your actions the determination of the proposed action above is not a project under CEQA. With that staff, we're available to answer any further questions. Dennis, would there

also be as we had with Measure M, a report in there for Mr. Geis?

Chairman Lavagnino, in the resolution that is attached you will note that there is a statement about the financial impact statement provided by the Auditor-Controller. So that would be included. Okay very good.

Supervisor Wolk?

Thank You Mr. Chair. Attachment A that is the larger report It seems like there's a couple of things that, well after hearing from public comment but it seems just from your introductory comments that there should be some clarifying language put in this report specifically related to the fiscal impacts that we talked about and also The question of why well maintenance is incorporated into this. So, what I'd like to know is at what point will we be able to go through this report in detail? Because this is going to be a significant report.

Chair Lavagnino and Supervisor Wolf, I'd ask council to respond to what the options might be in terms of how you might receive the report and further changes to that.

And also, if you could Mr. Gazzone what is where does this report go? Is it just information for folks that they want to understand more about the impact or is it included in the ballot language? What happens to this?

Chair Lavagnino and Supervisor Wolf. So let me start first with what the statute requires after The board previously directed a report Staff was required to present that report to you, and then the board has Really the options today of receiving and filing the report, or you could receive comment and file the report. You could take no action on the report. The requirement under the statute was that it be presented to you so you're not required to receive and file it.

It's agendized to be received and filed. You could receive it through majority vote note disagreement with certain portions of the report and then file it. But as to where the report actually goes, it does not become part of the official ballot materials that are presented by the elections officer to the voters.

Okay, thank you Mr. Cassoni. All

right great, Mr. Allen how

many public speakers do we have?

We have just about 100.

Right on. Everybody gets six seconds. Let's see a hundred speakers. We're going to do a minute and a half apiece. That gives us quite a bit of public comment, and what we want to remind folks is, what I want to remind folks of is that we do not clap, cheer, boo, anything like that. We've all been through these hearings before. This means yes, but I'm not going to show you what it means no. You disapprove?

Free to express yourself. So, Mr. Allen's going to call off a name and really for time sake and there's people that are coming from way back there. Let's read off a couple of names in a row and don't wait for the last speaker to finish but if you can get up here close we've got to get through 100 people and We want to be respectful of your time, that you get what you want to say and everybody gets a chance to speak. But we also remember that there's only so many positions on this and with 100 speakers, we're probably going to be repeating ourselves. So-

Mr

Chair? Yes, Supervisor Wolff.

I respect your authority to run this meeting as you see fit but in a minute and a half for all the speakers, I understand that. I do believe that the folks who put forth this initiative should have more time than a minute and a half to go over some of the issues that have been raised. There's been a lot of legal questions, there's been a lot of legal questions and I would just It just seems you know at maybe give them 10 minutes to I mean why we're

guys that's why we weren't remember what I just got done saying yeah there you go okay that's fine

but we're

not gonna we're not gonna raspberry and all that kind of stuff.

Okay, that's just my suggestion it just seems fair but again I

wasn't saying that to you. Of course not. All right You're too close to me. Actually I spoke with this, Mr. Gazzone could you give us an opinion please?

Chair Levenino and Supervisors, so the case law in this area, case law and statute in this area is the board may actually limit public comment which you've done previously by resolution and have mentioned that again today. And the goal in this area under the case law is to avoid applying public comment time in a way that is arbitrary or unreasonable. Since this is not a quasi-judicial hearing, we don't have the normal format of a quasi judicial hearing for an applicant and an opponent to actually present. But an alternative that might work would be as someone is speaking in public comment if the board has questions that would be on their time.

But I would recommend against providing a block of time for one view of the project and then limiting the rest of the public to 90 seconds. Okay, I had one other comment that might help to shape the public comment as you move forward and that is that under Elections Code 9118 as well as the way this was agendized for today The board's options are to adopt the ordinance without alteration or to submit it to the voters without alteration. So unlike legislation that the board is involved with outside of the initiative process, there is not an ability to do a pen and ink change to clarify something or to make it different today. It's what you see in front of you is what you either adopt or send to the voters in that form.

Okay, very good. So hope everybody heard that. Oh, Supervisor Carbajal.

Thank you. But that's different from the report that you said, whether we could provide comment except not accept. That's what you were referring to was the ordinance and the ballot question or help me understand specifically the documents that you say we really can't modify. We just we basically have our hands Tide.

Chair, Labanino and Supervisor Kerbehal. So under the elections code you do not have the ability to alter the text of the proposed ordinance itself so there's no discretion on that. You either adopt it without alteration or you send it to the voters without alteration. The second, or previously I discussed the actual report which your agenda is to receive and file. You actually have broad choices in that area. You could take no action on receiving and file. You could receive it, express your disagreement with certain sections, file it.

You have the ability to take action on that. As to your question about the actual ballot question, which is within the resolution I Would recommend not modifying the ballot question itself in that. The ballot question is subject To both 75 word limit under the Elections Code and also controlling case law that requires the question to be phrased in a way That is not partisan or favoring any particular side So the art in this area is to craft something that neutrally expresses the operation of the proposed ordinance as to the ballot question.

Mr. Chair, the reason I focused on the ballot question is that I got input. I think all of us got input On something that wouldn't change the nature of things but would be more consistent and focused on high intensity. The word high intensity versus certain, and I thought that was just semantics but an important piece of input that we received. That wouldn't as well, I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, but to me it didn't seem that it would modify much.

Chair Labadino and Supervisor Carmichael. So I will tell you that the case law in this area involved, the most recent case law in this area involved a ballot question that started with the words pension reform as opposed to pension modification and one of our One of our sister counties went through this, or sister cities excuse me, City of San Jose went through this and found out that the term, the word reform was a partisan word whereas the word modification was a neutral word.

And when I issued the ballot title and summary that actually goes out to the voters for the petition, we actually had the luxury of 500 words within there because it's under a different section in the elections code to describe the measure and how everything worked. We are now limited to 75 words in the ballot question, and I strongly recommend not altering the ballot question.

Thank you. All right Mr. Allen let's get ready.

Chair Lavignino members of the board we're going to start in Santa Barbara. We're gonna start with Owen Bailey to be followed by Pat Kistler and then Linda Foster in Santa Barbara

Good morning. Morning, Chair Lavinino, honorable members of the board. Thank you for this opportunity to address you this morning. My name is Owen Bailey. I'm the Executive Director of the Environmental Defense Center and on behalf of EDC, I would like to humbly request the board place the healthy air and water initiative on the November ballot. EDC has been examining the threats posed by acidization, cyclic steaming, and hydraulic fracturing since 2011.

And the fact is these risky, polluting technologies pose significant threats to our communities and our environment. And they remain insufficiently regulated. While our support for this initiative is based on the environment and concern for safety, we are however gratified that county staff has done a thorough job analyzing some of the economic issues associated with banning these risky technologies. And as far as county revenues are concerned, Of the Healthy Air Initiative will have only minimal impact economically. Of all the more than 180,000 jobs in the county, only more than 1% have any relationship with the oil industry. And even with passage of the initiative, the oil industry will continue to employ county residents and pay taxes.

Without a doubt, over the next few months we'll all be confronted with predictable economic scare tactics. But as staff ably demonstrates, the economic trade off for reducing risk and significant environmental impacts is minimal.

Sir your time's up. Thank you for your

time.

Pat Kistler to be followed by Linda Foster and then Michael Wetland

Good morning. I'm Pat Kistler, the immediate past president of the CCA Board which stands for the Chambers of Commerce Alliance and it includes almost 20 members both capital circle and chambers along the South Coast. I am currently also the Government Relations Director for the Carpinteria Valley Chamber. I am speaking to you of course on item one. As an organization comprised of chambers of commerce in both Ventura and Santa Barbara County, and representing approximately 200,000 jobs in both counties, the Chamber of Commerce Alliance supports putting this issue on the November ballot to allow the citizens to decide what they want.

An outright ban on oil and gas production will have far reaching consequences. County boundaries are not barriers to workers. There are Santa Barbara and Ventura county residents who rely on the production of oil and gas in both counties for their livelihood. They may be employed directly by a producer or they may work in a subcontractual or an ancillary industry. Those people deserve the opportunity to cast their ballot, For voting against or for an outright ban on production. The CCA respectfully requests that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to order the proposed ordinance to be submitted without alterations to the voters of the county on the November 4th, 2014 statewide election. Thank you

very much.

Linda Foster and Michael Wetland and then Sandra Burkhart.

Good morning, thanks for giving me the opportunity. The environmental movement continues their attempt to control a common sense productivity in our country and the Santa Barbara County. Our resources continue to be the assets which keep our products manufactured and used daily in our lives. The Green Movement only thinks in their own box of a lack of common sense and thorough research. To this production activity, the oil industry is overregulated as it is.

I personally own mineral rights to potential future drilling on private land in the San Joaquin Valley. As a child raised in that area my grandfather worked as a subcontractor for the standard oil land leases. The environmental impact from oil production from the 1940s to today have had minimal impact for that area. I see this as an attempt to make a bureaucratic decision today by this board, to bypass the local voice of the voters and the taxpayers who have the right to review this issue, this measure, and make their own decision on this.

Put this proposed ordinance on the ballot to give the power making decisions back in the hands of the people. Thank you.

Michael Wetland and Sandra Burkhardt and Albert Oten.

Yes, my name is Michael Wetland. I'm a long time Santa Barbara County resident and a graduate of both Allan Hancock College and UCSB. I have a short opinion piece here written by Kevin Walters the president and superintendent of Allan Hancock College in the interest of time I'll only read a couple experts from it And this is having to do with the Santa Barbara County report, A Snapshot of Poverty from last fall.

The report is particularly sobering for those of us serving North County. A Snapshot of Poverty details reality of children in the Allan Hancock College service area. Almost three quarters of all county children living in poverty reside in our community college district. Moreover, if the data reporting anomaly of students living in Isla Vista is considered, Lompoc and Santa Maria account for 85% of all county residents living in high-poverty areas.

And then it continues on later. Persistent poverty can only be addressed by building a system that allows for economic mobility. According to the UCSB Economic Forecast, job growth in Santa Barbara County through 2020 will be dominated by low wage jobs such as farm laborers, personal care aids and the service industry. Of the ten fastest growing jobs for the next six years, only one registered nurse pays more than the medium county salary. While four of the top ten barely register at half the median salary.

If as suggested by a snapshot of poverty, the North County must take steps to attract large numbers of jobs with family sustaining wages, mobility and decent benefits. Thank

you very much.

Sandra Burkhart to be followed by Albert Oden and then Brendan Huffman.

Good morning, my name is Sandra Burkhart. I represent the Western States Petroleum Association. We are a non-profit trade association that represents producers, refiners, transporters and marketers of petroleum and petroleum based products in California and five other western states. First, I did want to state that WSPA does support placing this on the November ballot and letting the voters decide.

While I understand the county did have a limited ability to do this study it was brought up this morning by Supervisor Wolff and by Supervisor Carbajal Potentially some areas within the study that were not included. And it occurs to me, I just wonder if the study cannot be continued? Seems like there are a lot of really important and critical issues that need to be discussed and the public has a right to know what they're going to be voting on. The government deserves to know what they're going to be voting on themselves and what sort of legal battles and things like that they might be up against. And while I appreciate that the government entity here today didn't have time, I think that in general there's been common precedent over time that governments can continue to do studies beyond this timeline.